Minn. Editorial: "Why SSM Affects My Marriage - Think About the Children, Again?"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    Approaching the Marriage Amendment vote in Minnesota, another attorney swings and misses on the long-laughed out "children" angle. Allowing marriage equality "disestablishes" an ideal environment for child rearing... or something. Are attorneys even watching this argument getting smacked down in court after court?

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613511.html

    Riley Bawling, editorial via Minneapolis Star TribuneSadly, we [straight married couples] don't always live up to this ideal, and most have experienced the trauma caused by a breaking family. However, we know of marriages that practically achieve the ideal, and we see the happiness that children find in a supportive family structure. Even though some traditional families are breaking, it doesn't mean the ideal of traditional marriage is broken.

    Many studies show that single parents struggle to provide the safe environment provided by a two-biological-parent home. Bless the single parents who try, but there is a direct correlation between single homes and crimes of all types. If anything, the effects of broken homes indicate the importance of reestablishing the ideal of traditional marriage.

    Same-sex marriage falls short of producing safe environments for children because it, at the very least, reinforces changes to the marital definition. Historically, before the sexual revolution, society's definition of marriage was focused on the raising and bearing of children. A man married a woman; they had children, and did practically everything around the raising of those children. The interests of a parent became tertiary to the interests of their children and their spouse.

    Currently, as a society, we have wavered from this traditional motivation, and many, not all, view marriage as a venue for self-fulfillment. This modern view is directly culpable for the rise in broken homes and its resulting negative effects. Because same-sex marriage is made possible by this modern view of marriage, if we make same-sex marriage equivalent to traditional marriage, we only more firmly impart to future generations that marriage is about personal fulfillment. The cementing of the modern view will only continue its destruction of safe environments for future generations.

    For many of us who favor traditional marriage, marriage is about raising children in a healthy environment. Thus, any change to the definition of marriage affects our marriage. Our "traditional" marriages and the children they produce are our greatest source of happiness, and we desire that our children will live in a world that will promote their ability to make the same choices that brought us happiness.

    There are many who tout the modern definition, and we are susceptible to these influences. As we listen to these influences, we change our view of marriage and our marital relationship accordingly. Same-sex marriage will only increase these influences and make it harder to promote traditional marriage.

    Although not all are able to participate in a traditional marriage that yields children, we all benefit by its establishment in creating strong homes for the next generation with strong direction from self-sacrificing parents. The disestablishment of this ideal affects us all.


    swiiiiiiiiiiiiing batta batta batta swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 5:26 PM GMT
    http://fogglaw.com/professionals/riley-s-balling

    Contact Riley
    (952) 465-0768 | Balling@fogglaw.com

    Main 952-465-0770
    Fax 952-465-0771
    info@fogglaw.com

    riley_0.jpg
    What's wrong with his lips? Is that from eating pussy?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 5:54 PM GMT
    Oh how I look forward to voting no on these dumb ass amendments!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 28, 2012 6:31 PM GMT
    S34n05 saidOh how I look forward to voting no on these dumb ass amendments!


    +1

    My friend just picked up a "vote no" sign to put in my front yard.icon_smile.gif
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 28, 2012 6:38 PM GMT
    Clearly an Obama voter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 6:40 PM GMT
    First and foremost, I fundamentally disagree with the author on the effects of the marriage ban amendment on his family - only the relationship between him and his wife will determine the impacts of their marriage on themselves and their children PERIOD

    I do agree with the author's opinion, and the studies he cites, that children raised in single-parent households are, statistically speaking, at a disadvantage to those raised in two-parent households. We are not, however, talking about single-parent households; we are talking about two-parent households, making 2/3 of this piece irrelevant.

    End. of. discussion.
  • Jonno11

    Posts: 181

    Sep 28, 2012 6:47 PM GMT
    "...if we make same-sex marriage equivalent to traditional marriage, we only more firmly impart to future generations that marriage is about personal fulfillment."

    "Our "traditional" marriages and the children they produce are our greatest source of happiness, and we desire that our children will live in a world that will promote their ability to make the same choices that brought us happiness."


    Say what about personal fulfillment?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 7:15 PM GMT
    Is the author high? So one lesbian mom is better off struggling than 2 lesbian moms? This guy has no idea what he is talking about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 7:47 PM GMT
    running11 said
    I do agree with the author's opinion, and the studies he cites, that children raised in single-parent households are, statistically speaking, at a disadvantage to those raised in two-parent households. We are not, however, talking about single-parent households; we are talking about two-parent households, making 2/3 of this piece irrelevant. End. of. discussion.


    However, is there a true correlation between single parented children later committing crimes or does that have more to do with the fact that most single parent households are less advantaged. In other words, it may be that the cause of this crime is not because the children were raised by a single parent but because they were raised in a less advantaged household.
  • stratavos

    Posts: 1831

    Sep 28, 2012 7:52 PM GMT
    Gym_bull saidIs the author high? So one lesbian mom is better off struggling than 2 lesbian moms? This guy has no idea what he is talking about.


    *nod* the person speaking only has 1/3rd of a point. Generally this is a loss, and a waste of air.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    alexander7 said
    running11 said
    I do agree with the author's opinion, and the studies he cites, that children raised in single-parent households are, statistically speaking, at a disadvantage to those raised in two-parent households. We are not, however, talking about single-parent households; we are talking about two-parent households, making 2/3 of this piece irrelevant. End. of. discussion.


    However, is there a true correlation between single parented children later committing crimes or does that have more to do with the fact that most single parent households are less advantaged. In other words, it may be that the cause of this crime is not because the children were raised by a single parent but because they were raised in a less advantaged household.


    Running is spot on re: single parent v two dads.

    Per your question on advantaged households, I don't know the reliability of the study but I've seen it cited numerously:

    http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/a/fatherless_children.htm
    ""Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant." (Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University cited in "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.)

    Suicide. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? - see link below)

    Behavioral Disorders. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? - see link below)
    "

    Etc.

    But as Running correctly notes a single parent is not two dads, nor is a single parent two lesbians. So the argument, of course, is horseshit even if a single heterosexual parent can't seem to keep her kid out of jail.

    See what happens when a kid tries to cross his two lesbian moms, like their gonna put up with that shit. That kid's gonna do what he's told.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 28, 2012 8:31 PM GMT
    Gym_bull saidIs the author high? So one lesbian mom is better off struggling than 2 lesbian moms? This guy has no idea what he is talking about.


    You're giving a bad name to people who get high. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 9:04 PM GMT
    One of the routine fallacies these guys get away with is the "trust me, there's plenty of studies out there that back up what I say!" I got more direct info in this RJ thread with a scientific basis than Bawling offered in his sprawling editorial (as in, at least one by antijock, to NONE by the attorney). And of course the studies bear no correlation to the sexuality of the parent(s), as the attorney seems to want to pretend exists.

    He doesn't have to cite the studies, and he doesn't have to acknowledge whether such studied were peer-reviewed by unbiased peers, or otherwise by zealots and crackpots. Just start with, "Many studies show..." then say whatever the heck you want.

    I insist that if this whole thing is really just about "marriage = vehicle for procreation" for the pearl-clutchers, then they need to be crusading first about eliminating divorce and making marriage licensers responsible for verifying the virility of the male and fertility of the female in the hetero relationships before issuing any licenses. Of course, we know that's not what this is about. "Children" are nothing more than a shield to these folks to justify continued suppression.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 9:07 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidClearly an Obama voter.


    Maybe he'll "evolve," too! Looks like he's got a little more catching up to do!

    apato2.jpg

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 9:08 PM GMT
    Jonno11 said"...if we make same-sex marriage equivalent to traditional marriage, we only more firmly impart to future generations that marriage is about personal fulfillment."

    "Our "traditional" marriages and the children they produce are our greatest source of happiness, and we desire that our children will live in a world that will promote their ability to make the same choices that brought us happiness."


