California Proposition 8

[top gun]

Actually I never said the bi man was my lover, I said I loved him. He was a "brother", (a close friend of my brother's).

Whatever Siho that cats already out of the bag.

I'm sure it's a little embarrassing realizing that you let the personal info slip and we've been talking about it for like 10 posts now... but the fact you lost a lover that ended up being gay is really no big deal.

But your newly invented cover story... WOW now that is embarrassing.

It's like me talking for 10 posts about how much I love my car, and all the great things about it, and how heartbroken I was when it got stolen...

and then when I start getting laughed at because people realize it was a 1974Gremlin I say... oh... no that was really my brother's car!

Actually the "turned out to be gay lover" story gives you some cover for being so over emotional & irrational about the topic. I'd just stick with that one.

So let me get this straight, "you" and "everyone [?] for Prop 8" and "every state..including Iowa [really, even Utah and Idaho?]" has been talking only two eh?

Yes I've talked to everyone... or I just simply looked at the wording of the gay marriage proposal as submitted. One of the two.

In regular divorce not just the two parents are legally examined for custody and visitation issues, at least in the state I live in. Grandparents, stepparents, and in some cases aunts and uncles have "rights" to the children. So already there are multiple issues to and forms of "polygamy" of child custody rights. Stepparents of varying numbers already share custody with two or more adults of the same child.

It's a completely different thing. You are the King or Queen or whatever of the Strawman argument!

Polygamy is inconsistent with the best interests of both the children and the multiple spouses. It adds an undue burden into custody, property rights, inheritances and so on.

As far as all that flack you're throwing around about grandparents, uncles etc. In a healthy and functioning family their is no custody issue for any of them unless the mother or father would for some reason "want" to give custody.

It is one of our most highly held domestic court principles that PARENTS have control over their children and their children's best interests.

The fact that a court might in some extreme and rare cases order some type of "extended family" visitation is nothing at all the same type or scope as a polygamy situation.

But feel free to keep throwing those Red Herrings around as while you speak even Conservative states like Iowa one by one find that it is simply unconstitutional to ban gay marriage according to their State Supreme Courts.

In the long run you can't win this one... it's just a matter of time.

 

[Sihouette]

I assure you I never had sex with that bisexual I loved like a brother (I realize my considering him a "brother" isn't taboo in your "set" for having sex with..). I'm not sure why you insist on putting words into my mouth. If I had had sex with him, I'd have no problem talking about it here.

As far as all that flack you're throwing around about grandparents, uncles etc. In a healthy and functioning family their is no custody issue for any of them unless the mother or father would for some reason "want" to give custody.

Like I told you, visitation and issues of inheritance and complex divorce issues are old-hat in most states. Saying that polygamy would introduce "unworkable" custody or inheritance issues using "complexity" as an argument would be overturned in a nanosecond by a second-rate bar flunkee hungover and crosseyed.

Visit a family court some day or a probate hearing and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. They are spinning there as I type this more complex visitation, custody and survivorship issues than a dog has fleas..

You haven't had much experience with how law works have you?

 

[top gun]

Sihouette;92220]I assure you I never had sex with that bisexual I loved like a brother (I realize my considering him a "brother" isn't taboo in your "set" for having sex with..). I'm not sure why you insist on putting words into my mouth. If I had had sex with him, I'd have no problem talking about it here.

Siho we all know. You can stop now... you don't go on & on for 10 posts and then say... oh I forgot to say that person I said I was in love with was really just a friend of my brother. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY! It worked out to be what you wanted and what he wanted. That's freedom in America!

Like I told you, visitation and issues of inheritance and complex divorce issues are old-hat in most states. Saying that polygamy would introduce "unworkable" custody or inheritance issues using "complexity" as an argument would be overturned in a nanosecond by a second-rate bar flunkee hungover and crosseyed.

Visit a family court some day or a probate hearing and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. They are spinning there as I type this more complex visitation, custody and survivorship issues than a dog has fleas..

You haven't had much experience with how law works have you?

You're just the silliest thing. Open mouth insert foot...

My younger brother is a divorce lawyer and not only have I been through a divorce myself... much like the national average about half the people in my family have been divorced at least once... Mother/Father... various Aunts & Uncles and Cousins.

