Correct coupling

I will be happy to acknowledge my theological ignorance if Richard Lucas can point out to me anywhere in the Gospel accounts where Jesus (as opposed to Paul) comments on gay relationships.

From what I read, His only comments on sex per se were to suggest that people who wished to punish others for adultery were hypocrites as they would like to do the same if they could, and that men should not divorce their wives (and thus render them poverty stricken) for a newer model.

Hardly “vague spiritual beliefs” – in fact just the sort of comment a contemporary relationship counsellor might make.

The various comments about our supposed “obsession with sex” by self-appointed Christian spokesmen (sic) ignore the fact that for most of us sex is only really interesting when we are under 35, and/or madly in love.

In most long-term relationships, having shared values and not leaving the tube off the toothpaste are far more important.

As Gary Otton pointed out, the suggestion by the “religious” that we are all obsessed with sexuality is nothing more than voyeurism.

(Dr) Mary Brown

Dalvenie Road

Banchory

Buried in the endless wrangling about same-sex marriages that will no doubt continue until society stumbles upon a topic of new interest, a rather important point has been overlooked.

Regardless of the perceived moral rights and wrongs of such arrangements, why is it always assumed that either party in a same-sex marriage must be gay?

There are considerable numbers of people, male and female, who choose not to be categorised as being aligned to any sexual/gender preference.

Maybe they are in fact the 
social grouping who will eventually decide this issue, regardless of any legislation.

Jim Bradley

Thornfield Terrace

Selkirk