Sexual complementarity of man and woman is the basis of marriage

In relation to the referendum on same-sex marriage, it’s worth making the point that we don’t owe our existence as a species to ideologically-defined ‘equality’ but to sexual complementarity, a relationship or situation in which two or more different things improve or emphasise each other’s qualities — this has been the basic defining characteristic of marriage in all major societies throughout history. Sexual complementarity, by definition, exists only between men and women.

While the proposed Constitutional amendment is being promoted as being about ‘equality,’ there’s another fundamental question to be decided on May 22.

Should we, as a society, retain a special social institution, ie marriage as it has been understood until now, that specifically recognises the unique significance of sexual complementarity, which is not a doctrinal invention of the Catholic Church or any other religion but is the basic biological fact of nature without which society wouldn’t exist because we ourselves wouldn’t exist?

Or should we, in effect, replace it with what amounts to a new institution, also called ‘marriage’ but inherently different in its nature?

If ‘marriage equality’ is approved, what will then be called ‘marriage’ will have no clear basic defining characteristic that will make it uniquely significant among social institutions.

Simply retaining the outward form of the institution, as it is at present, will do nothing more than disguise this loss of uniqueness, which will be the inevitable price to pay for ‘equality.’

It has been claimed that same-sex marriage is an evolutionary step, but this is not the case. While it’s true there have been changes to the institution over time, what has remained constant until now is that marriage is synonymous with sexual complementarity.

Therefore, abandoning this most fundamental characteristic of the institution is not evolutionary but amounts to a revolution of the most radical kind.

It has also been claimed that rejection of same-sex marriage would damage our international reputation. The truth is adopting it would leave us out of step with 90% of the countries of the world, including the majority of our EU partners — among them two of the most powerful, Germany and Italy.

Given same-sex marriage is a specifically Western concept (and is not entirely accepted even in the West itself), its status worldwide is unlikely to change anytime soon, if ever.

For the above reasons, among others, this writer intends to vote ‘No’ on May 22.

Hugh Gibney

Castletown

Athboy

Co Meath