IF Gordon Wilson (Letters, June 15), and others are seriously trying to use human rights as an argument to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law, and equality of rights, they should study more carefully the texts from which they quote.

The relevant articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights refer only to the general principle that all men and women have the right to marry and found a family. There is no stated restriction of this right to marriage to a person of the opposite sex. Furthermore, the said Article 16 states that: "They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

In any case, to attempt to use the spirit of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in order to discriminate against a category of persons, given the ringing pronouncement in the preamble "of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" is a perversion. Given that no-one, at any point, has even remotely suggested that the rights of heterosexuals to marry and found a family will be in any way infringed, and given that this extremely odd concept that the marriages of heterosexuals will be in some way "demeaned" exists only in the minds of the insecure, I am moved to suggest that to appeal to human rights in the cause of opposing marriage equality nullifies the very conception of human rights itself. Without equality, human rights have no meaning.

Daniel Wylie,

5 Avenue General Eisenhower,

Brussels.

I FEAR Gordon Wilson may have presented the worst argument yet against same-sex marriage when he argues it is a violation of human rights. He states that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights grant the right to opposite-sex marriage alone. The trouble with this argument is that these human rights conventions are by their nature compromises that seek to define the bare minimum of rights that must be respected, they certainly are not there to exclude the recognition of other rights, as Mr Wilson seems to imply.

Furthermore, he is under the impression that allowing same-sex marriage would violate the rights of opposite-sex couples to their marriages. It is difficult to unpick the logic of this claim. Simply having other people gain the right to something is not a violation of one's own rights. I for instance am a person with a vote. Does my desire to see the franchise extended (to prisoners and under 18s for instance) mean that I seek to undermine my own right to the vote? The proposition is laughable.

By way of another analogy, when Mr. Wilson led the SNP, he sought to achieve the right of Scotland to be an independent country. This is a position I happen to agree with. Would he say, however, that Scotland gaining the right to be independent would be a violation of the rights of countries that are already independent?

Iain Paterson,

6 Methven Avenue,

Bearsden.

GORDON Wilson is mistaken in implying that international human rights treaties require marriage to be between a man and a woman. The European Court of Human Rights has quite explicitly ruled (Schalk & Kopf v. Austria) that same-sex marriage is compatible with human rights law, and that each country has a right to decide for itself whether to introduce same-sex marriage.

Eight of our 11 immediate neighbour countries have already done so. None of them had a referendum; their parliaments decided. Like our neighbours, we are a parliamentary democracy, and this is an issue for our Parliament to decide.

Tim Hopkins,

Equality Network,

30 Bernard Street,

Edinburgh.

Gordon Wilson suggests that legislating for same sex marriage will "breach the human rights of those who are already married and their families". Surely those who are married have already exercised their human rights to do so, and, as for their families, will not the introduction of same sex marriage potentially extend their human rights, particularly if they happen to be gay?

Graeme Forbes,

12 Longformacus Road,

Edinburgh.

JOHN Paul Cairns should not be surprised that abortions are used to correct gender inequality (Letters, June 12).

When the law on abortion was debated in the early 1960s those in favour of change argued that termination would only be allowed in certain well-defined cases such as rape of a minor and pregnancies which carried an extreme health risk for the mother or the child and would therefore be relatively rare. In the first year after the law was changed there were 1500 abortions in Scotland. In 2011 there were 12,400 including several for physical abnormalities in the foetus such as cleft palate and club foot and an increasing number to reduce the number of foetuses in a multiple pregnancy which would be born, normally for emotional or economic reasons.

At about the same time, interestingly enough, there was almost as big a debate on legalising male homosexual activity, and again the law was changed with strict limitations to allow such activity only between consenting males over the age of 21.

The age limit is now 16. Same-sex partnerships have their rights protected in law and the nation is involved in another debate as to whether these partnerships should be elevated to the status of traditional marriages.

The problem with slippery slopes is that you never know where you are on them until you hit the bottom.

Ken Nicholson,

3 Letham Court,

Glasgow.

I BELIEVE Rosemary Goring missed the mark in her article ("Why gender inequality is pushing up abortion rate", The Herald, June 11).

What she has failed to address or question is why there are so many "intelligent" women with unwanted pregnancies.

There are both accessible and effective methods of emergency contraception and very effective long-acting reversible (LARC) methods of contraception currently available.

There is no excuse for the majority of unwanted pregnancies.

Dr Fiona Gibson,

Cradlehall Farmhouse,

Inverness.