Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):
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.

No.  The business only needs to change it's benefits plan if it doesn't want to provide the benefits it has chosen to offer.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):

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?

Does allowing gay marriage change your marital status?

No.

Ok.  Your analogy sucks.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married.

At the end of the day, you refuse to acknowledge this is a false statement.

Some of us have pointed out financial aspects. 
tec has pointed out the traditional aspect.

You repeat "Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married" over and over again without acknowledging that businesses could feel some financial harm or pass the additional costs on to other employees.    Then you repeat "Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married" again without acknowledging that if affects the traditional components of marriage.

One could get a better argument from a rock simply because the rock MIGHT acknowledge that more than two people are affected by SSM.

Person A and Person B get married.

Person C and Person D get married.

Both B and D get added to their spouses' benefits at work.

Which one harmed the business?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):

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?

Does allowing gay marriage change your marital status?

No.

Ok.  Your analogy sucks.

You are avoiding answering the question.  Good for MLB?  Bad for MLB?  Or just indifferent for MLB?

That would be bad for MLB because it costs the league and teams revenue.

Yeah, I'm bored with you.   Next time you answer a question with a question, I'm gonna redline it.   

Deal?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
That would be bad for MLB because it costs the league and teams revenue.

And why is that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married.

At the end of the day, you refuse to acknowledge this is a false statement.

Some of us have pointed out financial aspects. 
tec has pointed out the traditional aspect.

You repeat "Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married" over and over again without acknowledging that businesses could feel some financial harm or pass the additional costs on to other employees.    Then you repeat "Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married" again without acknowledging that if affects the traditional components of marriage.

One could get a better argument from a rock simply because the rock MIGHT acknowledge that more than two people are affected by SSM.

You didn't ask a question.

Person A and Person B get married.

Person C and Person D get married.

B and D get added to their spouses' benefit plans.

Which one hurt the business?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
That would be bad for MLB because it costs the league and teams revenue.

And why is that?

Because Yankee Red Sox games sell out and generate high TV ratings.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/4/2012 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married.

At the end of the day, you refuse to acknowledge this is a false statement.

Some of us have pointed out financial aspects. 
tec has pointed out the traditional aspect.

You repeat "Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married" over and over again without acknowledging that businesses could feel some financial harm or pass the additional costs on to other employees.    Then you repeat "Gay marriage affects no one but the gay couple getting married" again without acknowledging that if affects the traditional components of marriage.

One could get a better argument from a rock simply because the rock MIGHT acknowledge that more than two people are affected by SSM.

You didn't ask a question.

Person A and Person B get married.

Person C and Person D get married.

B and D get added to their spouses' benefit plans.

Which one hurt the business?

I wasn't referring to this post.

The gay couple.  Simply because they weren't eligible until the marriage laws were changed to accomodate them.

Get it?

No, I don't.

Which couple is gay? A& B or C&D?

Mike - seven states plus DC allow gay marriage.  Another 15 or so allow domestic partnerships/civil unions that grant benefits to same sex couples.

Your hypothesis is that allowing gay marriage is harmful to business that provide benefits to spouses.

There are over 20 states to draw data from.  Please show some evidence to back up your hypothesis.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):
That would be bad for MLB because it costs the league and teams revenue.

And why is that?

Because Yankee Red Sox games sell out and generate high TV ratings.

And why is that?

Tradition.