>>>>>It is a choice for everyone. Nobody forbids a person to enter a marriage contract, and government does not care what he/she will do next (i.e. in sexual terms). In regard to responsibilities, you got badly mistaken. I meant spousal responsibility, i.e. one should care for his/her spouse/kids whole life, etc; i.e. it is ethical things. I meant that marriage is primarily great responsibility, not a great privilege as some may argue, and, accordingly, if someone chose to not have the marriage then it is not a punishment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've very confused. My impression is that you do not believe the state should recognize gay marriages. Am I wrong in that?
>>>>
>>>>If not......
>>>>
>>>>In what way don't gays qualify for marriage under the paragraph I've quoted?
>>>>Why should the state fail to grant gays who enter this marriage contract the same rights and privileges as other married couples?
>>>
>>>You got really confused. Any person can enter into marriage contract with another qualified person, i.e. of the opposite gender. If this person does not want it then he/she does not enter into the contract; though he/she can go and enter into different kind of contractual relationship with any other person of his/her choice.
>>
>>And the requirement of "opposite gender" is there to support by religious taboo and not the interest of society as a whole. The state has no compelling interest in making this provision - which limits individual rights - except to satisfy the desire of one group to impose its religious values on another group.
>
>FWIW, I totally agree with you here.

Yes, but you and I always take extreme liberal positions <bg>