Your constant dodges are noted.
And all your cheap tactics you yourself have been employing is for all to see.
Yep,I'm selfish and emotional.So what,doesn't mean I'm wrong.
And you're arrogant and ego-maniacal,so neither of us are perfect.
If marriage is the bedrock of society,then surely it is strong enough to support gay marriage.
Why don't we let others decide for themselves who is winning the debate between us,shall we,or is that too much to ask of you?
You calling gay marriages "shams" and pretend marriages doesn't make it reality,it make it JUST YOUR OPINION.
If you are so tired of being referred to as a bigot,may I suggest you stop behaving like one?All I'm doing is calling a spade,a spade.
That's logical,isn't it?
I also admit that it is a financial issue,Anything wrong with that?
Me making lots of money off gay weddings trumps you feeding your "feewings" and ego any day,at least to me it does.
The issue isn't the definition of marriage,the issue is whether or not it can be changed.You have failed to show how SSM is truly harmful.
SSM may be trivial to you,but it isn't to a lot of people.Your opinions,on the other hand,are trivial also.
Let's face it,I can't convince you,and you can't convince me.
But how we convince others is entirely different thing.
And more and more,my stance on SSM are convincing more people than yours are.
Marriage is not the same as a female only gym.
The reason why no one has come up with the idea of SSM is because people like you used to kill people for that.
Being gay is not about race.It's about being gay?
I've already asked you how gays historically been treated by people just like you.You didn't answer that,I noticed.
How the hell is gays wanting to get married sticking their noses into YOUR business?You have already stated that it doesn't effect you.Yet you are still trying to convince people to be against SSM.Sounds like you are sticking you're nose into other peoples business to me.
What dodges. I make absolutely sure to quote everything you write and response accordingly. The fact that you can't refute what I say is not a dodge.
You're doing that personal attack thing again. That doesn't interest me. Marriage is doing just fine without trivial marriages like gay marriage and roller coaster marriage.
I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that you are losing this debate. You are engaging in ad hominem personal attacks and shamelessly using the bigot card.
:lol:
Your anger is showing :lol:
Of course the issue is the definition of marriage. You want to make it about something else because you will not win that debate.
Gay "Marriage" is trivial and pointless. It does nothing to improve on the institution of marriage and offers no social or economic benefit to society. Gay people emotionally want something. It's selfish. They should create their own institution of unions and leave marriage alone.
This is a political message board where junkies hang out. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.
People are easily swayed by emotional arguments. It is true. A lot of people have sat by though for a number of years and allowed Hollywood propaganda and indoctrination in our schools to shape young stupid minds. That can change.
Both are exclusive institutions. So yes, it is a valid comparison
Laughably pathetic hyperbole. Par for the course.
Treated by people like me? I'm not a Democrat like George Wallace that blocked the entrance to schools. Being gay is not a race. There is no biological evidence that there is a gay gene, though scientists keep trying. There have been homosexuals who have become straight. You have any evidence that a black man has ever become white besides Michael Jackson? :lol: The case can be made that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and in fact it was classified as such within the DSM criteria until the mid 70s. It was only removed for political reasons. Not scientific ones.
Legalized is already accepted in the UK, Australia, and parts of Canada, though it's certainly not being publicized. Muslims males who have multiple wives may have them all on welfare so it is therefore already being accepted by the State.
Britain: Muslim Polygamists to Get More Welfare Benefits :: Gatestone Institute
Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun
Love, American style: Polygamy gets sizzle
There will be charges of "racism" if bigamy or polygamy are not allowed. The old-fashioned idea of marriage probably began to disintegrate when the "palimony" suit against Lee Marvin was decided.
Centrelink has confirmed it has investigated up to 20 cases of multiple relationships, including polygamy, in the past two years for payment irregularities.
It has forced some families to pay money back.
Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court - British Columbia - CBC News
Don't know about other countries but definitely illegal in Canada.
As to SSM it's already legal in Canada
Polygomy is not legal in the UK, Australia or Canada and you know it.
Instead of concerning yourself with 'wings' why not look at the facts?
Then it seems the law is not being followed in Canada.
Muslims claiming cash for numerous wives - Canada - Canoe.ca
Canada: Polygamous Ontario Muslims collecting multiple benefit cheques | Women Reclaiming and Redefining Cultures
I'll start when you start.
It happens, of course it happens.
Welfare fraud it committed in a vast variety of ways by a very small minority of heinous individuals.
20 Cases committed in the entire of Australia in your article... 20.
That's it.
And they were investigated and many of those families were forced to pay the money back.
How is that "De Facto Recognition".
Your beef with muslims is obvious as always and I actually commend you for giving up the ruse that you're not an islamaphobe.
But the fact of the matter is I don't hear you calling our the polygamous Christian sects in America.
Just the very small number of Muslims in the Western World who still adhere to polygamy.
I've know plenty of Muslims across Canada, Coast to coast and everything in between and none of them are polygamists or even know anyone who was.
If there are... as long as their consenting adults I'm actually ok with it but if they are trying to commit welfare fraud they should be investigated but you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill to further your bigoted agenda.
Did you read the articles?
Did you read where they said the policy contravenes canadian law?
More ad hom. Take it somewhere else.
Yes, but the law is being ignored. Did you read that part?
Do you understand what 'de facto' means?
Did you read anywhere where they said they were legally married? Do you know what legal/illegal mean? I guess not
polygamy - definition of polygamy by the Free Online Dictionary ...
polygamy& - definition of polygamy& by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. esta página
po·lyg·a·my (p -l g -m ). n. 1. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
Canada: Polygamous Ontario Muslims collecting multiple benefit cheques
Source:
Toronto Sun
Polygamous Muslims in Ontario receive benefits, although polygamy is officially illegal in Canada.
An abuse of the welfare system by GTA [Greater Toronto Area, ed.] Muslim men allowed to live in polygamous marriages under a controversial Ontario law was met with shock and outrage yesterday.
Politicians and the public reacted angrily to an exclusive story in yesterday's Toronto Sun about how the men collected social benefits for up to four wives.
Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said hundreds of members of his community in polygamous marriages have been collecting welfare for some time.
The Ontario Family Law Act recognizes wives in polygamous marriages as spouses, providing the marriages were conducted legally under Islamic law abroad.
Ali said Muslims now want the polygamous marriages to be recognized under federal immigration laws so they can legally sponsor their wives here. Immigration spokesman Karen Shadd-Evelyn said only one marriage is recognized in Canada.
Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses, many who join their husband and his main wife in Canada as landed immigrants or visitors.
Opposition leader John Tory said Premier Dalton McGuinty has to clarify the meaning of the polygamy law to Ontario residents. Polygamy is illegal in Canada, but recognized in the province, he said.
"Our rules are our rules and it says one cheque for one spouse," Tory said yesterday. "The government has to clarify how the law works with each other." Tory called for more enforcement to ensure the law is not abused.
Toronto city councillor Rob Ford said he's calling on Ontario Social Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur to review the polygamous marriage policy since it contravenes Canadian laws .
"I want to know what is the rationale behind the law," Ford said yesterday. "If there isn't one, I will be asking for the law to be repealed." Ford said taxpayer funds can be used for more pressing issues like lowering taxes. The province spent $1.5 billion on Ontario Works program last year. The city will dish out 20% of that sum. "I don't know if we should subsidize something that is illegal in Canada," Ford said. "This matter has to be looked into further."
Brenda Nesbitt, the city's director of social services, said polygamous spouses can apply individually and her officials may never know. "These people are screened and we look at their income and assets," Nesbitt said yesterday.
More than 100 Sun readers sent e-mails yesterday and phoned the newsroom to complain of the use of taxpayers funds. "This country surely has lots of room for immigrants and refugees," wrote Marilyn Zavitz, of Toronto. "I'm not so sure our social welfare system has room for this abuse."
Canada: Polygamous Ontario Muslims collecting multiple benefit cheques | Women Reclaiming and Redefining Cultures
Again it repeatedly states that polygamy is illegal in Canada and that the province is contravening Canadian Law. This will be sorted with the polygamous people no longer receiving the benefits. Did you even read the article?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?