Madam, Fintan O’Toole (Opinion Analysis, October 20th) clearly subscribes to a radically relativistic view of marriage and the family. That is, he appears to believe marriage is whatever we believe it to be and rejects the view that something must have certain core elements in order for it to be a marriage. Because he has a relativistic view of marriage, he thinks two men or two women can marry.
But once you depart from the idea that one core element of marriage is heterosexuality, why stop there? For example, why limit it to two people? In Muslim countries to this day polygamy is permitted. Eventually, and as our Muslim population grows, pressure to allow polygamy in western countries will inevitably increase.
Also, why must marriage have a sexual component? Why not give the rights and benefits of marriage to any two (or more) people who love one another and depend on one another?
Fintan O’Toole needs to explain what he thinks marriage is, what it is for, why society should give it special support (if it should) and why it can’t be anything at all once you jettison the notion that it is an intrinsically heterosexual institution. – Yours, etc,