Changing views about sexual orientation - 'A more fluid approach'

Many people believe that homosexual and heterosexual are distinct biological categories like race – unchangeable, biologically fixed and genetically determined. It is on the basis of this view that the gay rights lobby and sections of the media argue that 'homophobia' is a form of discrimination akin to racism.

But this view is being increasingly challenged, not least by gay rights activists themselves. In a recent Huffington Post article that has generated a huge amount of attention, 'Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight', (1) Peter Tatchell affirms both the spectrum and also the fluidity of sexual attraction.

Regarding bisexuality he says: 'We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is a fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.'

Then he challenges the traditional view that gay and straight are distinct categories:

'Research by Dr Alfred Kinsey in the USA during the 1940s was the first major statistical evidence that gay and straight are not watertight, irreconcilable and mutually exclusive sexual orientations. He found that human sexuality is, in fact, a continuum of desires and behaviours, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the population shares an amalgam of same-sex and opposite-sex feelings - even if they do not act on them.'

Tatchell, however, grossly inflates the true incidence of exclusive homosexuality. The best evidence (2) (3) (4) suggests that only a very small percentage of men (1-2%) and women (0.5-1.5%) experience exclusive same-sex attraction throughout their life course. But bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than exclusive homosexuality.

What is the relative ratio of bisexuality to exclusive homosexuality? For each man who is 'completely homosexual' (Kinsey score 6) there are three with varying shades of bisexuality; but for women the ratio is 1:16. (5)

Sexual attractions are therefore best understood as lying on a spectrum rather than in terms of a simple dichotomous binary categorisation, and mixed patterns of sexual desire, including attraction to both sexes at the same time, appear to be more common than exclusive same sex attraction, especially among women.

But the concept of a spectrum of sexuality–known for decades, but often ignored–also calls into question simplistic analogies between sexual orientation and race.

Conflating sexual orientation and race is not really comparing like with like. It is what is called a 'category error'.

References

1. Huffington Post; 10 January 2012
2. Dickson N, et al. Same-Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood. Soc-Sci and Med 2003; 56 (8):1607-15.
3. Savin-Williams RC, and Ream GL. Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Arch Sex Behav 2007;36:385-94.
4. Laumann EO, et al. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

From the Spring 2012 edition of Triple Helix

My shocking sex confession

I am fairly unshockable but a headline in the Daily Mail this morning took my breath away.

It reads,’“We abstained from having sex until we got married”: Ali Landry reveals startling wedding night secret'.

Ali Landry is a 38-year-old actress and former Miss USA who made the astounding confession on a talk show that she waited until her wedding night to sleep with second spouse Alejandro Monteverde (She annulled her first marriage just two weeks after the wedding because her husband had been unfaithful).

This, coupled with the equally astounding revelation in this morning’s Metro that a British man has been married to the same woman for 64 years (his name is the Duke of Edinburgh), has emboldened me to make a shocking personal confession.

My hope in doing this is that others might also feel able to ‘come out’ about their past sexual behaviour as, I'm sure you will agree, there is often strength in knowing that we are not alone in our personal experiences.

Ok so here goes. I lost my virginity aged 24 on my wedding night almost thirty years ago (to my first wife!) and have only had one sexual partner since (ie. my first wife to whom I am still married).

So there you have it. Has it all been plain-sailing? Of course not, and we have needed a huge amount of help and support along the way, surprisingly mostly coming from someone who never married and has never had sex.

But I think that is already enough information for now.

Lady Gaga on being ‘born this way’

Lady Gaga has set a new worldwide record, becoming the first person to hit 20 million followers on Twitter.

The singer has now edged way in front of her nearest rival Justin Bieber who has 18m followers.

Contemporary idols like Lady Gaga have a powerful influence, not just in becoming the obsessional preoccupation of millions of teenagers (her smash hit ‘Bad Romance’ has had over 450 million views on you tube – one view for every 15 people on the planet), but also in shaping the aspirations and beliefs of a generation.

In this connection, and given the current debate on same sex marriage, I was interested to see an article titled ‘Not “born this way”’ published today on meracatornet about how Gaga has helped mould beliefs on sexuality. It reads:

‘Many people are sympathetic to persons with same-sex attraction demand for a ‘right’ to marry because they believe that such persons were ‘born that way’ and can’t change; therefore, allowing them to call their relationships marriages gives such persons their only opportunity for a recognized relationship.’

Lady Gaga’s song ‘Born this way’ expresses just this view.

No matter gay, straight or bi
Lesbian, transgendered life…
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
Baby, I was born this way

Our Prime Minister David Cameron of course shares this opinion and this is what is driving him in his campaign to legalise same sex marriage.

The problem is that there is no science supporting a ‘gay gene’ or combination of genes or hormonal cause for same-sex attraction.

‘In 1995 The Journal of Homosexuality published 4 issues (Vol 28, numbers 1/ 2. 3/ 4) on the question of biological causes for same-sex attraction. The issues were republished under the title Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference, and edited by John DeCecco and David Parker. Their conclusion: “Current research into possible biological bases of sexual preference has failed to produce any conclusive evidence.”’

And since 1995 no new scientific, replicated studies have even claimed to find a biological cause for same sex attraction (see my review)

Even leading gay rights activists like Peter Tatchell concede that the belief that homosexual orientation is biologically fixed or determined is not evidence-based.

Most researchers now accept that homosexual orientation, although it may have some genetic influences, is a complex product of genetics, environment and personal choice.

Unfortunately, as mercatornet points out, more people are inclined to believe Lady Gaga than the actual evidence.

Lady Gaga's Joanne World Tour Dates here 

LGBT community and church at sixes and sevens over bisexuality

This week 100 clergy sent a letter to the Times(£) giving their support for holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches.

The Rev Gillean Craig, Vicar of St Mary Abbots, Kensington, told The Times why he signed: ‘The homosexual women and men who are my friends and colleagues leave me in no doubt that their sexual orientation is given. It’s how they are, not a lifestyle choice.’

The belief that sexual orientation is biologically determined and fixed is increasingly common, but has been recently challenged by new research into the rise of bisexuality.

In a recent ‘comment’ piece in the Church Times, Andrew Goddard and Professor Glynn Harrison challenge this widely held perception.

‘The old belief is still common, especially in the Church, that people are either homosexual or heterosexual. “Gay” and “straight” are often spoken of as though they were distinct and enduring categories of human experience, present from birth and rooted in biological difference. Many still think that it is all simply to do with having been “born that way”. To this way of thinking, nurture, environment, culture, and human agency are supposed to have contributed little to the way in which sexual desires develop and integrate with personality.’

They argue, on the basis of two recently published reports (1,2), that the best and most recent evidence fundamentally challenges the commonly accepted framework. These studies confirm that there are a number of people who decline conventional categories of ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, and prefer instead to characterise themselves in terms such as ‘bisexual’ or ‘unlabelled’.

The UCLA review reports that, in the US, an estimated 3.5 per cent of adults label themselves as ‘lesbian’, ‘gay’, or ‘bisexual’. But, more importantly, within this figure, “bisexuals” are a slight majority overall — 1.8 per cent compared with 1.7 per cent who identify as gay or lesbian — and a clear majority among women.

The NHSR report says that 11 per cent of the Americans surveyed (aged 15-44) acknowledge some level of same sex attraction, and 8.8 per cent have engaged in sexual behaviours with someone of the same sex at some time in their lives.

This fluidity has been recognized by commentators from the LGBT community for some time. Former MP and journalist Matthew Parris wrote several years ago:

‘Sexuality is a supple as well as subtle thing, and can sometimes be influenced, even promoted; I think that in some people some drives can be discouraged and others encouraged; I think some people can choose’ (The Times, 5 August 2006).

And gay rights activist Peter Tatchell just last month courted controversy in a Huffington Post article, ‘Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight’, by affirming the fluidity of sexual attraction.

‘We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is an fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.’

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

And a report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states,‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

Cynthia Nixon is the latest in a line of ‘celebrities’ drawing our attention to the idea of ‘liquid’ sexualities.

Nixon, best known for the role of Miranda in ‘Sex and the City’, spent fifteen years in a committed relationship with a man, bearing him two children during that time. But for the past eight years, she has been in a relationship with a woman, to whom she is engaged.

In an interview with The New York Times Magazine, Nixon said, ‘I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice’.

In a recent commentary Linda Carbonell, spells out the implications of these developments for the gay rights movement:

‘For years now, gay rights activists have been making the case that gay is not a “lifestyle choice,” but a biological condition. They consider it essential to the movement for the biology to be accepted as the root cause of homosexuality. The thinking is simple – if being gay is not a choice, then discriminating against people who are gay is unconstitutional.’

But she goes on to say that the gay rights movement is ‘ so dug in to the idea that “lifestyle choice” threatens gay rights that they are attacking actress Cynthia Nixon for saying that for her, at least, it was a choice’.

As reported in ABC News, ‘Nixon’s comment upset some members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, who took umbrage with the idea that they have control over their sexual preference.’

So much so it seems that they have attempted to get Nixon to restate her position:

In a statement published by the LGBT magazine The Advocate, Nixon is now quoted as saying:

‘While I don’t often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have ‘chosen’ is to be in a gay relationship. As I said in the Times and will say again here, I do, however, believe that most members of our community — as well as the majority of heterosexuals — cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex.’

However, whatever Nixon may say, the cat has long been out of the bag. Whilst there are clearly some people who experience exclusively either same-sex or opposite-sex erotic attraction, there are also a significant minority whose sexual feelings are more fluid - and in both directions.

These fluid, flexible, competing sexual attractions pose ethical questions for everybody, including those of religious faith.

As Goddard and Harrison argue, ‘The concept of a spectrum of sexuality - something known for decades, but often ignored - reflects the complex reality of sexual attraction and behaviour, and calls into question simplistic analogies between sexual orientation and race.’

It also raises the question of how to provide pastoral support for those who recognize they have a bisexual orientation, yet wish to remain heterosexual and monogamous in practice.

Such people surely must have the right to seek pastoral and counselling support in managing their sexual desires in line with their chosen religious identity and values. And this will obviously involve learning to encourage and nurture heterosexual feelings whilst at the same time seeking not to act on homosexual feelings.

And if choosing not to act on homosexual feelings is acceptable in the case of people who are bisexual yet wish to remain monogamous, then why is it not equally acceptable for those who have exclusively homosexual feelings, to choose not to act on them and to seek help toward this end?

After all, not acting on heterosexual sexual impulses is part of life for single Christians who have never married, or are divorced or bereaved.

As affirmed in a new booklet published by CMF last year, ‘People with unwanted same sex attraction who seek to live in conformity with their beliefs should be free to receive appropriate and responsible practical care and counsel’.

References

1. The 2011 National Health Statistics Report (NHSR) is a nationally representative, multistage study that investigates a wide range of sexual attractions and behaviours (A. Chandra et al., Sexual Behaviour, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011).

2. A review from the UCLA School of Law combines data from nine recent surveys (G. J. Gates, How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?, The Williams Institute, UCLA, 2011).

Sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually

The costs of sexual freedom and relationship breakdown to the taxpayer and wider economy total some £100 billion annually; about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.

This is the astounding conclusion of the latest ‘Cambridge Paper’, ‘Free sex: Who pays? Moral hazard and sexual ethics’, by Jubilee Centre researcher Guy Brandon.

Rather than addressing fundamental moral issues around sexual freedom, Brandon employs a utilitarian approach and attempts to quantify its financial impact. He argues that sexual freedom ‘represents an enormous moral hazard and, as a result, unsustainable and unjust public expenditure’. Furthermore, these costs are imposed on society as a whole, rather than borne solely by the individuals most directly responsible.

He first surveys the ‘changing landscape of sexual freedom’. The average age of first intercourse has fallen from 21 in the 1950s to 16 now. The divorce rate has risen from 4.4 per 1,000 in 1970 to 11.1 people per 1,000 in 2010. Forty years ago 85 per cent of first unions were marriage but now 85 per cent are cohabitations. Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) in England rose 74 per cent between 1998 and 2009 and abortions increased from 54,819 in 1969 to 189,574 in 2010.

These trends are familiar to all of us with an interest in these issues but what financial burden do they bring?

Arguing on the basis of the link between sexual freedom and the breakdown of subsequent relationships Brandon attempts to quantify the total financial burden by estimating both direct and indirect costs.

