For that matter, so does "marriage." I'll cite a few relevant, and extremely interesting, dictionary definitions in a moment, but for the time being, let's say that the word means something like "the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of the law and society for the purpose of forming a family." In that case, you're correct that "gay marriage" does not fall under this definition, and is indeed something of an oxymoron...but are you right in saying that it "is not the same thing as" marriage? Because I would beg to differ: I would say that in fact "gay marriage" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the law (once it is legally accepted) and society for the purpose of forming a family.
[Side bar: what counts as a family? Gay couples can't have children. Well. Except that lesbian couples can. And gay couples could adopt children. And of course some straight couples can't have children because one of them is infertile. And some choose not to. I can't see anything that makes 'this man and this man who will not be having children but who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together' any different from 'this man and this woman who will not be having children but who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together' in terms of what counts as family-forming. Sidebar over.]
So yes, we could just define a new word such as "civil union" that would apply equally under the law to gay and straight couples (and perhaps some day to groups larger than couples). But "civil union" is a sterile legal term, and "marriage" is a seven hundred year old word which carries much more societal meaning to it. It's becoming a part of that meaning--indeed, becoming a part of that society--that (many) advocates of "gay marriage" are interested in.
---
And as promised, a few interesting definitions. Webster's Third New International defines marriage as, in part: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family (specifically in fact leaving "polygamy" open as a possibility), and in part as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife.
The 10th Collegiate (1998 printing) used exactly the same wording as the first quote above. The 11th Collegiate (2003 printing) defines marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, and after that as the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-30 11:40 pm (UTC)For that matter, so does "marriage." I'll cite a few relevant, and extremely interesting, dictionary definitions in a moment, but for the time being, let's say that the word means something like "the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of the law and society for the purpose of forming a family." In that case, you're correct that "gay marriage" does not fall under this definition, and is indeed something of an oxymoron...but are you right in saying that it "is not the same thing as" marriage? Because I would beg to differ: I would say that in fact "gay marriage" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the law (once it is legally accepted) and society for the purpose of forming a family.
[Side bar: what counts as a family? Gay couples can't have children. Well. Except that lesbian couples can. And gay couples could adopt children. And of course some straight couples can't have children because one of them is infertile. And some choose not to. I can't see anything that makes 'this man and this man who will not be having children but who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together' any different from 'this man and this woman who will not be having children but who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together' in terms of what counts as family-forming. Sidebar over.]
So yes, we could just define a new word such as "civil union" that would apply equally under the law to gay and straight couples (and perhaps some day to groups larger than couples). But "civil union" is a sterile legal term, and "marriage" is a seven hundred year old word which carries much more societal meaning to it. It's becoming a part of that meaning--indeed, becoming a part of that society--that (many) advocates of "gay marriage" are interested in.
---
And as promised, a few interesting definitions. Webster's Third New International defines marriage as, in part: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family (specifically in fact leaving "polygamy" open as a possibility), and in part as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife.
The 10th Collegiate (1998 printing) used exactly the same wording as the first quote above. The 11th Collegiate (2003 printing) defines marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, and after that as the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
Interesting, isn't it?