As regards your comment, I note that you have the right of it, and in a particularly keen way that I was not aware I had made so clear. The only issue I take with your analysis of my position is this bit:

Qwertz is making one, and only one, claim: The term “husband” should not apply to men in a gay marriage.

Actually, I did not intend to make that claim, and I think the way the post is written is to blame for that misapprehension. I intended to ask that as a question, not to state it as a claim.

I have a concept-formation question that has come up in a very specific context:

Are persons who are in same-sex marriages properly included within the concepts “husband” and “wife”, or do those concepts include important characteristics that are particular to opposite-sex marriages?

When I hear a man speak of his husband, or a woman of her wife, I know that the relationships these people have are very different than the relationship between a husband and a wife, even though they may be just as valid, moral, and healthy and may share some superficial similarities. My experience with same-sex relationships indicates that they involve very different sexual dynamics than those involved in opposite-sex relationships. It seems that using “wife” to describe a woman married to another woman is a case of treating the concept as interchangeable with its definition.

Thank you for weighing in on this. I value your insights on the subject of sexuality.

I think my post was unclear. I will add an addendum to it to clarify the approach I was taking in my post.

It is true that I have a negative emotional reaction to the use of same-sex couples of the words “wife” and “husband.” That was indeed my starting point. But I did not intend to suggest that I had concluded that, because it makes me uncomfortable, same-sex marriage should be outlawed, or is immoral. The post was about exploring why I have that emotional response, and about finding out whether there is any validity to it. As I said, my subconscious response to those words in this context “is not inconsequential and deserves investigation.”

I did not mean to conflate the question of the propriety use of the words “husband” and “wife” by same-sex couples with the question of the propriety of same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage. I apologize if the post gave that impression. The purpose of my post was to explore the scope of the concepts “husband” and “wife”.

The role Rand’s Razor has been playing in my mind with respect to this issue goes something like this: Rearden recognized that there was a difference between Lillian and his mental image of his wife — that the two were not the same and that Lillian lacked something essential to being his wife. In light of Rand’s Razor, does this passage from Atlas Shrugged suggest that Rearden holds there to be attributes essential to the concept “wife” other than that of being the woman to whom he is married? I did not mean to argue that Rand’s Razor prohibits the use of “wife” or “husband” by same-sex couples.

Finally, I should also clarify my position with respect to the morality and legality of homosexuality. I hold that homosexuality is fully moral, despite being based on very early, very complicated errors (see Dr. Peikoff’s numerous early podcasts on the subject.) Same-sex relationships may be moral or immoral, just like heterosexual ones, but the mere fact that they are same-sex relationships does not make them immoral. I agree that they deserve social recognition. But I do not agree that anyone deserves to have their love recognized by the state. All individuals have the right to have the state recognize their mutually-agreed-upon contractual associations with another. The question of whether two people are in love is, I think, none of the state’s business. Please do not come to the conclusion that I am opposed to same-sex relationships, or that I believe homosexuality is immoral. Neither is true, and I apologize for not making that more clear.

I’m not sure if you follow Jason Stott’s “Erosophia” blog, but he has just posted what I think is a vile attack on this post here: http://jasonstotts.com/2010/04/same-sex-marriage-and-epistemological-confusion

I have posted a lengthy comment, but he moderates his comments and it has not appeared yet. In case he chooses not to approve it, I have posted my comment here: http://blog.cogito-enterprises.com/2010/04/erosophia-crosses-line.html

Just thought you should know. Please let me know if I misrepresented your position.

I put up a response to this essay on Erosophia at Homosexual Marriage and Epistemological Confusion.

You’re welcome to respond if you wish.

~Jason Stotts