Ultima Ratio

Are you against murder, theft, adultery (maybe not actually) and so on? Be careful, they're all religious taboos. Does your hate of religion go so deep as to religiously disagree with anything "they" support, because, ya know... it's religious and stuff? BTW, thanks for bringing religion into this now.... out of nowhere as it was not used before in anything I've argued nor elsewhere. I know, you've got to make it about religious oppression -- easier to demagogue.

Levi, The definition of the institution of marriage has stood for over 4000 years. If that's merely arbitrary then every word is arbitrary since. Hence the living and breathing approach to language now, or what I am glad to call the disrespect and ruinous attitude toward language. You would do well to look up the difference between an explanation and an argument. You've given an explanation. Socrates is a man. Men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is an argument, but given your understanding above, you'd think this is circular, and so every deductive argument would then beg the question. Another example: 1. Bob is an unmarried male 2. A bachelor is an unmarried male 3. Therefore, Bob is a bachelor. Another perfectly fine argument that is sound, not circular in reasoning or any other fallacy. That's a lot to correct something almost irrelevant but perhaps worth it. Why don't you tell us why the definition should change? Why do you think the institution was in place from the beginning and has lasted since time immemorial? You and others act like it was just dreamed up recently in order to discriminate. The institution of marriage holds a mother and father accountable to each other and to provide for the well-being of any progeny from that relationship, regardless whether the relationship is or continues to be amorous or not. Since there can be no progeny from the amorous relationship of two males and two females, the institution/contract of marriage does not apply. Now that's why the definition is what it is. Until the recent undefining of marriage, a brother couldn't marry a brother, nor marry his sister. It's clear that the reason it was unlawful to marry his sister was because of the deleterious genetic effects. But if that remains the only reason/case to not allow close relatives to marry (with the natural end being procreation), and since two gay male cousins' love cannot result in children, then by this new definition (whatever it is isn't even clear today), they should be allowed to marry. Brock is ok with that and with plural marriage, but says traditionalists are "without a conscience." Good grief.

The foregoing confirms my suspicion that support (on this board at least) for un/redefining marriage is not one of principle but of emotion. If anyone is interested in a principled argument, you can view this video as expository of the thinking I support. [video=youtube;qlgkDCZI1CQ] I'll leave it at that because I don't think any posters here are genuinely interested in the arguments, are not open to changing their minds, and the conversation will (and has) quickly erode into mush.

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.

Relax

Sorry to hear that. This game is now rotten.

I know that now this will appear insincere, but I couldn't believe KC went out to begin the 8th at all with his pitch count... and that it was a tie game in the 8th and all. Another poor managing decision.

You purchased the WIFI?

Plouffsie!

Dunn called out, but clearly safe on grounder hit to Dozier playing in shallow RF with the shift -- Glunn. Now, Hammer leads off with a crushed double off the r/cf wall.

Horrible call. Geezo

To each his own and everything, but yuck.

How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

Ball game. Yes sir.

* while trouncing the sox?

All cilinders firing!

Hammer is the only one without a hit, but he'll get his chance again. He needs to come through and get out of his slump.

Good hustle Arcia, too many batters would jog to first and let up.

Unless he went on contact, which he wasn't, then Dunn would have had him (with a good throw). Sucks anyway. But nice to see Morneau with a two bagger.

Hicks x2!

Play of the year, right there. Wow!

I'd like to point out that we are on to something.

I would just like to point out that we are outhitting our opponent -- a rarity, even when we win.

Good on you RB, new game and still threatening. And give Plouffe the green light.