Madam, - Tom O'Gorman of the Iona institute (November 21st) would like us to believe that the purpose of the privileged status of marriage in our laws, and indeed the purpose of the organisation he represents, is to protect children.
If this is the case, then where are the laws awarding the privileges of marriage to unmarried couples with children? And why does the law offer privileged status to marriages that do not include children?
I'd also like to know why the Iona institute is not campaigning for the protection of children who are in the care of gay couples and couples who are not involved in a sexual relationship. Could it be that this isn't about children at all and that the Iona institute is pushing a religious agenda? - Yours, etc,
JAMES BURKILL, Carton Court, Maynooth, Co Kildare.
Madam, - Tom O'Gorman's letter demonstrates a limited and niggardly view of marriage: it is not just about sex and children.
I consider myself a marriage "prude": I scorn Vegas-style quickies, advocate pre-marriage courses and feel sorry for those who get so caught up in the wedding they don't seem to consider the implications of marriage. However, this prude is more inclined to dispute the morality of spending a five-figure sum on a dress the bride will wear only once than to question the right of any couple to publicly vow to love and honour each other as long as they both shall live.
Personally, I believe marriage is a sacrament, but I cannot dismiss the simple psychological implications of making such a vow in public, as much as before God. It works both ways, with those around the couple benefiting from the hope, sincere intention and plain-old-fashioned "love" that pervades the atmosphere on such solemn occasions, often providing an opportunity for existing marrieds to renew their vows, so that the very concept of marriage is strengthened.
At the same time the couple receive support for their life together from their family and friends and, ideally, the community at large.
Marriage makes a couple stronger than the sum of its parts, so to speak, and I don't see why this should be denied any two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
Mr O'Gorman's letter suggests not only a dismissive attitude towards non-child-bearing marriages, a poor opinion of single-parenthood and an intolerance of homosexuality, but also disfavour towards adoption, as he states, drawing on uncited "repeated studies", that children "tend to do best when they are raised by their two biological parents".
Marriage and parenthood share a common requirement: commitment. Children need love, stability and guidance. I don't see that any of my straight friends have these qualities or abilities in any greater or lesser quantity than my gay friends. - Yours, etc,
TERESA MURRAY, The Locks, Ringsend Road, Dublin 4.
Madam, - Dara Hogan (November 22nd) writes: "Marriage is simply the recognition and the celebration of love between two people, regardless of their sexual orientation." This assertion is very well dealt with in a document called Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage, by Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson.
The claim they seek to rebut is as follows, and is essentially the same as Mr Hogan's: "Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people."
The authors' response is: "The second statement is true, and the third follows logically from it. Because the first statement is false, however, this line of reasoning makes no sense. Marriage is a complex institution. Fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is only one of its functions - and not the most important one from a cross-cultural or historical perspective. (It might not be accidental that this exclusive focus on emotional gratification coincides with a high divorce rate.)
"The question is not whether gay people should have relationships. The only question is whether this should be done in the specific context of marriage."
Of course, the most important cross-cultural and historical function of marriage as an institution is raising children.
For the record, Mr Nathanson is himself gay. - Yours, etc,
ANNE MAREE QUINN, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin.