From: "Gregg Strom/BRYX Int'l" 

As there are enough kids that need parents that adoption agencies are
allowing single parents to adopt, it is a bit disingenuous to deny such
rights to someone because of who they are attracted to sexually.

"Provides a context for" sounds like a pretty weak reason for
state intervention.

Should marriage be denied to heterosexuals who do not intend to have
children? (Or are incapable of having them?  Or do not want to raise them?)
Just HOW FAR should the state intrude into these relationships?

gs

"Randall Parker"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1391ff8299b2104498a3b3{at}news.barkto.com...
> Gregg,
>
> The only justification I can see for state-sponsored marriage is that it
> provides a context for child-raising. We all have an interest in seeing
> kids have two parents IMO. The _vast_ bulk of the requests for gay
> marriage come from people who don't intend to use said institution for
> procreation. ergo it looks like just another state hand-out to me.
>
3924a59c{at}w3.nls.net>, greggstrom{at}earthlink.net says...
> > Yes, marriage implicitly implies the possibility of divorce; Gay
> > "activists", (i.e., Gay people who do not want to be treated as
second-class
> > citizens), are not asking for "special rights".  Simply
the same rights
as
> > the rest of the adult citizens in this country.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5