STIs are estimated to cost the NHS – and therefore the taxpayer – more than £1 billion per year. There are also longer-term costs. HIV treatment is now estimated at around £0.5 billion a year in the UK. Teenage pregnancy costs the NHS £63 million per year, and a further £29 million for infertility and other complications arising from chlamydia alone. 96 per cent of abortions are paid for by the NHS, at a cost of £118 million.

Breakdown Britain claimed that family breakdown directly costs the taxpayer £24 billion per year but the Jubilee Centre’s own analysis has shown that the figure is almost twice as high, £42 billion. Much of this comes from payments of tax credits and lone parent benefits, housing benefits, and the health, crime and educational impact of relationship breakdown.

This sum – nearly £1,400 per year for every taxpayer – is equivalent to 6 per cent of public spending for 2011.

This represents one-third of the Health Care budget, or roughly the same as the entire Defence budget or the interest on the national debt.

But £42 billion is only the immediate cost to the taxpayer of relationship breakdown. There are even larger indirect costs to the economy from absenteeism, domestic violence and educational underachievement.

Brandon estimates the annual cost to the economy of lost working hours following divorce at £20 billion, which includes both straightforward absenteeism and presenteeism (when people attend work but are distracted and unproductive due to stress).

Domestic violence costs the taxpayer £4 billion per year, and a further £3.4 billion in lost economic output. The additional ‘human and emotional costs’ are £21 billion.

Finally, there are the unquantifiable future costs of educational underachievement, worklessness, addiction and mental health problems that Breakdown Britain identified as going hand-in-hand with relationship breakdown.

Children who grow up in dysfunctional households frequently do not have the same life chances as those with more stable backgrounds. Brandon estimates, on the basis of an Australian study, that this reduces GDP by £6 billion annually.

Although the personal financial impact of sexual freedom can be high, it is often comparatively limited and the costs fall instead on the taxpayer. The UK Treasury does not make the link between the vast costs of relationship breakdown and its drivers, David Cameron’s emphasis on the family notwithstanding. Public policy barely acknowledges the existence of the problem, let alone the scale.

Brandon does not give direct references for his estimates of the financial cost of smoking, obesity and alcohol.

However, a BBC investigation in 2007 estimated the annual cost of obesity to be £2 billion to the NHS and £7 billion to the UK economy.

A 2009 Oxford University study funded by the British Heart Foundation estimated that smoking cost the NHS £5 billion annually and another Oxford study the same year estimated the cost to the NHS of alcohol-related sickness to be £3 billion.

These estimates for tobacco and alcohol costs do not include the wider indirect costs that the Cambridge paper has considered for sexual freedom and relationship breakdown.

Brandon concludes that the moral hazard that arises from our society’s uncritical endorsement of sexual freedom results in massive public costs. He argues that there are three ways of containing such an unsustainable liability, and unpacks the third preferred approach in some detail.

The current ‘Big State’ approach factors in the costs of sexual freedom, thereby actually increasing moral hazard and pushing the financial implications of individuals’ choices – totalling many tens of billions of pounds – onto the taxpayer and wider economy.

Harsh legislation to reduce sexual freedom, similar to Sharia Law, is an even less attractive option.

The third solution, found in the biblical model, is to effect a cultural change and foster greater accountability for sexual choices, strengthening extended families by increasing rootedness and giving them joint financial interests.

In this the Christian sexual ethic of faithfulness and stability has not only spiritual justification but offers a pragmatic answer to a failing culture that generally views Christian standards as hopelessly out of date.

The paper will undoubtedly stimulate debate and arouse controversy and is well worth reading.

Peter Tatchell comes clean that homosexuality is neither biologically determined nor fixed

Many people think that homosexuality is a biological characteristic like race or sex – biologically fixed and genetically determined.

They think this because this is the view that has been successfully propagated by the gay rights lobby for decades in order to provide a justification for arguing that ‘homophobia’ is a form of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.

This belief has also been behind moves to treat discrimination against 'practising' homosexuals as a human rights issue by pretending that homosexuals are a biological category like 'women' or 'asians' whose distinctive features are genetically determined rather than just a group who have simply made a certain life-style choice.

But in fact the strength and direction of erotic attraction, although relatively stable in some people, can be quite changeable in others – it is often not fixed at all.

Similarly identical twins often have different sexual orientations proving that, although sexual orientation may have some genetic influences, it is not genetically determined. There is, in other words, no such thing as the gay gene.

Sexual orientation is much more accurately thought of in the category of a conditioned (and often variable) preference than a determined biological condition.

Most researchers now accept that sexual orientation (the predominant direction of sexual attraction one feels) is the result of a complex interaction in which nature, nurture and choice all play a part. But whether one acts on those feelings by having same sex relations is actually a matter of personal choice (see my previous blog on the difference between same sex feelings, orientation, identity and behaviour).

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states, ‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

And in a recent Huffington Post article, ‘Future Sex: Beyond Gay and Straight’, gay rights activist Peter Tatchell affirms the fluidity of sexual attraction.

First he affirms the reality of bisexuality:

‘We already know, thanks to a host of sex surveys, that bisexuality is an fact of life and that even in narrow-minded, homophobic cultures, many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.’

Then he challenges the traditional view that gay and straight are distinct categories:

‘Research by Dr Alfred Kinsey in the USA during the 1940s was the first major statistical evidence that gay and straight are not watertight, irreconcilable and mutually exclusive sexual orientations. He found that human sexuality is, in fact, a continuum of desires and behaviours, ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the population shares an amalgam of same-sex and opposite-sex feelings - even if they do not act on them.’

He then goes on to quote Kinsey’s (grossly inflated) assessments of the incidence of homosexuality whilst acknowledging that they ‘have since been criticised as out-of-date, exaggerated and unrepresentative’.

Tatchell also acknowledges that ‘evidence from sociology and anthropology (shows) that the incidence and form of heterosexuality and homosexuality is not fixed and universal, and that the two sexual orientations are not mutually exclusive. There is a good deal of fluidity and overlap.’

‘What's more,’ he adds, ‘although scientific evidence shows that human sexuality is significantly affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormones - other influences appear to be cultural, including social expectations, peer pressure and the availability and opportunity for sexual release. These influences channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others.’

