We might actually agree on something.  Time to test out the new bunker.  

Eric's bunker was getting to be too full. I had doubts about how long the supplies would hold out, so I built my own. You're invited. So's boudreaumw. Everyone else stays outside. 

---

...

 

Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and their breed can stand off to the side shouting about all the reasons that homosexuality is immoral, against nature, a threat to America's youth, whatever, and nothing will change that until they draw their last breath. 

 

...

 

That's pretty unfair and way off base.  As far as I know, the answer that those candidates have always given when asked about gay marriage is that they believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  I've never heard a single one of them say anything about homosexuality being immoral, against nature, etc..  That's a far left narrative for anyone that doesn't like their answer.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I agree with much of what TJBender has posted, and I think he kind of understands my point of view.

 

Consider this.  Why was the whole issue of gay marriage started in the first place?  It was because same-sex couples wanted the same legal benefits of traditional couples.  For example, they wanted to be able to file taxes as "married", wanted to have spouse survival benefits in the event of the death of their spouse, wanted to be able to purchase insurance as a family rather than individuals, etc.  I personally see nothing wrong with that and support it as most reasonable people do.

 

The problem is that there are many people who consider marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman.  All that I'm saying is that a reasonable solution to avoid problems such as this lady that is the subject of this thread, is to change the legal term to a civil union on legal documents.  After doing that, then anyone entering a civil union can call their union whatever they wish, and if they choose to call it a marriage they are certainly free to do so.

 

Here is another way to look at it.  The civil union is the legal binding contract between two people.  A marriage or wedding is the ceremony celebrating and recognizing that legal binding contract.

 

 

 

We might actually agree on something.  Time to test out the new bunker.  

All this is very reasonable. The problem is deeper though. The LGBT community has faced all kinds of hate and demagoguery in the past. The common thread in all that hate has been that they were made to feel as second class citizens. Not dissimilar to blacks during segregation. During that time inter racial marriage was a very hated thing. Would it have been reasonable to offer interracial couples a different type of union than marriage since so many were against it?  

 

I will try to be reasonable in my response. To a lot of people changing the term used to appease the religious is not acceptable because they still see it as the LGBT community being treated as second class people. In addition, there are plenty of people (including presidential candidates) for whom this issue is not about the word marriage itself but the act of the union. An argument could be made that by making a different classification to appease opponents of gay marriage (the term) would bolster the rhetoric from those that demonize the community at large.

---

Eric's bunker was getting to be too full. I had doubts about how long the supplies would hold out, so I built my own. You're invited. So's boudreaumw. Everyone else stays outside. 

 

I just had one installed over the weekend.   :yes:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Eric's bunker was getting to be too full. I had doubts about how long the supplies would hold out, so I built my own. You're invited. So's boudreaumw. Everyone else stays outside. 

 

I have beer.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I have beer.

Are you one of the "war on craft beer" folk that likes their natty ice? 

---

Eric's bunker was getting to be too full. I had doubts about how long the supplies would hold out, so I built my own. You're invited. So's boudreaumw. Everyone else stays outside. 

:thanks:

---

Are you one of the "war on craft beer" folk that likes their natty ice? 

 

No. I'm neither beer snob nor beer barbarian.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I just had one installed over the weekend.   :yes:

How are we all going to hang out after the apocalypse if we all have our own bunkers?

 

I have beer.

"With the first overall pick in the 2015 Post-Apocalyptic Bunker Draft, TJBender selects flsprtsgod, right-winger from someplace warm."

---

No. I'm neither beer snob nor beer barbarian.

Oh so you are one of those hippy loving all inclusive types.  :thumbsup:

---

Oh so you are one of those hippy loving all inclusive types.  :thumbsup:

 

Mostly, there's very few types I don't include.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How are we all going to hang out after the apocalypse if we all have our own bunkers?

 

"With the first overall pick in the 2015 Post-Apocalyptic Bunker Draft, TJBender selects flsprtsgod, right-winger from someplace warm."

With the 2nd pick in the 2015 Post-Apocalyptic Bunker Draft, JIB selects Al Gore, inventor of pants, snicker bars, and most importantly, the Internet. Problem solved. 

---

Mostly, there's very few types I don't include.

Beer is love, beer is life. All beer has a purpose. 

---

With the 2nd pick in the 2015 Post-Apocalyptic Bunker Draft, JIB selects Al Gore, inventor of pants, snicker bars, and most importantly, the Internet. Problem solved. 

 

You'll have to rename the bunker "Lockbox."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm not making my own bunker. I'm just going to mooch off what you fellow's built. I will bring some whiskey and pie though. I'll even put gluten in the pies because you are just so swell.

---

Beer is love, beer is life. All beer has a purpose. 

 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All this is very reasonable. The problem is deeper though. The LGBT community has faced all kinds of hate and demagoguery in the past. The common thread in all that hate has been that they were made to feel as second class citizens. Not dissimilar to blacks during segregation. During that time inter racial marriage was a very hated thing. Would it have been reasonable to offer interracial couples a different type of union than marriage since so many were against it?  

 

I will try to be reasonable in my response. To a lot of people changing the term used to appease the religious is not acceptable because they still see it as the LGBT community being treated as second class people. In addition, there are plenty of people (including presidential candidates) for whom this issue is not about the word marriage itself but the act of the union. An argument could be made that by making a different classification to appease opponents of gay marriage (the term) would bolster the rhetoric from those that demonize the community at large.

 

Regarding your first paragraph.  The problem that you are discussing is not a legal issue, it's a social issue and has nothing to do with politics.

 

As far as your second paragraph, you need to separate the legal aspect from the social aspect.  Changing the term on a legal document does not really "appease" any certain group, and is actually more inclusive.  Again, this "fight" was about legal
rights, not social "rights".  There is no "different classification".

 

Regarding the part in bold, can you provide an example of this by a Presidential Candidate?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm not making my own bunker. I'm just going to mooch off what you fellow's built. I will bring some whiskey and pie though. I'll even put gluten in the pies because you are just so swell.

 

I nominate boudreaumw for liberal of the year.   :yes:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Regarding your first paragraph.  The problem that you are discussing is not a legal issue, it's a social issue and has nothing to do with politics.

 

As far as your second paragraph, you need to separate the legal aspect from the social aspect.  Changing the term on a legal document does not really "appease" any certain group, and is actually more inclusive.  Again, this "fight" was about legal
rights, not social "rights".  There is no "different classification".

 

Regarding the part in bold, can you provide an example of this by a Presidential Candidate?

I am not sure how you can say it's not a legal issue when it surely is coupled with the social issue. 

 

http://time.com/3656219/2016-candidates-gay-marriage/

 

There are a myriad of statements there to varying degrees but some follow a similar thought. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If they are all ok with it then maybe they should say it rather than constantly saying it's wrong. The position is it is wrong. Yours comes from a reasonable stance, I simply do not think they share your reasonable one. Marriage is a union between two people. A commitment. Why should it be changed because some people view it as purely a religious thing? This is the part I do not understand. 

 

You don't see how the LGBT community sees changing the term used for what they have fought for as making a new class for them because the opposition opposed what they desire? I mean really? It seems like that much ought be obvious. 

---

You don't see how the LGBT community sees changing the term used for what they have fought for as making a new class for them because the opposition opposed what they desire? I mean really? It seems like that much ought be obvious. 

I can see and understand it, but in my mind at least, it's the rights that matter, not what you call them.

---