commentaries

Exactly! Marriage should stay between one man and one woman.

I'll remember never to use this attorney's services. I wouldn't want someone with such a poor grasp of logic to represent my interests.

Blah, blah, blah. This debate is SO tiring. Can we please focus on real issues?

Mr. Balling mis-frames the question. The pertinent question is not whether there will be same-sex couples. Those couples have existed, do exist, and will exist in the future. The pertinent question is how the government of the State of Minnesota will interact with those couples. Will we incorporate them into the existing legal framework--marriage--or will we push them into a non-recognized non-status? It seems to me that incorporating as many couples as possible into our current framework would demonstrate a commitment to recognizing and preserving couples, rather than the facile claims of Mr. Balling that it would weaken the commitment to the framework.

Craziest opinion I've read on the subject. Cause and effect sadly missing in his argument.

I know many GLBT two-parent families who are providing an amazing, loving and nurturing environment for the children they are raising, as wells as many single parent families both hetero and GLBT who are doing the same. Get to know these families as human beings and I believe you would change your perspective on this issue. that is, if you truly care about families and children more than you do your ideology.

The "traditional" concept of family that you are arguing as a priori to heterosexual, monogamous marriage is a blip in history. Biblically, fathers had many wives and could kill their children practically on a whim. Upperclass parents have historically farmed their children out and the working poor have been forced to do the same. Your idyllic representation of family is valid only for a narrow subset in time and demographics. I agree with the poster that your grasp of argument and logic are not those I would want representing me.

Mr. Balling, do they offer classes in logic and reasoning in law school? Did they teach you about the difference between opinion and fact? I could on a bit but basically if it was offered, you should have taken the classes. I don't know what branch of law you are in, but sweeping generalizations without substantiation does not enter in to any branch of law I know of, albeit I am not an attorney. Your argument does not stand. It does not even make sense in some areas.

And, I forgot to add, the conclusion that marriage between loving partners is a ruse to "move [children] away from a safe environment" is totally unmerited and offensive.

Quite frankly, I don't know anyone who gives a rat's rear what two people do with each oyher. But, why must a normal relationship lose all of it's meaning just because a small subset of the population wishes to call something that is clearly not 'marriage" the word "marriage" ? It is not logical, it is nonsensical, and it is NOT the same thing. Why norm something that by the definition of "normal" is not? your same sex relationship is your business, but it cannot be a "marriage" by definition. Same sex relationships are by definition "abnormal". They are outside the usual and customary human relationship curve, hence the word "abnormal". have a nice day.