>>>>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.
>
>I'm still hopelessly confused. It seems to me you are saying that you are saying that only people of the opposite sex are qualified to marry. I agree that this is correct in the narrow sense that law and tradition support it. But the law and tradition are, IMO, WRONG. I haven't been able to understand from your postings why the law and traditions SHOULD be this way and why they shouldn't be changed. What compelling reason is there to define marriage as between man/woman other than tradition?

What is the compelling reason to change it? There are many things that we do because of traditions. If society is so advanced that this marriage tradition is not needed anymore, then why can't government just resign it returning it back to religious institutions? It would serve historical justice. Initially, it was created/maintained by religious institutions and government borrowed it for the sake of equality, convenience, legality, etc. If the initial definition is unimportant now then just return it back to those still seeing value in it.