Here's my response to the government consultation on same-sex marriage:
The essence of marriage is that it is two different people committing themselves to be together for life. The experience of having to live with, and committing yourself to love, someone who is fundamentally different from yourself, is one of the key drivers for personal growth. It is within the context of two people committed to love the other "for better for worse" that children are best raised, because the couple have learned to accept each other. That is the best societal basis for tolerance.
The most fundamental distinction between people is gender, as recognised on passports and just about everywhere else. Marriage unites two people of opposite gender, who are thus very different and so as they learn to accept each other, so they learn to accept people who are fundamentally different from themselves. The same is not true of "same-sex marriage". It would be a union of two people who are the same at the fundamental level of gender (and of orientation). It therefore is a very different thing from marriage, and hence a different word should be used. It does not provide the same basis for transformation, or for growth in tolerance and acceptance of the other.
4 comments:
Not sure of the logic here. I understand the point you are making about difference and the place of that in growing love. But, how different do we have to be for that to happen? There are other differences which could be argued to be just as fundamental - ethnicity, nationality or age - differences also featured on passports (and in violence). Why pick on the non-difference of gender as reason for marriage needing another name?
Do you really think that ethnicity, nationality and age are bigger differences than gender?
The legislation is not proposing to legalise same-sex marriage only if the participants are different in ethnicity, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of couples who would seek same-sex marriage are of the same ethnicity, roughly the same age, etc.
Not in our culture, but, yes of significant importance in others. I was just questioning the logic of singling out gender.
There is a world of actual distinction; and such psycho/social pathology as homosexuals is not a natural part of such.
Post a Comment