Should marriage be redesignated to just the religious sacrament?

May I support John O Donoghue’s position (Same-sex marriage runs counter to traditional institution of marriage, April 13) that “to talk of marriage in a situation where the necessary constituents are manifestly absent is to insult that institution”.

This whole matter is based on semantic ambiguity. Marriage, as understood by all major religions, is the union of a man and woman for the primary purpose of begetting children and providing them with a secure, stable environment.

With this definition, gay marriage is an oxymoron and, therefore, its non-existence involves no human rights infringement. That gay people want their long-term relationships recognised by the State is understandable but does not give them the right to redefine the word ‘marriage’ and insist that others accept this new definition.

Perhaps the solution is for the State to abolish the term ‘marriage’ for the civil act and replace it by some other name and carrying the same legal rights and duties, leaving marriage as a purely religious act in which it takes no interest.

Unfortunately, I perceive the purpose of the current agitation is not to attain such recognition, per se, but, rather, to have same-sex activity treated as normal and acceptable.

Once this aspect is removed from the debate, most of the current rancour will dissipate and everyone will be able to carry on their lives without forcing their opinions on those who disagree.

Martin D. Stern

Salford

M7 4FQ

England