Walter Meester
HoogkarspelNetherlands
>>>>>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.
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING.
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only