If you thought that overt Homophobic bigotry was confined to DUP politicians, here is a wake up call. A Conservative councillor, Mr. Patrick Clark, has publicly referred to gay people as “sexual deviants”.
Pink news has reported Mr. Clarke’s defence of his views following his suspension for making those comments. It is noted that Mr. Clarke bases his views on his religious teaching. The references in the Old Testament of the Bible, to homosexuality being an abomination, will always be an obstacle to complete humanism for Christians and Jews.
When it comes to politics, a Conservative politician or official is obliged to behave as a humanist, no matter what his or her religious beliefs. That requires tolerance and sensitivity on matters of race, religion, sex, culture, disability and sexual orientation. The Derby Conservative Party has, quite rightly, taken action against Mr. Clark for his comments.
Filed under: Bigotry, Conservative Party, DUP, Iris Robinson, Morality, Normal Politics, Northern Ireland politics Tagged: | Bigotry, Conservative Party, DUP, Homophobia, Iris Robinson, Morality, Normal Politics, Northern Ireland politics, Sexual Orentation, Sexual Orientation
Unfortunately Latin words like ‘deviant’ have acquired new connotations far removed from their original meaning. The word stems from the Latin verb deviare, which simply means to stray or to depart (it retains this meaning in Italian). As Cllr Clark pointed out, he was not using the word in the derogatory sense. Essentially all he’s saying is that homosexual behaviour is not in accord with God’s will. Granted, he could have expressed himself in a far more tactful tone, but I fail to see any bigotry on his part.
A distinction must be made between homosexuality per se and involving oneself in homosexual behaviour (i.e. what is colloquially known as ‘gay sex’). Opposition to homosexual behaviour cannot be compared to racism or sexism because race and gender are inborn, immutable, and involuntary traits which are intrinsic to one’s human nature. To oppose persons on account of their race or colour is senseless for nobody chose to be born black or white. Homosexual behaviour is committed voluntarily and is in an entirely different category. Nobody is forced to engage in such practices. Even if certain individuals are afflicted with a psychological disposition towards homosexual behaviour, that does not compel them to engage in such practices. Some psychologists have asserted that pathological tendencies are motivated by genetics, yet we do not exonerate culpability from those who choose to murder others. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not comparing homosexuals to murderers, but just because someone is afflicted with tendencies towards a certain behaviour does not necessarily make that behaviour morally acceptable. I would be a lot less forbearing of Cllr Clark had he condemned homosexuals simply for their orientation, but he has not done that. Indeed one can presume that he is equally opposed to all premarital acts of sex.
His concerns about the intolerant and radical homosexual agenda are perfectly warranted. We seen with Iris Robinson (whose comments were admittedly in very poor taste) how certain ‘gay’ groups will arrogantly demand tolerance from everyone else yet will refuse to yield any forbearance to those who adhere to the orthodox Christian perspective on sexual morality. Some homosexual groups were even calling for her to be arrested! Certain lawyers are even concerned that new EU ‘equality’ laws will force churches to dispense sacraments to homosexuals and even coerce them into celebrating same sex ‘marriages’. Whether this materializes is yet to be seen, but as was the case with the Catholic adoption agencies and their shameful forced closure, the political elites are all too willing to placate these well-funded and very powerful homosexual militant groups. The homosexual movement is far from a benign threat to our liberties. That Cllr Clark could find himself punished for merely airing his religious convictions is a matter for great regret, and a shocking indication of how acutely imperilled Christian values are in this post-modernist society.
Catholic Observer,
Firstly, the association by Mr. Clark of sexual deviants with gays is much more insulting when you consider the medical definition of paraphillia (the medical term for sexual deviancy). The term includes Paedophillia (perhaps Iris Robinson was thinking along those lines)
Secondly, I note your distinction between the voluntary and the involuntary as you see it. Is that really relevant? Criticising a person for having a particular religion is considered by most of us to be wrong but maintaining a religion is largely a voluntary act.
Most of the homosexuality which occurs is as a result of people being born with different sexual brainwiring. Some of us who appreciate the science just don’t see homosexuality as so bad.
It is all very well to say that criticising the person with a tendency is wrong but not the act. For most gay people, this distinction is not helpful. One can appreciate this when comparing the way people consider homosexuality and adultery. The Church and some Christians may consider adultery and homosexuality to be equally wrong. In practice, as far as most of society is concerned, adultery does not have the same stigma attached to it.
I totally respect your position, which is an orthodox Christian viewpoint. However, you will also know that peoples’ views on morality and sin are hardly ever the same. Homosexuality is one of those ancient sins which seems to have lost its reason for being a sin. So long as there is no assault or third party involved, who is hurt by it? The same question applies to masturbation, which the Catholic Church also regards as sinful.
