Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
You don't consider it the same, neither do the same sex couples that want to get married.

So people should be able to **** in the face of tradition just because they want to?

What "benefit" do they get from being married as opposed to being involved in a legal domestic partnership that provides all the exact same financial benefits that marriage provides?

They desperately want to be included in that tradition.  How is that "****[ing] in the face of tradition?"

What benefit do you get from being married that you also couldn't get from being in a domestic partnership?

None, other than the ability to participate in a traditional family unit, which consists of a legally married man/husband/father, woman/wife/mother, and zero or more children.

Are you now going to try to convince me that there's something wrong with traditional families being headed by a mommy and daddy who are married to each other?

No.  My point is that marriage means more to you than a domestic partnership.  It does to same sex couples also.  In the seven states where gay marriage is allowed, same sex couples are choosing to marry instead of opting for a domestic partnership.  It obviously means something to them to solidify their commitment to each other in a marriage.

Just because somebody would prefer one thing over the other, does that mean they should be entitled to get it?

Where does this sense of entitlement come from in gay couples who wish to redefine an traditional institution that has been deeply rooted throughout thousands of years of human civilization?

No, but in this case, there is no harm in allowing same sex couples to participate in the tradition.  

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):
No, but in this case, there is no harm in allowing same sex couples to participate in the tradition.  

I just listed a shitload of "harm" that allowing same sex couples to marry would cause ANY ******* BUSINESS.

And if it's bad for businesses, it's bad for the economy.

That's not harm caused by allowing same sex marriage.  That's harm that caused by paying for benefits to all married couples.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):
No, but in this case, there is no harm in allowing same sex couples to participate in the tradition.  

The "harm" is that the traditional definition has been thrown away and replaced by something very non-traditional. 

You do understand what tradition is, don't you?

Will straight couples no longer be allowed to marry?

Let me make an analogy for you.

Let's say that next week, Bud Selig decides that in addition to the Houston Astros moving the AL starting in 2013, that the Miami Marlins would be better suited in the AL East.  And in order to make room for them, he was going to move the Boston Red Sox to the NL East.  Thus breaking up what has been one of the most traditional rivalries in all of sports, that between the Yankees and the Red Sox.

Would the Yankees still be playing 162 games in 2013 and every year going forward?  Would the Red Sox still be playing 162 games in 2013 and every year going forward?

Is there any harm in breaking this tradition?  Is it good for baseball?

Here's another one for you:

Let's say the people who run Augusta National Golf Course and the PGA decide to move the Masters Tournament to mid-July.  And kids are invited to play alongside the pros.  And instead of awarding a Green Jacket to the winner of the tournament at the end, they instead award the winner a $50 gift card to Wal-Mart.

The best golfers in the world are still able to play at Augusta national and compete for one of the golf majors.  So what's the harm in redefining these traditions?  Would these be good moves by Augusta National and the PGA?

That is a terrible analogy.  That is ending the tradition between the Yankees and the Red Sox.  

You are still married, correct?  Your marriage is still special to you, correct?  All of the history and sentiment and commitment that you share with your wife is still present, correct?  Marriage still includes straight couples, correct?  It still includes all of the love and commitment and everything else that goes along with being married for them, correct?

All those things are still there and gay people are getting married at this very moment.

The tradition isn't being thrown away.  We are just including more people in the tradition.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Spousal benefits isn't last in a long, long line of expenses that need to be accounted for by small businesses.    But I'm sure you don't know that. 

As I said, you don't get to decide what's important for everyone.  Yes, you may be a big supporter of SSM.   But that support doesn't allow you to run every business in the world that could/would be affected by it. 

I didn't say that.  I said gay marriage was last.  The business gets to choose what benefits it offers.  If offering spousal benefits is endangering the survival of the business, then maybe the business needs to reconsider the benefits it offers.  This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You don't get to decide what benefits every business offers.

SSM opens up another potential expense for current and future employees.   Such things can be problematic for small businesses.

But I'm sure you don't understand this.

I'm not deciding what benefits the business offers.  THE BUSINESS IS.

If a business doesn't want to pay for spousal benefits, it doesn't have to.

You're telling me that businesses need to change their benefit options so SSM can occur.

Sounds like you're deciding how businesses should handle their finances.

You don't get to decide that for every business.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):
That is a terrible analogy.  That is ending the tradition between the Yankees and the Red Sox.  

You are still married, correct?  Your marriage is still special to you, correct?  All of the history and sentiment and commitment that you share with your wife is still present, correct?  Marriage still includes straight couples, correct?  It still includes all of the love and commitment and everything else that goes along with being married for them, correct?

All those things are still there and gay people are getting married at this very moment.

The tradition isn't being thrown away.  We are just including more people in the tradition.

It's not ending the tradition.  They can still play each other in interleague play every couple of seasons.  Maybe even a three or four game series every season as "natural rivals".  And there's always the chance that they'll face each other in the World Series.

The tradition has just been redefined.

So is that good for MLB, or bad for MLB?