Homosexual proselytizing

Following the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between adult males over 21 it came as an unwelcome surprise to many, when homosexuals, or 'gays' as they now chose to describe themselves, quickly started to openly parade what many considered to be a deviant lifestyle and to claim further rights and 'equality'. Events moved at such a pace that that by the late 1970s appeasing the gay lobby became one of the main planks of the politically correct agenda. 'Gay Pride' marches, gay council committees and gay propaganda in schools were all introduced with relatively little resistance.

The self-inflicted tragedy of AIDS, caused by grotesquely high levels of promiscuity, did nothing to curb the advancement of their cause. Liberals (and many conservatives) failed to condemn their outrageous and destructive lifestyle – to do so was considered to be too 'judgemental'. Instead, homosexuals portrayed themselves as unfortunate, but blameless, victims of an unexpected deadly disease. What homosexuals appear to crave is recognition by society that their sexual inclinations are somehow normal. However, the statistics are very much against them since repeated surveys have shown that no more than about 3% of men are homosexual. It is, therefore, technically correct although now highly pejorative, to describe them as sexual deviants. Moreover, the normality of sexual relations between men and women is underpinned by the need for procreation, a test which homosexuality by definition must always fail. However, it is worth remembering that there are other more widely practiced sexual activities, including any which involve contraception, which also fail this test.

The issue of homosexual rights seems to attract strong views amongst both liberals and religious conservatives. Liberals regard it as a touchstone of human rights and the equality agenda. Conservatives with strong religious convictions, single out homosexuality for special condemnation, considering it to be a serious disorder that should be criminalised. However, the majority of people today appear to no longer share such a hard-line position. The criminalisation of homosexuality would not be practicable, since it is unlikely to have more than minimal public support and no jury is likely to want to convict individuals participating in this private activity by consenting adults. Although a significant majority consider homosexuality to be unnatural, most are likely to feel stronger still about the state invading individuals’ privacy. There now appears to be relatively little public support for raising the age of consent for homosexual activities back to 18, let alone 21. Moreover, in practical terms, the question must be asked whether this would be an appropriate use of police and the courts’ time, particularly as it would divert scarce resources away from dealing with crimes of greater public concern such as muggings and burglaries.

Such has been the extent of the liberal takeover on this subject that we have moved for a situation where homosexual practices were criminalised to one where criticisms of homosexuals can trigger police action. This was demonstrated by the case of the author, Lynette Burrows, who in a radio discussion expressed the view (probably shared by a large majority of the public) that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was 'a risk'. A listener complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to question her as a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her. Homophobic incidents are now treated as 'priority crimes' by the police. In the words of the journalist Melanie Phillips 'voicing concern about gay adoption now gets the police to finger your collar. Expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion is no longer considered acceptable by the state, which has decided what views are acceptable and what are not. Is this not the definition of a police state?'

Although criminalising private homosexual activities is impractical it does not follow that no action can, or should, be taken by government against the homosexual lobby. In the late 1980s the Thatcher government introduced the 'Section 28' regulation, which prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality, particularly in schools. Although no prosecutions followed as a result, it probably acted as a brake on some of the more pernicious 'gay' propaganda that was then beginning to be targeted at young people. Section 28 was intensely loathed by liberals, but the public largely supported it, as was shown by the results of an unofficial referendum held in Scotland some years ago. Needless to say, now that Section 28 has been lifted, the gay propaganda machine has gone into overdrive and we now have a gay history month in schools.

Since a large proportion of homosexuals appear to be highly promiscuous, and a hugely disproportionate number of them suffer from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to the detriment and cost of wider society, it would be entirely appropriate to tightly circumscribe the promotion of homosexuality. There is absolutely no justification for brainwashing children into believing that homosexuality is normal, let alone commendable. This would not prevent sex education classes pointing out that a very small minority of people are attracted to their own sex, or to mention in this context that sexual promiscuity greatly increases the risk of catching STIs. Thus there are sound reasons to reintroduce a Section 28 style regulation, proscribing the promotion in schools of homosexuality as a supposedly normal form of sexual expression, and preventing local authorities spending public money on the promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism.