Thursday, April 23, 2009

I swear to God, ...


... I have no idea how to respond intelligently to this. I'm going to try, but you'll forgive me if I simply descend into calling someone an idiot.

P.S. It's about same-sex marriage. Go read it. Seriously. You'll thank me. Or hunt me down and feed my nads through a wood-chipper. Whatever.

51 comments:

Chet Scoville said...

One could respond intelligently, but what would be the point?

Ti-Guy said...

I rolled over the link, saw "Mark Peters" and demurred.

The Seer said...

In the US, we respond, intelligently, thusly: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

Ti-Guy said...

Ok, my curiosity got the better of me and I'm now suffering for it.

You should tell your readers when Patrick Ross in involved.

He has some mental health issues; I'm being serious about this.

Adam C said...

I'm not sure that anyone has an "inalienable right" to marriage, anymore than one has an "inalienable right" to a driver's license. What we have is the right to be treated equally under the law, and to have equal access to privileges such as driving and marriage.

That's what Mark is missing/deliberately misinterpreting.

Mark Francis said...

Never that Mark. Listen to this Mark...

Rights derived from Natural Law argument are still interpretive, and rarely have anything which makes them 'more right' than other rights we determine through other means.

However, it is clear that the ability of individuals to enter into contracts is a natural right, which has been exercised for thousands of years. In that light, of course any two individuals can decide to marry each other. So there's no natural law argument against same-sex marriage.

As for churches being perhaps forced to marry same-sex couples, the only tension here is that we allow priests to act as agents for the state in that they have and use the ability to supervise and validate the civil marriage aspects. This does create the legal possibility of not allowing them to reject applications for marriage.

It is possible that since religion is protected under our Charter, and since there are no barriers to getting married civility in Canada, that judges would not require priests to perform same-sex marriages. They would recognize such a case for what it would be: an issue of religious dogma, being argued in a courtroom.

Nope, our judges would not go there. There is no right in Canada to have a specific religious institution marry you; that's the state's responsibility.

That being said, there's no reason for churches to insist on having the ability to handle the civil end of marriage anyway. Although same-sex marriage opponents have often tried to blur or even ignore the different between religious and civil marriage, it is very much there.

Why not get married in a church, and sign the marriage certificate elsewhere, before or after?

Niles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Niles said...

I suppose, in a world where legal benefits attached to the ritual partnership of marriage could *only* come through the auspices of a religious ceremony presided over by an 'authorized' personage of *some* religion, then yes, there would be forcing of religious organizations not to cherry pick people they subjectively deem suitable to enjoy those legal 'privileges' at the detriment of all other citizens.

But theocratic tyranny doesn't get the last say anymore. What Mr. Peters skips merrily over and who knows, *maybe* he believes the theocratic model is still the only one, is that all legal marriages in North America are *civilly* authorized, ie: the 'license'.

The only reason there's any such thing as a religious 'wedding' ceremony at all is for *theater*; the celebratory social witnessing of familial partnership being declared. Theater, theater, theater. Complete with soundtrack.

The only legal point to any modern wedding is *choosing* to do the actual signing of the state license during the wedding, a completely separate function from church rites.

So, in essence, 'Privilege for Me but not for Thee Peters', since we can safely presume he is one of the Chosen who fit his subjective rules, is whining that legalizing same sex marriage means a theater company would be forced by the State to put on a play it doesn't want to do.

liberal supporter said...

Their "rights" based argument that churches would be forced to marry gays might hold water if, for example, churches are forced to marry darkies. Are they?

Mike said...

No church or religious institution can be compelled to marry anyone it does not wish to, for pretty much any reason.

Mr. Peter's seems not to understand the separation of church and state.

toujoursdan said...

When I see the state forcing Catholics to remarry divorced people then I'll worry. There are a lot more of them than there are of us.

liberal supporter said...

So a whites only church can refuse to marry interracial couples?

toujoursdan said...

And what about the religious freedom of churches and synagogues that want to marry gays and lesbians legally?

In Canada the largest Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ performs same sex marriage. Shouldn't they have the right to perform legally standing marriages?

Why should anti-gay churches have more rights under the law than pro-gay churches? If anti-gay churches don't want to marry gays, or anyone else, they already don't have to. But pro-gay churches should have the right to perform legally binding same sex marriages if they choose to, also.

(I would post that over there, but Mark/Twatsy already seem to be spinning out of control and, after 20 years of dealing with people like this, I just don't have the patience.)

liberal supporter said...

United Church of Christ.
That's the United Church of Canada. It was a 1925 merger of most of the Presbyterian, the Methodists and the Congregational Union.

They had the gay ministers debate a long time ago, and it passed, once it was made clear no congregation would be forced to accept any minister they did not like, for any reason.

toujoursdan said...

Sorry. Yes. And the United Church of Christ in the U.S. also supports gay marriage there.

liberal supporter said...

Now that you mention it, I have heard of the United Church of Christ. Usually called UCC, right?

In the meantime, I have found a few places that say a church can refuse to marry an interracial couple. There is a "ministerial exemption" to allow this. So the "pastor forced to marry gays" gambit is false.

Luna said...

Oh for crying out loud. The Catholic church can (and does) refuse to marry people for any reason. They can refuse to marry you if you're not Catholic, if the couple is living together, if one or both of the couple is divorced, if you look at the priest funny... I mean COME ON!

No church will have to marry anyone they don't want to. Never have, never will.

M@ said...

The Catholic church can (and does) refuse to marry people for any reason.Anecdotal example: the local Catholic parish of a couple of friends of mine refused to marry them because the woman was pregnant.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, I have to counter that anecdote. I know of two marriages in the Catholic Church of previously divorced couples where the priest "fudged" the record on annulment (which is the only way divorced Catholics can remarry in the church).

If Kathy Shaidle hadn't been so bilious, I would have hooked her up.

toujoursdan said...

liberal supporter said...

Now that you mention it, I have heard of the United Church of Christ. Usually called UCC, right?
That's it. They are the descendants of the Puritans, but probably the most progressive U.S mainline denomination nowadays.

The United Church of Christ - About Us

Luna said...

ti-guy said, "I know of two marriages in the Catholic Church of previously divorced couples where the priest "fudged" the record on annulment (which is the only way divorced Catholics can remarry in the church)."

Right, but not a counter-example exactly, as the priest wasn't forced to do it. He just did because he was so inclined.

Like the priest who married me and my husband. Our 3 month old was at the ceremony. My uncle (also a priest) wouldn't even attend.

David said...

toujoursdan:

They are the descendants of the Puritans, but probably the most progressive U.S mainline denomination nowadays.So the contemporary fundamentalists are the modern Puritans, and even the Puritans moved on. Weird.

It does explain the insanity though. I thought the Puritans were the crazy ones, after Salem and everything, but they seem downright SANE in their particular context compared to the current batch of kooks. It looks like the REAL crazy was yet to come.

Zorpheous said...

I can't even fallow their logic, Patrick's arguements constantly trip over themselves and he falls flat on his face. As for Mark Peters points, is that guy smoking something?

Seriously guys stop talking to these guys, they're retards.

KEvron said...

mark is a liar. twats ius his enabler. that conservativism.

KEvron

Dharma Satya said...

I'm simply astonished at the speed with which twatsy can back peddle. Put him on some strange reverse bicycle and he'd win the Tour De France with HOURS to spare.

-It's about THIS!"
-I didn't say "THIS" I said "THAT"
-No, I didn't say "THAT" I said "THE OTHER THING"
-No, even though you've refuted all my lame arguments, I'll keep pretending I was talking about something else so you'll never know how ridiculously uninformed I am or how much I know I'm completely wrong, but don't care.

Did I get it right?

liberal supporter said...

Dharma Satya, how sweet. You just reminded me of the day I actually met twatsy. Thank you! It went like this.

Dharma Satya said...

liberal supporter: I'm so sorry for brining it up.

Now if only twatsy would apologize for making me bring up my dinner.

Ti-Guy said...

Did I get it right?

Completely.

The fact no one around here accepts is that Patrick Ross is mentally ill.

I'm not joking about that.

Dharma Satya said...

Ti-Guy, are you serious? What is the issue? (Some mental illnesses, while stigmatized in society and used as excuses for rotten behaviour, are neither worthy of stigma nor are they the cause of all anti-social, stupid, or ignorant behaviours.)

Cameron Campbell said...

To echo some of what you are saying about the civil and religious elements of marrige I will give you to anecdotes:
1) my wedding: my wife and I got a Unitarian minister to do the wedding my parents backyard. She basically said to us "the ceremony can be shaped however you want with whatever readings or music or whatever you want except for this bit here, this bit here the Goverment of Quebec requires that I do". Religious ceremony with embeded civil requirements.

2) My dear friend Lea married her girlfriend, the officiant was a friend of theirs who was licenced by the Province of Quebec for a period of 24 hours to marry them. The wedding was in a church hall (cheap) and featured a tropical theme, complete with flowers, inflatible palm trees and a brazillian percussion group. No religion, all civil. Done.

No one was forced to do anything everyone was happy much love was in the air... I remember something about love in the bible..

Ti-Guy said...

Ti-Guy, are you serious? What is the issue?Looks like OCD or manic-depression to me.

I used to think his being an asshole was just an act, but he's deadly serious.

Dharma Satya said...

So, Ti-guy... You're simply speculating? Can you cite evidence to support your hypothesis?

Look, I really don't think it's appropriate to armchair diagnose anyone, even if you have a degree.

I'll continue to assume that Twatsy is just that much of an asshole until some evidence of mental illness is introduced.

Ti-Guy said...

Look, I really don't think it's appropriate to armchair diagnose anyone, even if you have a degree.I agree, but it does come from quite a bit of observation. Some people are just angry or depressed, some people get a thrill out of aggravating others (either because they're juvenile or don't really have anything else to do), some people just aren't that bright and some people...well, what other choices are there?

It's his ability to shift meaning around and impute motivations in others that clearly don't exist which is, well, odd. Paranoid, even.

I leave him alone, for the most part.

Dharma Satya said...

Good point, Ti-Guy. Good point. I think the only choice left out would be manipulation for gain, in the case of a selfish person who desires acclaim.

...unfortunately I can't leave it alone. That level of fractal wrongness is on it's knees, hands clasped, begging for ridicule.

wv= playewoo

Ti-Guy said...

That level of fractal wrongness is on it's knees, hands clasped, begging for ridicule.

Oh, I know...I've been there.

liberal supporter said...

I think the only choice left out would be manipulation for gain, in the case of a selfish person who desires acclaim.
That's it exactly! And that is my default assumption with these people.

It's not just some narcissistic craving for acclaim, you understand, thought that is certainly a factor. But in journalism, rule #1 is "Follow the money".

There's AdSense money in them thar blogs. All you need is to get people to go to your page and Google will count it.

Now if you want to attract the maximum number of page hits, you have two choices:

a) Produce compelling interesting and thought provoking content
or

b) Skip all that drudgery which sounds altogether too much like actual work, and just produce provoking content.

Thus the huge array of shock jocks screaming how they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

Completely rational and sane, no?

The Seer said...

Let's not forget that Canada's leading provocationist, who literally specializes in nut case journalism, doesn't even accept advertising. He apparently blogs because he has nothing better to do and does seem to get a thrill out of aggravating others, who, mostly, never would have seen these things unless CC had posted them on his blog. So — is this guy crazy, or what?

Ti-Guy said...

I think the only choice left out would be manipulation for gain, in the case of a selfish person who desires acclaim.That still borders of full-blown sociopathy, if you ask me. However, it is behaviour that's all too common these days.

KEvron said...

"I leave him alone, for the most part."

i just chalk it up to his deeply flawed character, so i poke at him whenever i can.

KEvron

Ti-Guy said...

who, mostly, never would have seen these things unless CC had posted them on his blog.

It's always useful to examine what wingnuttery is rooted in. I used to believe *I* was crazy because there was just something so unappealing about "Conservatism." Then I discovered that it's a reflection of views held by ignorant, dishonest, hate-filled people and not a legitimate world view...or one that I should have to care about, in any event.

I've also discovered that these people are like that because of the media they're exposed to and that's something we can change.

KEvron said...

heh. twats is giving me grief because m@ conceded some point that had nothing to do with me. what a frustrated little twat.

KEvron

Dharma Satya said...

There's no such thing as a definition of sociopathy anymore. They've essentially sub-divided the disorder into more compete models of the differing types of wehat used to be called "sociopathy" and now they fall under: Anti-social behaviour disorders.

..and one criteria does not a diagnosis make.

The thing is, people are too quick to label dickish actions as the mark of someone with an anti-social behaviour disorder, without realizing that these disorders are not only rare, but incredibly complex and require most of the criteria for each disorder to be filled before the diagnosis is confirmed.

Ti-Guy said...

require most of the criteria for each disorder to be filled before the diagnosis is confirmed.I know that. That's why I've petitioned for Twats to be brought in on a 48 to 72-hour hold.

Anti-social, sociopathy, poor socialisation, whatever. What it is inappropriately juvenile. And that's a critic of modern society that is hard to refute.

KEvron said...

"people are too quick to label dickish actions as the mark of someone with an anti-social behaviour disorder"

despite:

"it does come from quite a bit of observation."

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

KEVron, did you see PR's current post, waiting in vain for some outrage at a photoshopped picture?
Naturally, all the assclowns over at the Groupthink Temple are going to whine and complain about it. But I honestly don't give a fuck about that.

The funny part is if you look at the filename of the image, showing Stalin photoshopped with Lulu's son as a boy on his knee. Seems Stalin is now a fascist. But the fright wingers like to call Hitler a socialist, so nothing new there. They really need to get their stories straight.

Ti-Guy said...

"people are too quick to label dickish actions as the mark of someone with an anti-social behaviour disorder"

despite:

"it does come from quite a bit of observation
."

I didn't make an issue of that because I haven't in fact catalogued the manifestations of Twatsy's psychosis sufficiently to be challenged on it. But I've been watching for a long time...some may have noticed that I stopped engaging him long ago.

KEvron said...

"some may have noticed that I stopped engaging him long ago."

sorry, i didn't.

being just the layman, i have a hard time making the distinction between merely a flawed character and a genuine personality disorder. if that line even exists.

KEvron

KEvron said...

"did you see PR's current post"

i rarely go to his blog.

weak effort on both the p-shop and the premise. *yawn*

KEvron

Ti-Guy said...

i have a hard time making the distinction between merely a flawed character and a genuine personality disorder.It's the degree of obsession.

Frank Frink said...

Oy! Well, honestly, as much as LuLu can be justifiable proud of her kid I never thought it a particularly good idea, for a number of reasons, to be putting pictures of the kid out there even if they are just baby pictures and aren't identifiable. But, I kept my mouth shut and fingers off the keyboard.

There we have, in Twatrick's post, the manifestation of one of those reasons. Don't think for a second that there aren't others over there who all of a sudden have similar ideas.

Just saying that I wouldn't have done that post, or the one on the kid's birthday either. But that's just me.

wv = "sanifu". I think it's an anagram.

CC said...

Let's all just leave Twatsy alone, since he's finally found someone he can pick on -- a 1-year-old. Whatever makes him happy.