I have worked hard to find my problem with 'gay marriage'. It's not moral, my problem is linguistic. I think there's a biological component to marrying which is wholly absent from the gay union. So I want to move on slightly to practical applications of restricting the freedom of individuals to associate with whomever they want. I find it abhorrent that parts of society shriek about gays, and I can't accept that a dying human longing for the companionship of another one can't get a visit without establishing some fossilized family credential.

"Family" is certainly no monolith. Mine, for example. Today I'm pretty sure the people in my immediate family are all paired off with an opposite. I know some of those <i>gays</i>, but none are really in my social circle. Scratch that- a few of these people are homos...and there is at least one published queer in my family- and I'm fine with it. A little uncomfortable, depending upon the degree and quality of the exposure, but it's all good. I went to college*.

But we all need love. A life without love is a pointless slow death, and some people really believe they are seeing something of beauty and worth, something irreplaceable and worth protecting, even though they have the same collection of anatomical accessories. Love need not be confused with reproduction.

Here's a thing: Consider the agencies responsible for human health, space exploration, defense and law enforcement. If I were gay, and if I had an advanced aerospace engineering degree, then I could be both gay <b>and</b> qualified to work at NASA. One day, my supervisor may come to my desk to say I'm about to be transferred. Suppose I live in Vermont, home of zero NASA jobs, but a place where homosexuals can legally marry each other, and my new desk is in Birmingham, Alabama.

Nothing but a Constitutional Amendment or an act of Congress can force Alabama to recognize my relationship and protect the rights of my partner if I leave no Last Will and Testament. Although we may have married in a state in the US union, but there are non-discrimination laws in many areas of employment, residence and business. That's screwed up.

I don't want to call it 'marrying', but it's something we have. 'Lawfully wedded' can ordain the union with some social legitimacy, but the relationship exists regardless. If it's legal to divorce and remarry without restriction, and if it's legal to have children outside of that context, I think 'marriage' has already left the barn. I hope it's still realistic to expect humans to mate for life, and I hope those of you whose blood boils at the thought of Kenny and Stan shopping for curtains together can scrape the crust from your eyes and get distracted by a problem in which you have standing.

Kenny and Stan's relationship is honorable. Just as women should be allowed to ride bicycles and black folk should be allowed to sit at your restaurant, and just as Bob Dole deserves to bang his wife, people who find love should be encouraged to husband it because it elevates the dignity of humans everywhere.

I agree that 'Civil Unions' is too sterile and lacks the romantic quality of 'Wedding' and 'Married'. That said, my relationship may be best when sterility abounds, and the romance in the 'married' isn't the same one at the wedding.

*I had friends running the GLSU, and friends at the frats. Mostly, I was interested in the ladies frolicking about.

Lindsay Beyerstein, in apparent agreement with her attractive photo (if that's really her), has expressed an idea I've been wrestling with, but from another angle. Thankfully, she helped me condense the important part.

What is the evidence required, on the open seas, for a non-judicial, non-court officer to act against an aggressor? What if the shipping company identifies a competitor as a pirate? What if it were me? What about the Seal Team ? Is the average age old enough to be considered beyond the peer group of these young pirates? And what if those Somalian teens are heads of households? Are they emancipated by the lack of a government officiating their free range? Holy cow, if we pay super-close attention to the hairs here, they will be split into several sub-hairs, each of which can keep us busy until the world runs out of oil and no more piracy will be possible since there won't be any fuel to propel the shippers in the first place.

If the country they're from has no laws, then a contemporary law of the high seas allows criminals to be prosecuted in US court. So it's not a matter of lawlessness. The Navy is comprised of youngsters too, so it isn't about child abuse or exploitation. In this case, we're talking about the wilderness, through which merchants and travelers, pilgrims of all sort may travel. This is the very basic step man has taken, to civilize the wilderness. AbdulHamid did it. It was done in every civilization. The brigands are restricted to the frontier, and now the frontier itself is widely traveled.

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2009/04/enough-dead-teen-pirate-porn-already.html

I'd like to see merchant vessels arm themselves and put up a fight when these kids try to storm the sides. And I think an RPG wouldn't have enough range- the pirates likely have some of them. It would be a potential classic, with Rocky and Apollo each taking a blast on the chin.

It would be appropriate for an ocean vessel to drop the transmission from a '75 Chevelle into the dinghy of the would-be boarders. It would be inhumane, but just, to watch the boat sink and its passengers drown. But they're kids? But they haven't been tried in court? But it's not our country? There is no objective standard, exect the one where some guy is pestering me late at night and setting me up for a mugging. I can wait until he starts the jump, but with a firearm in my hand I can cross the few meters very quickly and avoid victimization.

Bloodlust is a problem. We're all trained to go after the bad guy. We all know who Scott Peterson was, because we all wanted him hanged for killing his wife, which he may have done. Or not. But none of us were there. We didn't see it, and he didn't try to kill us. We were offended by his behavior, and probably his look. We had to be valiant in absentia, which is ridiculous.

Not to take away from the emotional arguments for and against using force to handle a force issue, I've been arguing a lot for the US taking a leadership role in the Pirates thing, if only because of our ability to passionately act dispassionate. It's not a court thing unless they can be captured and tried, and they'd have to come here since nothing resembles a proper court until you reach India. I would err on the side of sinking the boats and leaving them to drown. Perhaps the Red Cross would start trawling the shipping lanes for survivors, but it's the military's job to blow things up. Maybe Congress will pass a law saying the waters are now subject to US anti-piracy laws, but how many police will we have to hire?

I'm surprised you've gotten this far. This is a bad post. But somewhere, there is an inkling that the command to fire was somehow disproportionate or arbitrary. No, nothing like that. It's a survival thing. One of our guys was in the other guys' boat, and that was unacceptable. My friend, my brother, neighbor, even somebody I don't like anymore can count on me doing metaphorically the same thing. I'd cross the street with a bat. You should too.