Sir, - I refer to some letters you have published recently under the heading, "Homosexuals and Prejudice", arising out of my suggestion that it is inappropriate for the President - as it was for her predecessor - to show apparent presidential approval for what is sometimes referred to as the "gay rights movement".
I think the title you have chosen is inappropriate. Homosexuality is defined in the dictionary as meaning "having sexual propensity to one's own sex". It would be absolutely indefensible to condemn or even criticise another for having such a propensity. I have never done so, and never intend to do so.
What St Paul was writing about in his Letter to the Romans, in such forceful language, was the practice of sodomy and other forms of sexual activity engaged in for the purpose of gratifying such a propensity.
To encourage others to act out their homosexuality in this manner produces the evil consequences for the individuals concerned and for society, which were outlined in detail in the course of Norris v Attorney General (1984) IR, and by Prof West, who was called as a witness by the plaintiff, in his monumental work, Homosexuality Re-Examined, and in the course of the oral evidence he gave in the High Court.
Let's stop talking about homosexuals, and talk about sodomy, and those who believe that tolerance of sodomy introduces a poison into society which no amount of propaganda can disguise. The worldwide scourge of AIDS, which only emerged after the hearing of the Norris case in the Irish courts, has vindicated the decision of our High Court and Supreme Court. What was said about it in the submissions to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, or in the judgment of that court? - Yours, etc.,
Rory O'Hanlon, Kilternan, Co Dublin.