TheLeviathan

Hey, I just realized most all Christians should agree with me about there being confused reasons for marriage. Their holy book says this: Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; nI will make him a helper fit for5 him.” So there you go. Why do we have marriage: Because dammit...sandwiches don't make themselves! Edit: Ben beat me too it!

I already did. The very notion that the only definition of marriage is "for procreation" is certainly not an undisputed, universally accepted fact. Therefore, your first premise is, by definition, dubious. Romans had gay marriage. So did some areas of China. Some cultures only worried about finances, not procreation. Are you truly sticking by the idea that marriage has never existed, in any culture throughout human history, for any reason but procreation? All I need is one counter-example and I already provided a couple. What is hard to understand about why your claim is now dubious?

So...wait...you're going to argue that the "why" of marriage is based on a premise that is guaranteed of truth? You do understand that your earlier implication that you are using a deductive argument is utterly ridiculous right? Well, I'll say it again, your premise is highly dubious. You can label that definition as who, what, where, how, why, or huh for all I care. It's not any less dubious to claim that procreation is the sole, undisputed reason for marriage and has been across time and cultures. At the very face of it, a claim that broad and that definitive is going to take an extremely thorough explanation of proof. So prove it. A definition is not proof. And in case you try and circumvent backing up your claims, I'll bust your deductive nonsense with all I have to: Romans had same sex marriage. So it has not "always" been this way. (This is, of course, only one of MANY arguments that easily debunk your premise) I'd also argue that marriage was used as a way of gaining political power. Or of gaining financial advantages. Of course procreation has been PART of why marriage has existed, but the central, "principled" reason of it? That's just ridiculous. But by all means. I only need one counter example. I already gave it. Your premise is now in doubt. Ball is in your court. Unless of course you want to jargon-filled rant by Keyes, in which case, please elaborate. We don't live then. We live now. Family law creates obligations to progeny. Not marriage laws. You're utterly and completely wrong. The rest of this was an intentional sidetrack/tangent to divert from how completely erroneous your claim was. I don't even know what that means. I didn't have to check "I truly love her" on my marriage license. Here's a piece of advice - if you can't speak your point clearly, you come off as deliberately obfuscating. This question is completely unclear. As for your second point, I'd rather call all marriages a "civil union". It's a much more accurate definition regardless of the sexes being married.

There have only been two administrations with this power and the abuse of it has steadily grown through both. I concur about the future and about it being technically legal, but this same administration has been outfront reassuring us that they won't overstep with their use of these powers. They were outwardly critical of the previous administration for far less.

Well... A) I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Hornhead, who I know from BYTO and I know he will reference religion and Religion is all that's left for most people once their dubious reasoning is exposed. So why not skip the step of exposing it and just get right to the real issue for most? You're welcome to carry on your dubious reasoning though.

I rank Benghazi well below the others too, but in the context of other actions by the administration, it certainly doesn't help their cause that it it was a simple mistake. I'm referring more to the AP and IRS scandals. Both deliberate invasions of privacy and misuse of power to intimidate. Benghazi, Woodward, and others are more the smoke that indicates there is a fire, those two scandals are the fires.

So...so predictable. I almost posted in tiny print how long it would take someone to bite on that. We don't punish murder because it is a religious taboo. We punish murder because it threatens the safety of our societal bonds. Ditto stealing. That they happen to also be religious taboos has historical roots, but is far from interchangeable. I'm glad most religions agree murder is wrong (mighty nice of them, though that definition has hardly remained well followed by most all of them), but that's not why we punish it. I won't oppose laws that coincide with religious teachings, but I don't want laws based solely on them either.

