It's not over till it's over

Later this spring, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill will return to the House of Commons for its Third Reading. If the House of Lords represents the feelings of the British public as well as it did last July, MPs are likely once again to debate a proposal to reduce the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. Once again, 'gay rights' groups will feel that another milestone is within their grasp, and once again, opponents of the move will be dismissed as narrow-minded, bigoted homophobes and worse.
In view of January's Commons majority of 313 to 130 in favour of the liberalisation of the law, many of us may be inclined to think there is no point lobbying MPs this time round.
If you are tempted to think along those lines, we would encourage you to think again. Write to your MP by all means, but on top of that, why not take the time to go and see him or her? Most MPs have a regular 'surgery' in their constituency, when you can go and meet them and express your concerns to them in person.

At the surgery

Our own MP had made his position clear long before our visit immediately preceding the Commons debate on lowering the age of consent for homosexual males. At pre-election meetings prior to the 1997 General Election, he had proudly told voters that he had signed Stonewall's Equality Declaration which called for the age of consent to be the same for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
He was no less forthright in response to letters received from constituents on the subject. Two Christians known to us had written to express their opposition to the proposal. Both letters received a similar reply: 'We . . . value the diversity of British society and therefore we seek to protect it by ensuring equality in law . . . I frankly do not see why a discriminatory rule should apply . . .'
In view of his public pronouncements and letters, we were not anticipating an easy ride. But as we quietly and gently explained the reasons for our concern, we were surprised to find a man who was honest and humble enough to admit that he had not thought the issue through. On more than one occasion, as we referred to the facts and figures relating to homosexual activity, he confessed: 'I didn't know that . . .'
It became evident that he had not seen the letters his constituents had written on the subject. They had doubtless been handled by an assistant who penned a standard reply which the MP then signed. It underlined for us the point that a personal visit to your MP is the only way you can be sure that your view has got through.

Talking points

So what did we say to our MP about the age of homosexual consent?

1. A further reduction in the age of consent for homosexuals would place vulnerable teenage boys under increased sexual pressure

The existing law undoubtedly has some restraining effect on some homosexual men as far as approaching boys under the age of 18 is concerned. But if the age of consent is brought down to 16, that restraint would be removed and 16 and 17 year-olds would no longer be able to resist a sexual advance by appeal to the law. They may be coerced into experimenting with homosexual practices against their better judgment and their natural instincts. Young people under the age of 18 are children under the law and in terms of international instruments. They should therefore receive the protection of the law.

2. It would lead to more homosexual activity and a consequent rise in the number of men who are HIV+

Consider the following statistics - all taken from research sympathetic to the 'gay rights' cause:

* 92% of homosexual men in the UK have had anal intercourse which carries risks for the transmission of disease.

* Most homosexual men have casual partners. There is a widespread expectation among gay men that relationships will not be monogamous.

* Up to 20% of men in London and 5% of gay men outside are HIV+.

* In the UK, 72% of HIV infections are acquired as a result of sexual intercourse with another man. Conventional sex between a man and a woman, despite being more widespread, accounts for under 4% of all HIV infections.

* Studies show poor health outcomes and high drug and alcohol abuse rates among gays.

So great are the health risks, that the National Blood Service insists that men who have 'ever had sex with men' are not permitted to donate blood in the UK. Discriminatory? But few would deny that it is a common-sense policy.
When the age of consent for homosexuals was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1994, supporters claimed that the liberalisation of the law would reduce the incidence of HIV infections. However, this has not happened. It is salutary to note that the typical life-span of sexually active homosexuals suggests that their lifestyle is more destructive than smoking. Yet there is no talk of making smoking more socially acceptable - quite the opposite!

3. Public opinion is opposed to a reduction in the age of consent

In a national opinion poll in July 1997, 73% of men and 71% of women opposed the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16. Contrary to popular myth, many practising homosexuals are themselves opposed to any further liberalisation.
Many fear that a change in the age of consent would facilitate the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibits the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, including within state schools. It would be irresponsible for education to promote as normal a lifestyle which carries considerable health risks.

4. The age of consent would become even lower in practice

Breaches of the existing legislation governing the age of consent are rarely prosecuted. Since 1994, when the age of homosexual consent was reduced from 21 to 18 there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of prosecutions of homosexual activity involving 16 year-old boys. If 18 has become 16 in practice, 16 will undoubtedly become 14 in practice - which is precisely what leading gay activists want. One placard seen among the crowd outside parliament during the recent debate confidently declared: '16 is only a start'.
Peter Tatchell of Outrage! is already advocating a further reduction in the age of consent to 14, and has publicly stated that: 'Sex involving young people below the age of 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.' (The Guardian, May 21 1998). There is little doubt that the passing of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill would effectively bring the legislation of paedophilia a step nearer.
As we parted, we left with our MP a statement issued by over 20 medical doctors on 'The Dangers of Reducing the Age of Consent for Practising Homosexuals', together with an article from a national newspaper written by a prominent homosexual who is opposed to any further liberalisation of the law. The headline read: 'The government, headed by a church-going Christian, is engaging in political correctness of the worst sort. It is driven by the aggressive gay lobby. And it will do untold damage to the vulnerable young.' Our MP took one look at it and, to our amazement, said: 'You know, that's exactly what's happening!'
Further information may be obtained from The Christian Institute, 26 Jesmond Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4PQ (0191 281 5664).

The surprising results of a visit to their MP about the age of homosexual consent

At the surgery

Talking points

3. Public opinion is opposed to a reduction in the age of consent

4. The age of consent would become even lower in practice

Graham Machin and Norman Wells

Main Articles

Other articles