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.