June 24th, 2009 Posted in Children/Family, Homosexuality, Politics | Comments Off
Mr Phil Barnett of True Freedom Trust was incensed to read the deliberations of the Equality Bill Committee, particularly the extract reproduced at the end of this post.
He has written to Emily Thornberry (MP for Islington South and Finsbury) thus:
Dear Ms Thornberry
I am writing concerning your comments during the sitting of the Equality Bill Committee on 18th June:
“Emily Thornberry: What, therefore, would happen to a young man whose Catholic parents want him to go to a particular school, but who, at the age of 13 or 14, decides that he is gay, and finds himself bullied by teachers who tell him that there is something profoundly wrong with him because he wants sex outside marriage?”
These comments concern me on a number of fronts:
Bullying is first and foremost an issue of school discipline and the responsibility of the Head Teacher and his staff. I am far from convinced that it is anything that needs to involve legislation, and see little value in it being given any provision under the Equality Bill. To have MPs debating issues that should be handled by schools seems yet another waste of tax payers’ money, and provokes the comment; “Haven’t you got anything better to do?” No wonder Parliament needs reform!
I think it would be safe to say that 99% of boys of 13 or 14, “gay” or “straight”, would welcome encouragement to have sex outside marriage. However, surely it is the job of schools to engender responsible attitudes towards sexual relationships. Schools (faith or not) should encourage marriage and family as being demonstrably the preferred context for sex and the raising of children. Political parties frequently say they support families, and yet here you expressly denigrate such guidance. Numerous reports have demonstrated that children thrive best in stable married families.
Next, you suggest that being “gay” is something that a person decides. Whatever the causes of same sex attraction, decision is never one of them. I know of no “gay” person who chose their sexual orientation, and most would say that given the choice, they would prefer not to have it. A gay-lifestyle may well be chosen, but never the orientation. Your statement is therefore very misleading.
What deeply concerns and even angers me, however, is the likely damage that could occur in your implication that 13 and 14 year olds should be encouraged by schools to make such lifestyle choices at that age. The early teen period is when sexuality is probably the most fluid. Most boys of that age will be experiencing some degree of same sex attraction at that age and have concerns about being “gay”. I consider the comment you made to be highly irresponsible. Responsible schools should be teaching boys of that age that their sexuality is still in early development and that getting involved in sexual relationships, “gay” or “straight” at such an age is inadvisable (technically – illegal isn’t it until 16?). Certainly, they need to make clear that making decisions on lifestyle at that age is very foolish, and could lead to deep regrets and psychological damage in the future.
As someone who, for as long as I can remember, has always experienced same sex attraction, had I been encouraged to pursue that lifestyle at such an age, I now realize I would have severe problems. The lifestyle decision that I would have made, had I followed my desires, would have been to be a very promiscuous gay man. Something I now believe would have led me to desperate unhappiness, unfulfillment in terms of relationships, and probable death through suicide or AIDS. Instead, at 22, I chose to marry, and have been in a very happy and stable relationship for 34 years, fathering three children of whom I am very proud.
Whilst I do understand that you probably felt your comments reflect something that would be helpful to young boys in the situation you describe, I felt I needed to write to make clear to you that, whilst your comments reflect a worldview promoted by the pro-gay lobby, they would be highly irresponsible in the real lives of teenage boys, encouraging them to prematurely make lifestyle choices they may well deeply regret with serious consequences.
For the sake of a stable society and the long-term mental and emotional health of individuals, surely schools should be encouraged to support stable marriage and family relationships.
Yours sincerely
Phil Barnett
John Mason: Finally, and I hope briefly, I touch on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member who represents Abingdon—I wish to save time by not saying the full name of his constituency, or will that upset the people of west Oxfordshire? I wish to speak to amendments 230 and 231—and possibly 232 and 233, which are related. They seek to extend the harassment provisions to cover religion and sexual orientation in the provision of public services. I am naturally interested to see that the definition uses the “and” formulation of my amendment rather than the “or” formulation used by the Government. However, given what I have said, I obviously oppose extending the Bill to cover harassment on those grounds.
I shall touch on some of what the hon. Gentleman said. He mentioned the question of schools, and specifically mentioned homophobic bullying. I am sure that we are unanimous in agreeing that such behaviour should not happen. I know that schools—both faith schools and other kinds—are desperately trying to tackle bullying of all kinds, and I fully support them in that. I understand that faith schools in England and Scotland want to teach, for example, that sex outside marriage is wrong; indeed, that forms part of the ethos of such schools. However, we do not want such a statement to be thought of as bullying. For example, in Glasgow every child lives in the catchment areas of two schools, so every family and every child can choose between a faith school and a secular one.
Emily Thornberry: What, therefore, would happen to a young man whose Catholic parents want him to go to a particular school, but who, at the age of 13 or 14, decides that he is gay, and finds himself bullied by teachers who tell him that there is something profoundly wrong with him because he wants sex outside marriage?
John Mason: There is a difference between making a statement such as, “I believe it is wrong to have sex outside marriage,” and bullying. The two are not the same. I hope—I certainly have faith in Glasgow schools of all descriptions—that schools are attempting to tackle bullying at all levels, but that is not to say that they accept all forms of behaviour as just being okay.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is saying that there are some schools—state schools, state-funded schools—providing that public service that want to teach that gay sex is always wrong. They can cover it on the basis of sex outside marriage but, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, that means that gay sex is always wrong, always sinful and something to be condemned, to put it mildly. I cannot believe that this Committee, this House—certainly this applies to my party—and the Government think that that is acceptable. A school must not do that. A school can say that certain organisations or religions believe that, but it has a terrible effect on young people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and so on.
The evidence, which I have not read out, although I could, shows that the feeling that one is being bullied and instances of bullying are a particular problem in faith schools, precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives. It is not right for him to hide behind the argument that their ethos says that sex outside marriage is wrong. That means that being gay is always wrong if people express it sexually, which every gay person is entitled to do within the law.
John Mason: Our policy—this is our party policy, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock—is that if sufficient parents want a particular type of school, be it religious, non-religious or whatever, we would aim to provide that type of school. It could be Catholic or we could be talking about other Christian denominations. We have at least one Jewish school in Scotland and we are looking at Muslim schools in Scotland as well. Those would be schools run by the public sector.
I believe in diversity. If there is one thing that I am trying to get across in Committee, it is the idea of diversity, of live and let live, of being inclusive and of allowing different views. We do not have to have all schools saying that marriage is unnecessary or not particularly a good thing. We can have some schools saying that marriage is a good thing. We can have other schools taking a more relaxed view about the issue. Parents would have a certain amount of choice about which one they wanted their child to go to.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
