Same-sex stushie

Brian Allan (Letters, 18 June) claims that the findings of the recent Ipsos Mori opinion poll on same-sex marriage reflect the agenda of the commissioning organisations, which were the Equality Network, the Scottish Youth Parliament and LGBT Youth Scotland.

Ipsos Mori advised on the wording of the poll, which asked people whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “Same-sex couples should have the right to get married.” That’s a simple and straightforward question.

To suggest that the 1,003 people who Ipsos Mori interviewed did not understand it is to insult their intelligence. If you oppose same-sex marriage, you will disagree with that statement; if you support it, you will agree.

Sixty-four per cent agreed with same-sex marriage, with only 26 per cent disagreeing. Of people under 55, 75 per cent agreed and only 18 per cent disagreed. Each time a Scottish survey has asked a simple, straightforward question on same-sex marriage, the results have been similar. That fact speaks for itself.

Tim Hopkins

Equality Network

Bernard Street

Edinburgh

The fight against gay marriage is being led by various religious leaders. Since the intellectual and moral arguments in favour of homophobia for the past 2,000 years have been underpinned by these same religious groups, it is a bit like in the USA of the 1960s having the Ku Klux Klan deciding on whether black people should have full suffrage.

Rather than rallying against gay marriage, these same religious leaders should reflect on how much damage their respective religious teachings have caused gay people over the centuries, and perhaps be a little more humble and contrite.

Neil Sinclair

Clarence Street

Edinburgh

Another recent poll found that 11 per cent would be less likely to vote for independence if the SNP sought to legalise same-sex marriage. It seems that, if the SNP leadership does press ahead, it would be encouraging two unions: the one personal and novel, the other political and historical.

(Dr) Euan Dodds

Moray Park Terrace

Edinburgh

Contrary to Derrick McClure’s implication (Letters, 18 June) there is nothing contradictory about defending people’s right to religious freedom, while thinking that their religion is daft. I criticise silly beliefs, but still defend a person’s right to hold those silly beliefs.

(Dr) Stephen Moreton

Marina Avenue

Warrington, Cheshire

Richard Lucas (Letters, 15 June) questions my biblical scholarship in our exchange about what the Bible says about marriage and traditional family values.

I have a confession to make. Although I have indeed read the Bible, the “biblical scholarship” in my letter of 14 June was plagiarised almost verbatim from the writings of Greg Carey, Professor of New Testament Theology at Lancaster Theological Seminary, Pennsylvania, USA. He put the arguments so much better than I could have done, so I saw no reason to try to paraphrase them. I am now pleased to accredit him. If Mr Lucas wants to chide the good professor on his questionable biblical scholarship, he is, of course, free to do so.

Alistair McBay

National Secular Society

Atholl Crescent

Edinburgh

Chambers Dictionary describes “marriage” as “the ceremony, act or contract by which a man and woman become husband and wife; a similar ceremony etc between homosexuals”.

Bell’s Dictionary of the Law of Scotland (Third Edition) 1826 defines marriage as follows: “Marriage is a civil and solemn contract between a man and a woman, whereby they unite themselves for life, in a domestic society, for the mutual solace and comfort of each other; and having in view chiefly the propagation of the species and the rearing of a family.

“This contract is indissoluble, except by the death of one or other or both of the parties, or by divorce founded by adultery, or desertion; impotency, or a natural incapacity on either side for procreation, being not so much a ground for divorce as an essential nullity, in respect of which the contract may be declared to have been void from the first.” Has the foregoing definition of the Law of Scotland been so changed as to justify Chambers’ definition? If so, Dr Stephen Moreton’s claim that homosexuals have “equal marriage rights” might be justified, but Richard Lucas has my support for what the Law of God declares in this matter.

Donald Jack

Summerside Place

Edinburgh