Sir, - I would be grateful for the space to respond to Mr Tadhg O'Brien's comments on my letter of June 5th.
Mr O'Brien unfairly contrives to attribute to me statements that I never made, takes statements which I did make out of context, and by way of false inference and an improper association of ideas, portray my words as cruel and uncharitable towards homosexual/lesbian individuals, and vulnerable children.
He writes that I claim "that the non-traditional nuclear family is inherently flawed". This is untrue. I never wrote or implied this. No where in my letter do I imply that adoption is a right, or that children should be cruelly treated, or that already traumatised children should be unjustly punished. Yet he infers that I do. He further takes statements in my letter out of context, applies them to matters on which I did not comment, all in an attempt to undermine what I wrote.
I am glad to agree with Mr O'Brien that "it is the child's rights and welfare that must be paramount" in matters of adoption. This is why I wrote that the intended environment for child rearing is as nature designed, that is under the care and influence of both male and female parents. Mr O'Brien agrees that child rearing is best served by two parents, for he says that many children "live at great risk due to the State's recognition of only one parent". I presume he did not intend his statement to discriminate against single parents. Yet his point is valid: other things being equal, for the child, two parents are better than one.
I extend that to say that male and female parents are best. The truth is that homosexual/lesbian intimacy cannot produce offspring. Nature designed otherwise. No amount of argument can overturn that. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN SKELLY,
Diswellstown,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.