As the knee jerk reactions to Jamie Whyte's comments about incest mount, I get more frustrated.
He offered an opinion.
That opinion has also been sought by the Law Commission.
So it is OK for the Law Commission to discuss possibly out-dated laws relating to forbidden marriage and incest but not a prospective MP?
Makes no sense to me.
Seven NZ Pundits on the Trump victory
30 minutes ago
5 comments:
Why?
Because ACT is the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, not a forum for over-educated egghead libertarians to muse on their favourite topics - aberrant sexual practices and drug liberalization.
It was only two days ago that Prebble was talking of the need to get back on message.
They might as well enlist the services of Lindsay Perigo again.
They are not "outdated" laws - incest is a cultural taboo that are rooted in biological realities.
We live in a culture that has lost its way and is living in some sort of fantasy land
Especially since incest is ALREADY legal in NZ.
FIRST cousins can marry!
People who share the same graqndparents!!
"...not a forum for over-educated egghead libertarians..."
Agreed.
I think (and I may be wrong) that Whyte was talking about the "principle" - the principle that maybe a government shouldn't be involved in "policing" incest.
I think all of that got lost in the message though, and it came across as if he was *approving* incest.
Anyway it *was* a bloody stupid thing to say. The average Joe Bloggs will *not* have heard the "principle" stuff - they will now thing that Whyte supports incest.
Well done, Whyte /sarcasm
If this is the kind of gaffe that he is prone to then ACT has no show of getting anywhere near 1 percent in the election.
In the convoluted and chaotic relationships accepted as normal today, incest could happen in blissful ignorance following transient family structures and the mobility of spawn from such couplings.
His "opinion" was leaped onto by another tryhard media looking for a cudgel to whack ACT, just for daring to remain there.
Post a Comment