Shock & Blog
In my experience both parties like doing that. "Forest Protection Act" type bills usually translate to the loosening of pollution restraints. Sometime they create additional rights for corporate foresting companies. "Religious Freedom Act" type bills seek to officialize the notion that America has a state religion or to recognize it as a nation where the majority are christian. The lemon test, as set forth by the supreme court, can identify laws that adhere to religious freedom. Such bills fail the lemon test. We can conclude they're not truly religious freedom acts.
Got any examples?
Awww, did those nasty liberals steal your buzzwords?
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
Apparently it's the only way they can get their bills through sessions, Starry.
So, why do you believe it's "obviously dishonestly titled"? You don't think that two men or two women and their children constitutes a family too? What do you base your definition of family on? What do you base your definition of marriage on?
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
The bill title is dishonest because it isn't about protecting families or marriage. It's about enacting gay marriage.
You mean because it isn't about protecting only heterosexual-led families and heterosexual marriage? I must ask again:
You don't think that two men or two women and their children constitutes a family too? What do you base your definition of family on? What do you base your definition of marriage on?
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
P.S.
I prefer Bixy over Starry. 
Bixy, it's not about protecting anything! It's not even about families (so your questions about what constitutes a family are really irrelevant). It's about establishing gay marriage in the state under false pretenses.
As for your question about marriage, it has been defined by human civilization for centuries as the union of one man and one woman. The only reason gays want marriage now is to force people to accept their behavior as normal. It's not about equal treatment under the law or anything else. It's only about that.
"As for your question about marriage, it has been defined by human civilization for centuries as the union of one man and one woman."
The Bible would disagree with you.
Genesis 4:19:
"19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah."
Genesis 26:34:
"34And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:"
1 Samuel 1:1-2:
"1Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:
2And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children."
And for the grand finale:
1 Kings 11:2-3:
"2Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart."
These are but a few examples from your holy book depicting marriage that is definitely not "one man and one woman". Care to come up with another excuse?
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
Ah, now we see your true intent. How long had you been sitting on that response waiting for me to mention the Bible? Pathetic. And since I didn't mention the Bible, well, you had to force the issue. Even more pathetic.
The Bible would disagree with you.
Only if you idiotically rip verses out of context.
Genesis 4:19 - Wow. The Bible records that Lamech took two wives. Care to explain how the Bible mentioning this fact makes polygamy a Christian precept? Lamech also committed murder, so does that make murder okay, too?
Genesis 26:34 - Gee... Consider the very next verse: "They were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah." Gosh, I wonder why would that be? I just can't imagine.
1 Samuel 1:1-2 - Care to share the rest of the story where the marriages caused strife?
1 Kings 11:2-3 - Your "grand finale" is a grand flop. Again, you leave off the results of Solomon's polygamy recorded in the very next verses: "As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. ... The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice."
Your examples of the Bible supposedly promoting polygamy are pathetic. I'm not the least bit surprised. Critics of the Bible hardly ever know what they are talking about. Care to try again with more pathetic, ignorant examples?
Oh, and it's hilarious how YOU are the one who brought up the Bible, yet you claim at the end of your post that I did.
First off, I never claimed that you brought it up. This is what I said:
"These are but a few examples from your holy book depicting marriage that is definitely not "one man and one woman". Care to come up with another excuse?"
What part of this accuses you of bringing it up? I referenced a book that you obviously believe to be an accurate historical document.
Second, care to show me where I made a moral judgment? I gave examples from your book that directly contradict your assertion that
"it has been defined by human civilization for centuries as the union of one man and one woman."
Nowhere did I claim that the Bible promotes or even condones polygamy. The context of these verses isn't even an issue as I was using them to show you that your book documents a common form of marriage that is not "one man and one woman."
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
Bix, the "Care to come up with another excuse?" line is what I'm referring to. (Just letting you dig your own grave here.) I didn't come up with any "excuse" involving the Bible. You are the one who brought the Bible up and even if those verses you cited actually did promote polygamy (which I have already proven they do not), it would not negate my statement that human civilization has for centuries defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
I never said anything about you making a moral judgment and your cited verses contradicted nothing. I said that human civilization has defined marriage as one man-one woman for centuries. The verses you cited do not define marriage! They define wrongful, disastrous instances of polygamy. You are not going to weasel out of trying to portray those Bible verses as promoting polygamy. "Defining" = "condoning."
