WHY is it that some homosexuals are so terribly irritable and desperately want to see things in comments that are not there, and, at the same time, stubbornly ignore that which is there?

In my letter, homosexuals were clearly 'lumped' together with heterosexuals, not paedophiles.

I disapproved of the flashy display of nudity as a graphic example of heterosexual irresponsibility.

And I went on to regret the often excessive promotion of homosexuality.

Mr Hilton and others ought to accept that equal rights come with equal responsibilities and equal criticism.

Of Mr Hilton's many points based on wrong premises, I will answer one: "What two consenting adults wish to do in private is entirely their business."

My criticism is precisely about the flagrant disregard for all of these principles.

Ironically, while the gentlemen were busy barking up the wrong tree, another letter in the BEN did actually single out homosexuals and lesbians for quite serious and exclusive criticism.

It was left to a lone lady to protest!

If talk about morality is the true irritant, it should make sense, nevertheless, to all concerned that a modicum of morality and the law -- conscience and the Ten Commandments to others -- is all there is for most of us to keep society alive. Where both are weakened beyond a critical point, anarchy is not far behind.

It has also also been noted that some correspondents have developed their own brand of Hitlerspeak as a means of silencing critics at all costs.

When they hurl 'bigot', 'racist', 'homophobe' and 'xenophobe' at us, we can be certain that they lack valid arguments.

Perhaps Mr Hilton and others could now try to make a positive contribution towards the subject of 'the permissive society and the consequences'.

The problems and questions will not go away -- the daily news is a constant reminder.

Mrs B Stuart

Lord's Stile Lane

Bromley Cross