Marital rights

What precisely does Alan
Hinnrichs (Letters, 28 August) mean by “there never has been a traditional definition of 
marriage”?

If he means that there never has been a single set of laws, rules and conventions governing marriage which have applied in all times and places, that is so obvious as to be hardly worth saying.

If, on the other hand, he means that there has never been any kind of definition at all and that people have been at liberty to redefine marriage as they please, that is nonsense: every culture has had its own definition of marriage to which people within it have conformed.

In particular, there is a definition of marriage that has prevailed in Europe for the best part of two millennia – long enough for it to qualify as “traditional”, I would have thought.

An argument along the lines of “in the history of human cultures, the institution of marriage has taken different forms, therefore I can alter it here and now if I feel like doing so” is not a strong one.

Derrick McClure

Rosehill Terrace

Aberdeen

following correspondence regarding the letter read out in Catholic churches on behalf of Cardinal O’Brien (your report, 27 August), I’m surprised no-one has commented on the statement that “the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female”.

The ambiguity contained in this expression from Genesis 1 is surely relevant to the ongoing debate: does it mean separate male and female humans or individual beings with combined characteristics?

What are we to make of the fact that God made man in his own image, male and female?

The Genesis 2 alternative seems to suggest separate types, given that only one was created to begin with, but it can be interpreted as identifying Adam himself as hermaphrodite.

If Eve was created from a part of Adam, then it would seem natural and inevitable for her
to inherit characteristics from him.

Some animals and plants change sex routinely, while humans can do so with surgical assistance.

There is no denying that some people are somewhere “in between”, but churches must recognise that they must be as God made them and accept them completely as they are. Denial of such acceptance is more about power than religion.

Robert Dow

Ormiston Road

Tranent, East Lothian

The Catholic Church may look to Jesus as its “model and teacher” on the question of marriage (Letters, 27 August), but it is odd that he did not himself set an example: he appeared to be unmarried and implied that this was deliberate (Matt. 19:12).

So Jesus was not actually recommending marriage, just explaining the conditions he would set for divorce.

Despite rumours to the 
contrary, Jesus never started a family.

Since the bishops themselves are unmarried, what sort of example do they set?

Are celibate clerics the best people to pontificate on families founded on marriage and what the word “marriage” actually means?

I urge Catholics to ignore the bishop’s letter and to accept that marriage is a contract for long-term cohabitation between 
people who love each other of whatever sex.

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh