The Russian law prohibiting the promotion of “non-traditional sexual relations” does not amount to the persecution of homosexuals. That’s not to say that persecution is not rife there.
It suits the gay lobby to conflate all opposition to their agenda with persecution, so they are particularly keen to draw attention to Russia.
The underlying issue is the message delivered to children. We are hurtling towards teaching children, from the earliest ages, that any and every form of sexual relationship is acceptable, and that any and every family structure is equally beneficial. The aim is that children should not regard marriage to a person of the opposite sex and subsequent child-rearing as preferable.
Unfortunately, since the Scottish political spectrum is so narrow, the counter argument is barely heard. Gary McLelland (Letters, 28 August) repeated the standard anti-democratic illogical and central tenet of secularism: the views of religious people should be excluded from policy making decisions. Can Mr McLelland explain why this section of society should be denied a voice?
Endorsing sexual immorality is not “kindness”, as it harms adults, children and wider society.
CAN we be as sure as Dr Mary Brown (Letters, 28 August) that sexual orientation is “an innate predisposition”?
Arguably from a social psychological point of view homo- and heterosexuality are individual choices. This is because we are complex symbolic beings quite capable of playing different sexual roles.
How otherwise can we make sense of bisexual behaviour or being “gay” in later life? Don’t we take and play sexual roles which we have acquired in a cultural or sub-cultural setting. This doesn’t play down psychology but takes as important the psychology of the social individual.
Old Chapel Walk