It would be bad because of the loss of revenue.  Losing the tradition alone wouldn't be the harm.

Either way, it's not analogous to gay marriage.  You are still married to your wife even though the definition of marriage now includes two men or two women in several states.

If the moves were somehow revenue neutral, would the loss of tradition by itself be harmful in any way to MLB?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
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.

Are you disputing that increasing coverage on 22 people to 26 people would, in turn, increase expenses?

Because, if you are, I'll be forced to ask if you can do math. 

If gay marriage (or domestic partnerships) caused problems for businesses, don't you think there would be evidence of it?

Feel free to show the evidence.

If a business makes a choice to provide coverage for spouses, and an employee takes advantage of that benefit, is the business harmed?

You seem to have forgotten the new rule.   Don't answer a question with a question.

I'll ask again.

Are you disputing that increasing coverage on 22 people to 26 people would, in turn, increase expenses?

If you say "no", that's all I need.

If you say "yes", I'll need to you do some basic math for me. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):
If the moves were somehow revenue neutral, would the loss of tradition by itself be harmful in any way to MLB?

It's not a valid analogy.

Your marriage, my marriage, John and Jane Smith's marriage is staying exactly the same.

The Yankees and the Red Sox are now only going to play each other one or two series a year.  That's a material change to their relationship.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/5/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):
If the moves were somehow revenue neutral, would the loss of tradition by itself be harmful in any way to MLB?

It's not a valid analogy.

Your marriage, my marriage, John and Jane Smith's marriage is staying exactly the same.

The Yankees and the Red Sox are now only going to play each other one or two series a year.  That's a material change to their relationship.

It's a yes or no question.

Please answer.

Ok, no.  If revenue neutral it wouldn't harm MLB.

Does John and Bill being married in upstate New York harm your marriage?

So the virtual elimination of the 80+ year tradition of the Yankees / Red Sox rivalry would not have any negative impact on MLB?  There is no intangible value to that tradition in Major League Baseball?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2012 2:52:00 PM (view original):
So the virtual elimination of the 80+ year tradition of the Yankees / Red Sox rivalry would not have any negative impact on MLB?  There is no intangible value to that tradition in Major League Baseball?

You didn't answer my question.

Does John and Bill getting married in upstate New York harm your marriage?

The rule doesn't just apply to my questions. 

Directly and specifically, no.  To the institution of marriage, in the traditional definition over thousands of years of human culture and social norms, yes it does.  It turns it into something that it has never been, nor ever intended to be.

Now please answer my question.

If it doesn't specifically harm marriage, what interest do you have in stopping it? Change alone isn't evidence of harm.

Regarding MLB, the only tangible benefit is revenue related. More people watching equals more revenue. More interest equals revenue. Higher attendance equals revenue. Take revenue away and the tradition doesn't matter.

Speaking of harming institutions, I'm in Boise airport right now, and I'm looking at a hillbilly couple that (if they are married) is BAD for the institution of marriage.    It's also BAD for the institution of my digestion of lunch.