Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation
I couldn't agree more. Indeed, any marriage that is not "open to pro-creation" is not a traditional marriage and my personal view is that such a marriage is intrinsically flawed. Marriage is all about the natural pro-creation of beautiful children which is a truly wonderful thing. This view was very ably set out in a speech by the Bishop of Elphin at the outset of this debate.
The undeniable fact is that heterosexual couples, where one or other is sterile, whilst fully deserving of our tolerance, even sympathy, should in no circumstances be allowed to take the vows of matrimony. It goes without saying that any post-menopausal woman, with the greatest respect for women and obviously not wishing to be ageist, is completely ruled out of entering a marriage as she simply cannot satisfy the "open to pro-creation" test. Of course, as sexual activity should properly only occur within the confines of marriage, this may prove challenging to such ladies. I understand that traditional activities such as bingo and knitting, as well as new-style social media related activity, can help pass the time. Additionally, there are also some very good evening classes to do with furthering one's understanding of pet cats. It, also, goes without saying that those whose marriages are not "open to pro-creation" are fully deserving of our love and empathy, - however and with the deepest regret, we simply cannot recognise their union as legitimate. I, myself, have known people of this persuasion and very nice people they are too.
Of perhaps even more serious concern are those heterosexual and married couples who selfishly decide that the time is not right for them to have children. Such a union is fundamentally dishonest because whilst it superficially purports to be a normal marriage, through the use of artificial means and/or interventions - which in my day would never have been allowed and again further illustrates the divergence from centuries-old practices - there is not current pro-creative intent. One must suspect, although, admittedly, I have only anecdotal evidence to support this view, that some of these people may be engaged in bedroom activity, the sole function of which is the gratification of very primitive desires. Call me old-fashioned and bigoted - but this is a step too far. The traditional and proper question from a father to son, say 6 to 9 months after the wedding of the son, of "anything stirring?" was to remind the son of his pro-creative responsibilities. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a risk that this question could now be replaced by questions along the lines I could not possibly put on paper.
Whilst writing, some other aspects of this referendum are troubling me. It is quite clear that every child deserves a mother and father, living at home with them, in perfect harmony. You know - with parents who are loving but do not spoil, generous with their time and attention but not overly so; think of the apple pie cooling down on an open window as the home-made ice-cream is taken from the freezer by smiling and enthusiastic children, etc. It is clear from all the research that this is the proper way to raise a child. I think even the most entrenched Yes voter would concede this truth. Now, where a couple gets divorced, this can no longer happen. The children suffer as dad and mam no longer live together. Thankfully, to date the incidence of divorce is very rare, unlike surrogacy which has become so frighteningly ubiquitous. I may be straying off topic (and I apologise for this because I fully acknowledge that no other poster has so done) - but wouldn't it make imminent sense to disallow divorce where couples have children? Doesn't every child have the right to a mother and father at home? Apart from the obvious evidence-based welfare of the children, there is additional merit to this proposal as it logically follows that only childless couples should be allowed to divorce - and this is completely appropriate as they, in my opinion, probably were never truly married in the first place for the multiple indisputable reasons set out earlier. It further follows, therefore, that a termination of such a childless union is best characterised as an annulment. In so doing, all divorce would be eliminated and right-thinking traditional values restored.
I think even the Yes side would concede that divorce has caused many problems not just to some vague notion of Irish society - but to its very fabric. It is undeniably for the sake of our children that the divorce laws should be repealed with immediate effect. Of course, this is nothing against divorced people - who also deserve or understanding, support and compassion. I, myself, have gone (admittedly unintentionally) into one or two bars noted for attracting the "second chance" market. What struck me was how normal everyone seemed. After initial apprehension, I got chatting to some of them and was amazed at how open they were about their marital status in spite of the undeniably harm this had caused their children. I remember meeting two women, both of whom had been beaten senseless by their husbands and both had reluctantly, after years of counselling and other interventions, left their husbands for their safety and the safety of their children. And very nice people they were too. But, we all realise, that such examples of tough cases make for really bad laws. National law is not about compassion at the individual level - it is about the greater good - and it is time we truly redefine marriage in which the "pro-creation test" is central.