Position harmful to children
On July 29, the heads of the three above organisations attacked David Quinn for having the temerity to criticise their view on human rights ('How dare the UN take us to task on human rights', Irish Independent, July 18).
Among other things, Mr Quinn pointed out that by supporting gay adoption, etc, the ICCL and its allied organisations implicitly deny a child's right to a mother and father. This is highly controversial.
In their reply to Mr Quinn, they confirm this by also attacking Professor Patricia Casey, who has written elsewhere in defence of a child's right to both a mother and father. Prof Casey bases her case on the growing body of evidence which shows that having both a mother and a father is of benefit to a child.
In support of her case, Prof Casey cited reports by Anna Sarkadi of the University of Uppsala and by Unicef, highlighting the importance of fathers. Prof Casey logically concluded that every child should have a mother and father, where possible, and that the State should support heterosexual marriage, because married fathers have more contact with their children than non-married fathers, on average.
It's true, as Mr Quinn's critics point out, that both Unicef and Anna Sarkadi attacked Prof Casey for drawing this conclusion, but her logic is inescapable. If fathers matter, then every child should, where possible, have one, and presumably a mother also.
In any event, Mr Quinn's critics have proven his point: namely that there are competing views of human rights; and one flashpoint concerns the right of a child to a mother and a father. The ICCL, etc, are firmly aligned with the radical side in this particular debate, a position that is distinctly -- and self-evidently -- harmful to the interests of children.
TONY ALLWRIGHT
KILLINEY, CO DUBLIN