In fact he even goes so far as to suggest that some homosexual identities are formed as a result of people reacting to perceived prejudice in others:

‘Gay and lesbian identities are largely the product of homophobic prejudice and repression. They are a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the right to have those relationships has to be defended - hence gay identity and the gay rights movement.’

Tatchell, despite these admissions, grossly inflates the true incidence of exclusive homosexuality.

The best evidence (1,2,3) actually suggests that only a very small percentage of men (1-2%) and women (0.5-1.5%) experience exclusive same-sex attraction throughout their life course. It appears that more men and women experience mixed patterns of sexual interest. This includes shifts of interest from one sex to another at various points in their lives or attractions to both sexes at the same time.

Tatchell is right though in saying that bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than exclusive gay/lesbian and if defined in terms of same sex behaviours in past year, may be as much as 5% in men and 11% in women aged 15-44 (4).

Sexual attractions are therefore best understood as lying on a spectrum rather than in terms of a simple dichotomous binary categorisation. Survey data suggest that mixed patterns of sexual desire, including attraction to both sexes at the same time, appear to be more common than exclusive same sex attraction, especially among women.

So what?

Well, like many, I am getting rather tired of the term ‘homophobic’ being used as an accusatory label to tar anyone who does not accept, approve and celebrate same-sex sexual relationships and believe that homosexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race or sex.

There are a large and growing number of people (I call them ‘homosceptics’) who neither hate nor fear ‘gay’ people but simply believe that sex outside a lifelong exclusive heterosexual marriage is morally wrong and the fact that we have certain feelings of sexual attraction does not mean that we should therefore act on them.

These people are also highly sceptical about the key presuppositions on which the gay rights movement has based its campaign, such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Tacthell’s arguments above, and the findings of recent research, confirm that these beliefs are actually more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’.

But Tatchell, by suggesting that gay and straight are not distinct categories at all, has also pulled the rug out from under the feet of the gay rights’ movement.

Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ in spite of the evidence to the contrary you may well believe that people who don’t are ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy. And you might feel justified in branding everyone who does not share your views as 'homophobic'.

But if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, then you should accept that you have adopted these beliefs in the face of, in fact in spite of, the evidence.

And if so you should stop using divisive labels, and accept rather that there are some people who believe with good cause that to treat homosexual orientation as a fixed biological characteristic like race or sex is to confer upon it a status that it does not and should not have.

References

1. Dickson, N, C Paul, and P Herbison. ‘Same-Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood’.Social Science & Medicine 56, No. 8 (2003): 1607-15.

2. Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

3. Savin-Williams, RC, and GL Ream. ‘Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood’. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36 (2007): 385-94.

4. Last year, two important reports have been published in the United States. The 2011 National Health Statistics Report (NHSR) is a nationally representative, multi-stage study that investigates a wide range of sexual attractions and behaviours (A. Chandra et al., Sexual Behaviour, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). A review from the UCLA School of Law combines data from nine recent surveys (G. J. Gates, How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender?, The Williams Institute, UCLA, 2011)

Monty Python, the Australian Open and same-sex marriage

In Monty Python’s Life of Brian the members of ‘The People's Front of Judea’ are sitting in the amphitheatre (see video).

Stan (far left) has just announced that he wants to be a woman and is explaining why.

The dialogue runs as follows:


FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: ... I want to be one.
REG: ... What?
STAN: I want to be a woman… I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!?!?!
STAN: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But you can't have babies.
STAN: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
(STAN starts crying.)
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Stan is seeking a right, having babies, which he cannot exercise, because he is not actually a woman. But he fails to recognise this reality and instead claims that he is being oppressed.

At the Australian Open, there was talk of a coordinated protest against former champion Margaret Court’s opposition to same sex marriage (she is now an evangelical Christian pastor), and a Facebook campaign to wave rainbow flags on court.

But in the end it was just the British player Laura Robson who showed her colours by wearing a rainbow coloured headband.

Robson seemed slightly befuddled by the ensuing international media coverage she received, but concluded: ‘I wore it because I believe in equal rights for everyone.’

Robson’s unspoken presupposition, which is shared by many, is that in a free society, equality demands that every activity should be open to everyone.

And yet Robson was herself participating in a tournament, the Australian open tennis tournament, that was clearly not open to everyone, and for which only very few people were able to qualify.

Many activities other than tennis tournaments are open to some people but not to others: attending university, visiting a foreign country, applying for a job, casting a vote, entering a private club, playing a round of golf or visiting Buckingham Palace.

Similarly virtually all rights are balanced with restrictions – not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, own a firearm or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. You must fulfil certain requirements.

We all accept these restrictions largely without question. Not everyone has a right to participate in these activities.

This raises the question as to why some gay rights activists, politicians and members of the public are seemingly unable to understand or accept that marriage, as a special kind of relationship, is available for some people but not for others.

Introducing ‘same-sex marriage’ would confer almost no additional legal rights: same-sex couples have these already thanks to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship. These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not 'one size fits all'.

But the leaders of Britain's major political parties, including prime minister David Cameron, seem not to grasp this and are wanting to lump civil partnerships and marriages together.

When asked this week by Archbishop Peter Smith what additional rights marriage would give same sex couples that they did not have already under the Civil Partnership Act, Home Secretary Theresa May was not surprisingly unable to give an answer.

And yet during their meeting Mrs May said that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage regardless and that the consultation was merely to help with the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the legislation.

But marriage – like any of the activities listed above – has never been open to everyone. In order to marry one must be legally ‘free to marry’, that is, aged 16 or over and single, widowed or divorced and there are also restrictions on who, you can marry. You cannot, for example, marry certain close relatives, marry more than one person or marry someone of the same sex.

This is because marriage is a human institution bound by legal contract – with a specific legal definition, ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde vs Hyde;1866).

Calling something 'marriage' that is not marriage, in order to appease a vocal minority, does not make any sense.

It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to accept that it is not open to everybody.

A same sex relationship, however committed or permanent, is not marriage and should not be called marriage. To fight to have a same sex relationship called marriage – when marriage is actually something quite different – is not unlike Stan fighting for his right to have babies when he is not actually a woman who is designed to have babies.

It is not a struggle against oppression but a struggle against reality.

Legalisation of same-sex marriage – an orchestrated international campaign funded by national governments

According to recent reports the US government and European Commission (the executive body of the European Union) are funding attempts to legalise same sex marriage worldwide.

Britain is coming under increasing pressure to legalise same-sex marriage. A consultation on same-sex marriage closed in Scotland in December 2011 and a new consultation is being launched in February in Westminster to consider legalisation in England and Wales.

The legalization of same sex marriage has the backing of leaders of all three main parties – David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

But these moves in Britain are actually part of an international campaign.

Since 2001 ten countries have legalized same sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. As of 2012, proposals exist to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries.

Many more (including Britain) have legalized ‘civil unions’ (or civil partnerships) which give same sex couples essentially all the rights and privileges of married couples.

In addition six US states have legalized same sex marriage since 2004 (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont), although, as of June 2011, 12 states prohibit it via statute and 29 via the state's constitution.

This dramatic shift over the last ten years has occurred as the result of a carefully orchestrated and heavily funded international campaign.

But many will be surprised at how much of this money comes from national governments.

As part of a worldwide campaign to promote global acceptance of homosexuality, the Obama administration has just established a $3 million ‘Global Equality Fund’ to fund homosexual political ‘advocacy’ around the world at taxpayers’ expense.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trumpeted the formation of the group in a speech she delivered in Geneva in December.

The Global Equality Fund is only one small part of an ambitious agenda to recast all U.S. foreign policy to support the LGBT cause around the world. Also in December, Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum instructing foreign embassies to ‘expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct’ in their host countries.

According to another report last month, national governments are also funding similar moves in Europe.

European human rights lawyer J.C. von Krempach has taken a close look at the funding stream of the International Gay and Lesbian Association – Europe (ILGA) and concluded that most of their money comes indirectly from national governments.

ILGA is an advocacy group promoting homosexual rights for whom the legalization of same sex marriage is a key campaign objective (See map on the ILGA Europe website).

Writing in the foreign policy blog Turtle Bay and Beyond, von Krempach found a vast majority of ILGA’s funds come from just two governmental entities, the European Commission and the Dutch government.

Von Krempach discovered (from information on the IGLA website) that in the year just ended, the European Commission, an intergovernmental entity, provided fully 68% of ILGA’s budget. The Dutch government provided an additional €50,000 bringing ILGA’s governmental funding up to 71%. The rest of ILGA’s funding comes from left-wing donors George Soros, Sigrid Rausing, and one anonymous donor.

Von Krempach also points out the anomaly of the European Commission being the largest sole funding source for a group set up to lobby the European Commission and the European Parliament. He says this is basically the European Institutions lobbying itself.

In light of this new information, it is expected the UN NGO Committee, which previously blocked ILGA’s accreditation, will take up the issue once more. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accredited to the United Nations must show actual people or non-profits, such as foundations, fund them. The UN holds that if their money comes mostly from governments that would make them governmental entities.

To what degree does the UK government contribute indirectly to this state of affairs?

The European Union’s 2011 budget shows that out of a total income of €126.5 bn , €12.9 bn, or just over 10%, comes from the UK. 75% of the total budget comes from the 27 member countries’ governments.

Far be it from me to suggest any restriction on the freedom of gay rights activists to campaign democratically for same sex marriage legislation wherever they might choose.

But shouldn’t they be using their own money to do it – rather than being given funds derived from national governments’ tax receipts?

Should ‘gay’ Christians be true to their feelings?

Last Wednesday’s Metro (p35) ran the story of ‘a burly rugby player’ who ‘suffered a stroke in training and woke up to find he was gay’ (See ‘Different strokes - 19st rugby player now gay hairdresser’)

Mr Birch (pictured) was ‘straight’ and engaged to be married when he suffered a freak accident in the gym. The 26-year-old tried to impress his friends with a back flip but broke his neck and suffered the stroke. When he woke up, he underwent a drastic personality change that included an attraction to men.

Claiming that he ‘had to be true to (his) feelings’ he broke off his engagement and found a boyfriend.

The article speculates that ‘the personality change could have been caused by the stroke opening up a different part of his brain’ and quotes Stroke association spokesman Joe Korner as saying, ‘During recovery, the brain makes new neural connections, which can trigger things people weren’t aware of such as accent, language or perhaps a different sexuality.’

The case raises several interesting questions for Christians, not least ‘to what extent should we be “true to our feelings”?’

To answer it we have to appreciate that the issue of homosexuality needs to be understood at a number of levels.

1.Homosexual attraction – feelings of erotic attraction to people of the same sex
2.Homosexual orientation – predominant erotic attraction to people of the same sex
3.Homosexual behaviour – having sexual relations with people of the same sex or engaging in same-sex sexual fantasy, pornography or seduction
4.Homosexual identity – identifying oneself publically as ‘gay’ or lesbian’

In Mr Birch’s case above, it appears a change of sexual orientation occurred as a result of a brain injury. But in the vast majority of cases it arises as a result of a complex interaction between genetics, environment and lifestyle choice. But often there is little or no choice involved.

There is some overlap but also a lot of distinctiveness in these four categories. For example, in certain circumstances (eg prisons, boarding schools), people who have neither a homosexual orientation or identity may participate in homosexual behaviour.

Alternatively people of homosexual orientation might engage secretly in homosexual behaviour but never assume a homosexual identity. Or people who would describe themselves as heterosexual may occasionally experience same sex erotic attraction.

An ONS survey last year suggested that almost three-quarters of a million UK adults in Britain say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual - equivalent to 1.5% of the population.

People aged 16 and over were questioned about their self-perceived sexual identity, and asked to respond with one of four options: heterosexual/straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual or other.

The data showed that 95% said they were heterosexual, 1% gay or lesbian, 0.5% bisexual, 0.5% other, and the remaining 3% either did not know or did not answer.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said that on this basis 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual.

The Kinsey scale (pictured) classifies people along a six point spectrum from exclusively heterosexual (0) to exclusively homosexual (6).

There are, by this reckoning, many people in church congregations who experience some feelings of same-sex attraction or recognize themselves as having a homosexual orientation. In fact, given that nine million people (15% of Britain’s population) go to church at least once a month, then that may mean that there are 72,000 gay and lesbian and 36,000 bisexual churchgoers in Britain (15% of above figures).

