A chara, – Bruce Arnold, in arguing against the same-sex marriage referendum ("Should Irish voters pass the same-sex marriage referendum?", Opinion & Analysis, February 12th) says that "marriage needs the procreative element to grow and enrich human beings within nature". I assume then that Mr Arnold would disallow people who are infertile from marrying. And what about people who do not want to have children? Should they should not be allowed to marry either? – Yours, etc,
PADRAIG BROCK,
Ballinasloe,
Co Galway.
Sir, – Bruce Arnold confuses “marriage” with “fecundity”. That they are not the same thing is evident from the number of people born out of wedlock.– Yours, etc,
IAN DEVLIN,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Your main editorial "The meaning of marriage" (February 9th) attempted to promote the Yes side of the same-sex marriage debate by severing the ties between marriage and the raising of children. However, in so doing you raise a much larger question as to why the State should regulate marriage at all.
You claim that marriage is no longer about the formation of families and has already been redefined, or reduced, to the point where “it is now about adults making a public statement of their commitment to each other”. If that is indeed so, then we must ask why such a commitment should need to be endorsed by, or regulated by, the State. After all, what business is it of the State when two consenting adults wish to go public with their romantic commitment to each other?
We can all make public statements about all kinds of things without governmental regulation or interference. So why should the State presume to legislate as to which adults are allowed, or are not allowed, to make public statements of commitment to each other?
True, the State has an interest in regulating matters of inheritance and taxation – but these could be more easily dealt with through implementing the existing mechanism of civil partnerships in a way that treats everyone equally irrespective of sexual orientation. If we are to accept your redefinition of marriage as simply a public statement of commitment, then the obvious conclusion is that marriage equality would be best served by the State getting out of the marriage business altogether. Then all sections of society, both religious community groups, and non-religious community groups (including the LGBT community), would be equally served by having have the freedom to make their public commitments in whatever ways they see fit. – Yours, etc,
NICK PARK,
Executive Director,
Evangelical Alliance Ireland,
22-24 Foley Street, Dublin 1.
Sir, – I was delighted to read Prof Sheila Green's letter (February 7th) stating that the American Psychological Association had given its reassuring support for the suitability of lesbian and gay couples to become adoptive parents.
This would be the same organisation that supported the psychologists who took part in the CIA’s interrogation procedures (sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc) at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere.
As James Risen, a journalist with the New York Times has written in his book Pay Any Price, "the American Psychological Association worked assiduously to protect the psychologists who did get involved in the torture program".
I would suggest that Prof Greene look elsewhere to find more credible support for the position that “parental sexual orientation does not influence parenting effectiveness”. – Yours, etc,
Dr CHRISTOPHER
GREENHALGH,
Bearsden,
Glasgow.
Sir, – Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, speaking at a colloquium at the Vatican on the complementarity of man and woman, said: “Almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children, and having children from responsibility for their care”. – Yours, etc,
SYLVIA KENNEDY,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – The State recognises traditional marriages (ie between heterosexuals) and values them because they contribute to the stability of society and produce the next generation of citizens. In the interests of equality, the Stage will, if the people consent, recognise same-sex marriages and value them for the first of these reasons, but the second reason doesn’t exist.
So, to approach equality even more closely, married homosexuals will be given the same right to adopt children as married heterosexuals.
At the same time, however, adoption rights are to be extended to unmarried couples. Doesn’t that devalue marriage? There will be perfect equality (in all but the reproductive capacity) between both kinds of marriage, but if you want kids you may as well stay single! – Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Avenue Louise,
Brussels.
Sir, – Clearly, in the wider setting of the present debate on marriage equality irrespective of a person’s sex, there are two distinct cultures; one values traditional beliefs based on the heterosexual nature of marriage being ordained by God; the other culture advances secular ideals, much of which flow from humanism and modern atheism, which deny ethical and moral absolutes and desire all human society, either to recognise, or to follow their own arbitrary goals.
It is against this backdrop that we see a growing secularism pressing for a parity of esteem and social recognition of same-sex “marriage” as a right, when no such right exists and is therefore not ours to give. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL AUSTIN,
Gorey,
Co Wexford.