Dear Sir, Mr. Picornell (in a letter printed in theDaily Bulletin, 29 June) makes a clear statemnet that any Christian, not just a Catholic can agree with. Countless religions in recorded history have “sanctified” marriage. The responsibility of having children, the difficulty of fitting nine months of pregnancy into daily life, breastfeeding the offspring, and subsequently looking after them to puberty and beyond. In the West, we have accepted marriage in that way, incorporated it into the law, and even given financial benefits to such heterosexual relationships. Suddenly we find ourselves in the midst of social argument because non heterosexuals wish to be treated as heterosexuals. Surely it is not financial reward they ar seeking? Appropriation of the word “marriage” won't make them change their spots. And of course, what do they gain by such misappropriation that they cannot have without it? The Christian concept of loving your neighbour as yourself, thus countering the devil of evolution, has never meant that civil recognition of this precept should have some sort of reward on this earth. Neither does it stop us “loving” our gay neighbour in that sense. From a medical point of view, one cannot condone the misuese of organs of procreation. There is no question that misuse leads to a variety of nasty diseases which are expensive to deal with. Where there is a National Health Service, why should the taxpayer have to pay for it? Perhaps there is a hidden agenda. Legalising same sex unions may discourage promiscuity and the spread of disease. If there is some financial benefit to “gay” civil unions, we should encourage all lonely neighbours and widows and widowers to take advantage of these new civil rights, if they love their neighbour. Incidentially, we doctors have not been told about the anatomical certification procedures (all those extraordinary operations that are submitted to). George Giri, Mancor del Valle.

Are there not more important things in the world to worry about?