And four instances of polygamy out of the many, many monogamous marriages depicted in the Bible is hardly "common!"
Ew! We posted comments at the exact same time for different blog posts! Cooties! Cooties!
(Yeah, it's very late here and I'm getting a little loopy.)
Don't worry, I was inoculated back in kindergarten.
My "Care to come up with another excuse?" comment was in reference to your assertion that "one man and one woman" has been the predominant form of marriage historically. As I said, I made no claims that the Bible promoted or condoned polygamy. I used it as a historical reference that you would recognize as valid. I used the verses only to show that polygamy happened. Since when does "Defining" = "condoning." I would assume that you have defined homosexuality in the past for one reason or another. Does this mean that you condone it? The Bible defines a lot of abhorrent things, does that mean it condones them? Your response to my quoting verses was based on their morality, this implies that I had referenced them in a moral sense. Your assertion that "The verses you cited do not define marriage!" is incorrect in that the verses all make reference to wives. A woman's status as a wife is possible only through marriage. I would also advise you to take a look at this. I refer, specifically, to table 9. It is from the Ethnographic Atlas by Dr. G.P. Murdock. It is a breakdown of the 1167 cultures that he researched by marital customs. Of all 1167 cultures examined there were only 186 that were strictly "one man and one woman." This clearly shows that your definition of marriage in history is not even a majority, much less the dominant form that you claim it to be. So now, in reference to your assertion that marriage "has been defined by human civilization for centuries as the union of one man and one woman", care to come up with another excuse?
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
I'm waiting. It's been a full week. Do you have a response?
Sure, I have a response. (Didn't know I was beholden to you.)
Your rebuttal to my citing of fact that marriage has been defined historically as one man and one woman was laughable. You rip Bible verse out of context and hold them up as if they contradict my assertion. They don't. The verses you cited don't define marriage. They, in fact, do exactly the opposite. They define what marriage shouldn't be. Any form of marriage other than one man and one woman has brought nothing more than strife and discord not only to the marriages in question, but sometimes even to the societies that allowed those marriages.
Your cited document lacks critical information, such as which cultures, where they are located, when they existed, etc.
It is a study of the cultures of Africa and Oceania. Why should the time they existed matter? I thought we were talking about centuries of human civilization. The journal in which the data appeared is one of the pre-eminent anthropology journals in the world. The fact that this many cultures practiced a differing form of marriage contradicts your claim of marriage having been "defined by human civilization for centuries as the union of one man and one woman"
"Any form of marriage other than one man and one woman has brought nothing more than strife and discord"
Are you seriously asserting that because these weren't happy marriages that they are not considered marriage? Your objection to them was on the grounds that they caused misery to the people in the marriage. That condition could apply to a sizable portion of "one man and one woman" marriages throughout recorded history.
How does a woman become a wife but through marriage? These verses don't say concubine, mistress, paramour, girlfriend or any other such term. They all say wife. Just because the marriage was unhappy or deleterious does not make the wife any less of a wife. We are not talking about what should or shouldn't be, we are talking about what is and, more specifically, what has been the definition of marriage throughout the centuries.
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
Your arguments are silly and desperate, B.
Your attempts to dodge the issue are sad and informative, J.
How about you actually engage the argument?
There's nothing to engage. In fact, your own argument is self-defeating. Since you are arguing that marriage has been "defined" at various times and in various cultures as a lot of things, then why is it wrong for modern American culture to define marriage as between only one man and one woman? California voters have already voted once on the issue (and thanks to the idiotic State Supreme Court there, they will soon have to vote again on the same issue) and made it known that they overwhelmingly want marriage to be defined as exactly that.
My argument was a rebuttal to your assertion that marriage "has been defined by human civilization for centuries as the union of one man and one woman". By the same token, why is it wrong for modern American culture to define marriage as two consenting adults? You seem to have a skewed vision of democracy. It's not mob rule. The Constitution is there to ensure that everyone gets the same rights, especially the minorities. Your version of democracy is what kept blacks at the back of the bus. It was what the people wanted. It took the Supreme Court to change things. How would you feel if anti-theists were the majority and voted to outlaw religion? You'd cling to the Constitution like a life preserver and you know what? I'd defend your right to be religious. That's the great thing about democracy: the minorities don't get trampled on by the majority.
Starbix
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
Your version of democracy is what kept blacks at the back of the bus.
And thus you show your true colors. You have worn out your welcome. Goodbye.
Commenting by HaloScan
