(ACTUAL newspaper commentary) Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage

[alp227]

In an era when the newspaper is becoming obsolete, you can tell that newspaper editors are desperate to sell more papers or get more web traffic when they publish stupid tripe like this (specifically this is the Minneapolis Star-Tribune) commentary by local patent attorney Riley Balling "Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage". I found this via the "Seriously, America?" tumblr, which has a great debunking of Balling's stupid anti-same-sex marriage arguments. One of them:

In contrast, there are many who have not disassociated sex and children, and for reasons both secular and religious have incorporated heterosexual relationships into their identity. These people have generally been trying to live up to the ideal that marriage was established millennia ago to promote the raising of children in safe environments supported by their biological parents.

Wait, what? Sex can lead to children? Let’s start with that one. You are right, Mr./Ms. Conservative (for starters, I don’t even know what sex you are), that sex does lead to children. We have known this for a long time. However, have you, perhaps, noticed that sex is also enjoyable? I love sex. But if I had a child for every time I’d had sex, I..I…ohgodohgodohgodohgod….what a terrible nightmare. For so many reasons, one being I’m not ready for kids, another being I can’t afford to raise that many in a way I’d want to, another that I might actually want to stop having orgasms…I mean, I’m a straight/cis female with a relatively stable male partner. But…hell, no. Not now.

Let’s move on to her other jab – something about how people “for reasons both secular and religious” have chosen to make being heterosexual part of who they are. Um. For real? You know what? I’m going to make being a lesbian part of my identity. OK, that was easy. Oh, wait, I can’t do that? Right, I can’t do that – I’m decidedly straight and don’t have much interest in having sexual or romantic relationships with other women (except that one time in college). Goes both ways!

Atheist blogger and Univ. of Minnesota-Morris biology prof PZ Myers also rips apart this trash and points out that Balling graduated from the LDS-run Brigham Young University.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. And heeeere's Mr. Balling [snort]

He just would have to fit my mental picture, wouldn't he?

[Raster]

5. I suspect his magic underwear is just a tad too tight!

Gawd, I am sick to fucking death of religious bigots forcing their superstitions upon the rest of us.

If you don't like same-sex marriage, THEN DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX!

Stop using your so-called "morals" to justify your prejudice.

[Ikonoklast]

7. That guy doesn't have to worry about sex.

[Brickbat]

2. The Strib also just ran this. Which is pretty good.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171613531.html?refer=y

Finally -- get a load of this -- voting yes will not stop gay couples from getting married. Wait, what?? How can that be? Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but gay couples have been walking down the aisle, saying "I will," wearing rings, cutting cake and going on honeymoons for years -- right here in Minnesota. Many pastors and priests will marry a gay couple -- after decent premarital counseling, of course. Jane can still refer to her "wife" and Steve can still gripe about his "husband" and, unless we want to set up a Nazi-like state, where we control how people speak in public, that isn't going to change, either.

Well, gosh, if a yes vote won't stop any of those things, what will it actually accomplish? From a practical standpoint, absolutely nothing: Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota -- meaning that the state doesn't recognize a family when it sees one.

So, why have we spent all the time and money to place the question on the ballot this November? Well, the stated reason is to protect marriage from the scary, deviant gays who will surely do something terrible to the institution by, well, honoring it.

The real reason it's on the ballot is to create an issue that will excite and encourage social conservatives to come to the voting booths this November and vote against Democrats. This is right out of the Karl Rove and ALEC playbook: make 'em scared, make 'em mad, make 'em vote.

So, let's summarize: If you vote yes on the marriage amendment, gays will still be here. They will still have relationships. They will still have ceremonies, pledging to love and honor one another, and will still adopt, bear and raise children together -- as a family. That horse, you should have noticed by now, has already left the barn, jumped the gate, run down the road -- and is looking fabulous.

Here, then, is what a yes vote will do: It will make sure that these families can never share health insurance. Or have guaranteed hospital visitation rights. Or allow their estates to automatically go to one another in case of death. Or buy a family fishing license. Or a joint college savings account. The list goes on.

[MNBrewer]

3. And here's MN Viking football player, Chris Kluwe's response

http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbounds/2012/09/28/out-of-bounds-blog-no-13-dear-mr-balling/?fb_action_ids=436649839714965&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

[CurtEastPoint]

4. I think I am in love!

[Downwinder]

6. Wonder how he considers childless marriages?

Or marriage after menopause?