Rejecting gay marriage won't damage our global reputation
In the forthcoming 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 - which has been has been the basic defining characteristic of marriage in all major societies throughout history until the present and which, by definition, exists only between men and women and is not the same as sexual orientation/attraction.
While the proposed Constitutional amendment is promoted as being about 'equality,' there's another question of fundamental importance to be decided on May 22.
Should we, as a society, retain a special social institution, i.e. marriage as it has been understood until now, that specifically recognises the unique significance of sexual complementarity, without which society wouldn't exist because we ourselves wouldn't exist, whatever our sexual orientation?