³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Back in the 1960s, there was the Wolfendon Report that heralded a reform of the (then) draconian laws regarding gay sexual practices. Many of us agreed then that what gay adults did in private was their own business. But tolerance of gay practices did not imply acceptance, and certainly not approval. Even in this PC age, there are many of us who regard the gay lifestyle as aberrant and dysfunctional, especially when it takes the form of exhibitionist flaunting in public, or gay cruising in public spaces etc.
So those two gay men who were permitted, unwisely in my view, to foster young boys must have realized that they were being placed in a position of great trust, and were effectively ambassadors for the proposition that a stable gay partnership was equally valid to that of a heterosexual one in the matter of fostering. And what did they do ? - they betrayed that trust, and did so in a way in which little attempt was made to conceal their interest in those boys as objects for their sexual gratification. They have let the side down badly, so to speak, to the extent that any local authority will now have to think long and hard before going down that road again. I think it's entirely correct that the gay orientation of those two men has been publicized. We live in a society in which policy decisions must be made in a transparent way, especially where the interests of children are concerned. I think the gay community now has a major public relations task on its hands to convince us that gay partners can offer the essentially 100% certainty that one seeks re the safety of children who may be placed in their care. Many childless heterosexual couples have been turned down as foster parents for matters to do with lifestyle that are far less controversial than a gay orientation.

It goes without saying that people who persecute or attack gays will continue to feel the full force of the law. By the same token, I also expect my views to be considered and respected, namely that the gay lifestyle is a problematical one for society in many respects, and that gays must not expect, and cannot demand, total equality in all matters. If they ask for too much, too soon, they risk losing some of what they have already achieved for themselves.

Earlier this afternoon, there were two short responses to the gay foster care story. The blue numeral 3 has now appeared, but when one clicks, no stories appear, neither the two that were shown earlier, nor the longer( somewhat non-PC) one that I submitted. I'm not hopeful that mine will appear on this forum. Why ? Because for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ to announce it's opening a blog is a bit like the Church of England announcing that it's to open a Soho night club. In both cases, a profound culture change would be necessary for the venture to be fulfil public expectations.

I can't believe people complained about the use of British with respect to the football fan report.

Not all England football fans are English

Isn't time to move beyond the word gay to describe homosexuals?
It might have been appropriate for a couple of years in San Fransisco a generation ago - pre AIDs, but now a word that defines a certain state of mind has been made unusable in general conversation.
Homosexuals chose the word gay, can't a homosexual editor or someone else in the print media come up with a new word - or can we go back to the old homo, or even, the word which was used by homo-sexuals themselves in the '60s; queer?

So this is the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s idea of a blog. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

And now we're being told there are 8 comments on this blog, but it's still the same old 3. What a farce !

Hi Colin

Currently, we do have a technical problem with comments. There's an explanation of it on Nick Robinson's blog - /blogs/nickrobinson/2006/06/problems_with_c.html - but we'll put an explanation on this blog as well.

Hello Host

Thanks for putting us in the picture re your technical problems. Hope you get them sorted soon. Thanks also for posting my unfashionable views re gay rights. You may be interested to know that I posted something similar to a Sky blog a couple of months back, expecting howls of outrage, and guess what - it drew no response whatsoever.
Just as Bruce M seeks an alternative word for gay, I seek some alternatives to "homophobic". It's usually taken to mean hatred of gays, when correctly speaking, phobia implies a fear, which is something altogether different, and may be rational or irrational, depending on one's life experience. I would like a word that means tolerance of gays, while maintaining a polite but critical stance.

Colin b, do I smell an evangelical in you? You are obviously either very religious or very short on scientific knowledge. Or both.

A few comments:

1. What is a gay lifestyle? Clubbing and taking drugs and promiscuity I suspect is your idea. You might be surprised to realise that the marginalisation of homosexuals due to Christianity-induced stigmatising legislation pre 1967 was mostly responsible for some gay men choosing to live in alternative ways. Most of us you'll find decorating on a Sunday morning, cutting the grass or cooking a roast (rather than recovering from a drug induced haze in bed with sex strangers we've picked up in a bar!). What is a straight lifestyle when it comes to that? Would Kate Moss be a good example? Or Anne Widdicombe? Pete Doherty or David Cameron? Ridiculous comment.

2. Since, and we now have quite a lot of scientific evidence for this now, it seems likely that sexual orientation is caused by a mix of genetics inherited from the mother's side and womb-environmental factors, it does seem a little dodgy to attack people for this. You might be interested to know that homosexual men cause less crime than even heterosexual women in the UK, are one of the most socially mobile group based upon birth social position to their adult one and contribute proportionally far more taxes than the likes of Mr Average. They also score very highly on IQ compared to straight men (sorry!). Homosexuals and bisexuals also make up at most about 15 per cent of the population...it always amazes me why people like you get so worried about us given how few of us there are.

3. Finally, you might be interested to know that the rate of paedophile offending in this country (against children of either sex-they don't care about the gender, it's about power and control and caused by social dysfunction) by heterosexual men is vastly higher than by gay men. Being a homosexual means you like MEN not children...you seem a little confused.

This is a case that, like all cases, is abhorrent and upsetting, but I think you ought to bear in mind just how many loving, decent fosterers, adopters with differing sexualities to your own, exist in this country.

I thought that I would reply to your ill-conceived and ignorant post above. Far too often gay people are still attacked by the religious right and the ignorant in the media for their genetics or congenital make-up. You wouldn't do it about someone's race, another thing you are born with so why do it to us? I don't think comments like yours, Colin b should go unanswered hence this response!

Go put the "Good Book" down and read some science for once

Hello Adam

Pleased to see a reply at last to the points I raised. This is just a holding reply - you've raised many different issues, some relevant, some less so, but I'll try and draft something in a day or two.

I was amused by your supposition that I am a scientifically illiterate bible-basher. What did I say to deserve that - or do you just like to attach unflattering labels to people whose views are different from your own ? For your information, I'm a PhD scientist, and served for a year as Chairman of my University Humanist Group, some members of whom were almost certainly homosexual, and would not have been too bothered, I suspect, by anything that I've written here.
It's many years since I've graduated, but I'd still describe myself as humanist. But the human condition is a complex one, not always capable of simple or simplistic answers. What concerns me most is not what people ARE, whether by genetic endowment, or environmental influences, but the way in which they BEHAVE towards their fellow human beings.

More later.

This is rather unconnected to the debate currently going on in here, but I felt it was important to point out that the reason the word "gay" was used in the story title was because the two men sexually abused the young boys in their care. This was abuse in a homosexual capacity and therefore relevant.

There is, to my knowledge, no way of abusing someone in an Asian, Christian, Scottish or blonde way. I'm sure that if this was the case, it would be included in the title. After all, the links are intended to draw the reader into the story and nothing is more attractive than a shock adjective.

Just for the record, before I get slammed for my homosexual viewpoint, I am bisexual myself.

The only way I can make sense of your post (in its entirety) Maria, is by replacing "homosexual" in your last sentence with "heterosexual" . Am I right ?