    Say what about personal fulfillment?icon_rolleyes.gif


    **APPLAUSE**
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 9:13 PM GMT
    Why are these stupid contributions to gay discrimination even discussed on here? I'd rather talk about what the Minnesotans do to beat this? This has a pretty good chance of passing, stupidity be damned.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 28, 2012 9:25 PM GMT
    bhp91126 saidWhy are these stupid contributions to gay discrimination even discussed on here? I'd rather talk about what the Minnesotans do to beat this? This has a pretty good chance of passing, stupidity be damned.


    We GLITTER BOMB Catholic churches.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 9:36 PM GMT
    bhp91126 saidWhy are these stupid contributions to gay discrimination even discussed on here? I'd rather talk about what the Minnesotans do to beat this? This has a pretty good chance of passing, stupidity be damned.


    Great idea! Start posting threads. GO!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2012 11:12 PM GMT
    He does it again, y'all. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a response from Mr. Chris Kluwe.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/29/1137907/-NFL-punter-Chris-Kluwe-does-it-AGAIN-Awesome-must-read-response-to-homophobe

    http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbounds/2012/09/28/out-of-bounds-blog-no-13-dear-mr-balling/

    Chris KluweI read your opinion piece in today’s Star Tribune, and I would like to take a brief moment of time to offer you some assistance in your future writing endeavors. I can only assume that you’ve never been trained in classical logic, debate techniques, or basic empathy, so I will humbly offer my own meager knowledge in these fields as it relates to your literary masterpiece “Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage”.

    You start off strong, with an opening salvo ostensibly promoting the rights of other groups to have their own views (if we ignore the fear-mongering tag line “The goal is to move society — in this case, away from a safe environment for children), but then, much like a Michael Bay plot, your argument starts careening off the rails. Your first mistake is what we would consider “mind projection fallacy” – where one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.

    ....

    When you state that “As we have seen, and understandably so, people in homosexual relationships are trying to change society to more readily embrace and promote their view of their identity. This is possible largely due to the disassociation between sexual relationships and procreation.”, what you’re really saying is “Those gay people do sex things that I find icky, and we should oppress them because they can’t have babies.” You completely ignore the fact that “people in homosexual relationships are trying to change society” not just because they want to have teh buttsecks (or rise and grind for the ladies), but also to avoid, oh I don’t know, things like being tortured and tied to a fencepost until you die (Matthew Shepard), shot to death while attending school (Lawrence King), shot to death for being transgender (Moses King), committing suicide by hanging due to repeated bullying and taunting (Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover), shot to death and burned while standing military guard (Seaman August Provost), stabbed to death after serving in the Vietnam War (James Zappalorti) – every single one of these attacks because of the victim’s sexuality.

    ....

    Which version of “traditional marriage” would you like to use Mr. Balling? Should we go back to ancient Israel and practice polygamy, with a woman’s only right that to own her own tent?

    ....

    Your third logical fallacy, and oh boy does this one crop up all the time, is that of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Now I’m guessing you may not be up to date on your Latin (or maybe you are, in which case well done!), so if you need help, I’d like to ask the entire class to say it along with me.

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

    ....

    When it comes to “the children”, I can assure you that I am thinking of my children, and not just my children, but all the children they will come in contact with, and all the adults they will someday be; and it is my sincerest wish as a parent that I can raise them to be tolerant, to respect the free will of others, and above all, to see beneath the smug bigotry and oppression of those who would enslave the world to satisfy their own ugly lust for control. If you have any children, it is my hope that they enjoy a peaceful life, one free of tyranny.


    "Mama, Please Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Vikings..."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2012 11:47 PM GMT
    "Riley received his bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Brigham Young University and his master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Utah, concentrating in Signal Processing. Riley received his law degree from Brigham Young University"

    So is it that the scumbag couldn't think his way out of a paper bag if his life depended upon it, which makes him just an idiot, or did he know his arguments were completely faulty, which just makes him evil?