Don’t conflate Hong Kong same-sex marriage rights with views on religion or adoption
- Same-sex marriage does not automatically impact child adoption rights. And the religious faithful can continue to practise their beliefs – but must not impose them on others
There are certain flaws in Anson Chan’s argument against gay marriage (“Society not yet ready for gay marriage”, October 12).
Chan raises two points. First, he claims that allowing same-sex marriage will automatically bring changes to other laws – he mentions child adoption as one. Marriage and adoption are two separate issues, and one does not automatically change the other. So, for example, we could allow same-sex marriage but not allow that union to adopt a child. They are two separate situations, and each should be argued separately.
His second point is that same-sex marriage in some way interferes with religious freedom. But religious freedom means you are free to practise your religious belief; it does not mean you can inflict your view on the rest of society. That notion, so popular during the Inquisition, fortunately is no longer with us. So they are perfectly at liberty to be against the practice of same-sex marriage, just as those who wish to engage in it should be at liberty to do so.
David Osborne, Quarry Bay
Religious views have no place in civil rights debate
I refer to Anson Chan’s letter of October 12. One of his concerns was that same-sex marriage seemingly contravenes the Christian gospel. I must point out the obvious – that Hong Kong is a secular society. We are not, and must not, be a theocracy.
Most our population are not Christians. It is absurd and inappropriate to apply the gospel to non-believers, whether heterosexuals or those in the LGBT community. As far as the civil and human rights of our citizens are concerned, the Christian gospel – or indeed the Koran – is irrelevant.
Regarding his concern that religious groups fear that they will not be able to teach the gospel if and when there is a law against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, a simple exemption clause in the law should suffice and address this concern.
Francis Lo, North Point