Archbishop Mario Conti opposes same-sex marriage, saying that the "capacity to create a natural family" is an "essential characteristic" of marriage (Letters, September 9).

Really? So why isn’t the Catholic Church campaigning to ban marriage between men and women who are unable to conceive a child, for whatever reason? The answer surely is that the church’s position on this issue is not based on inability to conceive, but on opposition to equality for same-sex couples.

The church has been repeatedly assured by all the organisations supporting same-sex marriage, by the Scottish and UK Governments, and by the other parties in the Scottish and UK Parliaments, that the law will continue to guarantee the right of the church to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages. And yet the Archbishop claims again that the church will be forced to do so. He has already called us all foolish in his letter; is he saying we are all liars too?

Marriage existed long before the Catholic Church did. It has never had a single unchanging definition. The definition and reality of marriage has changed enormously over time, and varies across the globe.

Not so long ago, in Scotland, marriage gave a husband almost total control over his wife – thankfully there has been a revolution in the meaning of marriage since then. In seven of the European countries immediately surrounding us, same-sex couples can already marry, and it is time for Scotland also to move into the front rank of fair and inclusive 21st-century states.

Tim Hopkins,

Equality Network,

30 Bernard Street,

Edinburgh.

I WAS delighted to read the letter from Archbishop Conti. He correctly points out that homosexuals cannot reproduce together, and says that this is the reason we should dichotomise civil partnerships and marriage.

I hope, therefore, the Archbishop will be kind enough to support my forthcoming campaign to introduce mandatory fertility tests before marriage, with those who are found to be infertile being refused the option to marry and instead only allowed a civil partnership.

He also says that we cannot simply “call something what it was not yesterday”. The Archbishop may wish to consider that in many countries inter-racial marriage was once illegal.

“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

David French,

82/10 Pleasance, Edinburgh.

At least one of the mainstream churches in Scotland is making its position clear on the subject of same-sex marriage and participating in the Scottish Government’s consultation. Let us hope that the other mainstream church in our country, Church of Scotland, also participates and adopts a position other than bestriding a fence.

All who share Archbishop Conti’s views should advise the Scottish Government accordingly and let us determine the accuracy of the Scottish Social Attitudes survey which has expressed the finding that 60% of people in Scotland believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

It is stated on behalf of the Scottish Government that it is embarking on a consultation on a subject in relation to which it has an “initial” view. With the Government having chosen to take that position and having passed the ministerial brief to Nicola Sturgeon, Health Secretary, from Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Community, Safety and Legal Affairs, who would have been expected to deal with such a matter, there are some who have the distinct impression that the statement to the effect that no decision has been made is window-dressing since the final view based on the initial view is apparently under active consideration by civil servants with regard to the form that enabling legislation will require to take.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

ARCHBISHOP Conti warns of falling foul of a possible law which permits same-sex couples to be “married”. He claims that it is not an issue of equality, liberty or human rights, but one of definition. While it could be viewed as such, there will be consequences for any civil servant who refuses on grounds of conscience to officiate at such ceremonies. In addition, prior to the 1967 Abortion Act the unborn child in the womb was redefined as a bundle of cells, a foetus, and lost the human rights it possessed under the 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act, which was replaced by the 1967 Act. Great care must be taken with language.

Gerry Devlin,

34 Monroe Drive, Uddingston.

The recent correspondence in your Letters Pages makes reference to a recent opinion poll when some 60% of the respondents claimed to be in favour. This figure is now being used to suggest that 60% of the Scottish population is in favour. It should be remembered that only around 1000 people were questioned, meaning that some 600 people were in favour.

J S Morrison,

1 Arran Drive. Kirkintilloch.