Paul Brownsey seems immune to reason in his endeavour to raise the point that the incapacity to procreate nullifies the structure of marriage (Letters, May 25).

Every child born comes from the union of a man and woman (unless medical intervention is used to ensure that is not the case). It is that relationship which is therefore of interest in respect of society ensuring that people responsibly raise their children. Two men together can never produce children.

Scott Barclay is confused about why the state might have a need to recognise marriage (Letters, May 25). It is not simply that it is a relationship of commitment and love. If that were the case might we need to register any time we make a new friend to ensure the status of best friends is adequately promoted in society?

All people have the same right to marry but marriage is a particular relationship between a man and woman; so no more can two men marry than I can become a mother.

If Scott Barclay wants to marry he would need to enter into a relationship with a woman. Whatever he thinks of his relationship with a man it can never be a matrimonial one. I have no animosity to him whatsoever, or to any person whatever choice of relationship they make. I may of course think at times that they could make better choices and I should have the freedom to express the reasonableness of that view without being labelled a homophobe. I will be happy to attend Scott's wedding day but he will have to be entering it with a woman.

John Deighan,

Parliamentary Officer,

Catholic Parliamentary Office,

5 St Vincent Place, Glasgow.

Scott Barclay says: "We do not want gay rights, we want equal human rights". I believe that all humans have the right to equality of justice, fairness, free speech, education, food and water. But we must not confuse equality with uniformity, for we are not all the same.

For example, a woman cannot say: "I want to be called a man, because men get a better deal, therefore I want the definition of the word man to be changed so that it means man or woman."

If men in certain areas of life get a better deal, then the way forward is to bring justice and fairness to society that gives women equal fairness and justice in all areas; it is not simply to change the definition of man to give equality. Men and women are different, and that distinctiveness should be celebrated, not denied.

Heterosexuals are different from those with a homosexual orientation. That does not mean either is more equal than the other, although I know there still are, sadly, homophobic persons in our society. Homophobia is dreadfully unjust and unfair, and we need to continue to rid ourselves of bigotry of any kind. But true homophobia is very different than the honest belief that heterosexual marriage is different from any homosexual partnership. It can never be the same, physically or emotionally, for men and women are distinct physically and emotionally.

For those who are heterosexual and married, they have the equal human right of wanting the distinctive meaning of marriage to remain the same as it has been throughout all of human history. When a heterosexual man or woman says: "I am married", he or she does so because they know that what they mean by marriage will be understood by others as heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexuals who are married are proud of their married status, which is distinctive and carries millennia of tradition and meaning. Do heterosexuals not also have equal human rights, to want to hold onto this long-held meaning of marriage?

Same-sex couples have been granted equal status in our society and in law. Wishing to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples may be heralded as "one of equality", but it is not so. If same-sex couples wish to invent a distinctive name for their relationship, by all means do so. But please do not confuse the meaning of marriage, for heterosexual and homosexual relationships are totally different.

Alasdair H B Fyfe,

59 Mearns Road, Clarkston, Glasgow.