Politics can be full of complex challenges. An ideal may be a starting point for making a policy. In the end, a policy will only be successful if the policy is crafted by pragmatism and balance. The Conservatives, like any other political party, need power to implement their policies. To obtain power, we need an adequate amount support of people from many different backgrounds, cultures and walks of life. Obtaining power also depends partly on our politicians maintaining certain standards of conduct.
Our party has rules under which our politicians can be disciplined for an substantial deficit in the required standard of conduct. Our codes of conduct require our politicians to show tolerance and sensitivity towards groups such as gay people. It makes sense. We have plenty to lose by expressing prejudice and nothing to gain. Clark was in breach our rules. He must accept the consequences.
“Firstly, the association by Mr. Clark of sexual deviants with gays is much more insulting when you consider the medical definition of paraphillia (the medical term for sexual deviancy). ”
Certainly so. But Mr Clark was employing the term in a colloquial sense, not according to its strict medical definition. He clarified this to the Derby Telegraph, stating that he was not using the term in its derogative conception. He was not intending to draw parallels between homosexuals and paedophiles.
“Secondly, I note your distinction between the voluntary and the involuntary as you see it. Is that really relevant? Criticising a person for having a particular religion is considered by most of us to be wrong but maintaining a religion is largely a voluntary act. ”
Criticising a person for professing a certain religion would indeed be perceived by most as bigoted, but there would be scant fault in criticising practices or doctrines of that religion. Similarly Cllr Clark is not condemning homosexuals for their orientation or even collectively as a body of people; he’s simply criticising the sexual practices they undertake. Few would impute malice to Ian Paisley for debating the veracity of transubstantiation or the efficacy of prayers for the dead, yet if he were to castigate Catholics merely for professing them, then condemning him would be entirely reasonable.
“Most of the homosexuality which occurs is as a result of people being born with different sexual brainwiring. Some of us who appreciate the science just don’t see homosexuality as so bad. ”
There are various conflicting studies about the genesis of homosexuality and I don’t think there is warrant for assuming that it mostly occurs as a result of brain wiring. But even if we are to concede this, there is a study reported here undertaken by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health which purports to show a link between brain wiring and paedophilia. If this survey were to be proved correct, we would not therefore assume the moral liceity of paedophilia. Natural dispositions do not in themselves constitute an acceptable rationale for human behaviour.
“It is all very well to say that criticising the person with a tendency is wrong but not the act. For most gay people, this distinction is not helpful.”
If by ‘gay people’ you mean those homosexuals who voluntarily and consensually engage their physical bodies in homosexual practices, then yes, they would say that. However no-one is forcing them to have sex, they’re doing it out of their own volition. Criticising their practices and criticising their orientation are not equivalent because while the former is freely chosen, the latter is not.
“However, you will also know that peoples’ views on morality and sin are hardly ever the same.”
And by suspending this gentleman the Tories have shown that they are willing to accept only one viewpoint on morality.
“So long as there is no assault or third party involved, who is hurt by it?”
Well if we’re to accept that as the guiding ethical principal then logically we’d have to legalize prostitution, drugs, and incest. You don’t have to hurt anyone else to commit a moral evil. Bearing hatred towards someone or having sex with dead people doesn’t ‘hurt’ anyone either.
“The same question applies to masturbation, which the Catholic Church also regards as sinful.”
Along with Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and many other religions. If a Tory party representative were to uphold Catholic teaching in this area would he similarly be suspended for bigotry against masturbators?
“In the end, a policy will only be successful if the policy is crafted by pragmatism and balance.”
Intolerantly insisting upon only one view of sexual morality for party representatives is neither balanced nor pragmatic.
“To obtain power, we need an adequate amount support of people from many different backgrounds, cultures and walks of life. ”
Yes, and hanging out a ‘No orthodox believers need apply’ sign outside your recruitment office is unlikely to attract people from diverse backgrounds. Even some of your party’s members have used opposition to homosexuality as a tool to attract minority support, Baroness Warsi for example used anti-homosexuality leaflets to court the Muslim vote in Dewsbury. Interestingly in California a proposition was passed a few months ago banning same-sex ‘marriages’. While most of the white middle classes opposed it, the minorities in the state were overwhelmingly in favour.
“We have plenty to lose by expressing prejudice and nothing to gain. Clark was in breach our rules”
Clark is not guilty of prejudice because he didn’t condemn homosexuals, he condemned only their behaviour. Why arbitrarily bar your representatives from criticising some sexual practices and not others? Would it be okay for a Tory representative to condemn, say pornography or lap-dancing (as many have done)? Surely this is bigotry against pornographers or lap-dancers. Why should only one sexual practice be immune from criticism? Futhermore your former party leader, Margaret Thatcher (who you have lavishly praised) was not exactly known for her homophilia either…to put it rather mildly. Under such a restrictive ordinance she would also presumably have been unfit to represent her party.