Finding right word for gay ‘marriage’

THE majority of people – probably the vast majority – would agree that same-sex couples have just as much right as their heterosexual counterparts to enter into a binding and reverent union. To deny them this is arrogant and unChristian (Letters, 14 October).

The main reason for the present controversy, in my view, arises from the use of the term marriage.

Marriage for centuries has been accepted as the description of the union of man and woman. If a suitable alternative were found for the name of same-sex unions, then much of the heat would disappear from the debate.

George Reid

Easter Park Drive

Edinburgh

JOHN Hein in his support for same-sex marriage may applaud Alex Salmond’s YouTube video “It gets better” (Letters, 14 October), but what is the “it” and will “it” really “get better”?

Anthropologist J Unwin studied 86 cultures spanning 5,000 years and found the most prosperous and creative were those that maintained a strong traditional marriage ethic. (Sex and Culture, London: Oxford University Press, 1934).

In light of Unwin’s study, can Mr Hein, and Mr Salmond for that matter, demonstrate how “it gets better” if legislation is passed to allow same-sex “marriage”?

Ian Maxfield

Roberton

Biggar

WHILE I have some residual sympathy for former SNP leader Dr Gordon Wilson’s criticism of the SNP administration’s gay marriage proposals (your article, 12 October), I would like to inject a much-needed sense of perspective into this debate.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that these proposals constitute an attempted radical re-definition of the historic character of marriage, which has traditionally been seen as an essentially heterosexual institution, partly predicated on the need to provide a relatively stable environment for the procreation and rearing of the next generation.

To dismiss such a critique as mere homophobia betrays an absolutist, politically correct mindset which is the antithesis of serious thinking. On the other hand, it seems to me to be way over the top to argue, as do Dr Wilson and his fundamentalist Christian colleagues, that such legislation will inevitably lead to social disintegration and is, therefore, an attack on Scottish society.

After all, it has been obvious that the main threat to marital stability in Scotland has come from the behaviour of the heterosexual majority rather than the gay minority.

Finally, I would plead with Dr Wilson to abandon, or at least indefinitely postpone, his suggestion that the issue of “gay marriage” should be settled by means of a referendum. Surely this would simply serve to distract attention from the politically much more important constitutional issues at stake in the independence referendum?

Ian O Bayne

Clarence Drive

Glasgow

I WAS interested to read John Stuart from the Scottish Episcopal Church (Letters, 14 October) tell us marriage is “a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman”. However, this is not the case for every religion, with some men taking more than one wife in certain sects.

Why, if the Christian churches are so adamant that marriage involves just two people, one of either sex, are they not campaigning as vigorously against this practice as they are against gay marriage?

Alistair McBay

Lawmuirview

Methven

COLIN MacFarlane (Letters, 10 October) complains that Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, is campaigning to retain the long-standing definition of marriage while thousands of people are earning less than a dollar a day.

I take it, therefore, that Mr MacFarlane will now be stopping his campaign to redefine marriage so that he can concentrate his efforts on improving pay around the world.

It is interesting that people advocating a new definition of marriage so often resort to ad hominem attacks rather than debate the real issue.

Michael Ryan

Campsie Drive

Bearsden