In Reply to: Yes/No...? Same-sex marriage posted by JacoD on May 21, 2015 at 18:17:01:
This posting has interesting facts, but is too much to take in at this late stage, and the terms you use are confusing.
You refer to same sex- unions as if they're identical to same-sex marriage.
By 'unions' I think you mean sexual ones.
Historical same-sex unions have certainly been recorded, even celebrated, particularly in Ancient Greece ( the Romans were more prudish), but I doubt if the admirers of Sappho, the original Lesbian, bothered much whether she enjoyed sex with the girls she wrote her poems to- as they couldn't have babies together their love remained personal.
Only heterosexual love needs to be controlled & protected by society because it alone can give rise to new members of society.
Because most societies have been religious the priestly caste got into the act, but as this Referendum is about Civil Marriage we needn't bother with them.
The non-Catholic No voters understand this.
The Yes voters base their case mainly on personal love & a sweeping idea of 'equality'.
I might be voting Yes if I could believe that this would bring equality of esteem & an end to homophobia - I too have grandchildren.
What it will bring is that the sexual imperative of marriage, which has always been the fact that men can make women pregnant will now include couples who cannot consummate their unions, however fulfilling their love lives may be.
In submitting this post for publication I agree to the Terms and Conditions of the Disclaimer