Sir, – Brendan Conroy's letter (February 12th) raises some interesting questions. For example, it would seem to discourage certain circumstances of adoption where a parent or parents are alive, as it too is an adult choice that breaks a child's link to their "genetic inheritance".
It also leaves the uncomfortable suggestion that children may be better off not being brought into the world than being born in the ways Mr Conroy warns against. That it would be better for infertile couples, gay or straight, to choose not to bring children into the world? For those lives to go unlived?
If that is not Mr Conroy’s suggestion, if these children are to exist, then it leaves open the question of how to best serve these children. A loving set of lesbian parents, for example, is in my view probably a better parental unit for a child than one woman and one disinterested, anonymous donor – however strong the “genetic inheritance” gifted from the latter to the child. Presumably it is better for the child if those parents are also in a State-supported long-term relationship, with legal rights between the child and both parents – such as marriage.
Mr Conroy may have an opinion of what the ideal circumstances of conception and family are. However, practically speaking there are very many families in circumstances that he might describe as less than ideal, and there will continue to be. The State must ask itself what is best for all its children, who do and who will exist however it sets the law. It should not ignore these children in the false belief that it can nanny people into “the right kind of family”. – Yours, etc,
PETER KEHOE,
Roselawn Road,
Castleknock, Dublin 15.
Sir, – I couldn’t agree more with your correspondent Brendan Conroy (February 12th). What we are experiencing now on this subject is “reverse bullying”.
The two generally accepted purposes of marriage are mainly, though not exclusively, the procreation of children, and the mutual emotional and spiritual development of the couple.
While a same-sex couple can certainly fulfil the second part of that purpose, biologically they cannot fulfil the first part. Calling the campaign an “equality” campaign is totally, and subtlety, misleading. This brings me back to the “reverse bullying”. The immediate reaction to this reasoned argument is to be labelled homophobic, repeated loudly and often enough in an effort to silence the silent majority. Stand up and be counted – now. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK CONNEELY,
Cedarwood Road, Dublin 11.
Sir, – Seamus O’Callaghan's analysis of the "jigsaw of marriage" (Letters, February 11th) illustrates that this simple image of interlocking pieces in a rigid formation does little to describe the messy coagulation of complexity that characterises all varieties of long-term human relationships.
To picture marriage as a jigsaw leads to over-simplification and idealisation of marriage. Mr O’Callaghan writes, for example, that a same-sex union is “trying to put two pieces together that have the same shape and psychology”, whereas a mixed sex union is the “fitting together of two equal, opposite, physically, biologically and emotionally compatible pieces of the marriage jigsaw”.
Surely a same-sex union can be described as a fitting together of two equal, opposite, physically, biologically and emotionally compatible pieces of the marriage jigsaw – if we were to accept that rosy definition of what is often a much more pragmatic contract based on mutual self-interest rather than perfect fit.
Furthermore, since when has it been established that both parties in a same-sex union have the same psychology? Are there now only two psychologies: male and female? – Yours, etc,
JUNE O’REILLY,
Lecturer in Communication,
CIT, Cork.
A chara, – But it does me no injury for my neighbour to marry a man or a woman. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg – with apologies to Thomas Jefferson. – Is mise,
EMMET CAULFIELD,
Higdon Avenue,
Mountain View,
California, US.