I keep struggling the the Gay Marriage issue and it's not something that is an easy decision for me. But I am still against it because it's a matter of trying to stretch a definition beyond reality by slowly pussing the limits over the line. But - I do support civil unions - and this has nothing to do with "morality".
Let's say I were to tell you that I believed that a dog and a cat were the same species. That a dog is just a different form of cat. Am I wrong? Yes - but - they both have hair - walk on 4 legs - have claws - in fact are better than 90% genetically identical. So - why isn't a dog a cat? Why don't we just broaden the definition of cat to include dogs? See what I mean?
So - is there a difference between gay and heterosexual relationships? Well - of everyone who is on earth today, their biological parents are a man and a woman - and none of them come from two men or two women. There is a difference and it is a significant difference. It's about our very existence. The word marriage has meaning and it's not the same any more that a dog is a species of cat.
But - what about non-reproducing heterosexuals? Well - there's the fuzzy line thing again. And - as I have said many time - if it were up to me to move the line - it would be the other way. But - I have an even more interesting point to make about where the line should be.
Clearly reproducing heterosexuals are within the definition of marriage and clearly marrying a pet is clearly outside the definition. Gays want the line moved to include them arguing equal protection and pointing out the real fact that many of these relationships have lasted for decades and are in fact real relationships.
But also in the life are poligimous heterosexuals. The Mormons truely believe that poligamy is OK and only denounce poligamy for political purposes and do it underground. In Utah there are some 20,000 to 30,000 poligimous families with children. So - where do they fit into the argument?
To me if there is a "line" that we are talking about regarding the definition of marriage - then poligimous heterosexuals with children are closer to the definitions of marriage than gays are. So - if we are moving the line all the way to gays - then we also have to include poligimous heterosexuals. You can't just skip over parts of the line and include gays and not mormons.
So - I ask the question of my gay friends and family - are you willing to include poligimous mormons in marriage? If you respond that marriage is limited to only 2 people then my response is yes = it is limited to a man and a woman too. You see - you can't point to two as absolute and say heterosexuality and reproduction is optional. I can't take the argument seriously unless you are also including Mormons - and then there's the problem of multiple same sex marriages. And - why should I be prohibited from marrying my sister or brother if we are non-reproducing?
Lines are interesting things. If I have sex with a girl one hour before her 18th birthday then I'm a rapist. If I wait an hour - then I'm not. Suppose I have sex with her one hour before her 18th birthday on the west coast but she was both on the east coast and that's 3 times zones ahead of California making her technically 18 if you take that into account. Would I be guilty of rape then?
So - as I keep saying - having come to this conclusion I am still uncomfirtable with it. But - a dog is not a cat and a same sex relationship is not a marriage. Find a different word - grant similar legal rights to it - I'm fine with it.
At some point when the technology exists for same sex couples to reproduce then I will rethink this because that would cross the line. But until then - I can't support it.