Both letter writers evoked religion to justify their stance against same-sex marriage. While I do not intend to change their religious beliefs and I respect their personal opinions, I would like to raise a couple of points.

Religions in general oppose the adoption of birth control measures. Yet the majority of people all over the world do not seem to follow their religious teachings when it comes to the use of birth control measures. Perhaps we should acknowledge the fact that nothing is written in stone. As we create new knowledge through scientific discoveries as well as our own meandering life experiences, we revise and redefine existing values and norms in society. In Bangladesh, more and more combined families are becoming nuclear families each passing day. Some might view this trend as an act of "carrying away by the fallacy of western society" but we cannot deny the fact that even the "fundamental unit of our society" is subject to change and evolution.

If religion has an exclusive right over the institution of marriage, how should we respond to the marriages of straight, atheist people? Should we declare such marriages null and void because atheists don't believe in religion? Perhaps it's time we acknowledge that marriage is more of a social institution and societies do not function solely based on religion. And more importantly, we should not impose our own religious beliefs on others.

There is no scientific evidence to support statements such as "'same-sex marriages are contradictory to the notion of procreation of human race" and "homosexual acts must be considered wrong because they close the sexual act to the gift of life." After all, the recognition of same-sex marriage won't turn straight people into gay, nor would it prevent straight people from marrying. It would only allow couples to celebrate their love together irrespective of their sexual orientation.

As for the adoption of children by same-sex couples, what should we do about the children in single-parent families to prevent them from being "deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood and hence the opportunity for full human development?" Should we force their parents to marry again? Or perhaps we should focus on the love of the parents for their children as opposed to the gender of the parents.

So who defines what is sensible, how and at what price? Perhaps that's a dialogue that truly needs "our attention and involvement."