So what is 'unnatural?'

After reading the comments of Mr R Kenyon (Letters, January 4) regarding the 'unnaturalness' of homosexuality, I really did not know whether to laugh or cry.

It is obvious to all but a dimwit that the sexual exploitation of any youngster is a more than valid concern, but do such worries really have to be tainted by blatantly irrational homophobia?

Granted, Mr Kenyon starts well enough, but quickly dissolves into drivel on how distasteful he finds homosexuality and, oh, what a sin it is. I for one am tired of homosexuality being condemned because it is 'unnatural.' There are plenty of other examples of life not turning out as nature intended it, such as deformities, blindness, deafness, etc.

Does Mr Kenyon suggest that, because such unfortunate problems are not what nature intended, we should perhaps outlaw disabled people? If not, then perhaps his argument reveals that it is down to his personal distaste rather than logic.

Homosexuality has always been around, even in those who never came across it, and always will be.

Mr Kenyon also disapproves of gay lifestyle. So now every homosexual is promiscuous, despite many being in loving, long-term relationships (and, I hasten to add, enough heterosexuals are promiscuous).

At the end of the day, homosexuality between two consenting adults does nobody any harm.

If Mr Kenyon really does wish to combat 'unnaturalness,' perhaps he should channel his energies into fighting unnatural acts which actually do harm, like paedophilia.

JENNIFER PRESTON (address

supplied)