An imaginary foe

Patrick Harvie MSP (Letters, 1 November) argued with an imaginary foe. I never “complain loudly in the national press when others criticise my views”, but I do present counter arguments – a different thing altogether.

Mr Harvie’s endorsement of freedom of speech rings hollow if he regards approval of gay “marriage” an appropriate prerequisite for Citizens Advice Bureau board membership.

Does he also regard approval of gay “marriage” as necessary to be a teacher, doctor, social worker or youth worker? Or is it just desirable? How long will it be before it is required?

Many an oppressive regime permits freedom of speech – just don’t expect to get a job or promotion if you dissent from the party line.

If opponents of gay “marriage” just bring “ridicule on themselves”, I recommend Mr Harvie support Gordon Wilson’s proposed referendum on the matter. That would surely show, once and for all, that almost all Scots are keen to reject the current understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

After clearly answering the questions above, could Mr Harvie also state his views, as an “equality” advocate, on legalising polygamous, polyamorous and temporary marriages? This question has been repeatedly asked on this letters page, but never answered.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh

I agree with Patrick Harvie MSP that “to challenge homophobia or discrimination is not to undermine freedom of speech; merely to exercise it”.

However, with freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use it meaningfully.

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” (Humpty Dumpty).

“The question is whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” (Alice)

It is inadmissible for members of the the homosexual community to hijack language to promote their own agenda. If same-sex couples wish to form a civil partnership, then that is up to them; just don’t call it marriage when it isn’t.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Those who call critics of homosexuals’ abuse of language homophobic are guilty of name-calling and of employing the argumentum ad hominem, a sure sign that they have lost the argument.

Similarly, not all discrimination is unjust. I discriminate in my behaviour between a red and a green traffic light.

Colin McAllister

South Street

St Andrews