Things I love: The accompanying photo shows a man with the weight of children literally crushing him down in one spot.

Yeah, that's quite the little poll there. You can tell it's real and not at all a method of soliciting for donations because right after you vote NO they give you a running total of how far NO is ahead of YES and when and how they will release the final unbiased results.

(null AT bitbucket DOT com works just fine as an e-mail addy and they don't really care whether you include name and ZIP, though they'll take them if you're stupid enough to do so, which of course means you voted YES.)

Well, I just voted "No," since I was raised by a single mom after my dad up and died and I think I turned out okay. Man, the length guys will go to to avoid raising their children.

Anonytroll gonna troll anony.

Ah, so children need to be raised by BOTH their BIOLOGICAL parents, otherwise it's not as good a fit. I suppose that's why we consider children raised by one bio parent and one step-parent to be adopted, and see higher rates of delinquency etc. among them.
OH WAIT.

Well, some folks who live in Minnesota must be afraid of all the gay marriage in Iowa somehow sucking the life out of their own marriages, since the states share a border and all. Because teh gay spreads by social contact.

I rather wished I lived in Bachman's district so that I could vote against her...

If I read that website correctly, all children born are female.

Right, because allowing gays in committed relationships to marry REALLY *discourages* straight men & women from marrying. *eyeroll*

Bleah. I need to have an extra-tasty drink to get this bad taste out of my mouth.

From the "Minnesota for Marriage" site:

"Contrary to what some people think, so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ would not exist in the law alongside traditional marriage, as if it were a different expression of the same marriage institution they have always known. Marriage will be redefined for everyone. Our historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman would be replaced by a new legal definition of marriage as the union of two adults regardless of gender."

Yes. That is partly correct. But marriage has changed already so much throughout time.

Has it occurred to these ppl & NOM that part of the reason fewer young people are marrying is their vexation & disgust over fighting about marriage & what it is/means?

I've been one of the people questioning the necessity of the "Every Child.." Slog posts, in terms of their effectiveness. But I get the point.

These same right wingers do eveything they can to deny families decent wages and healthcare. But we're supposed to believe that this is about children and not about their hate LGBT people??? Fucking liars.

@11- Gay marriage discourages "straight" people from marrying heterosexually because they have the option of following their actual romantic feelings rather than living a lie like religious conservatives believe they should.

I think children really need a father and at least three mothers

@15 - Oh... I thought that MfM statement meant that the mother will "almost always" be nearby for the birth of the child. I was trying to figure out where else they expected her to be while the child is being born...

Every child needs at least one parent, plus aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents if they are still alive and not backwards conservative assholes, good teachers, their parents coolest friends, and neighborhoods where people actually acknowledge each others existence.
In other words, it takes a village. The nuclear family is a joke!

Marriage is good for society because the nuclear family is the foundation of our society--some societies are clan-based or extended-based, and we're not. When people marry, they become more likely to settle down, raise children, establish households, learn their neighbors' names, put down roots.

This, of course, is why it's so important to allow gays to marry as well. It will make our society more stable.

But yes, I am under the impression that there are fewer deadbeat moms than deadbeat dads and the thought that we're moving toward a society in which men have less and less responsibility does bother me. Yes, I think a ring does make it a touch harder for a man to abandon his children and family responsibilities. However, the psychology of gender is a separate question from whether gays should be allowed to marry.

@DRF, divorce statistics would seem to belie the ring in the finger as a reminder of one's duties as a father.

I don't think it's marriage that makes men more, or less, responsible. I think it's more our culture's fascination with adolescents and the young, which encourages people (men included) to prolong their childhood (read: irresponsibility) as long as they can. I also don't think it's a ring or a piece of paper that makes people realize they have responsibility, but the actual feeling of holding one's newborn child in one's hand and realizing this little, defenseless being is not going to survive without our help. Family is more important than marriage.

Without children, marriage is totally unviable. No purpose to it at all. Which probably explains why my childless wife and self have been only married a mere 30 years.

Dan,

I am with you 100% on marriage equality and on the stunning illogic of the opposition. However, I don't see how that relates to the "Every child needs..." posts. I get the ostensible connection, but I don't buy it. The people on SLOG are, almost to a one, on board with marriage equality. Judging from the comments your "Every child needs..." posts garner, your audience also is fully aware of the miserable thing some straight parents do to their children.

I suspect that those who oppose marriage equality also know that straight people (even the married ones!) sometimes do terrible things to their children. Highlighting that is not going to change minds or hearts. These folks need to be reminded that marriage equality does not take anything away from straight couples--Go! Get married! Have kids! Be happy!--while adding stability and protection to the lives of gay and lesbian people and their families. Win-win. And they need to SEE gay and lesbian families in their midst to see that (a) their own marriages did not implode at the sight of a happy same-gender couple with kids and (b) these people aren't family-hating, society-destroying lunatics.

Yes, it's an unfair burden on LGBT families to have to be living examples, but it works so WELL in getting people to flip on this issue! What people who are almost automatically, unthinkingly, anti-equality need--in their own papers and TV newscasts more than in SLOG--is more coverage of happy, healthy kids raised by gay parents, as well as stories about gay couples who are going to work, weeding their yards, fixing their cars, you know... living their responsible lives. This is what gets them over the fence. Stories about rotten straight parents? Probably not.

But, but, but... didn't teh gays destroy Amy Koch's marriage????

One difference between social liberals and conservatives is that the cons fear the things they haven't seen (scary scary gay sex) while the libs fear the things they have seen (scary scary redneck parents).

This is similar to the arguments about gay marriage. They don't want gays getting married because it's unfamiliar and they don't know how to exert their adolescent social control over it (shaming, gossiping, alimony, impeachment). The fact that terrible behavior is rampant and glaringly problematic in hetero marriage isnt an issue, because it's familiar and Jesus is ok with it.

Flyover Country, it's almost tolerable from 37,000 feet up. Or at least it used to be.

"Do you think children need two different-binary-gender parents? Wait, wait, let me frame it for you by telling you the right answer first!"

Wait, is NOM pro-choice and pro-access/-reproductive-justice? If every child should be born to loving, married M/F parents, doesn't it follow that unmarried women who become pregnant should have unfettered access to services to end the pregnancy?

"Straight women, who are usually nearby during birth, don't need to be encouraged to take responsibility for their children."

Just wanted to add that Gay Women are usually nearby for their children's births also; it's not just a straight girl thing.... As are gay dad's and a hundred other compilations that makes families, well, families. Physical presence at birth is awesome, but no where close to mandatory.

And to poster of comment 22; you flippin ROCK. Admire and appreciate your articulateness. way to say what i've tried and failed at for years...loved the post.

I'm stuck on the unintentional message here: children ONLY need two people.

Uh.....

Children need parents for sure, but everyone I know that had grandparents had a deep connection with them. Also, I have a deep connection with my godmother.

Children need a safe world to explore. They need clean streets, things to do and a little bit of trouble to get into. Having two married parents is, like, the least part of the greater issue, IMO.