Madam, - The vast majority of Irish people grew up in families where their heterosexual biological parents were married to each other.
Therefore it is somewhat surprising that Ireland should have the level of social problems it has in the form of alcoholism, abuse, depression, teenage parents and violence because according to the likes of Clare O'Callaghan (Nov 9th), anyone not brought up in a "normal" heterosexual marriage is doomed.
The only thing that matters for a child to grow up into a contented, secure and responsible adult is that they are raised in a loving, nurturing and supporting home environment and if that is by two men or two woman or one person, be they heterosexual, homosexual or asexual, it doesn't matter. I'm sure there are plenty of children who given a choice would choose any other option instead of the cold, unsupporting and loveless homes they grew up in but where their heterosexual parents were married. - Yours, etc,
DESMOND FITZGERALD, Canary Wharf, London E14.
Madam, - Clare O'Callaghan (Nov 9th) argues that to allow same-sex couples to legally marry is to undermine all heterosexual parents, leaving them virtually redundant. She says homosexual marriage is, effectively, telling every parent that "their role is so insignificant that they can be replaced and this won't affect their child in any way".
Am I to gather from this that Ms O'Callaghan judges ability to nurture purely on the basis of gender? Or that she believes that offending people is what should be taken into account in issues such as this, rather than the good of the child?
The truth is that we tend to trust heterosexual couples because we ourselves were raised by them. While psychologists can expound on the difficulties children have without father or mother-figures in their early lives, they really cannot argue against same-sex couples because they have no experience to draw from.
It has never before been the case that, in large numbers, same-sex couples could have cohabited and raised children together.
There is no precedent. As such, there is nothing bar people's own speculations to suggest that same-sex couples would not do equally as well in terms of parenting as any other couple. It is ridiculous to think that someone is a good parent because of their gender. - Yours, etc,
CAITRÍONA BURKE, Marley Close, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Madam, - If we approach the civil marriage procedure empirically and look at what it requires from couples, all we find is a declaration before witnesses: something that same-sex couples can do just as well as opposite-sex couples.
The other school of thought seems to be that the civil marriage procedure is an enactment of the more transcendental vision of the family "enshrined" (what a telltale word) in the Constitution. Once again it is the aspirational guff of indefinite legal applicability, with which Bunreacht na hÉireann is overloaded,that creates the space for disagreement. - Yours, etc,
BEN HEMMENS, Hafnerriegel 70, Graz, Austria.
Madam, - Clare O'Callaghan, responding to my letter (Nov 7th), contends that I am mistaken to state that "marriage" did not exist before it was named (ie, before humans created the institution). That the concept did not exist before it was invented is patently true.
Marriage was not, prior to this point, floating in the ether, awaiting discovery. Gravity, by contrast, is an objective physical force, not a human invention; it, of course, existed before it was named since it is not a human invention.
The introduction of the human concept of marriage evolved from a social history of animal pairing and so, despite Ms O'Callaghan's arbitrary decision, animal relationships are not irrelevant to the marriage debate.
Neither, despite her suggestion, are same-sex animal pairings comparable to lionesses co-operating in the hunt.
These couples, like opposite-sex pairings, have sexual relations and it is well documented that many such couples raise offspring together (see the previously referenced Norwegian Natural History Museum exhibition www.nhm.uio.no/).
Regarding Ms O'Callaghan's assertion that I am incorrect on the meaning of marriage in our society, indeed this is the point that is open for debate. Marriage is, in my view, a recognition of partnership, commitment, love, support, fidelity etc., and should be open to those couples that demonstrate these qualities; it is, in her view, a legal formality with precise and inflexible rules. The question is this: would the majority of our citizens rather a society where the underlying basis of marriage is a loving, caring, committed relationship or a society where the basis of marriage is a cold legal contract? - Yours, etc,
IAN KELLEHER, Beresford St, Dublin 7.
Madam, - Clare O'Callaghan confuses factual situations and the labels that may be used to describe them. Marriage is a legal and religious construct or label that is used at different times in different places to describe different social/sexual relationships.
The "traditional" Christian/Roman Catholic view of marriage is that it is a union between one man and one woman for life; at one time this was also the position in Irish law. However, not all societies at all times require the parties to a marriage to be: of different genders (eg Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium currently permit same-sex marriage), to be limited to two people (eg many Muslim countries permit polygyny, in Tibet polyandry is practised) or to be for life (eg Ireland in Brehon times and since 1996 permits divorce).
The current debate is about whether there are legitimate reasons for differentiating in law between same-sex and opposite-sex couples who wish to have legal recognition of their relationships.
Ms O'Callaghan also argues that it is a denial of the rights of "the overwhelming majority of [ biological] fathers and mothers who love and care for their children [ within marriage]" to assert that children may fare equally well if brought up by a same-sex couple as they would fare if brought up within the "traditional" family unit.
However, the assertion in question is an assertion of fact: it either is or is not correct; the making of the assertion denies nobody their rights. - Yours, etc,
SÉ D'ALTON, Palmerston Road, Dublin 6.