• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

:lol:

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.

Your anger is showing :lol:

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.

Of course the issue is the definition of marriage. You want to make it about something else because you will not win that debate.

SSM may be trivial to you,but it isn't to a lot of people.Your opinions,on the other hand,are trivial also.

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.

Let's face it,I can't convince you,and you can't convince me.
But how we convince others is entirely different thing.

This is a political message board where junkies hang out. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.

And more and more,my stance on SSM are convincing more people than yours are.

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.

Marriage is not the same as a female only gym.

Both are exclusive institutions. So yes, it is a valid comparison

The reason why no one has come up with the idea of SSM is because people like you used to kill people for that.

Laughably pathetic hyperbole. Par for the course.

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.

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.
 
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.


You know what Bronson,screw all this.
I'm not the least bit interested in winning a debate here with you.
I'm interested in promoting and protecting my daughters happiness,and making lots of money.
I'm a chef,and if you want me to cater to your ego,you have to pay me for that.

You want to talk about the "definition of marriage",here is my definition.


The first couple of years were crazy for Selena and me when we got first got married.Both her and my three daughters had to adjust to each other.I was busy trying to get my company of the ground.My wife's a doctor,so both our schedules were busy and hectic.But we always found time to spend with one another and the kids. We always set a side a family day (and a romantic night) every week.We like old movies,dancing to big band swing,and me and her do a killer karaoke version of "Baby It's Cold Outside".We meet for lunch whenever we can.

My wife is a great doctor,but was lousy cook back then.Suffice it to say,I made most of the family meals (not a big deal,I'm a chef).
Me and Selena are opposites in so may ways,yet so similar in quite a number.She's athletic, I'm not.She's tall,I'm not.She's beautiful looking,I'm just average.

The fight we had the first time I saw her credit card bill was epic.Lots of shouting,slamming of doors,and me sleeping in the guest house for 3 days.
But the make up sex was worth it.

We bickered about money,where to go on vacation,how to discipline the girls,what schools to send them.

Med and Selena have gone through the good times and the bad together.From trying to get the girls to school on time,and picking them up from school.
To the fire that almost wiped out my first restaurant.And the first time she lost a patient on the operating table.We stood by one another
We've dealt with dance recitals,and softball league.
Through the first daughter hitting puberty,and discovering boys.
Then the second going through puberty,and her rebellious heavy metal phase.

By the third daughter we weren't even shocked when she come out at 16. Didn't bother us one bit. After what we went through with the other two,homosexuality was a relief.

To the oldest daughter leaving for college.Then the second.Me and Selena went through it together.
Through my first daughters wedding and the birth of our twin grandchildren.and now finally the youngest.That hit Selena the hardest.The empty nest syndrome.We went through it together.

Now we have more time for one another.Even after all these years,I'm still falling in love with her.Just today,when she got off shift,she goes to the kitchen,sits on the counter,lets me use her as a guinea pig for the rabbit gravy I'm working on (she thinks it need a little more kick),and tells me about her day while I'm chopping veggies and Sam Cook is playing on the radio.
We danced to "You Send Me",and I wished that moment with her would never end.
Our's is not a perfect marriage,but it is a good one.

That is my definition of marriage.Speaking of it from a personal perspective,because that is what any of us can really only do.
How others may define their marriage is their concern,not mine.
My concern is getting people who want to get married to have their wedding at my banquet halls,using my catering company,eating my food,going to my restaurants.
Gay or straight,weddings are my business.
Money talks,and bullcrap walks.

Why would I want to deny what me and Selena have any of my children.The happiness I've have with Selena is something I wish everyone can have.If my daughter wants to marry a woman,I'll do the catering.Gays wanting to marry each other,it's no skin off Selena and my backs.
In all honesty,Bronson,I couldn't care less about debating you on this issue.

Because I've already won.

SSM being allowed across the country is inevitable,whether anyone here like it or not.
I live in a state that already allows gay marriages.
I couldn't care less if you think my daughter's marrying a woman is a sham,trivial,or a pretend marriage.Your opinions are absolutely irrelevant that particular subject.She's going to marry who she want, and there's nothing you can do to stop that.

Gay marriages are not going to end the world. Anybody who is somehow effected by gay people marrying,well it sucks to be them.
None of my concern if it offends them.
I couldn't care less about your definition of marriage.I have my own,and if you have an objection to that,tough.
I don't have to accept yours,you don't have to accept mine.
Let others judge the merits of our debate for themselves.

I have very close friends who are gay,and I've seen gay married couples for years.I and Selena have gone to Lake Tahoe and Hawaii with Ethan and Phil.They say they are married,and I have no problem with that.Had them over for dinner last week.Phil and Selena play tennis together.Gays getting married doesn't bother me and Selena.Why should it bother anyone else?
If your anyone else have a problem with gays getting married,using the word marriage,or whatever that,that is none of my concern.
Couldn't care less if you do.It doesn't diminish what me and Selena have.
If anyone's marriage is trivialized,or diminished because gays are getting married,or using the word marriage,may I suggest they go see a marriage councilor.
What I want my gay daughter to have.A great marriage.
My daughter wants to be married to the woman she loves.
If that is being selfish,if that is being emotional,so be it.
It is what it is.She's the one who has to live her life,not anyone else.
As long as she's happy,I'm happy.
I'll do whatever I have to to see she stays that way.
That's what parents do.

I'm in the catering business,so weddings,gay and straight, make me a lot of money.
There nothing wrong with making an honest buck.
If SSM goes nation wide,I'm planning on expanding my operations and hopefully make a profit from it.
I'm not the only one in the culinary industry with that type of ambition.
We are talking millions of dollars in potential revenue.

Of course my anger is showing.People trying to prevent gay people from getting married,from even using the word marriage really piss me off.
Trying to convince others not to let them get "married".
Doesn't seem fair to me.
I've always been the type to speak out against unfairness.
To me,love trumps tradition any day.
More and more people,just like me, are doing the same thing.Speaking out.Everyday,ordinary people.
You (and other like you,Bronson), are using fear and logic to persuade others that gay marriage is wrong.
I'm using love and emotion to persuade others that it isn't.
Time and History will judge which one of us has ultimately won this debate between you and me,Bronson.

And that's all I really have to say about the definition of marriage.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.

Grant why must you always use lies to further your bigotry?

I just don't get it.

To live with such hate is not much of a life.

Your first article is from a racist far right wing rag.

Your second article actually defeats your point that it's "accepted" if you actually bothered to read it instead of googling article headlines and just running with it:

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.

20 Cases OH MY GOD :shock:

And your third article is from World Net Daily.

A conspiracy theory site that advocates birtherism, bull**** and lies.

If you ever want to be taken seriously Grant... come up with something a bit more substantial than this steaming pile of crap.

Polygomy is not legal in the UK, Australia or Canada and you know it.
 
Polygomy is not legal in the UK, Australia or Canada and you know it.

Of course I know it but, through welfare programs, it is de facto being recognized
.

Instead of concerning yourself with 'wings' why not look at the facts?
 
Instead of concerning yourself with 'wings' why not look at the facts?

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.
 
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.

More ad hom. Take it somewhere else.
 
Did you read the articles?
Did you read where they said the policy contravenes canadian law?

Yes, but the law is being ignored. Did you read that part?

Do you understand what 'de facto' means?
 
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
 
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
 
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?
 
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?

He usually only focuses on the bits that further his... views....
 
Back
Top Bottom