FURTHER to the letters from Rev Graham Hellier and Ian Quayle (Readers’ Times, April 4), historically it may be correct that there have been ritualised same sex unions.

Numerically I contend the word marriage that has had the support of societies within the great religions, in secular societies, has been and is predominantly understood as heterosexual union.

To say that the unions are equal, and therefore merit the same description, is to ignore or give zero value to the procreation of children with the shared genes of parents, raised in the security of a family unit.

If these do have value then the balance tips from equality towards an extra dimension in marriage.

Apart from an exceptional minority, young heterosexuals enter marriage with the intention, possibility and, for the majority, probability of having and raising their family.

This is impossible for homosexuals.

This is the nub of the argument that the unions are different.

It seems the substantive argument in favour of a change to the law and definition can be paraphrased as “heterosexuals have the word marriage so homosexuals must have it and anybody who disagrees, religious or not, is a bigot”.

If there is value in procreation and family then the union is deserving of the unique descriptive word marriage.

Civil partnership effectively conveys commitment which is being suggested as the main criterion for marriage.

R GARVEY, Bush Bank, Hereford.