I must feel sorry for Claire Benson (Bulletin, letters Tuesday) because of her family history, married to someone who turned out to be a homosexual and who ignored their three daughters. Unfortunately I think the arguments in her letter against adoption by homosexuals gives support to what she opposes. She mentions that children will basically learn from example, but how many of practicing homosexuals had homosexual parents? Not a high percentage I would dare to guess, and so there is no guarantee that children will follow in their parents' sexual footsteps.

Also I feel sorry that the husband started to ignore the daughters when they began to be sexually attractive. He would not have been sexually attracted to them anyway so it seems to imply that he was just unable to be pleasant, friendly or nice to any women, which implies rather that he was a mysoginist!! If he had been heterosexual, would she have liked him to be sexually attracted to his daughters? But here I must stop commenting on a private and very personal case which I do not think Mrs. Benson needs to answer.

We are not talking about homosexuals who will have no parental feelings for their children, which seems to have been the case quoted above, perhaps due to his own guilt about denying his own tendencies and going into a false marriage. We are talking about stable homosexual couples who have a strong parental urge, be they two men or two women, but possibly more in the latter case due to the feminine genes. We cannot deny that there are very stable homosexual relationships, quietly living together without causing any flamboyant, extravagant 'camp' demonstrations, and these are the people that a social worker would be able to assess as being suitable for adoption.

Any heterosexual relationship that might be considered to be too extravagant, unstable, abandoned, etc. would probably not receive a positive attitude from the social workers either. At the same time, a family unit made up of two brothers, or two sisters can be considered suitable to bring up orphan members of a family. No–one questions the sexual tendencies of those people.

I believe that our creator made us hermaphrodites before we finally emerged into the world and our genes balanced out in one direction or another, some not so pronouncedly as others. Education made the final push into a certain direction, since other animals, as we are, after all only educated animals, make little distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. You only have to look at dogs, cats and even hens when there is no cockerel in the run. I also feel that Mrs. Benson has taken a lot on her 'intelligent, compassionate, broadminded' self to deny the 'gene theory' when this is obviously something that more knowledgeable people, i.e. scientists, have investigated. I also think that it is quite insulting to call homosexuality a 'subculture'. Laws are made to control an activity, not to encourage it. Abortion is made legal in countries where the politicians have considered it to be correct to control the possibilities for abortion and how it is carried out. But no–one is obliged to abort. Similarly, why shouldn't governments wish to control the possibility of adoption by homosexuals, the same as it controls the adoption by heterosexuals, without obliging adoption in either case?

Sorry, Mrs. Benson, I cannot agree that you are compassionate or broadminded.

Anne Kay.Port d'Andratx


To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and be logged in.

* Mandatory fields

Currently there are no comments.