I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[classicman]

I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things.

I never said I personally believed that. I repeatedly said ....

Originally Posted by classicman

marriage and civil unions are not considered the same thing by some

Originally Posted by classicman

To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.
Essentially the same, but without that one element. Is it right, fair, just... not the issue.
All I am saying is that some do not view the two as equal with respect to the religious component
and that is a BIG difference to those people.
I am not saying they cannot nor should not have all the same benefits,
just that the two terms have different meanings to some.

Originally Posted by classicman

Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"
Civil marriages are not sanctioned under religious law, marriage is.
Thats the difference I was referring to.
If you have an issue with the government ask your representative.

I don't have a representative.

Bullshit. You live in DC. They're as common as cockroaches.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

I never said I personally believed that. I repeatedly said ....

Originally Posted by classicman

Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

Is that not your personal belief?

Originally Posted by classicman

Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"

I should back up from equating them, but you take umbrage when I attribute to you the belief that they are different?

To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.

These "some" only seem to be making the distinction when it comes to gays. I don't seem to remember a drumbeat about redefining marriage when it comes to marriages by justices of the peace. This isn't about non-religious marriages, it's about gays.

Bullshit. You live in DC. They're as common as cockroaches.

None of them are mine, and the ones who take notice of DC residents usually only do so to overturn DC law as a political stunt.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Is that not your personal belief?

NO IT IS NOT! FERFUXACHE - ARE YOU BLIND?

I should back up from equating them, but you take umbrage when I attribute to you the belief that they are different?

Yes I do, I have clearly said what I think.
Dude, are you high or something?

Did you miss this part?

Personally, I think that any union - marriage or whatever between
two humans should have the same legal/governmental rights as all the rest
whether they be gay, straight, bi, trans.It matters not to me PERSONALLY.

[ZenGum]

The way you two are going on ... are you married to EACH OTHER?

[Lamplighter]

[classicman]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The way you two are going on ... are you married to EACH OTHER?

If thats the case, I demand a divorce!

[ZenGum]

Counselling?

Think of the children!

[TheMercenary]

The process is exposed.

No attacks on Cain for his 9-9-9 plan. No attacks on him for his foreign policy. No attacks on him for his mission statements. Only attacks on his past personal behavior.

Maybe he should have just waited for his wife to get breast cancer, beginning a long slow death, and then have an affair outside of his marriage or a baby out of wedlock, then and only then, maybe the Demoncrats would have accepted him as one of their own....

[Happy Monkey]

Or, as it happens, the Republicans, vis-a-vis Newt, who cheated on his dying wife, and is now the frontrunner.

There was plenty of discussion of how bad Cain was on 999 and foreign policy. More "making fun of" than "attacks", perhaps, because his stupidity with regard to both made it hard to take him seriously enough to "attack".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Or, as it happens, the Republicans, vis-a-vis Newt, who cheated on his dying wife, and is now the frontrunner.

There was plenty of discussion of how bad Cain was on 999 and foreign policy. More "making fun of" than "attacks", perhaps, because his stupidity with regard to both made it hard to take him seriously enough to "attack".

Cool! So he is in good company. Did Newt also crank out a baby at the time and then deny it to the press? Or did he just divert campaign money to feed his whore? Oh, wait, that was the other guy. DID Newt squirt his DNA on the dress of his girl friend in the White House and disgrace the office of the president? Nope.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe he should have just waited for his wife to get breast cancer, beginning a long slow death, and then have an affair outside of his marriage or a baby out of wedlock, then and only then,

maybe .... he could have been more like Newt.

Neither side gets a pass on this shit. None of them are really worthy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

maybe .... he could have been more like Newt.

Or maybe more like John Edwards. The Dems might have fallen in love with him...

[classicman]

Take your pic. don't see much difference between the two.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The process is exposed.

No attacks on Cain for his 9-9-9 plan. No attacks on him for his foreign policy. No attacks on him for his mission statements. Only attacks on his past personal behavior.

What's the weather like on Planet Merc?

Cain had already been considered and dismissed on the grounds of his tax plan, foreign ignorance and general lack of ability. Everyone except the Republican party die-hards had seen this. They clung to him, and this is what it has taken to make them let go of him.

The weather on planet Zengum today is subtropical with a chance of thundery showers.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The process is exposed.

No attacks on Cain for his 9-9-9 plan. No attacks on him for his foreign policy.

Oh please.