So if this describes us should we ‘be true to our feelings’ by having same-sex sexual relations or indulging in same-sex fantasy?

The Bible is very clear that all sexual relations outside marriage (a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant relationship) are morally wrong (Leviticus 18:6-23, 20:10-21; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Timothy 1:9,10; Revelation 22:15). This includes fornication, adultery, same-sex relations and all other sorts of sex imaginable, even if you are deeply in love with the other person.

Claiming that we are just ‘being true to our feelings’ in this area is just as wrong as claiming that our feelings justify any other form of sin. As Jeremiah put it ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure’ (17:9) It is God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings.

So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried, divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.

They must accept that not having sex is their only option. And for those who recognize themselves to be exclusively of homosexual orientation this may well mean that the only course open to them is staying single. Sometimes sexual orientation may change over time, but often it doesn’t.

Jesus of course was unmarried and never had sex yet we know that he ‘was tempted in all ways as we are – yet was without sin’. This must surely have included the temptation to sexual sin.

Is it possible to live a full life without having sex? Well Jesus did just that. And he is able to help any Christian to do the same. Marriage is a great calling but so is singleness, and sex is neither compulsory, nor necessary, in order to live a fulfilled and fruitful life.

Sex is a wonderful gift but like any gift it is not granted to all. If for any reason you can’t have sex, then ask what other good gifts God has given you, and enjoy those instead.

‘For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.’ (Hebrews 2:17, 18)

‘For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need’ (Hebrews 4:15, 16)

‘No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it’ (1 Corinthians 10:13)

How could anyone object to a bill ensuring schools provide information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity?

MPs have voted 67-61 in favour of a bill introduced by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, which wants schools to ensure that sex education for girls includes ‘information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity’.

The ten minute rule bill proceeds to a second reading next January but is unlikely to become law without Government support.

Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, said all schoolgirls should be given lessons in ‘how to say no’ as part of a new-style sex education curriculum.

Speaking in the Commons, she insisted society was ‘saturated in sex’, with pupils currently being shown how to put condoms on bananas and self-diagnose diseases but not to reject sexual advances altogether.

The early sexualisation of girls was being fuelled by television references to sex, newsagents stocking pornographic magazines and high street stores that sell provocative items such as padded bikinis for seven-year-olds, she added.

It is perhaps because of the poor quality of current teaching that 59% of parents in a recent survey said they do not want sex education taught in schools at all (also see BBC).

Labour MP Chris Bryant, who introduced his own Sex and Relationship Education Bill in 2010 which sought comprehensive Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) in schools, spoke in the House of Commons to oppose the abstinence bill.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has described the vote as ‘disheartening’ and has stated that ‘abstinence education does not work’.

I note that the Family Planning Association guidance says the same:

‘There is no evidence that abstinence-only education programmes delay the initiation of sex, increase a return to abstinence or decrease the numbers of sexual partners.’

These sorts of claims have always struck me as rather bizarre. There are many faith-based and ethnic communities in the UK which have very low levels of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease as the consequence of lower levels of promiscuity.

The FPA and BHA seem blind to this simple fact and instead cherry pick ‘evidence’ to back their ideological convictions that abstinence is impossible and that you cannot change behaviour through good education. All rather defeatist.

The passing of the bill sparked a storm of protest on Twitter, with many users attacking its focus on girls at the expense of boys. At one point, Dorries was among the top ten most discussed topics worldwide on the social networking website.

The full text of the bill read as follows:

‘Sex Education (Required Content): That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.’

The debate and result is reported on the BBC website and you can read the full debate in Hansard.

Nadine Dorries gives her own comments on her blog.

Health Minister Anne Milton courted controversy earlier this year when she was reported as not backing an abstinence approach. But she has since claimed that she was misrepresented.

There were very few MPs present at today’s vote so it will be interesting to see if the Cameron government supports the bill when it returns.

The last government’s policy on preventing teenage pregnancy (condoms and morning after pills) has left us with a legacy of unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, abortion and broken relationships.

In an instructive piece on the CMF website (titled ‘Quangos for the bonfire’) GP Trevor Stammers applauds the dissolution of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG) and the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV (IAGSH).

Since TPIAG was set up in 1998 to halve the national under-18 conception rate by 2010, it has put most of its efforts into the promotion and provision to teenagers of the very contraceptives which, when they fail, then constitute the commonest reason for requesting abortion.

The IAGSH (March 2003) equally adopted an ideological approach which consistently ignored evidence-based practice, such as studies indicating that abstinence-only education programmes can reduce both teenage conception, abortion and STI rates.

The vast majority of members of both TPIAG and IAGSH had declared interests in the contraception and abortion industries. Baroness Gould, the chair of both, was President of the fpa and chaired a pro-abortion lobby group in Parliament.

Like Baroness Gould, many of the members of one of these two 'independent' groups were also members of the other; whereas there were no representatives at all with any experience of alternative strategies such as the highly successful ABC programmes in Uganda or Love for Life programmes in Northern Ireland, Lovewise in Newcastle or Love2Last in Sheffield.

The Coalition Government says it wants to work with charities and churches across the whole spectrum. Supporting the work of these groups would be a good step in the right direction.

I wish Nadine Dorries well and hope that she finds the support she is seeking from the government.

I see that SPUC have launched a Safe at School campaign to advise and support parents and teachers who are concerned about the explicit nature of sex education in schools.

Leading article in Independent shows 'tolerant liberals' at their intolerant illiberal worst

Delegates at the National Union of Teachers' conference in Harrogate have warned that ‘homophobic bullying in schools is “endemic" and likely to rise with the impending growth in the number of faith schools’ and, in a motion overwhelmingly backed by delegates, have called on their union ‘to conduct an investigation into discrimination in faith schools’.

Bullying is to be denounced and should not be tolerated in any school in any circumstances for any reason but today’s accompanying 'leading article' in the Independent, titled ‘Faith schools must confront homophobia’, has a much more pernicious tone and insidious agenda.

Its main failings are its failure to define the term 'homophobia' (it conflates 'believing that homosexual acts are morally wrong' with 'hating gay people') and its assumption that there is such a thing in our multi-faith and multicultural society as a 'an agreed set of British values'.

In this way, rather than providing a basis for discussing an important issue (bullying directed against gay people), it risks doing little more than stirring up prejudice against people who subscribe to religious faith. Maybe that is its intention.

