Sir, – Dr Maitiu Ó Faolain (November 13th) misses some of my point about same-sex marriage being "biologically impossible" when he overlooks that a consummated heterosexual marriage relationship has an inescapable and definitively constitutive biological dimension – considered as the science of life. Of course this dimension also applies to some other heterosexual relationships. And I freely accept that marriage considered as a cultural institution would properly be outside the scope of medical training. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL AUSTIN,
Gorey,
Co Wexford.
Sir, – Recent correspondence on the issue of same-sex marriage has frequently focused on semantics, principally the meaning of the word “marriage”. Yet no-one so far has questioned what is meant by “sex” or indeed a “same-sex” couple. Although seemingly self-evident, this question merits some reflection.
Anatomical sex is technically a continuum, a truth quite evident, when considering that 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent of children born in Ireland display some degree of visible sexual ambiguity. Intersex is the term used to describe people whose chromosomes or genitals do not allow them be distinctly identified as male or female.
Where thus should we draw the line between male and female? What constitutes a heterosexual couple? Under our current legislation, should someone with XXY chromosomes be allowed marry someone with XX chromosomes? Should someone born with XY chromosomes and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition resulting in a fully female external body, be prevented marrying a “normal” XY individual with male genitalia?
Nature doesn’t draw a line between male and female. We draw that line on nature. Introducing marriage equality for couples of every shade of sex and gender makes not only moral but also biological sense. – Yours, etc,
RALPH
HURLEY O’DWYER,
Newbridge,
Co Kildare.