I don't have a dog in this fight, but... - Page 21

classicman · 12-06-2011, 09:56 PM

I was just stating the fact that the terminology is an issue for many people.
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 ... wtfe. (No Hobos though) It matters not to me PERSONALLY.

Quote:

So, again, I ask you. What's the difference, from the government's perspective, between marriage and civil union?

So again, I reply - If you have an issue with the government's perspective ask your representative.

ETA - Sorry Zen. Missed your post while composing mine.

Happy Monkey · 12-06-2011, 10:32 PM

I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things. But the only distinction you have made is religious sanction, which should not be, and is not currently, a distinction under the law.

When a politician says they don't support marriage for gays, but they do support civil unions, and you applaud their making that distinction, I am asking you what that means for the law. Which is the perspective that matters when a politician says it. He's not running for pope.

Huntsman (in this instance, but also Obama, among others) said he didn't support "redefining marriage", but that is exactly what he would have to do if he supported a government policy that people who were married by a justice of the peace are no longer married, as Lamplighter and ZenGum suggest.

If, on the other hand, he wants to keep current marriage law in place for straight people, but make up a new class of marriage for gay people, but with a different name, that sounds like discrimination to me.

classicman · 12-06-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

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 ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I don't have a representative.

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

ZenGum · 12-07-2011, 05:05 PM

Counselling?

Think of the children!

TheMercenary · 12-07-2011, 09:30 PM

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....

classicman · 12-07-2011, 09:53 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-07-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

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...

ZenGum · 12-08-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

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 · 12-08-2011, 09:05 AM

Quote:

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.

Happy Monkey · 12-07-2011, 09:40 PM

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 · 12-07-2011, 09:47 PM

Quote:

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.

SamIam · 12-08-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

"A man's dreams should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for." So far, Newt has only managed to disgrace the office of Speaker to the House. He was the first speaker in the history of our nation who has been disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Newt himself admitted that he gave the House ethics committee false information and that he had broken federal tax law through creative financing of a couple of his personal projects. For this, he was given a formal reprimand by the House and ordered to pay a $300,000 fine. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You can have Newt. The people of the United States certainly don't need him.

TheMercenary · 12-09-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

"A man's dreams should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for." So far, Newt has only managed to disgrace the office of Speaker to the House. He was the first speaker in the history of our nation who has been disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Newt himself admitted that he gave the House ethics committee false information and that he had broken federal tax law through creative financing of a couple of his personal projects. For this, he was given a formal reprimand by the House and ordered to pay a $300,000 fine. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You can have Newt. The people of the United States certainly don't need him.

I still say that does not beat a sitting president shooting his DNA across a White House interns dress. He is a politician, they all have baggage.

classicman · 12-07-2011, 10:13 PM

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

BigV · 12-09-2011, 01:37 PM

I wonder if you're as hung up on sex as you appear to be, or if this is some kind of "fig leaf" for other objections, other prejudices.

12-06-2011, 10:32 PM	#2
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things. But the only distinction you have made is religious sanction, which should not be, and is not currently, a distinction under the law. When a politician says they don't support marriage for gays, but they do support civil unions, and you applaud their making that distinction, I am asking you what that means for the law. Which is the perspective that matters when a politician says it. He's not running for pope. Huntsman (in this instance, but also Obama, among others) said he didn't support "redefining marriage", but that is exactly what he would have to do if he supported a government policy that people who were married by a justice of the peace are no longer married, as Lamplighter and ZenGum suggest. If, on the other hand, he wants to keep current marriage law in place for straight people, but make up a new class of marriage for gay people, but with a different name, that sounds like discrimination to me. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

12-07-2011, 05:05 PM	#4
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	Counselling? Think of the children! __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

12-07-2011, 09:30 PM	#5
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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.... __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

12-07-2011, 09:40 PM	#10
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	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". __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

12-07-2011, 10:13 PM	#14
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Take your pic. don't see much difference between the two. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

12-09-2011, 01:37 PM	#15
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	I wonder if you're as hung up on sex as you appear to be, or if this is some kind of "fig leaf" for other objections, other prejudices. __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)