Posts by Tim Hannah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
Sorry Christopher, again, for my part in it, you’re right. Shouldn’t’ve bitten. I don’t have much skin in the game and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of people here who are able to stand up for themselves when required.
[ETA: less is more, frequently]
-
No, I meant 10 years for incest between siblings or half siblings, as per your link to the crimes act. When I say thinking of the children I mean the potential children of an incestuous relationship between consenting siblings.
(I’d also love to change that Part name from Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare.)
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Matthew Poole,
OK, I'll keep going, seeing as you did. My understanding was that the genetics issues tend to be overblown, at least until it happens for a few generations or within a small community, but I've got no evidence at hand and am not going to prolong this by looking for it.
Even if it isn't I don't see how up to 10 years can stand up to scrutiny - that's all ick, not thinking about the children.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Ah well, should've guessed. I reckon that should be taken out of the crimes act for siblings as well. Intergenerational is a little different due to pretty inherent power differentials. But now is neither the time nor place.
Sorry to help drag it down this road.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to DCBCauchi,
If one participant (child, cat, corpse) requires protection from the other then the state should withhold sanction, otherwise it shouldn't.
Not to say your brother and sister would have an easy time of it - it's their relationship that's causing their problems in the community, not their inability to legally marry.
Still plenty of gray areas, but if we're overly worried about them, it's probably easier to stop the state sanctioning marriage altogether.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to DCBCauchi,
What do you think DCBCauchi? Honest debate means playing some of your cards occasionally.
Personally, and I'm by no means speaking for anyone else, I don't think there should be laws against incestuous marriage between consenting adults.
Ick factor aside (cos, let's face it, ick factor is a piss poor basis for public policy), banning marriage doesn't prevent siblings having sex or children. Inherited health issues are only an issue for siblings with blood ties, so even if there was a health reason to ban incest, it wouldn't extend to step or adopted siblings anyway - and there's still an ick factor there.
But I also think that's a different debate than marriage equality between gay and straight, and trying to use it as a passive aggressive cudgel doesn't help create light in either debate.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to DexterX,
So I will ask you the same question – where do you think an tax on unrealsied capital gains of rental property will be funded from?
Who is talking about a CGT on unrealised gains other than you?
-
1992 referendum asked whether we wanted to ditch FPP and what preferred alternative system was - MMP, STV, and a couple of other proportional systems of a sort.
1993 referendum was between FPP and winner of that vote, which was MMP.
-
I find riding an expensive Cervelo P2 road bike a very pleasurable experience.
Where? Up and down your drive?
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to James Bremner,
I hesitate to mention this, as I’m bound to be tagged a conspirationist, but I’d think that any decently secret secret conspiracy would have a higher classification level then Secret.
Until wikileaks releases Cheney’s man sized safe and it turns out it
holds only a years supply of paper clips and a couple of ‘Extra super secret with secret cheese’ stamps I’m going to assume that there are some conspiracies in the US government.