Surely the whole problem is that as a society we do not actually have 'an agreed set of values'. Britain is not a monoculture and it is certainly not a monocultural 'modern, liberal society' however much the author might wish that it was.

Part of respecting diversity is to understand that intelligent and well-meaning people come to different views on morality, ethics and on which of the broad range of world views held by British people they think most closely reflects reality.

This high-handed and patronising editorial paints a rather perverse (and largely untrue) picture of faith schools as emphasising 'differences between people rather than uniting them', sourcing 'their core values in historically intolerant creeds' and allowing 'bigotry' to 'shelter behind the mantle of religious conviction'.

It is precisely this sort of intolerance expressed by the (conveniently anonymous) author that stirs up prejudice towards, and even demonises, people of faith

I suspect the writer's real intention is to promote the secular fundamentalist agenda with the aim of undermining public funding for schools which espouse any 'faith' other than secular humanism.

But a free, liberal and tolerant society is actually one where diverse views on such issues as morality, God, sex, origins and the afterlife are both recognised and allowed to be taught and expressed.

Let's stamp out bullying by all means - but let's not allow it to be used as a platform for promoting the secular fundamentalist agenda and demonisng everyone who thinks differently.

(For an alternative perspective on 'homophobia' see my previous blog on homophobia and homoscepticism)

David Cameron, by his comments about homosexuality, demonstrates that he does not understand what true tolerance actually is

The number of cases involving Christians falling foul of the prevailing orthodoxy on homosexuality is growing steadily.

I commented recently on that of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, a Manchester GP, who was sacked by the Home Office from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) simply for quoting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal supporting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Then there is Lesley Pilkington, a counsellor, who is facing disciplinary proceedings by the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy for trying to assist a man who had approached her asking for help dealing with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction. He turned out to be a gay undercover journalist who was seeking to expose her, as she discovered when the story appeared in a national newspaper.

Most recently we have the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, who were effectively prevented by a judge from becoming foster parents after telling a social worker they would not tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable.

Some commentators, who ironically are well known for supporting the gay rights agenda, are saying that these judgements and disciplinary actions have gone too far.

Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has said that he felt Dr Raabe’s sacking was discriminatory.

Gay historian David Starkey said on BBC’s Question Time on 3 March that penalising Christians for their beliefs about homosexual behaviour is ‘intolerant, oppressive and tyrannical’.

Commenting specifically on the cases of Christian foster carers and B&B owners who have suffered under unjust equality policies, Starkey added, ‘It seems to me that what we are doing is producing a tyrannous new morality that is every bit as oppressive as the old.’

He warned that this new morality was intolerant, oppressive and ‘intrusive into family life’ and claimed that ‘we are producing a new tyranny’.

Against this background, Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments, when questioned in Derby yesterday about the Johns’ case, appeared quite bizarre.

Asked if he thought Christian views were incompatible with an acceptance of homosexuality he said: ‘I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded.’

Pointing out that he also went to church, he added: ‘This matter was decided by a court in the appropriate way and I think we should rest with the judgement that was made.’

Taken at face value, the Prime Minister seems to believe that expressing the view that homosexual acts are immoral is now unacceptable, even for Christians.

This view is consistent with his sacking of Tory candidate Philip Lardner last year for stating on his website that he believed homosexual acts were ‘not normal behaviour’, a view held by a significant section of the British population.

Tory MP Chris Grayling’s comments about Christians offering ‘bed and breakfast’ being justified in denying double beds to gay couples staying in their homes almost certainly cost him a cabinet post.

Theresa May managed to hold on as Equality Minister after the election, despite over 75,000 people joining a Facebook group asking for her to be sacked on the basis of her past ‘homophobic’ voting record, but only because she said her views on homosexuality had now changed.

It seems that it is no longer acceptable in the Tory party to express the view that homosexual acts are in any way unnatural or immoral. But in fact the orthodox Christian position, upheld by the Bible itself, is that they are both. (I discuss the matter of 'homophobia' elsewhere)

The fact that at least one of these incidents predated the formation of the coalition government suggests that David Cameron is personally committed to his views, and does not hold them simply in order to appease the Liberal Democrats.

But he is advocating a very strange form of tolerance.

Voltaire, the French philosopher, satirist, the embodiment of the 18th-century Enlightenment, is remembered as a crusader against tyranny and bigotry.

His teaching on tolerance is summed up by the quote, ‘I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.’

David Cameron uses the word ‘tolerance’ but seems not to believe in the same sort of tolerance as Voltaire. When the Prime Minister says that Christians should be tolerant, he means that they should not express beliefs with which people like himself disagree.

By contrast, Voltaire sought to defend the right of his opponents to express views he strongly disagreed with, and saw this freedom as a bulwark against tyranny and bigotry.

David Cameron also seems to want to encourage Christians to teach that homosexual acts are not immoral.

Here he finds himself disagreeing not with Voltaire but with Jesus Christ himself. In speaking to the church of Thyatira in Revelation 2:18-29, Jesus, after commending them for their ‘deeds, love and faith, service and perseverance’ goes on to say: ‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality…’.

It seems that this 'Thyatiran' approach is exactly what David Cameron is advocating. But it is not a form of tolerance of which Jesus Christ himself approved.

Christian teaching is very clear that all sex outside the context of marriage (a lifelong, covenant relationship between a man and a woman) is morally wrong.

There are of course many sins other than sexual sins. But Christians should be free to believe and teach what the Bible itself teaches, without being castigated by a 'churchgoing' Prime Minister for doing so.

David Cameron, by his comments yesterday about homosexuality, demonstrates that he does not understand what true tolerance actually is.

In sacking Dr Raabe, the Home Office has demonstrated intolerance, cowardice, ignorance and an unwillingness to investigate complaints properly.

A Christian GP has been sacked as a government drugs adviser after it emerged he wrote a study linking homosexuality to paedophilia.

Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, of Manchester, was appointed to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) less than a month ago.

The Home Office confirmed that Dr Raabe (pictured), who was appointed to the ACMD by James Brokenshire, drugs minister, had been dismissed and would not continue with the unpaid, three-year post. Recruitment for a new adviser will apparently begin shortly.

