Well, I'm having some trouble writing. Finally got a blog, want to use it. It's a hobby, and it's supposed to give me practice writing, which would alleviate said trouble.
Part of the problem is I've been trying to write about the things I think about most; Iraq, terrorism, war, especially North Korea. They're harder to write about because I think about them a lot.

That said, let's talk about gay marriage. What bugs me most about the debate is this: people saying they're against allowing homosexuals to marry, but they're in favor of 'civil unions.' To them, I'd like to say: THEY'RE THE SAME THING. A civil union, presumably, would give gay couples the same rights and responsibilities that married people have with respect to one another. So in the eyes of the government, what's the difference?

If I get married and we decide not to have a religious ceremony, say go to a judge or even skip the event entirely and just sign the paperwork, is it still a marriage? If we then decide not to have children, is that still a marriage? I think most people would say yes, even though it’s missing two important aspects of marriage: religious sanction and procreation.
[The ‘two important aspects’ bit is based on what I hear from others, especially opponents of gay marriage. My own opinion is they’re not that important.]

So lacking those two pillars, what’s left? I’m guessing again, but I think most people would say something like “love” or “commitment” or both. So the question is, why is this good enough for hetero, but not homosexual couples?

In public dialogue, the arguments tend to be either religious or just anti-gay (recent polls show that a majority of Americans think homosexual activity is wrong). To the religious people: those arguments only work on people who already share your faith. Imagine someone trying to convince you to give up religion; that’s how you look to me. To the anti-gay: telling them they can’t get married isn’t going to stop them from forming relationships or from having sex, and letting them get married isn’t going to produce more of the same.

The local paper today suggested that government should stop with the ‘marriage’ business and just hand out ‘civil union’ licenses to any two people who want one. Then they would be free to make of it whatever they want. Not a bad idea. Kind of boils it down to what is apparently (referencing my first paragraph) the heart of the matter; namely, a fight over the word 'marriage.'

- posted by Dactyl @ 12:59 PM