A gay conjugal rights case would be amusing

The ‘no’ side is concerned about procreation and what this might mean if same-sex marriage is permitted.

It has been argued the Supreme Court judges in the Murray v Ireland case recognised procreation as “being essential to the human condition and personal dignity”, but that this right was circumscribed by the fact that the couple concerned were incarcerated. The judges presumably thought it wouldn’t be a good idea for a child to be born in a prison.

In our society, marriage confers the moral right to have sex with your partner (to whom you are married). Suppose the prison couple in the above case had been gay, then the ruling could have allowed their conjugal rights, for the rather amusing reason there would have been no worries about a child as a result of the liaison.