Madam, - Pádraig Keogh (November 2nd) argues that marriage is, in its very "essence", "intrinsically ordered" towards opposite-sex couples.
The suggestion that marriage can have exact and intrinsic features is a reification fallacy.
"Marriage" is not a real "thing": it did not exist before we named it.
There can be no inherence or essence to an invented term; it will mean whatever we so decide.
The "essence" to which Mr Keogh refers comes not from marriage itself but from those qualities with which we associate marriage - partnership, commitment, love, support, fidelity. And these qualities exist in gay as in opposite-sex pairings.
Readers need look no further than the website of the Norwegian Natural History Museum in Oslo (which currently documents gay relationships among more than 1,500 different species) to see that committed relationships exist throughout the animal kingdom, both gay and straight (http://www.nhm.uio.no/). Zoos document, for example, that about one in five pairs of king penguins are the same sex.
But humans differ from other animals in that we use language to define our relationships.
And we invented a term to describe pairings that display the aforementioned qualities - marriage.
Those who believe the term "marriage" should stand for "a relationship for the production of offspring" are (fortunately) a minority. When a person asks "Will you marry me?", the implication is not: "Will you produce offspring with me?"
The inherent message is: "Will you commit to me as I commit to you?
Will you love me, cherish me, care for me, and choose me above all others, as I will you?"
This is the meaning of marriage in our society.
And inter-relationships which display these qualities should be termed as what they are - marriages - be they same-sex or opposite-sex. - Yours, etc,
IAN KELLEHER,
Beresford Street,
Dublin 7.
****
Madam, - Pádraig Keogh presumes procreation to be central to marriage, and thus defines the institution as fundamentally heterosexual. This is no doubt a popular viewpoint, but it is without foundation in law or logic.
The childless couple is not in legal jeopardy, natural signs or otherwise, since not even a mere declaration of an inclination to procreate is required to legally marry.
That the institution of marriage contributes greatly to many stable family environments is undoubted.
But a presumption that procreation thus defines all socially useful forms of marriage is logically a non sequitur. - Yours, etc,
STEPHEN BARRETT,
Abbeyleix,
Co Laois.