The article ‘Holy matrimony will stay’ by Fr David Muscat (July 11) was wholly based on emotional arguments and wanting in rational considerations, even of a moral nature.

The point should not have been whether LGBTIQ matrimony mimics Christian marriage (for that, if anything, pays homage to Christian marriage, not offends it). Nor should it be whether Christian marriage will survive intact (for no one, I think, would doubt that).

The point should have rather been whether the State has the duty to consider if LGBTIQ citizens have the right to contract matrimony in the full sense of the word. Philosophically, it does not seem that that duty is fictitious.

On the other hand, whether the act which ensues from this right acknowledged by the State is blessed by God is not, I think, for Fr David or anyone else to decree. ‘God’, I say, not the Catholic Church or any other religious denomination. As far as I know, God blesses any act of love, if love is true. But this does not apply only to Christian matrimony but to any other matrimony and also to any other act.

Fr David surely knows that Jesus’s censure in Mt. 25:11, or any other of his disapprovals, apply to all those who lack love not to who contracts an LGBTIQ matrimony or, even so, to whoever does not agree with the Catholic Church.

He also should know that an argumentum ad passiones (an argument which appeals to emotion), apart from being a logical fallacy, is almost always put forward to win an argument for lack of factual evidence or adequate rational arguments.