A chara, – It was news to me to hear from Derek Byrne ("Marriage not a good fit for gay people's lifestyles", Opinion & Analysis, October 9th) that we have counter-cultural responsibilities as gay people. I can only presume he imagines that as a member of Fine Gael, I'm failing in mine.
In a modern, liberal republic, each of us should be free to make our own decisions about our personal and family lives, with neither a duty to conform nor to rebel. That gay people should have this same opportunity is not a response to an Irish village mentality, as Mr Byrne argues, but something we are realising the world over.
If we vote in the spring to allow gay couples to marry, we will join countries as diverse as Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, and more than half the US states.
Let us embrace this opportunity to join these countries in a vote that will respect and value the dignity of gay people’s lives and relationships. – Is mise,
WILLIAM QUILL,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – I disagree with Derek Byrne in defining the LGBT community as a subculture, or classing its members as people who are different, and I think to do so misses the point of the marriage equality referendum.
If you choose to wear a pair of skinny jeans and you choose to drink exotic coffee while riding your fixed-gear bike and stroking your beard, it is probable that I would classify you as part of the hipster subculture. But that is a subculture you choose to be a part of. Being a member of the LGBT community is not a choice, so I refuse to consider its members different purely by the circumstances of their birth.
Marriage equality is about freedom of choice and the right to self-determination. It is not about whether or not it would suit all members of the LGBT community; it is not about whether or not any, or all, LGBT marriages would be monogamous or open relationships.
Marriage does not suit all heterosexual couples, nor are all heterosexuals marriages monogamous, but they are still entitled to marry. Marriage equality is about giving the right to choose to all who wish to marry.
It doesn’t matter a jot to me if a massive majority or a tiny minority of the LGBT community avail of that right; that is their choice. How they exercise that choice, much like their right to vote, is entirely a personal matter for each and every one of them. But denying the entire LGBT community that right because some may not want it, or exercise it, is wrong. – Yours, etc,
EOGHAN KENNY,
Irishtown,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Derek Byrne writes that gay people are different from the norm and that “what we need are laws that celebrate our differences and provide for them, not laws that make everyone the same”. I disagree.
As a heterosexual individual I find it abhorrent that the choices open to me for living my life can be denied to others simply because their sexual orientation is different. The laws of society should be designed to enable individuals to choose the best life for themselves. If there are gay people who desire to celebrate their love through marriage, then so they should and the law must not prevent that. If some don’t wish to marry, then that’s their choice.
When you offer people these choices you are not making them the same but instead allowing them the opportunity to express their individuality. You permit them do what they personally want to do and to live their life as they see fit. That is the best way to provide for differences. If some gay couples decide to marry, that does not mean there is a pressure placed on all other members of the gay community to follow suit and tie the knot; the reduced pressure on heterosexual couples to marry in modern times is worth bearing in mind.
Mr Byrne says he cannot comprehend why some gay individuals would enter into a “heterosexual construct” and argues that the gay lifestyle conflicts with it. However, there is no single or best way to live a married life. While marriage may have its roots in a paternalistic society, it is capable of evolving into a more equal, inclusive and personal institution. We have already seen that with the removal of restrictions on interracial and interfaith marriages.
To deny people access to marriage on the grounds of their innate differences to other members of society is not a celebration of their differences. It’s discrimination. – Yours, etc,
JAMES FAGAN,
Hackney,
London.