179 replies to this topic

[waldo]

anti-Harper yahoos? Really? I note you chiming in now numerous times on both concurrently running threads that speak to gay marriage/divorce in Canada... for the "anti-Harper yahoos" you call out, care to reconcile your latest statements in these newest threads, with your earlier posts that have you highlighting, 'being gay as a behavioural disorder' and 'accommodating gay abnormalities'? As you see it, are these two threads simply representative of Harper Conservatives, 'working to accommodate the abnormality and manage a behavioural disorder within Canadian law'?

As usual, you show you are nothing but a tourist that has no comprehension of the arguments presented.

It is scientific fact that psychopathy and homosexuality are biological abnormalities caused by some unknown combination of genetic and environmental factors. I made the comparison to illustrate the ridiculous hypocrisy of the lefty types calling for state sanctioned discrimination against a group of people with "abnormalities". My position in that thread was there should not be discrimination based on the diagnosis of abnormalities whether those abnormalities are homosexuality, psychopathy or whatever. Discrimination to protect the public can only be based an actual history of criminal acts.

I note your reply has you, quite purposely, ignoring your earlier equating of gay/lesbian sexual orientation to a ‘behavioural disorder’… is there a problem? Is there a reason you’ve now chosen to avoid mentioning, avoid reinforcing, your previous use and attachment of ‘behavioural disorder’?

within the other thread, you liberally mixed your use of psychopathy and psychopath and you explicitly spoke to each in terms of equating psychopathy/psychopath to both mental illness and behavioural disorder. I will gladly re-quote your very words in this regard.

of course, as stated, you ramped that up by comparing homosexuality to psychopathy/psychopaths… and challenging others to refute the basis for your comparison, one resting upon your declared equate (to mental illness and behavioural disorder).

most emphatically, gay/lesbian orientations are not disorders… there is no inherent association between gay/lesbian sexual orientation and psychopathology. Homosexual behaviour is a normal aspect of human sexuality.

in your context use of (improperly) equating gay/lesbian sexual orientation to mental illness/behavioural disorder, you spoke of abnormal, of brain abnormalities… your equating gay/lesbians to psychopaths, most clearly had you implying negative, undesirable behaviour.

Yeah because psychopathy is just like homosexuality... and you criticize waldo for poor comprehension.

uhhh... it was actually a baseless criticism for being a, "tourist with no comprehension" but, as you highlighted, the poor TimG "comprehension" is on full display.

[TimG]

most emphatically, gay/lesbian orientations are not disorders… there is no inherent association between gay/lesbian sexual orientation and psychopathology. Homosexual behaviour is a normal aspect of human sexuality.

If you want to argue that then one can argue that psychopathy and addiction are normal aspects of human brain development. You are making arbitrary distinctions that have no rational basis. It does not change the fact that both psychopathy and homesexuality are abnormalities (genetic variations which are outside the statistically defined norm). Your argument can be summed up as "the sky is purple because I say the sky is purple".

Edited by TimG, 15 January 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[cybercoma]

Homosexuality is genetic? This has been confirmed?

[TimG]

Homosexuality is genetic? This has been confirmed?

I don't know. I am assuming it is combination of genetic and environmental causes since so many other abnormalities have similar causes. The causes do not change my argument.

[cybercoma]

The problem with that whole stupid argument from the other thread until now is that psychopathy makes a person dangerous to themselves and others. Homosexuality does not. Regardless of whether a person can help being a psychopath or not, they need help and other need protection from them. Homosexuals don't need help and others don't need to be protected from homosexuals.

[TimG]

The problem with that whole stupid argument from the other thread until now is that psychopathy makes a person dangerous to themselves and others.

Why is a psychopath any more dangerous than someone motivated by fanatical devotion to a cause? I suspect many more crimes have been committed by zealots of one form or another than psychopaths (largely because the former is a much larger group).

What you are missing is your apriori vilification of psychopaths based on what they might do is no more justified than any other form of apriori discrimination based on a diagnosis of 'abnormalities' (i.e. homosexuality). The only benchmark that can be used is a record of actual crimes.

Edited by TimG, 15 January 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[cybercoma]

Why is a psychopath any more dangerous than someone motivated by fanatical devotion to a cause? I suspect many more crimes have been committed by zealots of one form or another than psychopaths (largely because the former is a much larger group).

What you are missing is your apriori vilification of psychopaths based on what they might do is no more justified than any other form of apriori discrimination based on a diagnosis of 'abnormalities' (i.e. homosexuality). The only benchmark that can be used is a record of actual crimes.

If you had any clue as to what's on the PCL-R, you would know that criminal behaviour is one of the "benchmarks" for determining the degree to which someone is a psychopath.

[TimG]

would know that criminal behaviour is one of the "benchmarks" for determining the degree to which someone is a psychopath.

Yet that is not the only criteria. You are advocating for a system where people would labelled and deemed unemployable in jobs they are good at based on the results of a dubious test. I have no interest in that kind of 'pre-crime detection system'. If there is to be discrimination it is to be based on an actual criminal record. Tests for psychopathy or whatever are a disctraction.

Edited by TimG, 15 January 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[cybercoma]

I'm not advocating anything. All I said is that psychopathy is dangerous and homosexuality is not.

[waldo]

of course, as stated, you ramped that up by comparing homosexuality to psychopathy/psychopaths… and challenging others to refute the basis for your comparison, one resting upon your declared equate (to mental illness and behavioural disorder).

most emphatically, gay/lesbian orientations are not disorders… there is no inherent association between gay/lesbian sexual orientation and psychopathology. Homosexual behaviour is a normal aspect of human sexuality.

in your context use of (improperly) equating gay/lesbian sexual orientation to mental illness/behavioural disorder, you spoke of abnormal, of brain abnormalities… your equating gay/lesbians to psychopaths, most clearly had you implying negative, undesirable behaviour.

If you want to argue that then one can argue that psychopathy and addiction are normal aspects of human brain development. You are making arbitrary distinctions that have no rational basis. It does not change the fact that both psychopathy and homesexuality are abnormalities (genetic variations which are outside the statistically defined norm). Your argument can be summed up as "the sky is purple because I say the sky is purple".

most clearly, most definitely, your intention in speaking to abnormality was not in the benign sense of "outside the statistically defined norm"... rather, by you equating gay/lesbian sexual orientation to mental illness, to a behavioural disorder, you intended and implied a negative undesirable behaviour... anything but the benign reach you're now back-peddling to. Again, is there a problem, a reason, you won't (again) mention the same words you quite easily threw around previously - behavioural disorder?

[limbomex]

I married in Vancouver in 2004. We then moved to Mexico and became non-resident of Canada in 2008 or 2009. We signed a Separation Agreement in Vancouver in 2009 and got divorced in Mexico in 2011. The divorce has not been filed in Canada. I'm wondering if my divorced is legal. How would I find out?

Thanks

Edited by limbomex, 30 January 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Michael Hardner]

I married in Vancouver in 2004. We then moved to Mexico and became non-resident of Canada in 2008 or 2009. We signed a Separation Agreement in Vancouver in 2009 and got divorced in Mexico in 2011. The divorce has not been filed in Canada. I'm wondering if my divorced is legal. How would I find out?

Thanks

Limbomex - Google is always your friend here.

This thread is about the questions that came up around this issue in January, though.

[guyser]

How would I find out?

Thanks

Try and get married again?

You are welcome.

[waldo]

I married in Vancouver in 2004. We then moved to Mexico and became non-resident of Canada in 2008 or 2009. We signed a Separation Agreement in Vancouver in 2009 and got divorced in Mexico in 2011. The divorce has not been filed in Canada. I'm wondering if my divorced is legal. How would I find out?

Thanks

I'm assuming you're back in Vancouver... these guys (their firm), should be your definitive route for answers (they were instrumental in successful arguments in the lead-up civil unions path that precipitated full marriage recognition). I trust an initial consult would be the standard, 'free of charge'. As I understand, for anyone divorced outside of Canada, if remarrying in Canada, provinces will not issue a marriage license without a person receiving authorization from the provinces related 'services' department... a part of that authorization requires one to present a "legal opinion' from a lawyer, giving reasons why the foreign divorce should be recognized.

the relevant section of Canada's Divorce Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.)):

Recognition of foreign divorce

22. (1) A divorce granted, on or after the coming into force of this Act, pursuant to a law of a country or subdivision of a country other than Canada by a tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction to do so shall be recognized for all purposes of determining the marital status in Canada of any person, if either former spouse was ordinarily resident in that country or subdivision for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings for the divorce.

Idem

(2) A divorce granted, after July 1, 1968, pursuant to a law of a country or subdivision of a country other than Canada by a tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction to do so, on the basis of the domicile of the wife in that country or subdivision determined as if she were unmarried and, if she was a minor, as if she had attained the age of majority, shall be recognized for all purposes of determining the marital status in Canada of any person.

... for what it's worth, my personal (layman) interpretation of the above:

- section 22.(1), suggests a foreign residency requirement where you (or your spouse), would have been required to have lived in Mexico a year prior to the start of the Mexican divorce proceedings.

- section 22.(2) just confuses me: what is the significance/bearing of the 1968 date?... is this section clause an alternative avenue in lieu of not meeting the foreign residency mentioned in 22.(1)? ... how would the precise mention of "wife/she" apply in a same-sex regard?

[jbg]

I married in Vancouver in 2004. We then moved to Mexico and became non-resident of Canada in 2008 or 2009. We signed a Separation Agreement in Vancouver in 2009 and got divorced in Mexico in 2011. The divorce has not been filed in Canada. I'm wondering if my divorced is legal. How would I find out?

Thanks

You really need a lawyer.