How is that different from Catholicism or Islam? The only difference is that we are not used to people of Mormon faith distancing themselves from the fundamentalist level while we are used to it with Catholicism or Islam.

I had a couple of really good friends through my gaming guild who were mormons. Years ago, but they were lovely people.

I don't really see them as being that diffferent to many other Christian denominations. I remember having a conversation once with Talon (one of the mormons) about the notion in their reading of creation, that the tribe that turned from God and were cast out and marked by black complexion were the origins of black people...

I considered that racist. He considered it ancient history. Since his wife was a black lass it seemed unlikely he saw that history as in any way relevant to his world today.

At this time, this is not a MAJOR issue to me. We have MUCH BIGGER problems to deal with.
Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

Gays have just as much right to go through a shitty divorce as everyone else.

LIke marriage is so special and unattainable and hard to do. People hop from one to another like they're riding the rails to PerfectLand. Pffffft.

*shrugs*

Gah - communication breakdown ...
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.

I wasn't directing toward you, c-man. It was really just an off-handed comment on my part.

You know, my tongue-in-cheek observations, for which I am disdained at best, ignored at worst.

Such brilliance is not for normal human consumption.

;)

All that follows is my personal opinion even if it is dogmatic. :king:

If marriage is a "religious contract", then should it be a matter of federal law
providing for - or protecting - some citizens, but not others?

If one agrees that separate is not equal, then the "civil unions"
are only the current step in the direction of equal civil rights for everyone.
Anyone believing they are equal, essentially owns the burden of proof
to justify and to rectify each and every instance of inequality.

It would be easier to change the word "marriage" throughout our laws
to mean only the religious contract within any given religion,
and to have all legal aspects of "marriage license"
changed to words meaning something akin to "civil union".

In any case, whether one believes a candidate will separate his "religion" or beliefs
from his "elected office" is simply a matter of each person's own judgment
of the candidate... no rules to be followed, just personal perception.

Isn't it odd that we don't usually even consider such an issue
with a candidate whose religion is similar to our own.
.

How are they different from the government's perspective, ie the perspective from which we should care at all what any politician says about it? Any difference would be discriminatory, as far as I can tell.

Agreed. My point was the terminology.

If they mean the same thing, then why would the government have one word for straight marriage and another for gay marriage?

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 have.

What's the difference, from the government's perspective? People married by a justice of the peace are currently married, from the government's perspective, without any religious sanction. Under the regime of a politician who supports civil unions but not gay marriage, gays married by a church would still get a civil union.

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

If there's no difference, then there's no need for different words. If there is a difference, then it's discrimination.

In France, they brough in Civil Unions to appease the gay lobby, or so they thought.

Last I heard, around 30% of heterosexual couples were getting civil unions and bypassing the Church completely. :lol:

Naturally the Churchy-types freaked.

:2cents:
ALL marriages should be civil unions. Anyone wishing to do a church ritual is free to do so, but this should be irrelevant to the legal status of the union.

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.
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.

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.

I never said I personally believed that. I repeatedly said ....
Bullshit. You live in DC. They're as common as cockroaches.

Is that not your personal belief?

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

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.

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.

NO IT IS NOT! FERFUXACHE - ARE YOU BLIND?
Yes I do, I have clearly said what I think.
Dude, are you high or something?

Did you miss this part?

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

:D

If thats the case, I demand a divorce!

Counselling?

Think of the children!

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....

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.

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

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

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

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

:lol2:

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. :)

Oh please.

"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.

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.

When Romney released his (sort of) first campaign ad, I posted it.
Perry should be here now too, as this is probably his dying gasp, swan song.

NY Times
RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
December 8, 2011

Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Is Divisive Even to Staff
OKATIE, S.C. — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas’ hard turn the past two days on gay issues,
in which he has suggested that gay rights are inconsistent with both American and Christian values,
has generated enormous criticism from lesbian and gay organizations and some religious groups,
and has even helped split Mr. Perry’s top campaign aides over a new ad.

In that campaign ad, released on Wednesday, Mr. Perry says
“you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday” to know it is wrong
that gay men and lesbians openly serve in the military at a time
when there is no organized prayer in public schools.