In fact the only person I can quickly think of that has not ever been divorced... is my brother The Court of Domestic Relations attorney.

 

[Sihouette]

My silliness is irrelevant when it will come to attorneys facing off with judges on the matter.

They use precident to win cases for their clients. There is precident set now for polygamists to use "love between consenting adults" as their argument too. Issues of custody complexity are moot since custody and those issues are already complex. I didn't say being divorced makes you an expert on law. You need to study how it works as an observer, not as a party to a suit and then get back to me.

In the mean time, look up "legal precident" and wrap your mind around the door being open for polygamists..

 

[top gun]

My silliness is irrelevant when it will come to attorneys facing off with judges on the matter.

They use precident to win cases for their clients. There is precident set now for polygamists to use "love between consenting adults" as their argument too. Issues of custody complexity are moot since custody and those issues are already complex. I didn't say being divorced makes you an expert on law. You need to study how it works as an observer, not as a party to a suit and then get back to me.

In the mean time, look up "legal precident" and wrap your mind around the door being open for polygamists..

Well since gay marriage has been legal in some places for a long time now...

And seeing how polygamy has never been an issue in any of those places...

And seeing how banning gay marriage is unconstitutional regardless...

You lose on all counts. Go wonder!

As far as the court system goes I've been in court with several people going through a divorce... just like I said (do you even read?). So I guess I'm a gettin' back wit ya!

And also as I said... I don't know maybe 6 or 7 times now... child custody is only one of many things that makes polygamy a unique legal burden if it were something everybody was free to engage in.

You're so silly... it's like you would try to make heterosexual S&M or bondage illegal because it would obviously lead to spousal abuse.

Why not lament the loss of your lover turned gay in private and just leave all the nice gay monogamous people alone... you'd feel better.

 

[Sihouette]

gay "marriage" has been quasi-legal I'll agree in that the second it won ground it was being challenged. And for all the good reasons I've mentioned in this thread as well as many bad reasons that have no business challenging it, like hatred or intolerance. So on those points we agree.

I imagine that polygamists are waiting around to see if ground is broken and held. Once the position of anything-goes is inclusive amongst consenting adults, you can bet polygamists will be the first in line pleading for their "rights" to marry as they see fit under the "adults in love" umbrella.

You're playing dumb. I mean, that's really quite obvious. You're hoping that if you slander me enough with name-calling, paint me out as "silly" or otherwise divert the subject at hand that somehow gays gaining marriage rights will not open the door for other non-gay non-traditional marriages to follow. I'm not fooled by your act and neither is anyone else reading I would imagine...unless they belong to your fold.

 

[top gun]

gay "marriage" has been quasi-legal I'll agree in that the second it won ground it was being challenged. And for all the good reasons I've mentioned in this thread as well as many bad reasons that have no business challenging it, like hatred or intolerance. So on those points we agree.

I imagine that polygamists are waiting around to see if ground is broken and held. Once the position of anything-goes is inclusive amongst consenting adults, you can bet polygamists will be the first in line pleading for their "rights" to marry as they see fit under the "adults in love" umbrella.

You're playing dumb. I mean, that's really quite obvious. You're hoping that if you slander me enough with name-calling, paint me out as "silly" or otherwise divert the subject at hand that somehow gays gaining marriage rights will not open the door for other non-gay non-traditional marriages to follow. I'm not fooled by your act and neither is anyone else reading I would imagine...unless they belong to your fold.

Well on your first 2 paragraphs... obviously none of that has transpired where gay marriage is already allowed.

On the last paragraph... No I truly do believe from what you said, how you said it, and how long it took you to come up with a different cover story... that exactly like you said, You were in love with a guy that turned out to be gay.

But like I said... I DON'T CARE!!!

Neither do I think that trying to educate you is going to change your mind.

What I think will happen (just exactly as it did during the election) is this. You'll come up with some rare illness or another mysterious horseback riding injury causing you to say goodbye forever and leave the forum. This will happen just as you hear Prop 8 is about to be overturned.

Then a month or so later after you think most people have forgotten how wrong you were... you'll come back and pick up another loosing subject.

