Letter: Being equal doesn’t mean being same

Some correspondents have highlighted the fact that there are many Christians who are not opposed to the redefining of marriage so as to include homosexuals. I agree with that observation.

However, most Muslims and Sikhs are opposed to the redefinition, and there are many people of no particular religious conviction who view marriage as being between one man and one woman. More interesting is that some Christians are reluctant, for different reasons, to state openly their opposition. Personally, I have found this dimension to the current debate the most thought provoking.

Are Christians with a traditional view of marriage now among those who feel marginalised? Freedom of speech is often quoted as being the hallmark of a civilised society. In the age in which we live, acknowledgement of beliefs different from our own needs to be a touchstone for our relationships.

Our society has a problem with anything or anyone “different”. This manifests itself in many ways. When we say we want everyone to be equal, are we really meaning we want everyone to be the same?

Are we only capable ofharmony when there is uniformity of personal taste and preference? Are we preparing to deny the very essence that makes each of us who we are?

Most people, whether from a religious perspective or not, come to beliefs through experience and heart searching. Such beliefs are dearly held, and in articulating them, the intention is not to hurt, though there is that risk. The alternative is to stay silent.

We are not worth our salt if there are not situations where we feel impelled to draw a line in the sand. In our society, there will be people who will be on the other side of the line. I can live with that. The question that bothers me is: can they?

Nancy Clusker

Edinburgh Road

Bathgate

I AM not a member of any Christian church – a sort of semi-detached supporter of the Kirk of Scotland. I have, however, grown tired of the incessant attacks on Christianity.

We had the expected broadside from the National Secular Society against Christianity. The usual historical facts are dredged up, the fact is that, in the past, many very unpleasant things were done by those who considered themselves to be Christians but who were in fact not Christian.

The Mithras theory is aired as if it were fact. It is recognised that some Christian festivals were of pagan origin and were subsumed into Christianity. This does not imply they are now pagan festivals, nor does it change the nature of Christianity.

The basic fact is that Christianity has been, for many decades now, a force for good in the world. A further fact is that our whole morality, ethos and legal system has its base in Christianity. This is a fact that the atheist and the secularist seek to deny.

Yet another fact is that, in our society, Christianity no longer seeks to control our lives. It does though, as it is quite entitled to do, seek to guide. Long may it do so.

R Mill Irving

Station Road

Gifford, East Lothian

It IS revealing that Ian Maxfield (Letters, 28 March) chooses to cloak his position in sarcasm instead of supporting it with rational argument or evidence.

I did not “miss the point” of Archbishop Conti’s sermon. In my letter (27 March) I offered no interpretation of any Catholic teaching.

I am concerned by the Catholic Church’s conduct through its clergy, not by its teachings. You do not become a better person or organisation by holding or espousing beliefs but through your behaviour.

Mr Maxfield claims “the” purpose of marriage is “to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another”. It follows that, in his view, a relationship which cannot fulfil this combined purpose should not be a marriage.

Those thereby excluded from being entitled to have the status of marriage attached to their relationships include all couples one of whom is infertile, impotent, too old to have children, injured so as to render them incapable of having children, or simply who does not want to have sex or a child.

Mr Maxfield, we must assume, wishes every elderly couple who are predeceased by their only child to be required by law to thereupon divorce on the basis that, as they are now childless and can no longer procreate, their marriage can have no “purpose” and should not exist.

Must childless couples potentially capable of having children only be allowed to remain married if they can regularly prove to the authorities that they are having sex without contraception as often as they possibly can?

If Mr Maxfield ever favours bad parenting by a husband and wife over good parenting by a single parent or same-sex parents then that would, of course, be at the expense of the welfare of the child being parented.

Martin Dowds

Cornwallis Place

Edinburgh

Regarding the Archbishop’s sermons against same-sex marriage, my 14-year-old daughter said: “Well, Jesus had two dads and he turned out all right, didn’t he?”

She rests her case.

Allan Davidson

Seafield Avenue

Edinburgh