Defects of dogma

DAVID Robertson writes (Letters, 29 January) that moves to close Roman Catholic and some other Christian adoption agencies means “thousands of children have not been placed within loving homes which could have provided for their needs.”

The fact that workers in these agencies are not allowed by Church leaders to use their judgment and experience to place children with same-sex couples means that some children who could have been placed in ­loving homes are left to be 
damaged by all the widely-acknowledged disadvantages (relative to the advantages of a secure and loving home) of the care system.

The Catholic Church, in particular, appears unwilling to countenance any action by adoption agencies that might imply a degree of recognition of same-sex couples, since that might imply a retreat from its hostility to same-sex couples as “morally defective” (Archbishop Mario Conti).

Thus the interests of children are sacrificed to dogma.

Paul Brownsey

Larchfield Road

Bearsden

Glasgow

ROBERT Canning thinks I am living in a world of my own (Letters, 30 January). I can assure him I am not alone in a world where marriage is the institution of a family, which creates a direct ­relationship between its members through ties of blood. It creates descendants. And in doing so, it is a fundamental act in building the stability both of individuals and of society.

A mother and a father indicate to a child his genealogy. A child needs this to position himself as an individual and in relation to the succession of generations. For millennia, our society has been founded on a dual lineage – that of the father and that of the mother. It guarantees that each individual can find his place in the world; he knows where he or she comes from. There is a real prospect now of destroying that system. A child adopted by same-sex “parents” is denied this fundamental right to a mother or a father.

What we are seeing now is motherhood and fatherhood being replaced with “parenthood”; children no longer being the subjects of rights, but objects people claim to have a right to; and a blurring of identity where our gender “preferences” or “orientations” are coming to take precedence over sexuality. All in the name of a supposed fight against inequality, which has been distorted into a movement to eradicate difference.

These are the core issues which should be tackled when debating same-sex marriage and parenting, because they take us back to the ground rules of the society in which we want to live.

Martin Conroy

Oldhamstocks

East Lothian