Marriage is about recognition of love

Those members of Scottish churches who seek to prevent homosexuals from having a marriage ceremony resemble members of political parties who are in, or seek to be in, the House of Lords. The latter cannot be described as democrats, either social or liberal; the former cannot be described as Christians, for Christ said “love one another as I have loved you”.

Our religious zealots mix up love and sex. Sex is a physical reaction to a physical stimulus. All creatures from mice to monarchs “do it”. If the only reason for human sex is to produce offspring, then men and women who can’t have children, don’t want to have children or are too old to have children, shouldn’t be “doing it”.

The physicality of sex shouldn’t be confused with the spirituality of love. No prizes for guessing which is more important for a long-term, stable relationship. Those who wish or choose to join together in matrimony aren’t looking for a stamp on their foreheads to say “our sex life is now legitimised”.

They are looking for recognition, in front of friends and family, of their love for one another. That love, recognised in a marriage ceremony of whatever kind, strengthens rather than fractures society.

What fractures society is poverty and inequality, so those same zealots would better serve humanity and the principles of their faith by joining hands with those protesting in the squares of our great cities against the excesses of capitalism.

Elizabeth Skinner

Castle Terrace

Edinburgh

It is irrelevant and unhelpful for the “Scotland for Marriage” campaign to claim that if equal marriage is legalised then the SNP will lose a referendum on independence.

It is also wrong for those who shout loudest to think they speak on behalf of all people of faith. As the recent Social Attitudes survey revealed, more than 60 per cent of the population support a change in the law to allow same-sex couples the right to marry.

As a proud gay man and a committed Christian, it is deeply hurtful and humiliating to be told by other people of faith that I am shameful and have a lesser right to love.

Calum Wyllie

East Saltoun

East Lothian

Responding to the Scotland for Marriage launch, Tom French repeated the gay rights mantra of “equality”, as though this single-handedly sweeps aside the array of arguments against same sex “marriage”.

This egalitarian argument employed to justify same-sex “marriage” can equally be marshalled to justify polygamous, polyamorous or temporary marriage. What arguments can be made against them once it has been conceded that the definition of marriage is flexible?

This point has been raised repeatedly, but I have yet to read a reply.

So, one more time, what reasons can an advocate of gay “marriage” give for opposing such further redefinitions of marriage?

Don’t hold your breath.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh

The Church of Scotland is entitled to its view on same-sex marriage, although it is disappointing that it feels it right to seek to impose its view on other religious bodies, and other people, that do not share it.

However, the Kirk is quite wrong in saying that the process for considering this is rushed and exclusive. Same-sex marriage was first discussed in the Scottish Parliament, in the petitions committee, in 2009.

It was in four out of five parties’ election manifestos in May. The promised consultation has lasted three months, with many thousand public responses – more than almost any other government consultation.

The government has met with all the main religious bodies as part of that consultation. And there will be another consultation late next year on draft legislation, followed by months of debate in the parliament.

Although for same-sex couples this is frustratingly slow, the Equality Network supports Scotland’s consultative policy process, and applauds the inclusive way the Scottish Government has approached this.

Tim Hopkins

Equality Network

Bernard Street

Edinburgh

I was amused by the news regarding the protest held by the ambiguously titled Scotland for Marriage campaign. Like the majority of Scots, I fully support equal marriage.

What I also found interesting was their use of entwined wedding rings as their logo, given the secular origins of this symbol.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s choice of words on how opening up marriage to same-sex couples will “demolish a universally recognised human right” was frankly bizarre, as it is precisely this human right which is presently denied to gay couples. I see nothing in the consultation paper which suggests marriage for mixed-sex couples will be banned. Hopefully the Scottish Government will listen to all voices raised during this consultation process, and not just to those who use their unelected power to shout the loudest.

Graeme Jackson

Baberton Mains Hill

Edinburgh

Your insert on the gay marriage issue, “Law looks to have momentum” (2 December), was a very helpful piece.

A key element of the process seems to be the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey finding that 60 per cent of people in Scotland believed that same-sex couples should have the right to get married, while only 19 per cent per cent disagreed.

It is on this evidence that Gerry Hassan, in the same issue, can say that “Public opinion has shifted” and that “Scots now support same-sex marriage”. It also allows George Kerevan, in the same issue, to say that “Scotland’s attitude to homosexuality has changed dramatically in the past decade – for the better”.

They both may well be right, that attitudes have changed, but it is worth pointing out that the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey – which is no doubt highly professional, uses a rigorous survey technique based on random probability sampling, and is as robust and representative as possible – only interviews 1,500 people out of a population of 5 million. If the momentum for changes in law is to be based on social attitudes, then it seems perfectly reasonable to ask for a referendum.

Crawford Mackenzie

Windsor Street

Dundee