Senior teacher, Kwabena Peat, attended a compulsory 'training' session at a North London school at which a presentation was given by Miss Sue Saunders, the lesbian co-founder of an organisation called Schools-Out, which campaigns for homosexual and lesbian equality in education. It can be stated without fear of prejudice that she is biased against any opposition to homosexuality or lesbianism by nature of her own beliefs on the subject. These beliefs make it difficult, if not impossible, for her to make a completely unbiased stand on the subject.
Miss Saunders, it is alleged, made the comment that (teaching) staff who did not accept that being 'gay' (homosexual or lesbian) was normal had 'issues' that they needed to deal with. She allegedly questioned why people thought that heterosexuality was natural. This smacks of a typical example of heterophobic reactionary language.
Mr Peat, a committed Christian, was one of several Christian members of staff who walked out of the session, upset that people who disagreed with Miss Saunders' viewpoint on religious grounds were not given a chance to respond to her claims and statements.
Now, just because you repeat a claim over and over again, it does not make it right. In some cultures marriage between a pre-teen girl who may be as young as eight or nine is permitted with a man who is old enough to be her great grandfather, let alone her father, is permitted. In most civilised cultures this would be recognised as paedophilia, and repeating the course of events, even legalising them, does not make it right.
It would be possible to legalise killing another human being in certain circumstances (other than handing out the death sentence to a killer), but this would not make it right. In fact, the killing every day of unborn babies is perfectly legal, but for most people with a true code of morals and ethics it is wrong. The fact that many governments have legalised it does not make it right.
So it is with the matter of sexual orientation. After all, who is to say that given enough publicity, bestiality might not be considered just as natural as a same-sex relationship if enough come forward to claim that it is so?
The question here is perhaps not whether same-sex relationships are right or wrong, or natural or unnatural, but whether it is ever right to force an opinion by denying opposition and open discussion about it. There can be no doubt that, no matter what many people might think or even claim, many same-sex relationships are just as loving as any other relationship. Equally, whilst I believe that for many homosexuals and lesbians their lifestyle is a lifestyle choice, for many for whom the lifestyle is as natural as breathing. Hence, for heterosexuals, many will claim that homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong, and many from that group of people will claim that they are just as 'right' as anyone else.
Perhaps, rather than the old chestnuts being aired yet again, quoting from Leviticus, Deuteronomy or Romans, it might be considered that the matter is about fornication, which is an abomination in the sight of God. This does not infer that sexual conduct between same-sex couples is wrong, but rather that sexual conduct between unmarried people is wrong. Considering that it is impossible, no matter what some might like to claim, for two people of the same sex to be married in the Biblical sense, it stands to reason that any sexual activity between them falls under the banner of fornication and that, from a Biblical viewpoint, it is therefore not right.
Mr Peat, just like millions of others with a religious conscience, be it Christian, Muslim or any other faith, believes that homosexuality is wrong. It is his right to think that, and equally, it is his right to state it. To deny him that right is as much an infringement of his right to freedom of speech as it would be to prevent Miss Saunders or anyone else from expressing their own viewpoint.
That he has been suspended from his job for stating his beliefs is totally unacceptable. It is yet another example of the persecution which is increasingly faced by Christians in this country, no matter that in this instance it is probable that whatever faith he professed or even if he had no faith, a similar punishment for declaring his viewpoint might have been meted out.
No comments:
Post a Comment