[Note: the following may offend some.]

Distinction and Difference

Traditionally, marriage has been distinctly heterosexual, because it acknowledges the relationship between the genders. Therefore, for opponents of gay marriage, homosexual relationships seem badly constructed for the label of marriage; while for proponents, this is only a distinction without a difference.

To unpack the logic surroundiing these perspectives, ponder the following analogy:

-suppose that two rapes occur, one using contraception, the other not.

-assume society only recognized the latter as rape, calling it "explicitly open, honest and natural", while the former was considered "explicitly closed, contrived and artificial".

And if someone wished for the rape with contraception to be recognized as rape?

-opponents could point to the use of contraception, depicting it as "sensitive" and therefore not rape

-opponents might consider more potential cases of rape as diluting the definition

whereas

-proponents could point to the condition of exploitation as the major element of rape, considering the contraception issue as too narrow

-proponents might consider the present definition as oversimplistic

So which is more important in this analogy: contraception or exploitation? Would it be prudent for those who didn't acknowledge contraception to advise those who did to resist or stop, so their actions would be defined as rape? Would broadly construing exploitation miss any important distinctions of the original definition? In like manner, which is more important to marriage: gender or love? Would it be prudent to encourage two genders to marry, otherwise resist or stop? Would focusing on love miss any strengths of traditional marriage?

The sticking point relates to sexual orientation. One thing that people miss in the original definition of marriage is that the sexual orientation of the two persons is the same. It's easy to overlook, considering that it wasn't an issue previously. However, the main strength of the traditional definition of marriage was the concept of transcending differences, rooted vividly by the distinct capacity of the two genders to complement each other (particularly with reproduction). Sometimes the practical application of this fact obscures this broader sense.

In gay relationships, the sexual orientation of each involved is the same, much like heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, having only one gender involved is an instance of transcending differences (although demonstrated uniquely). Perhaps this natural childlessness mainly illustrates the importance of sacrifice over coveteousness. Contrast this with heterosexual relationships, where the explicit symbol of transcending differences may obscure a lack or fragility of love between the two persons, even though the sexual orientation is the same. Since the obvious can be deceiving here, it appears heterosexual relationships primarily illustrate the importance of depth over superficiality. One type of relationship is distinctive without difference, while the other has difference as a distinctive.

Whatever the significance of either type of relationship, the dynamics are more complex than appears evident at first. In homosexual relationships, the lack of difference in gender or sexual orientation could enable unwavering sacrifice. Moreover, the difference of gender in heterosexual relationships may be more distinctly vulnerable, requiring genuine humility. These nuances should not be lost in any discussion about same-sex marriage (or marriage in general). In any case, the essential element for any commitment must be love for each other above all distinctions.