Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Sex with Parrots, in reply to chris,
For your consideration:
Every one of those articles focuses on traditional, patriarchal polygyny. There's very little in them that's actually relevant to modern Western polyamory. We're not actually talking about having a society where most people are in polygynous relationships, but one where existing polyamorous relationships are allowed legal recognition. And - entirely erased from those articles - some of those polyamorous relationships will be same-sex.
-
Up Front: Sex with Parrots, in reply to Tom Beard,
Wait ... I thought you said that wasn't illegal?
Well, not in the sense that I could have been cuffed and taken into custody... sorry. I lost my train of thought.
-
Up Front: Sex with Parrots, in reply to Tom Beard,
I must have been distracted.
It was just after I got called out for that illegal double team... So it's even almost relevant.
-
Up Front: Sex with Parrots, in reply to James Butler,
Serious question: how many people are allowed to adopt a single child?
Every time I answer a legal question I expect to get made an idiot of by Graeme, but:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0093/latest/DLM3641615.html
A child can be adopted either by an individual, or jointly by two spouses. ("Except as provided in subsection (2) of section 3 of this Act, an adoption order shall not be made providing for the adoption of a child by more than one person.")Also, slightly creepily,
An adoption order shall not be made in respect of a child who is a female in favour of a sole applicant who is a male unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant is the father of the child or that there are special circumstances which justify the making of an adoption order.
-
Up Front: Sex with Parrots, in reply to Tom Beard,
while polyamory is not illegal, neither is it legally recognised in the way that marriage is, with the ensuing rights, responsibilities and privileges.
Yes, it's a practice that exists, but can't be given legal protections. And I can't think of any reasonable reason why it shouldn't. I mean, theoretically, if I were in a long-term poly-fidelity relationship and I wanted to give both my partners next-of-kin rights - visitation, inheritance, custodial - I should be able to. Easily. I certainly shouldn't have to declare which one is my "real" spouse. (I mean, why does 'two parents are supposedly better than one' evaporate when those two parents are the bereaved remnants of a poly relationship?)
Any form of legalised polygamy is definitely one moral issue I'm willing to set aside on the basis of Too Bloody Difficult until we've sorted all the ins and outs of the two-person legal relationship.
It's certainly A Different Thing, and needs to be dealt with separately. Also, as I've said, Filthy Incrementalist, let's do the easy stuff first. I am a little boggled, though, by the way polyamory seems to have been lumped together with bestiality and paedophilia as 'the worst things we could think of to smear same-sex marriage with".
-
Up Front: Sex with Parrots, in reply to Tom Beard,
It's the polly amory joke I told a bunch of derby girls at The Green Room one night last June...
-
Hard News: The Editorial Image, in reply to Russell Brown,
When you consider that, it looks more like a dog-whistle than a policy.
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious they don't actually want people to take it up. What astonished me was when Key said, basically, "It'll only be offered to beneficiaries who ask for it." That's not legal. If you have an entitlement, WINZ are required to tell you about it. WINZ staffers are legally required to make this "offer" to their clients.
it does have racist overtones.
I believe, due to relationship strains and the need to full-time parent, the parents of special-needs children are disproportionately likely to be on the DPB.
-
Hard News: The Editorial Image, in reply to Scott Chris,
so I tend to try to think apolitically.
Okay, then, let's say for a moment we buy into your premise that poor people (but only the poor on benefits) breed too much. Which I don't. Why would a pragmatic policy increase the cost of the most commonly-used forms of contraception? And why would a pragmatic policy focus solely on women, and not also on men?
And then a pragmatic policy maker might also notice this: having a baby doesn't affect outcomes for poor women.
-
prescriptions is increasing from $3 to $5 an item
...actually increasing the cost of contraception for people using condoms or the contraceptive pill.
-
Hard News: Where do you get yours? (Food…, in reply to Hebe,
I sound obsessed with "smoked" thises and thats.
We live about two blocks from Holy Smoke, and its salmon. I think you sound perfectly reasonable.