"Fundamentalism"

I have just read through your pages.

If you are willing I would be interested in your further views on some of the material you wrote about homosexuality; in particular:

1. You said that homosexuality was bad for society but provided nothing to show why this should be the case.

   You compared homosexuality to robbing banks or murder - yet they are utterly different. A homosexual relationship needs two willing and mature people to occur; murder is the use of force by one person over another unwilling person. Likewise; robbery, paedophilia, rape etc etc. How can these very different issues be morally equivalent (let alone legally)?

2. You compared homosexuality to alcoholism - is this not again comparison of two quite different matters? Most people in both your and my society engage in social drinking; I have never heard of someone who engages in social homosexuality. I have never been to a party (and hope I never do) where the welcoming host asks if I have had enough food, drink and homosexuality!

   Yet there are people who go beyond social drinking and their drinking becomes obsessive behaviour to the real detriment of their social life and relationships and possibly their physical and financial well being. I have read of only few cases were this same could be said of sexual obsession (gay or straight). So it would appear more correct to compare alcoholism with sexual obsession rather than all homosexuality per se.

3. Genetics is a relatively new and difficult field of study. Aspects of genetic makeup appear to influence in different degrees the term for this is penetration. A person may have something genetically predetermined (such as eye colour) from which they cannot escape or they may have a genetic predisposition (such as athletic ability) which they can do much to extend (or resist, in many cases!).

   If discussing genetics, homosexuality appears to fall in the category of predetermined whereas alcoholism appears to be a predisposition.a simplistic way of putting the penetration effect of the different genetic influences

   And to make matters more confusing, sexuality doesn't appear to be the stark polarities of man/woman or gay/straight - bisexuality adds an important twist to the discussion. despite much of the 'science' behind the anti-gay movement being based on outdated Freudian notions (outdated because they are clinically based and do not hold-up to examination in the real World), the anti-gay movement has chosen to ignore Freud's own convictions that bisexuality is also actually the norm - nearly all their tracts discuss sexuality as being either male or female despite these being genders and not sexuality

4. There are many recovered alcoholics. There are no recovered homosexuals.

   I have waded through an enormous number of both scientific journals and religious tracts on this matter. What struck me about the material from religious-based groups (such as Exodus) was their complete overlooking of the vital difference between bisexuality and homosexuality.

   I have little doubt that someone who was bisexual could decide to act on only one aspect of their sexual attraction. They could go through a series of gay sexual relationships and then fall in love with a woman, get married and have children and live a happy and monogamous life. I see no change in that person.

   But this will not happen for a homosexual person. By definition, they are not attracted to the opposite sex. And nothing I have read indicates any programme has altered this orientation - all of the 'success' stories have been on bisexuals.

   An independent audit of Exodus (there is an internet ref. somewhere but I've lost it for the moment) showed no cases out of 800 of homosexuals one needs to be aware here that Exodus defines homosexual as including anyone who'd even briefly fantacised about having sex with their same gender having altered their orientation. Likewise all of the scientific literature.

5. Some homosexuals (like heterosexuals) are able to be celibate.

   This does not make them straight, just celibate. And they show all the difficulties of remaining celibate as a heterosexual does. The difference, of course, is that groups like Exodus (or the Vatican etc etc) does not expect all heterosexuals to be capable of celibacy.

   This unreasonable expectation on homosexuals within these 'ex-gay' groups has left a horrendous trail of suicide, drug abuse and alcoholism; something they are utterly unwilling to take responsibility for.

6. I was fascinated to read your section on everyone's need for affection (Random Thoughts). Whether you wanted it to or not this section reads as equally valid for both heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual people. You are correct, it does go beyond the sex drive.

   You haven't stated as such but if your thinking follows the usual path from your belief system you would then turn this statement about affection on it's head and require that gay people never fulfil this core need.

   Homosexuals are not able to form these deep, loving relationships with a person of the opposite sex. I cannot see how society benefits from putting obstacles in the way of gay men and women seeking one another out and establishing partnerships with each other.

   Rather than isolating homosexuals and forcing them into lonely and unfulfilled lives I think they should be encouraged to make a commitment to another in full view of their families and friends. And like all relationships of this nature society should encourage them to rely on each other, to display their love and to grow within the partnership.

   Even given all the additional pressures bought to bear on gay relationships my reading of the studies indicates that gay relationships are as committed and as long-lasting as straight ones; inspite of the false stereotypes.

   I cannot do better than remember my own sisters reaction when someone told her they were gay - her first response was to ask "Do you have someone?" and on being told yes she simply said "Isn't it great to be in love.". Perfect. actually, this was Jenny's response to Grant!

7. Do you believe there is an link (even if unestablished as yet) between the availability of pornography and violence and sex crimes, particularly against women? If so, what is this link?

   And if this link is possible, how much personal responsibility are you prepared to accept between your public condemnation of homosexuality (to which you claim the right of free speech) and hateful and violent crimes against gay men and women?

There is a fair bit in here but I would be delighted if you could reply, I really am interested.

Regards, Grant