Recently I came across an article on the Internet relating to same-sex marriage that really stung me, writes Breda O'Brien.
It declared confidently that those who oppose same-sex marriage are in the same category as those who opposed inter-racial marriage, and before too long, they would be exposed as the equivalent of racist bigots, who would be prevented by law, just as racist bigots are, from expressing their views.
Is the opposition to same-sex marriage in the same category as opposition to inter-racial marriage? Is gender really the same as colour of skin, and as irrelevant when it comes to marriage? When that famous first televised inter-racial kiss happened on Star Trek, did it matter that it was Uhura that Capt Kirk kissed, and not Mr Spock?
No one likes to think they are bigoted or prejudiced, but that is no protection from being either. Certainly, some of the opponents of same-sex marriage are both.
Take this offering from a same-sex marriage opponent. He suggests that recognising same-sex marriage will mean that no kind of marriage will be out of bounds. "How about group marriage, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?" This kind of attitude is grossly offensive, as it equates homosexuality with not only incest but bestiality.
The existence of this kind of material, though, does not necessarily invalidate arguments against same-sex marriage, no more than violent actions by some extreme environmentalist groups invalidate concern about global warming.
Is gender, then, just like skin colour? Some would have us believe that gender differences are constructed.
Some gender differences certainly are, such as the tradition of dressing boys in blue and girls in pink. Others are more deep-rooted, as anyone who has raised both girls and boys will agree.
Recently I was delighted to see that a researcher was not lynched for suggesting that there were fewer female engineers than male because of brain hard-wiring.
Those women who chose engineering were just as good as men, but Dr Paula Trench said research indicated that "the average female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, and the average male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and creating systems".
In short, the differences between men and women are not just constructed.
We are at a disadvantage in this country, in that we have debated long and hard about divorce, but very little about the nature of marriage. In contrast the US has had 15 years of a growing marriage movement that promotes the social science research on the benefits of marriage.
Despite the claim that it was only rednecks of the religious right, there is a great deal of evidence that many moderates voted against gay marriage, while remaining in favour of certain rights being extended to stable same-sex couples.
That moderate vote had witnessed a long cultural conversation on the visible effect of fatherlessness on children.
For example children, especially boys, who lack continuing consistent contact with fathers are more likely to be aggressive and anti-social and to do less well at school. Men and women bring something distinctive to child-rearing, and a child has a right to both a mother and father.
To state the obvious, this does not mean that lone parents cannot overcome this disadvantage, usually through enormous personal sacrifice. But should we sanction an even more radical experiment, an experiment with children as the subject, by officially declaring gender to be irrelevant?
To my mind, the major damage done to marriage has been done by heterosexuals, not by homosexual activists.
Marriage has existed in all places and all times, though admittedly in different forms, as a means of regulating sexuality, and of ensuring that those who made babies stayed around to love and rear those babies. Marriages increased stability in society.
The State had a stake in marriages, because they were the primary way in which the next generation came into being, and received care and protection. For that reason, married people received certain advantages. Even those who are single and childless have an interest in the welfare of the next generation, if only for the reductionist reason that they will be paying for their pensions.
The modern emphasis on personal fulfilment alone has greatly undermined the basis for State support of marriage. It is as if we collectively declared that adult fulfilment was the primary goal of marriage, and that children must learn to adjust.
We chose to ignore that marriage breakdown reverberates through generations, from the grandparents who lose access to the next generation who lose the opportunity to see a lasting marriage modelled for them.
In a sense, same-sex marriage is a logical outcome of the kind of way in which heterosexuals have downgraded the "common good" aspect of marriage. If marriage is primarily about personal fulfilment, why should anyone not have the right to marry?
If there are benefits that accrue from marriage, is it not discrimination to exclude some people from those benefits?
There are two ways of looking at benefits. One is to concentrate on an individual's rights to access certain legal and financial benefits. Another way is to look at the benefits to society. The most important of the latter are benefits to children. In the case of a same-sex marriage, either the mother's or the father's role is deemed irrelevant.
Love and nurture are what matter, we declare, not gender. Of course love and nurture matter, but it is a radical experiment to conduct on children, to see if it is all that matters.
In the case of Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone, where they are claiming a right to be recognised as married, children do not come into the equation. Yet if their marriage is recognised, it will have profound implications. If same-sex marriage is recognised, there is no logical reason to deny same-sex adoption.
There are injustices to same-sex couples which could be dealt with other than by changing the definition of marriage. For example, most Irish people favour more flexible arrangements regarding inheritance, and certainly would favour the right to be present or consulted when a partner is seriously ill or dying.
None of these requires the radical restructuring of marriage as it has been understood for hundreds of years in the western world as the union of one man and one woman.
bobrien@irish-times.ie