Letters | 24 March 2012

Unmentionable question

Sir: Peter Hitchens is no doubt right that the collapse of marriage among heterosexuals is a more serious matter than extending marriage to same-sex couples (‘The gay marriage trap’, 17 March). The damage to the family started with the removal of stigma from having children out of wedlock and divorce on demand; and the redefinition came with same-sex adoption, which in human terms was more radical than same-sex marriage, because there were no long-term studies of what the psychological effect on the adopted children would be. Beyond the issue of the effect on society of the extension of gay rights, however, is the question as to whether conjugal sex and gay sex are morally equivalent. I suspect that most of those who oppose same-sex marriage believe that they are not but dare not say so for fear of being deemed bigoted, judgmental and homophobic. Yet this has been the view of the religious and irreligious alike from antiquity until the present day.
Piers Paul Read
London W6

Above politics

Most popular

Gareth Roberts

Have I Got News for You is a sad, unfunny spectacle

Sir: Hugo Rifkind is surprised at the influence of religion in the gay marriage debate (17 March) but that is because he misunderstands its contribution. The Church is not a political organisation, and does not ‘oppose’ gay marriage as a lobby group. It just asks that our state should recognise what every child recognises: that men and women are different, and that only men and women can be married.
James McEvoy
Chertsey, Surrey

Too philosophical

Sir: The problem with Roger Scruton’s cursory critique of neuroscience and neuroimaging (‘Brain drain’, 17 March) was that it was all philosophy and no science, underpinned by its unfortunate failure to include any primary neuroscience or neuroimaging research to support its suppositions. There is a good critique to be made of neuroscience and imaging — the best is made by scientists themselves who publish fairly sober, hypothesis-driven research and make few claims beyond the constraints of their hypothesis-testing.