Madam, – Mark McCarron (May 6th) asserts that to call for a freedom of conscience clause in the Civil Partnership Bill is to discriminate against gay people (which for him comes close to being “racist”). We (those who see marriage as intrinsically different from a homosexual union) are not going to be bullied by such use of language.
Different relationships need to be treated differently by law because they are different. Gay couples will never allow the same rights to two siblings living together because they consider that type of union different to their own – can we say they are discriminating towards that couple? Can we even call them “racists” on that account? Likewise we do not discriminate against gays: we simply see marriage between heterosexual couples radically different from a homosexual union – and that difference must be reflected in law if we are to protect what’s good in our society.
If gay-rights activists are so keen to value and promote different “lifestyles” let them also allow for different law structures to regulate different social entities. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am an evangelical Christian who was saddened by the pastors’ letter (May 5th). The lie that homosexuality is sinful has been told so often that we take it for truth when biblically it is not. The Bible never comments on consensual gay relationships such as they exist today, indeed the word homosexual first appeared in print in 1869. The New Testament is written in Greek, a language that had no word for homosexuality when it was written 2000 years ago.
Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and St Paul in his letters, most scholars agree, is referring to temple prostitution rather than consensual adult same-sex relations. A lot of evangelical Christians believe people choose to be gay but again the Bible does not support the view. Nowhere in scripture does it say sexual orientation is a choice. Finally, Gandhi once said “I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians, they are not like your Christ). He was right, we Christians are but poor reflections of the Lord who was gentle and loving, a man we Christians represent badly at best. – Yours, etc,
Madam, I take issue with Mark Mc Carron, who suggests that any “freedom of conscience” clause in the proposed Civil Partnership Bill should be treated with contempt. He bases his assertion on the belief that “sexuality, including homosexuality, is a life-defining characteristic similar to ethnicity, race or gender, so therefore the right to discriminate against gay people, by including a so-called “freedom of conscience” amendment into the Civil Partnership Bill, should be treated with the contempt it deserves.” I believe that one can hold these beliefs and still treat all people lovingly and with tolerance and respect, while at the same time not endorsing their lifestyle choices.
Hence, it is not reasonable that the proposed legislation imposes a €2,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment on a registrar who refuses to register a civil partnership by exercising his/her freedom of conscience and religion. Proprietors of guest houses and BB establishments, florists, photographers etc may similarly be subject to penalty.
Recently, the representative forum of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Pace) voted to approve a resolution urging member states to sign up to the gay rights agenda, to introduce same-sex marriage and to introduce legislation to create a “hate crime” for speech critical of homosexuality, and the creation of the right to same-sex adoption.
However, a number of delegates succeeded in passing an amendment which would require exemptions for religious institutions and organisations “when such institutions and organisations are either engaging in religious activities or when legal requirements conflict with tenets of religious beliefs and doctrine, or would require such religious institution and organisations to forfeit any portion of their religious autonomy.” Tolerance and respect, Mr Mc Carron – not extremism! – Yours, etc,