A FEW years ago I was arranging to conduct the marriage service of a couple, both widowed, whose aggregate age was 159.

The groom, a good friend, said, "Now, Jim, you don't really have to include that bit about marriage being for the procreation of children, do you?" Of course I didn't, although quoting the groom certainly amused the congregation.

Archbishop Conti writes that "it cannot be denied that sex is also about procreation and the rearing and education of children" (Letters, December 6).

It is a logical fallacy to treat a statement that is usually true as if it were always true. It most certainly can be denied that sex is always open to the possibility of conceiving. If this is truly the Archbishop's reason for opposing same-sex marriage, then he should surely be opposing the marriage of very many others who cannot have children.

Jim MacEwan,

The Manse, Nethy Bridge.

Ian Stuart predicts that, with regard to the same-sex marriage consultation, "all views will, thankfully, be heard with equal respect by our forward-looking Government" (Letters, December 8). I am sure Archbishop Conti will be comforted by that assurance.

Does Mr Stuart not realise that civil partners already enjoy equal legal and fiscal rights and that the implications of what this "forward-looking Government" proposes are that everyone must be treated exactly the same, even if they are in different situations, exposing "any group, religious or otherwise" to charges of discrimination? This has already happened over the issue of adoption, leading to the wholesale closure of mainly Catholic adoption societies which have not been ready to agree that same-sex parents are as suitable a family structure for needy children as heterosexual married couples.

Does equality trump diversity – resulting in uniformity? Do homosexual rights trump religious freedom?

The defence of the latter in a public consultation should not offend anyone, since the argument is not directed at individual persons but at the wisdom or otherwise of redefining marriage with the inherent consequences, among the most serious of which could be the charge of discrimination against individuals and institutions which hold to the traditional definition of marriage.

John Deighan,

Catholic Parliamentary Officer,

5 St Vincent Place,

Glasgow.

The Scottish Government's 14-week consultation on same-sex marriage has now closed.

We note that Cardinal Keith O'Brien has been reported as being critical of people who responded from outwith Scotland.

The Equality Network is sure that the large majority of people responding are residents of Scotland. But we know that some people outwith Scotland have an interest in this, including for example expatriate Scots who plan to return, and those who might visit to marry.

So long as the Scottish Government distinguishes the responses from outwith Scotland when analysing the consultation result, we struggle to see what the problem is.

When the consultation was launched, the Government asked people to engage in respectful debate.

We believe that the many supporters of same-sex marriage have done that, and that there is a clear way forward that respects the objections from the larger religious bodies.

That is to allow same-sex marriages, in line with the majority view in Scotland, but to make quite sure that no religious body can be required to be involved unless the body agrees to do so.

Tim Hopkins,

Equality Network,

30 Bernard Street,

Edinburgh.