Suppose Abe age 100 meets Sarah age 90? Humanly speaking they have VERY slim chances of making a baby. Should they be allowed to marry?
Yes, there was an Abe and a Sarah who did get a son (and name him Isaac) when they were as old as all that.
But if the contrahents do sth to make sure they rest barren, if Abe and Sarah instead of being infertile for old age are infertile by choice, like using condoms?
Well, there is sth wrong there.
So it is, if Amy and Sarah or Abe and Simon walk up to a registrar. What they should hear is:
"Sorry folks, the joke is a bit stale. You two can't make babies together, and it's not a question of infertility not your fault either. This is not a thing I am authorised to register."
They should hear that, not just in any Catholic culture, but in any sane culture.
So that kind of law discriminates? Well, it doesn't per se discriminate between people of same sex attraction issues and people without them. It discriminates between people willing and those not willing to obey the law.
Precisely as a law that says "money loans are allowed, but only if no interest is involved, except for damages for later-than-agreed payments if losses were incurred" is not discriminating against people of hooked noses, but against people with usurious ambitions.
So sad for Ireland. And so sad for modern culture making this an equality issue.
The equality was there in the law. The inequality was only in the willingness of obeying the terms of the law. And it was a just law, just as a law banning the taking of interest on money loans is just. Because, it is natural justice that sex should not be barren, at least not intentionally, and money loans not fertile, at least not directly as such.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Saturday the 23-V-2015