Children won’t suffer under gay marriages

PAUL Emsley appears to visualise a scenario of disadvantaged children as a result of gay parenting “Unnatural choice to interfere in the sanctity of marriage” (Yorkshire Post, February 11).

There is no evidence that the children of gay parents are any better or worse off than those of straight parents.

There is, however, for what it is worth, some evidence that homosexuals tend to be higher achievers with higher disposable incomes than their straight counterparts so it is not unreasonable to argue that they might just be better placed to provide a stable background than some of their straight counterparts.

Many gay men also 
instinctively display the concern for tidiness and order that has manifestly been inculcated into some former servicemen: 
hardly a quality inimical to parenting.

Homosexuality isn’t just a fashion, as your correspondent seems to think, when he argues that if we “allow individuals to indulge themselves in the cause of modern lifestyles” we are going against nature which “is consistent and what is natural cannot be changed”.

I am not recommending homosexuality but it is nothing if not natural and existed before the state of marriage. Not so long ago an American conservative politician lobbied for the treatment and cure of homosexuality but later made an abject U-turn, admitting that he had changed his mind.

What children need at home is stability and love; if these are present it matters little whether their parents are rich or poor, young or old, gay or straight.

From: Brian Hanwell, Square, Bradford Road, Northowram, Halifax.

HOW can we have clear views about gay marriage when we are not at all sure about what marriage between a man and a woman should really mean?

After being married for 30 years, I divorced my wife after she informed me that she was leaving me for a man she had been having an affair with for seven years. “People change!” I recall her saying as she was leaving!

Many people I know are divorced. Others have only stayed married because one or the other managed to keep their affairs secret. Lots of people who had never had an extra marital relationship admit that it was only because they never had the opportunity!

Doesn’t everyone deserve to have a deep romantic relationship in their life? If for some people their marriage has failed to satisfy their desire for romance is it not their human right to seek it outside of their marriage?

Those who have seen Bridges of Madison County will know what I mean! And what about those railway brief encounters? See Sarah Freeman’s lovely romantic report (Yorkshire Post, February 11). Are such experiences to be frowned upon?

From: Richard E Field, Abbey Farm Drive, Shepley, Huddersfield.

YOUR correspondent Mr Beck of Tickhill (Yorkshire Post, February 11) sensibly suggests that the term “marriage” be confined to its time-honoured meaning of a ceremonial union between a man and a woman, and that a new term be found for formal recognition of a corresponding union between homosexuals.

To resolve this contentious issue would not the term homage be particularly appropriate, being defined in the Oxford dictionary as “formal public acknowledgement of allegiance”? Or would its alternative definition as “dutiful reverence” condemn it as being politically inappropriate?

From: David Fletcher, The Oval, Harrogate.

IF the fast-tracked legislation on gay marriage succeeds, then eventually an important issue to the couples will be pensions. The word “equality” will be debated as much as the subject.

Chaos coming from the east

From: David Rhodes, Keble Park North, Bishopthorpe, York.

TO all Yorkshire MPs, I ask for a unified reaction and resolution to the potential problems that the sudden influx of Romanians and Bulgarians could bring next year.

As new members of the EU, they will be given unrestricted rights to travel and reside anywhere in Europe. On a moral level, this could be regarded as laudable but on a practical footing it is likely to result in chaos.

I am sure most of the population would like a lot of questions answering, such as what accommodation will be made available, what benefits will be provided, what work will be allocated to these new immigrants and many more.

A free-for-all can only result in complete chaos and a state of lawlessness.