There is a leader in The Irish Times today in favour of ‘marriage equality’ that is particularly philosophically illiterate. It seems to have no understanding whatever of why the institution of marriage has ever had special status historically and tellingly offers no definition of marriage at all.

Its illiteracy is particularly revealed in the penultimate paragraph which says: “Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin Denis Nulty insists that the debate is ‘not about equality’ but ‘the importance society places on the role of mothers and fathers in bringing up children’. But, in truth, nothing in this provision in any way undermines that role.”

How does the leader-writer possibly come to this conclusion? Every major culture in history has given the sexual unions of men and women special status in the institution called marriage precisely because of children and the important role mothers and fathers play in their lives.

If we redefine marriage then we will be making a definitive declaration that society no longer needs a social institution built around these facts. That alone destroys the chief and overriding goal of the institution of marriage.

Perhaps the leader writer thinks children currently being raised by their mothers and fathers won’t be affected by the change.

But the change will directly affect all the children who will be brought into the world with the deliberate intention of depriving them of the love of either a mother or a father.

Marriage redefinition is inevitably tied to parenthood redefinition. Along with ‘marriage equality’ comes an equal right for same-sex couples to have children.

These children, with the full cooperation of the State, will be intentionally deprived of either a mother or father and will have the natural tie to the biological mother or father cut if the same-sex couples so choose.

This obviously undermines “the important role” mothers and fathers will play in those children’s lives.

It is abundantly clear that the leader writer see marriage chiefly as a way of recognizing sexual unions of any kind. My question; why have a special social institution built around sexual relationships rather than other kinds of close relationships? What is the special social significance of sexual unions per se that warrants a special social institution? Answers on a postcard please.