That appears to be the pattern... but don't get me wrong I enjoy it.

 

[Sihouette]

You are seriously cracked. And you're really trying to divert this subject with all guns and swords you can conjure...


So naturallly I'll stay on course and continue to discuss the outfall of the deviant marriage inclusion needing to encompass polygamists...lol..

You still haven't addressed (I notice) in detail why if we already are dealing with tangled threesomes and foursomes and sixsomes of stepparents, adopted or foster parents along with natural parents, visitation, rights of survivorships etc. why a man cannot marry two women and have the matters be no more tangled that what is already happening now with custody issues?

You've sidestepped that nicely indeed..

Please carefully stick to the subject and tell us why marriage between consenting adults should only be limited to two without relying on the mirage that it will somehow introduce new complications into a family court system that is already dealing with multiples beyond two in custody issues? These matters will be challenged precisely as I'm laying them out here in courts and they will win.

Please, why just two? And remember, try not to sidetrack with belittling and psychological warfare! ....lol... Let's test the argument here before its inevitable debut in Court.

 

[top gun]

You are seriously cracked. And you're really trying to divert this subject with all guns and swords you can conjure...


So naturallly I'll stay on course and continue to discuss the outfall of the deviant marriage inclusion needing to encompass polygamists...lol..

You still haven't addressed (I notice) in detail why if we already are dealing with tangled threesomes and foursomes and sixsomes of stepparents, adopted or foster parents along with natural parents, visitation, rights of survivorships etc. why a man cannot marry two women and have the matters be no more tangled that what is already happening now with custody issues?

You've sidestepped that nicely indeed..

Please carefully stick to the subject and tell us why marriage between consenting adults should only be limited to two without relying on the mirage that it will somehow introduce new complications into a family court system that is already dealing with multiples beyond two in custody issues? These matters will be challenged precisely as I'm laying them out here in courts and they will win.

Please, why just two? And remember, try not to sidetrack with belittling and psychological warfare! ....lol... Let's test the argument here before its inevitable debut in Court.

My God Siho give it a rest. Ever since that one little nugget of "being in love with a gay guy" got out and you're Mrs. Testy!

I've sidestepped nothing. The problem you have is that my answers make perfect sense so you keep asking the question like it hasn't been answered a hundred times.

I'll bold it... maybe that will help... but with you I ain't counting on it!

FIRST: NONE... ZERO... NOT A PROBLEM with you're silly strawman argument that polygamists will be storming the court system. Where gay marriage is and has been legal for a long time now that is absolutely positively not the case. Show me that it is... you can't because it's all made up in your head as some bizarre homophobic scare tactic.

SECONDLY: While any custody or inheritance matter can be adjudicated it makes no rational sense to pile on millions of new problem cases.

What you're saying is similar to saying... Well our court system is already hearing drug cases and kids are sometimes adversely affected by families on drugs. Why can't we have more drugs brought in for family use? FACE IT... YOUR ARGUMENT LOOKS RIDICULOUS!

THIRD: Polygamy unlike 2 consenting adults (straight or gay) being in a legally binding monogamous relationship is unbalanced and often times unfair at its core.

Ten Reasons Why Polygamy Should Be Illegal

1) In all polygamous cultures on the planet, women have extremely low status. All must obey their husbands, fathers, or brothers at all times. All are poor with few or no rights. In many, the women are virtual prisoners of their family compounds. Almost none get to choose who they marry, and many are married against their will to much older men. Moreover, the religions in these cultures assign women very low status, which teaches women not to expect more out of life for themselves. Thus, despite the polygamists' arguments, polygamy is not about rights: it's about the power over and control of one group by another.

2) Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It's not about women's freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have: it's about women being owned by men.

3) Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women. If one man can take 20 women as spouses, then 19 men must do without spouses entirely. For this reason, polygamous cultures have to deal with the problem of excess males, either through wars and conflicts or through ostracization. This skewing of the natural ratio would create conflict in Canada.

4) Most North American "families" in polygamous situations are on welfare or food stamps. The men in these "families" cannot financially support all the women and children, and the women are generally not permitted the freedom to choose a career and work outside the family compound. This shows that in a modern society, polygamous marriages are neither healthy nor stable institutions.

5) The media has shown some polygamous women claiming that they are happy in their multiple marriages. But these statements have to be viewed carefully. According to the religion of these cultures, women are only permitted into heaven by permission of their "husband." In addition, if these women make a statement that could be construed as anti-polygamy, the leadership of the religious community will take away their children. Thus, women in these cultures are afraid to reveal their true thoughts and feelings or to jeopardize their fragile status. Meanwhile, many women who have left these polygamous cults describe the complete subjugation they had to endure. For this reason, the statements of polygamous women cannot be taken at face value.

6) Legal polygamy would turn immigration into a nightmare. An immigrant can claim to be wed to half a nation of women and demand that all these women be brought to Canada. Polygamists can arrive at the border and demand refugee status because of persecution. Sorting out these claims would be impossible, since most nations refuse to give legal status to such marriages.

7) Legalized polygamy would reduce women's rights. Polygamous cults from all over the world would start immigrating to Canada to take advantage of a right to live this lifestyle. Once they take citizenship, they would be able to vote for the values they believe in – low status for women. Moreover, they would raise their enormous families of children to believe these same values, which would further add to the anti-women voting pool. In a short period of time, 200 years of struggle for women's rights would vanish.

8) The issue of same-sex marriage is not at all in the same category as polygamous marriage. First, same-sex marriage is still a partnership and relationship of two people, most often with the objective of starting a family.

9) Second, nonheterosexuality is a biological state, not a choice. In contrast, nobody is born a polygamist. Thus, polygamy is not a rights situation in the same sense that nonheterosexual marriage recognition is a rights situation.

10) Third, same-sex marriage does not affect anyone except the two people involved; whereas polygamous marriage affects all of society because of its impact on women's status. Marriage is a partnership and a relationship. Polygamy turns marriage into a cattle drive.

OK now after all this... for like the 10th time now... I'll just await your standard lost in space response... Why are you sidestepping... why can't you say how it's different than gay marriage.

I'd think as much as you talk about animals you'd know that a hamster on a hamster wheel really ain't going nowhere... exactly like your position here.

 

[Sihouette]

Others have different opinions. Morever, their arguments may have even greater strength than homosexuals' because not only has the gay movement nudged the door wide open for polygamists, polygamists also have a very longstanding religious basis for insisting that polygamy be recognized as legal marriage(s)...

Freedom of Religion vs The State Of [insert name here]:

Source: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0065

Judaism (the forebear of Christianity, as Christ was Jewish) is the religion of the descendants of Israel – the previously-mentioned famous polygamist whose four wives bore the “12 Tribes of Israel.” The Jewish sacred text, the Torah, was written by polygamist Moses (who had two wives himself) – and it includes polygamy regulations in such verses that Christians know as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. The “one man, one woman” invention insultingly asserts that all the Jews are “illegitimate” descendents (i.e., technically calling them, “bastards”) of supposedly “unmarried” parents - thereby proving that anti-polygamy is definitively anti-Israel. Judaism did not even consider embracing “one man, one woman” dogma until about the year 1000 when a Talmudist teacher, Rabbeinu Gershom, made it the new standard for Jewish marriages. Yet, not all Jewish groups accepted the new prohibition, either. That rabbi’s acquiescence was yet another example of the Catholic institution’s political power to control even people outside its religion – to the mind-controlling point of such another religion actually denying the marriages of its very own polygamist progenitor, Israel. Even so, as Professor Turley also pointed out, “Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.” And some of them are also in the United States, as a John Stossel Special Report on ABC-TV’s show, “20/20,” showed in an interview with a Jewish polygamous family from the Chicago area.

Islam was founded around the year 600 by its religion’s polygamist “prophet,” Mohammad. The Muslim sacred text, the Qur’an, includes Verse 4:3 which specifically limits regular Muslim men to marrying no more than four wives. The “prophet” Mohammad himself, however, married many more than that limit, with his many wives known by Muslims as the “Mothers of the believers.” Any Muslim who rejects polygamy rejects the Islamic religion itself and its founding polygamist “prophet.”