Perry aides said neither the criticism of Mr. Obama nor the new ad
were intended to be anti-gay, nor were they coordinated;
they said that the ad had been in the works for weeks and that they
had no advance notice of the administration’s new policy.<snip>

Nearly three out of five respondents said that they support legal
recognition in one form or another for same-sex couples.
The poll found that 22 percent said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry,
while 36 percent said they supported civil unions.
Only 38 percent said they supported no legal recognition for same-sex couples,
though a majority of evangelical Christians responded that way.
.
So here is Perry's ad...


And besides all that:

Obama has not waged a war on religion, and somehow it is incredibly provincial
to pledge a fight against issues already settled by US Supreme Court decisions,
just to get current attention away from Romney, Paul, and Gingrich.

I've got to the "meh" point about all this crowd.

I hereby declare the 2011/12 Republican primary race to have jumped the shark.

You are so right, zen. For the love of DOG what kind of nutjob is this guy? He gives me the wilkins.

Thanks for the vid, Lamp. Scarier than the scariest movies of all time.

Who really hasn't. Since Christie said he wasn't running, they've all been pathetic. The base HATES Obama, but they have no valid alternative other than Huntsman and he can't even get out of single digits in the polls with a multiplier. Things are gonna be really weird for the next few years.

I suggest all the money both sides would have spent (read wasted) on the election go towards the debt/deficit.

I really don't get the misplaced hate. Obama has done next to nothing. His economic philosophy is wrong-headed but the out-come is just left of center. He does at least acknowledge that the spending spree has to stop which is a big admission for a Democrat. He has delivered no new gun laws and he is actually behind the country on gay marriage and drug policy.

Did you guys see Perry's anti-gay rant passed just passed Rebecca Black for most disliked youtube video of all time.

Now that is funny. His parents must be so proud. :facepalm:

Tonight (Sat, 12/10/11) the GOP Debates will be aired on ABC.
This will probably be a turning point for several of the GOP candidates:

Rick Perry is still looking for a second chance to make a first impression,
but it's hard to un-ring a bell or un-see a "Strong" video ad, Oooops.

Santorum is scheduled for a "big announcement", and may follow Cain into suspended animation

Jon Huntsman was "forcibly" eliminated from the debate because the organizers
did not like his politics or poll numbers or something.... some called it "dis-invited"

Michele Bochmann will be Michelle Bochmann... maybe in her best white uniform.

Mitt Romney may be feeling it's time to sink or swim... shih teu or get off the pot.

Christian Science Monitor
Brad Knickerbocker
Dec10, 2011

And besides all that:

Ron Paul has released his "serial hypocrisy" ad


And, even the Palestinians dismayed by Gingrich remarks.
CBS News
Dec 10, 2011

Attachment 35824


:lol2:

For my part, this thread has been a bit of information,
but loaded with sarcasm and self-indulgent fun.
But after last evening's GOP debate, where I feel Romney slipped a few notches,
and Newt managed to hold his own, maybe it is time to look more seriously
at Gringrich's policies and intentions for his presidency.

When he was Speaker of the House, he and John Boehner formulated the 1994
"Contact With America", which Dem's renamed "Contract On America,
and the government was shut down twice.

My life experience is that people don't really change, and they do what they want to do.
For Gingrich, his campaign has again formulated a document named
"Century 21 - Contract With America"
As Dr Phil oft times says, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

So, I urge everyone to read and pay attention to the NY Times Editorial,
and Gingrich's intentions for changing the structure of the US government.


NY Times
Editorial
December 10, 2011

Mr. Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts
--------

Here is Gingrich's presentation: - it downloads a pdf file.

21st Century
Contract with America
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution

NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting
Item No. 9 of the 21st Century Contract with America:
---------

I have posted excerpts (here) from this Times Editorial and Gingrich's
Contract with America in the "The Proper Role and Scope of Government" thread.

Hey, Mitt! Bet ya ten grand you don't become president! :p:

Rick Perry's "STRONG" ad is YouTube's current "Most Disliked" with over 647k dislikes to 20k likes

Another GOP candidate, Fred Karger, that I had not even heard about before this, has made his contribution.



