Christianity is source of anti-gay hatred

Richard Lucas claims the Church condemns “hatred and aggression directed at homosexuals… while regarding homosexual sex as immoral” (Letters, 6 December).

He may see no contradiction, but it does not fool others. For centuries his religion has been behind the persecution of gay people, wherever it has been the dominant faith.

Probably every anti-gay law in every Christian country, and certainly the opposition to every attempt to repeal such, has had Christian backing. It continues today as Christians in Africa push for ever more extreme anti-gay laws, backed by American preachers peddling bogus statistics “proving” gays to be all things bad.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lucas’s religion has done nothing but bring misery to gay people the world over. It is hard not to be cynical about his assurance that it condemns hatred of homosexuals when it is so often the source of that hatred.

(Dr) Stephen Moreton

Marina Avenue

Warrington, Cheshire

David Hamill (Letters, 6 December) and others bleat on about the potential for gay marriage to cause a schism in the Kirk. So what?

The Church of Scotland and the Church of England, as well as countless others, were only formed in the first place by breaking away from a larger church.

Graeme Jackson

Baberton Mains Hill


In the present furore over church weddings it is possibly relevant to note that very many such weddings are already a mix of circus, fancy dress and photo-shoot, all staged around a token religious element, which has to be included to keep the minister happy and thus get the use of the venue.

In this respect it is a well established fact that photogenic churches stage the majority of religious weddings.

Possibly if ministers had more support from their congregations they could make it quite clear that they would terminate any church service that was being photographed.

This would take a lot of the heat out of the present debate and restore some balance to the “bums on seats at any price” argument.

Irvine Inglis



It seems to me that the whole issue of the possible schism around gay marriage, currently tearing apart the Church of Scotland, could be easily avoided.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Bible within Leviticus 18:22 explicitly says the penalty for two men involved in sexual activities is death. There is no debate there.

I previously argued that if the Church wanted to invoke scripture then the Church had to abide by the penalties as laid down within Old Testament law.

An institution really can’t say it follows the Bible as its model and then ignore what the Bible says about a particular issue. That said, however, I was taken to task by one of your correspondents who said that Old Testament law was superseded by the New Testament. Jesus in Luke 17:34 specifically endorses homosexuality.

Thus Christians should be out campaigning for gay marriage, not opposing it. Unless, of course, they are simply using scripture as a justification for bigotry.

Alan Hinnrichs

Gillespie Terrace


Steuart Campbell asks why the Kirk is bothered about people’s sexuality (Letters, 2 December). If he uses the term sexuality to mean sexual orientation then, obviously, he has not heard that the Kirk welcomes all, regardless of their orientation.

In response to Dr Cameron, who doubts the veracity of this welcome, it is quite in order for him to conduct a service which celebrates the union of two people of the same sex.

Indeed, it is easier for him to celebrate a so-called same-sex marriage than to conduct a marriage when certain requirements of the Registrar have to be observed.

Sandy Gemmill

Warriston Gardens


The news item, “Bang goes the nuclear family” (your report, 6 December), makes light of what is hidden in the fact that 80 per cent of families are no longer “traditional”, according to the once accepted “norm”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A few hours in most classrooms would be a timely indication of how the decline in that “norm” is affecting society and its well-being, especially in relation to young people.

In general, children want nothing more than to be safely nurtured and loved within the home into which they were born, by the parents to whom they were born.

That implies something that has fast diminished in almost a generation and continues so to do.

Yet some might argue that such an expectation of parenting should be a child’s basic human right (barring extreme circumstances).

Many readers may be unaware that, at this time, there is a campaign across Scotland “in support of marriage as the union between a man and a woman”, with its case for this based on well-researched evidence which shows that, unless death or divorce prevent it, children do best when raised by their married mother and father.

This is a broad-based campaign which is accessible online at http://scotlandfor and the signatures recorded to date indicate many people are disturbed by the insidious changes within society, which are eroding the vitally important need of all children for the very best of parenting and secure family life. We all bear responsibility for these changes, which is quite a thought.

Olivia Bell