Marriage can only be between a man and woman, and Assembly is right to reject same-sex unions
Letter of the day: equality debate
Equality is a mark of a civilised nation and it a status which should be conferred as of right on all who qualify for it.
But it cannot be conferred where equality itself cannot exist, and I would like to gently challenge several of your contributors to explain exactly what they mean when they use the term 'equal marriage'.
I fear it is a cunning tactic by the LGBT lobby to garner support by donning the mantle of a victimhood to which they are not entitled.
Let me illustrate some of the reasons which demonstrate why equality is an impossible goal.
For a start, only heterosexuals are capable of producing issue. This cannot happen in a same-sex relationship.
Secondly, only heterosexuals can provide the complementary role of mother and father. Paying a woman to bear a child and then whisking it away from life's closest and dearest friend deprives the child permanently of one parent and contravenes that child's right to an upbringing by a mother and a father.
Thirdly, medical evidence indicates that only heterosexuals can engage in a form of sexual activity to which the human body is physiologically suited.
Civil partnerships quite adequately address the needs of same-sex couples and bestows all the equality to which they are entitled.
It is the height of dishonesty to equate their relationship with that of a heterosexual union.
Calling men 'wives' and women 'husbands' takes 'equality' into the realms of fantasy.
Consequently, our Assembly is thoroughly justified in rejecting 'equal marriage' on the grounds that a democratic vote cannot alter the basic facts of life.
If marriage equality exists at all, its proponents have yet to prove their case.