And besides all that:

Rick Perry's refusal to take a $10,000 bet from Mitt Romney may
have done more damage to Romney than Newt and Michelle put together.

Although it is getting blown all out of proportion, it was a pretty idiotic thing to say.

Yeah, silly but trivial.

I've finally got around to having a look at Newt.

Holy #&%$ing terrifying shit, Batman. I don't know where to start so I won't bother.

But for a right-wing nutjob he doesn't know his bible history very well, does he?

Michelle was her tyical ever-evasive soundbyte Queen on Face the Nation on Sunday. Bob (gawd I love Bob!) told her once to actually answer the question. She wouldn't. What a noodge.

But FtN is going to an hour. Bob said he had a very special announcement and I thought, if Bob is leaving then there really isn't any reason to live anymore (did I mention I love Bob?) but then he said due to increased viewership it's expanding to an hour!

I love Bob. :lol:

Newt is a friggin joke.

Hypocrite, liar, and ethically bankrupt, not to mention a tyrant and a pompous, arrogant asshole.

Stormie - That was not as well written and as detailed as most of your posts, but I still gotta say that about sums it up.

Is it too early to ask if we really have a 2 party system anymore? Cuz if we look at what they are trotting out to run the US, its lookin kinda . . . . . .

Which right wing nut job knows bible history very well???????

:lol:

the dogs are all fighting, now, live, on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/foxnewschanne...ure=inp-lt-fox

A few talking heads are saying the time has come for the first real test of Romney's campaign organization.
Since Newt Gingrich (pronounced "Ging-rick", not "Ging-rich") has taken the lead in polls,
Romney's attention is on bringing down this next contender. But how could that happen ?

Have you noticed that in the recent GOP presidential candidate debates, Romney and
Paul are strikingly friendly and supportive of the other's attacks on Gingrich ?

Mitt's calvary-to-the-rescue may be lurking among his opponents and their supporters.

ABC News
Matt Negrin
Dec 9, 2011

In Texas, Romney’s Rich Fans Wait for Perry to Bow Out
There is a common thread of remarks among the fund-raisers who spoke to the reporter:

And then there are the Ron Paul supporters...
San Francisco Chronicle
KASIE HUNT, Associated Press
December 9, 2011

Paul strength may help Romney in Iowa
And besides all that:

If anything, the TV show "Survivor" has shown
is that coalitions are two-headed snakes...

When Romney believes he is in control but holds only one head,
the other can turn to bite him, just when he least expects it or needs it most.
.

All those polls and public debates were classic examples of money wasted. Serious nominees are not apparent until Iowa and New Hamspire. About that time, we will begin to see who was really running for president.

Well, so many also waste their time watching Barabara Walter's celebrity interviews, People Magazine, and Entertainment Tonight as if it was entertaining, informative, or relevant. Same for that Republican campaign this past year while they wasted bandwidth and made themselves all look silly. Why did Sarah Palin have better integrity to not be associated with them?

In the next few months, we will learn who among that rabble really has integrity.

Not at all, I'd say.

... and a new bike, and a toy racing car, and a tree-house ... what? this wasn't your Christmas wish list?

Unfortunately, the polls are a major part of the way people vote.

"Vote for front runner, and I'll be a winner", or
"Vote for last place, cause I'm against everything"

Then come the litmus tests that are most persuasive, such as:
abortion, race, party, religion, age, gender, spouce's hair style, veteran, sense of humor, etc.

Last, and often least... the candidate's stand on important political and economic issues, such as:
the candidate's hair style, ability to debate, family values, place of birth, number of children, style and color of underwear, etc.
.

Huntsman’s Tax Proposal Gets Think Tank’s Highest Grade
Link

But just WHAT is Huntsman's proposal? Your link to Huntsman's own campaign site gives no specifics which makes me extremely curious as to why not. As I have stated elsewhere, the burden of Huntsman's Utah tax cuts, at least in part, were taken on by the Mormon Church. That's fine for Mormon Utah, but it won't work for the nation as a whole.

Google gave me this
Outlined by one guy here