... 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?
To which my comment is:
I think that from a sociological and psychological viewpoint, you will find that heterosexual and homosexual life-sharing commitments will turn out to be very different in their day-to-day operation. I will cheerfully stipulate that this is an opinion based in ignorance as I have yet to participate in a life-sharing commitment. I base this conclusion on the assumption that men and women, while equal, are unique and differ fundamentally in the way they think, feel, and experience things. (I am aware that research bears this out at least partially.) A committed relationship where there is fundamental similarity between the two partners in this way will of course be different than a relationship where there is mutual differentiation.
Aside from that, I think you'll find that there is some legislative value in the distinction, even for those who are the strongest advocates of these unions. For one thing, it makes it far more difficult for legislation to be challenged in court based on the long-standing definition of marriage, and far more easy to apply sensible precedents. Similarly, it would render much less complicated the procedure of adapting things like divorce statues to reflect the existence of this second kind of civil union.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(Split into multiple comments due to length)
Date: 2003-07-31 12:59 am (UTC)... 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?
To which my comment is:
I think that from a sociological and psychological viewpoint, you will find that heterosexual and homosexual life-sharing commitments will turn out to be very different in their day-to-day operation. I will cheerfully stipulate that this is an opinion based in ignorance as I have yet to participate in a life-sharing commitment. I base this conclusion on the assumption that men and women, while equal, are unique and differ fundamentally in the way they think, feel, and experience things. (I am aware that research bears this out at least partially.) A committed relationship where there is fundamental similarity between the two partners in this way will of course be different than a relationship where there is mutual differentiation.
Aside from that, I think you'll find that there is some legislative value in the distinction, even for those who are the strongest advocates of these unions. For one thing, it makes it far more difficult for legislation to be challenged in court based on the long-standing definition of marriage, and far more easy to apply sensible precedents. Similarly, it would render much less complicated the procedure of adapting things like divorce statues to reflect the existence of this second kind of civil union.