Views on vows

GEORGE Reid suggested that an alternative term for same-sex unions might take the heat our of the gay marriage debate (Letters, 15 October). But this is exactly what civil partnerships are: gay campaigners are not seeking equal legal protection, but demand that the fundamental structure that sustains healthy family life be deformed to accommodate same-sex unions.

Alistair McBay asked why Christians are not campaigning against polygamy as vigorously as they are opposing gay “marriage.” The answer is, of course, that the Scottish Government is not proposing to legalise polygamy – yet.

Ian Maxfield’s reference to research indicating that a “strong traditional marriage ethic” is key to a flourishing society will, sadly, tend to fall on deaf ears. Individual rights and preferences are regarded as sacrosanct; wider consequences are utterly ignored.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Colinton

Edinburgh

IN HIS eagerness to cite JD Unwin’s 1934 book Sex and Culture (Letters, October 15) Ian Maxfield overlooks another of the book’s “findings”. Namely that decline in civilisation follows female emancipation.

Little wonder the book is beloved of anti-feminists who want women to remain obedient to their husbands in the kitchen and bed.

And, as Unwin’s thesis concerned heterosexual chastity and marriage, it is hard to see what relevance it has to the current debate about same-sex unions.

(Dr) Stephen Moreton

Warrington

Cheshire

JOYCE McMillan’s article (Perspective, 14 October) on the proposal to legislate for “same-sex marriages” was in my opinion full of prejudice – her own.

Anyone who disagrees with her was labelled “benighted” and her own opinion was described as “enlightened”. There was no reasoned argument in her piece, merely invective.

The fact is that marriage is a union of a man and a woman and has been so for thousands of years, before Christianity, before Judaism, before any of the religions now in existence. It has always been associated with the procreation and upbringing of children and has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

If someone feels deprived because his lifestyle precludes marriage, then that is not a matter for legislation.  

John Kelly

Park Avenue

Edinburgh

JOYCE McMillan is in my view a poor ambassador for tolerance by using a tired and inaccurate description of traditional religious values as “the darkness of superstition”.

Surely an enlightened approach would value equal but different opinions.

Scott Brennan

Monktonhall Place

Musselburgh

THE quality of the debate recently about marriage either of the gay or heterosexual type has been varied.

For instance, I may have missed the thread, but I don’t recall anyone reminding the Catholic Church in particular to check the plank in its own eye regarding sexual shenanigans before laying the law down for the rest.

The other point worth making is that perhaps marriage should be made more difficult for all couples of either sexual orientation.

If legally binding pre-nuptial agreements were compulsory, for example, people might think more seriously about what they were taking on, and consequently, not only would numbers of divorces decrease but the welfare of any children of a marriage would be more assiduously protected.

Finally, I must admit I am rather bemused by the number of professed Christians who are moved to comment on the supposed religious nature of the marriage relationship, when they are frequently silent about the issues which rather seemed to concern Jesus, such as the greed of the rich and the tendency to resolve disputes by state sponsored violence and killing.

I am not a theologian but it strikes me that the Divine Being is far more concerned about these issues that the processes by which we imperfect humans seek to regulate sexual relationships

(Dr) Mary Brown

Dalvenie Road

Banchory