Madam, - In his Science Today column of October 19th, William Reville identifies many flaws in studies purporting to show that children with gay parents do as well as those with heterosexual parents. He believes that the small number of families involved in such studies and the use of self-reporting techniques means we cannot accept their evidence that children do not suffer from being raised in a gay parent household.
Many other social scientists would disagree, not least because the overwhelming trend in a variety of studies using different families and different methodologies is to find no negative effects.
It is, of course, perfectly acceptable for Prof Reville to expect that social scientists can apply the same experimental conditions to real life and real people as he can no doubt apply in his own biochemistry laboratory. What is not acceptable is that, having stated that existing studies are inadequate, he then claims the evidence shows that the traditional family unit is better for children. Either there is sufficient evidence to make a proper scientific comparison, or there is not.
Or should lower standards be applied to research that suits your own ideology? - Yours, etc,
E. EIVERS, Glasnevin, Dublin 11.
Madam, - William Reville makes an error in logic. He outlines how difficult it is to assess the outcome for children in same-sex families and quotes the statistical unreliability of such studies. From this, he then concludes that the "traditional family is best".
If there is no conclusive data to show that same-sex families fare worse, he cannot reliably come to his conclusion.
Of course it would also be an error in logic on my part to conclude that the professor's bias has tripped him up on this occasion. - Yours, etc,
FINTAN FARRELL, Maynooth, Co Kildare.
Madam, - In response to Colin Harty (October 20th) and others, I would like to expand on my letter of October 15th, which may have caused offence. This I regret.
Firstly, I have nothing against homosexuals. As I said in my original letter, every individual is entitled to his or her own sexuality and I would passionately defend an individual's equal rights irrespective of race, religion or gender (and have done so in previous letters to this paper).
The problem for me arises when we try to equate fully the idea of a heterosexual relationship with one between homosexuals. Society can continue only if people have children. Heterosexuals in general have the capacity to reproduce. They don't have to and some people cannot.
For some of your readers to imply that by making this statement of biological fact, I was somehow having a go at couples who don't want to have children or more importantly can't have children, was disingenuous, in my view.
Having children is only one of many ways of contributing to society, but it is a vital one.
I don't have any major objection to a civil union that gives equal rights on certain issues like inheritance. However we cannot make two things equal where they are clearly not in all aspects, even if they are in very many others.
Interestingly, Colin Harty (October 20th) mentions tax. He might like to know that two cohabiting gay people with the same total salary as a single-income family with children will have a higher net income. So there are plenty people of being discriminated against in our current tax system, both heterosexual and homosexual. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN WINDLE, Glencairn View, Leopardstown, Dublin 18.
Madam, - The Oxford Dictionary states: "Marriage: the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often (italics mine) to have children."
Skip all this stuff about benefits to society and children's rights. Legalise same-sex union, give it the concomitant rights, but don't call it "marriage". It is a new concept needing a new name.
New words come into existence frequently, such as "blog", which is not in my dictionary.
What about "hommiage"? - Yours, etc,
BETTY MAGUIRE, Hillcourt Road, Glenageary, Co Dublin.