In Hinduism, the Baudhayana Dharmashastra (in Prasna I, Adhyaya 8, Kandika 16, verses 1-8) details how many wives a man in each of the four castes (societal classes) may marry. A man in the first caste may marry four wives, the second caste is allowed three, the third caste is allowed two, and the fourth caste is allowed one wife.

Buddhism has no sanction for or against polygamy. It is allowed where local traditions embrace polygamy. Tibetan Buddhists are even known as one of the few peoples on the planet whereat the reverse of polygyny - that is, cultural polyandry – occurs: one wife with more than one husband. Encyclopedia Britannica explains that - although it is not common - that polyandrous kind of “polygamy was practiced on a limited scale” in Tibet

And further from the article:

In an edited snip of the on-air broadcast, Warren shared his sincere reasoning for supporting marriage control. Near the beginning of the broadcast, Warren explained, “I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. First place, to me, it was a free speech issue.” And later, he re-iterated, “I'm in favor of human rights for everybody. Everybody. I'm against re-defining marriage, historically. 5,000 years, because then it'll be re-defined.”

As this essay has demonstrated, not only is that statement incorrect about the historical and biblical definition of marriage as somehow excluding polygamy, but it is also incorrect to imply that marriage has not already been re-defined by big government. Indeed, anti-polygamists have actually already used the false god of big socialist government to re-define marriage with the Catholic-invented “one man, one woman” dogma – a re-definition which Warren appears to already support.

Pro-polygamists can be encouraged that Pastor Rick Warren cares about human rights – especially considering that polygamists actually have very few rights at all, even being denied “legal standing” with which to file slander and libel lawsuits against specific intentionally dishonest media outlets. Indeed, as for Warren’s genuine concern about “free speech,” past anti-polygamists have even gone so tyrannically far as to create anti-American laws that – to this day - outright deprive polygamists of free speech. In some states, if any married man so much as just refers to any other “girlfriend” as a “wife,” that free speech act itself is a statutory crime – by law. Hence, consenting-adult pro-polygamists pursue being allowed human rights and true freedom from big government tyranny, including having free speech. As Newsweek has directly quoted me (Mark Henkel), “’Polygamy rights’ is the next civil rights battle.”

There is far, far more historical religious and civic law impetus, precident and Constitutional "punch" to the polygamists' arguments than the gays could ever hope for in their wildest fantasies. And thanks to marriage now being redefined to include other arrangements besides one man and one woman, the polygamists will sail right in to home plate like a greased pig on a slip 'n slide.

 

[Sihouette]

Here's part of the arguments soon pending in Court pro-polygamy, thanks to the new re-definition of marriage to include other than between just one man and one woman:

13. MARRIAGE IS A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL

The only valid role for government in marriage is actually at the municipal level as a repository of the public records of the contractual arrangements that consenting adults make. Anything more than that is Marxist-style big government social engineering – for which government has no such authority.

Ultimately, marriage is God-given right of the un-coerced consenting-adult individual. Marriage occurred before the invention of government. It will occur if government ever collapses. No one in the Bible was ever married “by government.” Indeed, the actually-socialist notion of “government marriage” is a very new, modern phenomenon over the whole span of human history. And indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s 10th and 9th Amendments together prove that the federal government has no authority whatsoever to define, license, or control marriage for un-coerced consenting-adults.

For Bible-believing Christians, of course, marriage is very much a God-given doctrine indeed. While Pastor Rick Warren might not yet realize that Biblical marriage absolutely does include consenting-adult polygamy, he clearly does understand the importance of the doctrine to Christians. That is what makes Warren’s and other Christians’ misguided and idolatrous support for big government marriage control so alarming. Christianity-wise, no important doctrines should ever be abominated by the false god of big socialist government.

Would Warren allow the false god of big socialist government to define, license, and control any other important God-defined doctrines? How about a big government gospel defining, licensing, and control amendment? How about a baptism control amendment? Would he support a Lord’s table control amendment? Even if such control amendments were deceptively disguised with such dishonest titles as so-called “protection amendments,” would such intended-deception conceal the fact that they are really about forcefully giving up power to the false god of big socialist government to control individuals and to control God’s doctrines? Most likely, he would say, “No.”

