Up Front: Sex with Parrots
133 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Polygamy is not even a huge issue in New Zealand. It's Human-animal marriage that we should be concerned about.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Dammit, I clicked that link.
-
I presume the title is a Polly Amory joke?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
It's the polly amory joke I told a bunch of derby girls at The Green Room one night last June...
-
More seriously, while polyamory is not illegal, neither is it legally recognised in the way that marriage is, with the ensuing rights, responsibilities and privileges.
-
Leaving aside the question of whether we should actually legalise multiple marriages, this is a huge, ridiculous, stinking red herring. Why? Well, legislating for multiple marriages is infinitely more complex and ethically challenging than simply removing the gender specifications from a current marriage law.
It’s not a ‘slippery slope’ – it’s a completely different mountain.
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. After all, physicists have had nearly four hundred years and still haven't got a solution. I'd hate to think how long it's going to take lawyers.
-
Remember this little gem?
“I love my dog, but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to marry it”.
And in hindsight, Grant Gillon was right about the sheep.
-
It's the only rational response.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
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".
-
digital investigation
ew
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
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".
And incest. And Muslims.
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
It's the polly amory joke I told a bunch of derby girls at The Green Room one night last June...
I think I should remember that. I must have been distracted.
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
until we've sorted all the ins and outs of the two-person legal relationship. After all, physicists have had nearly four hundred years and still haven't got a solution.
Rest assured: we have some top people working on solutions to the n-body problem for increasing values of n. One promising line of research derives from the observation that the formation of n-body clusters is greatly enhanced by the application of rum.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
we have some top people working on solutions
In the interests of balance, shouldn't you have some bottom people too?
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
That's well taken care of.
-
James Butler, in reply to
I certainly shouldn’t have to declare which one is my “real” spouse.
Serious question: how many people are allowed to adopt a single child? Now that our adoption laws are under scrutiny, that would be one obvious place to start.
In software development, there is a saying known as the “zero-one-infinity” principle: when you’re inventing some kind of logical entity, you should plan on it being never used in a certain context, using it exactly once, or using it as many times as you like. Anything else is inviting trouble. Why not apply the same principle to parents, or partners?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
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.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I must have been distracted.
It was just after I got called out for that illegal double team... So it's even almost relevant.
-
Leaving aside the question of whether we should actually legalise multiple marriages, this is a huge, ridiculous, stinking red herring.
Yes, it is an attempt to muddy the waters and widen the marriage debate. But it is only that and saying:
Why? Well, legislating for multiple marriages is infinitely more complex and ethically challenging than simply removing the gender specifications from a current marriage law.
Well that is total crap.
Multiple marriages are cultural tradition with hundreds of years of practice that are legally sactioned in many parts of the world. It would not be complex or challenging to copy & paste such laws into NZ.
Neither of these things are "infinitely more complex and ethically challenging" than the other.
-
So if I understand you correctly you'd like a legal structure where any number of people of any sex can form a contractual relationship. The purpose of the contract might include guardianship of children, ownership of property, next of kin rights (eg turning off the respirator).
Fine by me, make it so.
-
What goes around...
Dear DJ MC Coskrie, PolyGramy is a fraught, but rich topic, it was created by renowned screwers, Philips, in 1945 as their Vinyl Solution, it partied hard, fast & loose with Disco, Donna Summer, The Bee Gees and the Village People till 1999 when it got into the bed of the gin-soaked Seagram rum running empire and finally merged into Vivendi's Universal Music Group (UMG) - so many partners, so few scruples...... or did I read that awrong?
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
that illegal double team
Wait ... I thought you said that wasn't illegal?
-
James Butler, in reply to
So if I understand you correctly you'd like a legal structure where any number of people of any sex can form a contractual relationship. The purpose of the contract might include guardianship of children, ownership of property, next of kin rights (eg turning off the respirator).
Well put. Civil relationship law should be a generic framework for recognising relationships, including whatever safeguards need to be in place for child safety etc. Couples, n-tuples, churches and whoever else should then be able to use this framework however suits.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
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.
-
Scott Chris, in reply to
Any form of legalised polygamy is definitely one moral issue I'm willing to set aside on the basis of Too Bloody Difficult
Hmm, can't see anything morally wrong with fully consensual polygamy. Nor do I see any great difficulty in drafting a multi-party matrimonial agreement.
Funny how contravening established cultural practice can seem so taboo for no good reason.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.