It has? Across all cultures and civilizations? "Unmarried male" is not an arguable definition. Unmarried is a fact that can be proven or disproven. Ditto male. This is not the same kind of premise as - "Marriage is for procreation". I'd argue there is every bit as strong a financial transaction component to marriage historically as it is about procreation. In fact, here is a simple definition from wikipedia (I know, not the best source, but where it comes from is reputable. You can find literally thousands of similar definitions if you'd like):"A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." Goes a bit beyond procreation - no? Your Socrates argument only works because we agree on the premises. You can "explain" the definition until you're blue in the face, but no one need accept it when there is significant evidence that your definition is incomplete and, dare I say, conveniently simplistic and with a high degree of historical omissions, to help your point. Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships. Gays are living (or want to live) in stable economic partnerships and it benefits the state to have this. Check. Gays are raising children. (In many places, including Minnesota) Check. It also benefits the state, as Brock said, to allow children otherwise not being raised in stable environments more opportunities to do so. Downside? Well, it might mess with dubious definitions, but I guess I'm not too worried about that. No, guardianship/family laws do that. One need not be married to be "accountable" to the well being of their progeny. Or do you contend otherwise? If I have a baby with some woman and don't marry her....I'm scot-free on my responsibilities? In fact, a gay man who impregnates a woman is responsible to his child, even if he marries a man. I could go on about how ridiculous your notion is. You've got an awful lot of pretentiousness in your presentation for such a shallow understanding.

I'm not sure Obama realizes saying "I found out like the rest of you" is all that reassuring. Either you're lying or you are incompetent. I'm really hoping for "lying"...but that sort of reinforces who the source of this is. I doubt he'll ever get pinned as having a direct connection, but it's clear this sort of thing is being allowed/encouraged in the administration. It's scary the depths of it already.

So, yeah.....they screwed up royal huh? I mean, for all the Bush bashing (he was an idiot, no doubt) - this is a pretty impressive stream of corruption, no?

Exactly. I'm amused by the Tea Party's insistence they are still a separate entity. It's kind of cute in a pathetic sort of way.

Excellent revision.

Personally, I don't like using the law to punish religious taboos. I like using reason and fairness, which gay marriage passes the muster of both.

So you support circular reasoning? This exposition does nothing to justify one of the premises. I'll break it down: 1. Marriage is between a man and a woman by definition 2. It is that way by definition because men and women procreate 3. Since others can't procreate, they don't fit the definition Except the definition is arbitrary. there is nothing justifying that premise. Marriage exists between all sorts of people who cannot procreate (the "in principle" argument is only relevant in a hypothetical, in the real world it is a meaningless distinction) not to mention that marriage is also reinforced as a unit of financial stability. You can't just appeal to the definition as justification for not changing it. You have to support the reasoning for the definition. Considering gay couples are raising children (adoption or not) and society could benefit from encouraging stable relationships - those premises are, at the very least, very much in question. However, if you're comfortable with circular arguments - go for it.

Whatever that...thing...was that was posted earlier. You know, if you could find a word laser capable of penetrating the dense layer of dressed up jargon.

I'd just point out his OPS at the time of the trade season was closer to .950+ and he was on a tear. I'm not ruling out another summer binge by him, but last year was a career year. The question, in my mind, was always how far he'd fall off, not if he would at all. So far, his at-bats are not all the reassuring. I hope that trend changes, I think his trade value is an enormous part of our team's future. (And, for the record, I like Willingham as a player. Just wrong age and position)

Don't forget that thing called "work". Pesky thing on days like today.

Pfft, your tune will change when our loving god nukes us for having naughty fun. That'll learn ya.

didnt mean to imply I was writing him off....just how tenuous his grasp is on that level of value he had last year.

We should probably make sure our liquor laws account for raging cases of Benjamin Button disease or just throw it all out.

This thread is a good reminder that a lot of us feared Willy's decline from last year and so far it's not looking good for him to be anywhere near the value he was.

that is exactly the stadium I had in mind when I posted!

interesting. I'd love to see that analysis (this entire thread is quite excellent). I wonder if BA correlates more because it is distinguished from walks which have less propensity to cause scoring? (They enable it by not making outs, but no walk ever scored a guy from second). Just a thought as I was reading, not to be taken as gospel.

Well said, we can (and should) all agree to the first but also can still disagree on who and how much. I too share your disdain for not squirreling away resources as well - I'd be all about keeping payroll low now if it meant 5 years of 200ish budgets, but that's just not reality. i worry too tht the continued miser-like approach is going to turn away fans and exacerbate the problem further. I know it enters my thinking about where and for how much I buy tickets.

And around we go again. *double facepalm*