Realizing this context, marriage control truly betrays Pastor Warren’s genuine values and Christian faith. Government really has no Constitutional authority to be re-defining, licensing, and controlling Christian doctrines – whether it’s the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s table, or marriage. Consenting-adult marriage is a God-given right of the Individual, well beyond the authority of government to control. ~
Source: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0065

Not only do polygamists now have precident on their side of "other than.." the traditional description, they also have freedom of religion behind them (a huge Constitutional thrust). In the Bible there is polygamy all over the place up one page and down the other. Polygamy is essentially sanctioned and promoted by the Christian God, the most pervasive religion in America and it's "owner's manual" if you will..

The polygamists have more than a foot in the door, they've got everything but their ring-finger through it..and that's almost in too..

 

[top gun]

Just more unfounded BS... I can see you getting very close to another horseback riding "accident"... again!

Gay marriage has been legal for a long time now... and nowhere because of gay marriage has polygamy been even an issue. You are simply homophobic and can clearly see as with the Iowa case what is going to inevitably happen to Prop 8.

I'm just gonna chalk it up to two things because all this ranting about polygamy storming that gates if gay marriage is allowed has already been proven false by current reality.

So the only things you're proving is...

A) Hell has no fury like a woman scorned!

and

B) Misery loves company!

That sums up everything you've posted on this entire subject...

I hope you get over it. It's ridiculous to be this upset over something that hurts no one.

 

[Sihouette]

The side issue being presented on this thread is your quickness to irrationality and diversion vs my stubborn insistance to stay on-topic.

Did you read the excerpt from the article? It said that polygamy is the next civil rights issue. And guess what follows that? Marriage for more than two.

What a bigot you are going on and on about polygamists as if they don't even exist. You belittle their movement and laugh at their efforts. Are you sure you're on the side of "human rights"?

We're talking about consenting adults in love and you're sayig "it's a non-issue" or "they don't qualify because they're more than [arbitrary] two" even while you hear that they are in love.

Shame on you.. There's nothing worse than a hypocrite.

 

[top gun]

The side issue being presented on this thread is your quickness to irrationality and diversion vs my stubborn insistance to stay on-topic.

Did you read the excerpt from the article? It said that polygamy is the next civil rights issue. And guess what follows that? Marriage for more than two.

What a bigot you are going on and on about polygamists as if they don't even exist. You belittle their movement and laugh at their efforts. Are you sure you're on the side of "human rights"?

We're talking about consenting adults in love and you're sayig "it's a non-issue" or "they don't qualify because they're more than [arbitrary] two" even while you hear that they are in love.

Shame on you.. There's nothing worse than a hypocrite.

I easily posted 10 reasons why Polygamy is harmful & completely different than gay marriage by a real independent research group and you post hocas pocas from a small group of polygamist.

Could we not all find articles from the Klan saying only Whites should marry Whites or pedophiles who would say that adults should be allowed to marry children or romantically involved animal lovers who would say they should be able to marry their horse... of course we could.

GLARINGLY SILLY RED HERRINGS THOUGH... because the last two examples are obviously not two consenting adults that are already legally allowed in all 50 states to live together and have sex together. And actually the first (trying to ban interracial marriage) is very similar to trying to ban gay marriage. It was and is all emotionally driven and never fact driven as to damage... because there simply is none.

And what's the real tale of the tape? That's that polygamist rights is not an issue in any of the places where gay marriage has been legal for a long time now... you can't get around that Siho no matter how heartbroke you are.

The time & place where polygamy is an issue is in places like Utah with old sect Mormons. And that of course has been steadily occurring during "straight only" marriage laws & times.

So obviously the entire logic of your position is entirely emotional motivated and busted. Sorry...

 

[Sihouette]

There is no more evidence supporting that polygamy would be harmful than homosexuality in marriage, particularly where children are involved. Polygamists are no more predisposed than the general population to child predation. You have no other real evidence to support that polygamists are somehow inherantly bad beyond your prejudice against them and now quite glaringly apparent bigotry.

It's interesting how "human rights" and "equality" fall by the wayside when it isn't your pet cause.


Once again, shame on you..