SHORTLY politicians will debate reducing the age of homosexual consent
from 21 to 16. The debate is likely to be clouded with confusion and
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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article