Sources said he had been sacked after not ‘disclosing’ a paper he had written, which had linked homosexuality to child sex offences, during interviews for the role.

The campaign to remove Dr Raabe gained considerable momentum after former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris blogged about his past publications, BBC home editor Mark Easton highlighted the case and the British Medical Journal ran an article titled ‘New appointment of evangelical Christian to advisory body sparks controversy’. The latter has provoked some interesting responses.

When journalist Melanie Philips wrote in his defence she was allegedly subjected to death threats.

Hans-Christian Raabe has said his dismissal came as a result of his views ‘completely unrelated to drug policy’ and has added: ‘I have been discriminated against because of my opinions and beliefs, which are in keeping with the teaching of the major churches.’

Others, however, have claimed that he was dismissed not for his religious views but for making claims that are at odds with the scientific evidence.

Bridget Phillipson, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said it was an ‘absolute outrage’ the government had appointed ‘someone with such horrific opinions to this senior role’.

It seems that the specific comments for which Dr Raabe is being criticized appeared in a paper titled ‘Gay Marriage And Homosexuality: Some Medical Comments’ which he co-authored in February 2005.

It contains the statement: ‘Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and paedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.’

What I find particularly bizarre about this whole incident is that people with apparently no knowledge at all of the subject under debate, let alone expert knowledge, feel qualified to express strong opinions about Dr Raabe’s character and scientific expertise.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this area myself - far from it - but a brief search of the medical literature will confirm that there certainly have been papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals which report an association between homosexuality and paedophilia and which also consider that this is an issue worthy of investigation and not off-limits to scientific enquiry.

The papers Dr Raabe quotes were written by Freund, who, though careful to point out that his first study should not be interpreted as indicating that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles, none the less concludes: 'homosexual development notably does not result in androphilia but in homosexual paedophilia' (1) Freund's data in a second paper also show that a) around 80% of the victims of paedophilia are boys molested by adult males and b) although most gay men are not paedophiles, 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men overall are homosexual.(2,3)

Even more interesting is a study by Bradford et al. Rather ironically an official Home Office document published in 1998 (5) quotes this (2nd para, p14) approvingly as follows: 'Bradford et al. (1988) suggested reasonably that approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10% mixed.'

So let's get this right. The Home Office has sacked Dr Raabe for saying what a Home Office document says.

Given that official figures released last year showed only one per cent of the population is homosexual, it is not surprising that supporters of Dr Raabe say same-sex child abuse is significantly over-represented.

So was Dr Raabe sacked for disclosing an inconvenient truth that was totally irrelevant to his appointment? The answer appears to be yes. His concerns were not directed at the majority of the homosexual population but a small, highly dangerous and criminal portion of them.

I have not read any of these studies, and am therefore not in a position to comment on their scientific rigour. I simply want to make the point that such studies most certainly do exist.

These findings are as one might expect disputed by other authors – and the matter is understandably a contentious one – but I notice that a major review on the subject of paedophilia published in 2007 and available on line, which reviews all 554 papers published on Medline on pedophilia, also acknowledges that the jury is still out on the matter:’ The main evidence in favor of a relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality is the common cause of fraternal birth order and postnatal learning… It seems to be questionable logic to view these two conditions as completely unrelated.’(6)

That Dr Raabe should be sacked from his role as a drugs advisor on the basis of his expressed opinions on an entirely unrelated issue (homosexuality) is itself at very least unfair. But the fact that the data he quoted were actually derived from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles (including one quoted approvingly by the Home Office itself!), and on a matter where experts agree that there is a diversity of learned opinion, makes his dismissal both outrageous and inexcusable.

In bowing to political pressure on this matter the Home Office has demonstrated intolerance, ignorance, cowardice and an unwillingness to investigate complaints properly.

1.Freund K, Watson RI. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles among sex offenders against children. J Sex Mar Ther 1992;18:34-43

2.Freund K et al. Paedophilia and heterosexuality vs homosexuality. J Sex Mar Ther 1984;10:193-200

3.Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78

4. Bradford JMW, Bloomberg D, and Bourget D. (1988)The heterogeneity/homogeneity of pedophilia. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 1988; 13: 217-226.

5. Grubin D. Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk. Police Research Series. Paper 99. Home Office, 1998.

6.Hughes JR. Review of Medical Reports on Pedophilia. Clinical Pediatrics 2007; 46(8)

Do you object to being labelled 'homophobic' when you are actually just 'homosceptic'?

Last month’s election threw up some interesting results as a variety of issues took prominence in different constituencies.

In particular we saw strong reactions to four conservative parliamentary candidates who had, either during the campaign or previously, held views which were judged as being ‘homophobic’.

Philip Lardner lost his candidacy for saying that homosexuality was 'not normal behaviour' – sacked by party leader David Cameron. The uproar surrounding Philippa Stroud’s Christian beliefs about the issue was a major factor in her failing to take Sutton and Cheam for the Tories. Chris Grayling’s comments about Christians offering ‘bed and breakfast’ being justified in denying double beds to gay couples staying in their homes almost certainly cost him a cabinet post.

Theresa May managed to hold on as Equality Minister after the election, despite over 70,000 people joining a Facebook group asking for her to be sacked on the basis of her past ‘homophobic’ voting record, when she said her views on homosexuality had now changed.

Being judged ‘homophobic’ can cost you dearly.

I’ve always been puzzled by the term ‘homophobia’. In the minds of most people it means being prejudiced against, or even hating, people who are homosexual.

Wikipedia defines it as ‘a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual’.

In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to ‘racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry’ on the grounds that ‘it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood’.

It is therefore understandable that 'homophobic' is a label that no one wants to have.

However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different.

The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who ‘come out’ as homosexual.

These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.

For many people 'homophobia' is actually about ‘having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people’.

This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed.

This kind of ‘homophobia’ is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced.

For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term.

I’d like to propose the term ‘homosceptic’ - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as an unknown word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context.

The Urban dictionary defines a 'homosceptic' as ‘a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms’.

I’d like to broaden this definition to include ‘being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement’ such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ you may well believe people who don’t to be ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy.

But if you have some doubts about the truth of some or all of these beliefs – and suspect that they might be more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’ – then perhaps you could argue that you are not ‘homophobic’ but rather ‘homosceptic’.