I would argue that the Shakers are a prime example of this statement — not a counter example at all: what was once a thriving and incredibly popular religious movement has been reduced to a handful of followers (like 3? 2?) and the name of town in north-eastern Ohio who’s residents probably don’t even know what a Shaker is.
But anyway… I digress]]>
I’m wondering where you stand on the state allowing gay people (couples or singles) to adopt.]]>
Now, _how_ the state regulates it, well, that’s a matter up for debate.]]>
So what you are saying is that marriage, as a concern of the state, is for breeders AND those who raise kids or may raise kids.]]>
Silus, this is, of course, an argument for encouraging SSM. Is there a reason you see this as being a societal interest, but not a state interest?]]>