Homosexual age of consent must change

bias, and some will use the ideology of ''Back to Basics'' as a

smoke-screen to draw attention away from the lack of logic or scientific

evidence they have for opposing this move on health grounds.

The important issues to consider when legislating on sexual activity

of any type must include whether the legislation will protect the

vulnerable from, or expose them to, increased risk, and whether the

legislation is logical, enforceable, and whether it affects other

issues.

In practice remarkably little legislation seems to be considered in

this way; but logic rarely plays a part in politics. There are many who

point to their bibles in condemning homosexuality. I am no bible

scholar, and I believe that as a doctor my contribution -- and that of

other health workers -- to this debate must be as a health professional.

I have no right to judge or moralise but I have a duty to warn of the

health consequences of individual or Government actions. All sexual

activities carry risks -- particularly of sexually-transmitted diseases

-- and as a doctor my responsibility is to say that this present law

harms instead of protects those at risk.

The idea that consensual homosexual activity is a moral question

relates to the use which is made of the word ''abnormal''. Homosexuality

is not the norm in a scientific sense, in that the majority of adults,

at least within our culture, are heterosexual. But the fact that it is

not the preference or orientation of all or most adults, does not make

homosexuality perverse, an illness or somehow wrong.

Others express concern that those who are unsure of their sexual

orientation will be coerced or persuaded into homosexuality, preyed upon

by older men. If that is true why are female homosexuals not subject to

the same protection? And why do we rarely prosecute men or boys involved

in consensual sex with girls under the age of 16? The only logic seems

to be that girls are somehow

immune from persuasion

to a particular sexual orientation.

The International Classification of Diseases does not regard

homosexuality as a pathological condition -- an illness. Nor indeed do

modern textbooks of psychiatry; references to homosexuality relate to

helping individuals come to terms with their own feelings and

preferences, likely to cause problems particularly in those societies

which ostracise homosexuals.

The same textbooks deal with many conditions which relate to patients

being helped to come to terms with something about themselves --

including their heterosexual orientation. And the fact is that the

numbers of individuals who need expert help and support are a minority;

most of us adjust to our sexual orientation without expert help.

Are the recent depictions, by Hollywood, of female homosexuality

characteristic? And is the existence of at least one homosexual serial

killer evidence that we should

regard homosexuality as typically dangerous or threatening? Clear

evidence exists to the contrary. Violent antisocial behaviour exists

among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and in both it is rare. It

is the antisocial behaviour which requires expert

attention, not the sexual orientation.

There are still some doctors who see homosexuality as an illness. They

argue that the present legislation reduces the numbers of homosexuals

because it allows time to ''heal'' and gives opportunity for therapy.

The facts do not support their case; whether genetic, biochemical, or

learned, or more likely a complex mix of all these, homosexuality is

simply one form of sexual orientation and as such is no more amenable to

''therapy'' than heterosexuality is.

Some say that male sexual development is slower than that of females,

and that real consent to any activity cannot occur until such

development is complete. But there is no evidence that sexual

orientation, and self-knowledge, develop at the same time as all the

other measures of biological maturity. Many young homosexual men state

that they were certain of their sexual orientation long before puberty,

and usually long before the first homosexual experience; equally those

who are neither exlusively hetero -- or homo -- sexual may not realise

this until long after puberty.

The average age for first homosexual activity in one major study is

reported as 15.7 years -- clearly demonstrating that the legislation

does not stop such activity. The average age of a partner was within two

years of these young men -- so no evidence of older men preying upon the

young.

The medical consequences of the illegality are severe. Young men are

denied access to counselling, and to health education and health care by

fear of prosecution for themselves and their partners. This denies

opportunities for health education -- on sexually transmitted diseases

and HIV -- and for help to those who are having difficulty in coming to

terms with their sexuality. This is reflected in statistics showing that

HIV cases are disproportionately high among young gay men.

The clear facts are that legislation has never stopped sexual

activity; it only hides it. Openness helps health educators to work

effectively; secrecy denies access to medical help. Our laws are meant

to protect us when we are at risk; this present law increases

vulnerability.

None of this challenges the need for legislation to protect the

vulnerable against non-consensual sex. Whether the forced sex is

homosexual or heterosexual it should be just as repugnant, and our

society, through its laws, should treat it equally sternly. But

non-consensual sex happens to all age groups with the very young and

very old often being the most vulnerable simply because of a physical

inability to resist. Non-consensual sex requires legislation, and

policing, and prosecution. And the criminality of the action should stem

from the lack of consent, not from the nature of the sexual act, and

still less from the calendar age of the victim.

Consensual sexual activity is not a matter for public or private

morals; it is a matter of public health. The law

on homosexual consent is flawed; it is perverse and damaging to the

health of young men. It does not work and it must be changed.