As a naive English first-year coming to Edinburgh, part of the joy of university is discovering forms of culture and expression virtually unheard of back home. For example, being taught what a ned was (non-Scots: look it up!) and learning the hard way that you cannot buy alcohol after ten in shops.  But the most fascinating difference is the news. There are certain major stories here that are virtually unreported on "British" news back home. The one I want to focus on concerns the biggest social change Scotland has faced in decades: legalising gay marriage.

Last week, the SNP’s biggest donor, Brian Souter, gave an interview to the Sunday Times where he criticised the recent proposal to legalise same-sex marriage.  He argued that such a move would result in a “Babylonian-Greek society where sex is a recreational activity”. He also seemed to suggest that any relationship that wasn’t cemented with a heterosexual marriage could not succeed. These remarks terrified me in two ways. Firstly, that such ignorant views could and still do exist in the 21st century, and secondly, that this man has such power in one of the biggest political parties in the UK.

Souter’s objections are so ludicrous that I need not go into great detail in debunking them. Needless to say, sex is and has been a recreational activity for some time, and marriage does not always equal happiness. But there are some issues that do need to be addressed in the same-sex marriage question, which Souter either glanced over briefly, or did not bother to raise at all.

Firstly, how can the religious definition of marriage be reconciled with modern society? Souter’s opinion of marriage seems to hover around the traditional conservative view that takes inspiration directly from the Bible: marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God, so that they may raise a family together. By this definition, gay marriage is impossible.

However, Christianity is so complex a religion that it is not the case that one definition will suit all. Personally, I do not agree with this traditional view. I would call myself a Christian, but I’m also fairly liberal in my beliefs. I do not believe the Bible is the word of God, but I do believe that it can convey many inspiring and interesting messages. It is also, however, intrinsically flawed. Some of its teachings - that women must be subservient to men, for example - are simply unacceptable in modern society; such views are products of the time in which it was written. Therefore, we must change the definition of marriage to fit with society as it is now. A better alternative would be "a union between two individuals based on love before God, and a promise that they will support each other throughout their relationship." My view might be fairly difficult for some Christians to accept, but I feel that we have to move on from such religious conservatism. Religion cannot get in the way of social progress.

The other side of this argument, however, raises the issue of state intervention. Does the state have the right to determine religious policy? Here the answer is not so simple. It would depend on what the state was trying to implement. In this case, because I am in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, it doesn’t bother me at all. However, if this case is allowed to go through, what’s to stop future governments from enforcing beliefs that are less well-intentioned? If you make one exception, there is the potential for the grey areas in moral issues to be taken advantage of by less-tolerant political parties in the future, as has happened before (do any Conservatives still remember Section 28?).

Does this risk mean that we should give up on such an important fight? Of course not: this is a case in which I think we have to intervene. We’re at a real turning point here: the time where religion has to accept that it is no longer the dominant voice in our society. It cannot get away with expressing views that are intolerable for the rest of society. Same-sex marriage is supported by the majority of Scottish people, regardless of what Brian Souter thinks.