PUBLISHED: 07:00 16 May 2014
It was not surprising that Tamsin Richards' complaint about the coverage of a same-sex wedding in the Journal should draw criticism, such is our current vogue for freedom for sexual expression, but I would ask your readers to think through what is being said with great care.
Mike Chataway claimed that the same-sex wedding he attended, being a state-sanctioned civil ceremony, should be entirely free of any religious restrictions.
That sounds fine, until the prime minister declares that he believes the state he presides over is still a Christian country!
If this is the case, the state should be looking to church teaching for guidance on matters as important as marriage!
If we are no longer a Christian country, then John Thorogood offers us the secular alternative – a state where there is no longer any discrimination between people because of their sexual orientation, race or colour, where “every individual should have equal rights, regardless of anything.”
Presumably this will apply to Mormons and others who would like to take several wives? Or do we wish to keep the Biblical teaching of marriage between one man and one woman that Jesus gives us in Matthew 19: 5-6?
And what about the brother who wishes to marry his sister? Or do we wish to keep the Biblical teaching that prohibits incest?
And then there are questions about adultery, bestiality, paedophilia and so on.
The problem is that a sexual free-for-all is just chaotic and damaging to society.
Lee N Emerson
Scott Drive Church