LIKE it or not, in these increasingly secular times the determination of politicians to force a redefinition of marriage upon the public will have as yet unforeseen, long-term negative consequences. There are widely disseminated assertions that a majority of the public are in favour of this move, yet the SNP government’s own consultation indicated exactly the opposite. But never mind, in the view of the great and good it’s “the right thing to do”, so no doubt it will become law.
The June 2000 repeal of Clause 28 section 2a, the act forbidding the promotion of homosexuality in schools in Scotland, was part of the “softening up” process to ensure an upcoming generation were much more likely to accept it.
This, among other things, like the ongoing aggressive sexualisation of society, which is the easiest way of destabilising it, seems to have introduced the idea that men and woman are somehow interchangeable. To demonstrate this we find it now acceptable when a man talks about his “husband” or a woman, her “wife”: small wonder that there is widespread acceptance among the young that same-sex marriage in a religious setting is to be approved of and even encouraged.
This is not about criticising homosexuals or lesbians, this is about recognising the fact that a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, so why is it that anyone who values the sanctity of this union and has deep and genuine reservations about unwanted and unneeded changes to it, is automatically condemned as “homophobic”, a glib and knee-jerk definition that is as inaccurate as it is offensive?
Brian Allan, Alloa
THE debate about wanting everyone to have the same legal rights and ceremonies is understandable, and in our “human rights” environment, desirable. However, where a huge majority of us struggle is where the concept of two things which are obviously and visibly not the same, are to be called the same.
Saying marriage between two different sexes is the same as marriage between two of the same sex seems to me the story of the emperor’s new clothes. Why isn’t it simply given a different name, eg “sarriage”, with the “s” standing for “same sex” marriage? That way everyone could have the same ceremonies and celebrations to their hearts’ content – and everyone would know the situation.
Mrs M Wilson, Newburgh, Ellon