| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.18 pm
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): I feel privileged to listen to the debate. My parents brought me up to know people from many walks of life and religions. I owe my mother a debt of gratitude for the fact that I am not inflicted with any disability of mind that might make certain people repulsive or repugnant to me. As we shall have a free vote on the issue, I have examined my conscience closely to work out why I feel the way I do and why I believe that my vote will be morally right and justified.
I have considered the great figures of history whom the rest of us aspire to be like to see from whom I could draw an example. A line comes to mind from Martin Luther King when he was considering the position of his children. He was talking about the future of people of different ethnic backgrounds, but his comment that we should judge people by the content of their heart applies in this debate. It is the content of a person's heart that appeals to me, not the state of their being. We can judge people only by actions over which they have control. We cannot, in all justice and conscience, make a judgment that criminalises someone for a state of existence that is simply themselves, because if we do that we deny them. This debate is not just about equality before the law; it is about humanity, which is the very purpose of a legislative Chamber. If the House is not concerned with humanity, what are we here for? We have to consider the law, and its sense and purpose.
One purpose claimed for the law as it stands is that it provides protection. What sort of protection do we seek for our children? Do we seek to protect them from their own sexuality? Is that even possible? The European Commission has stated:
I firmly believe that our sexuality is as much a part of our being as whether we have curly hair, green eyes or white or brown skin. Therefore, homosexuality should not be an issue for a debate about equality. We should simply accept each other as we are. There is nothing for people to be protected from, because we should not need to be protected from our own existence.
What other protection might we seek for people? We could seek protection for them from older people making sexual advances against their consent. In that case, the law clearly discriminates, because men and women are treated differently. The BMA has said:
It has been suggested that protection is needed on health grounds, but the first protection is information. If people are not informed about where their sexual activity may lead them, what hope do they have of protecting their own health? I do not know what is so complicated or advanced about condoms. They have been around for a long time and served a useful purpose. They protect people, whatever their age, against the unwanted consequences of sexual activity. Their primary purpose is obviously protection against pregnancy, but they also protect against sexually transmitted diseases for both men and women. Why should we differentiate between people of different sexes when there is nothing very complicated about the use of a condom? They are not a new idea, and their use should be discussed more widely in schools, youth clubs and wherever people who need such information to protect themselves gather together. There is nothing new in that.
The NSPCC, which is a respected organisation, supports the equalisation of the age of consent because
The current law leaves people open to abuse. If an older man seeks to have a sexual relationship with a younger man aged 16 to 17, both parties are in breach of the law. If the young man has not consented, he cannot put himself forward for protection under the law, because he, too, is in breach of the law. That situation is not providing protection for him or his health, and serves no purpose for the public or the young people whom we seek to protect.
It is claimed that the current state of the law protects young people, but so far I have seen no evidence of that. It is claimed that the law protects family life. Well, family life has been glorious for me. I enjoy marriage, and I know many people who do. I also know gay men who have married to protect themselves from homophobic views and bullying, but that serves no purpose to marriage, their happiness or that of the women they marry. People will not be happy if they marry to avoid homophobic behaviour, and that is not the sort of family life I support.
Many hon. Members have discussed the importance of family life and said how many of our sons, brothers, sisters and so on are gay. They are part of our families,
but people should not feel forced into relationships that are not natural for them. Just because my own marriage is natural and happy for me, I should not seek to impose a similar relationship on others. I am fortunate that the relationship that feels natural to me resembles those of the majority of people in this country, but what purpose could it serve for me to impose a relationship that suits me on another individual? My happiness is my own personal joy, and I hope that the House will find a way of allowing other people to find their personal joy in their own way.
Some people assume that, when young people are growing up and exploring their sexuality, they make a decision about it. However, the evidence shows that there is no decision to be made. The vast majority of young men who are homosexual find that out for themselves before the age of 15 and with no sexual contact. They have engaged in no physical exploration with anyone else, but they already know their own mind.
Some of my hon. Friends have already spoken of their experience with step-daughters, daughters and sons, and mine is the same. There is no possibility of my telling either of my children what their sexuality is, or of being able to change their mind. It is not a question of changing their mind--that is the crux of the matter. The construct of my argument is that a person must be valued in society, and so must their relationships, their developing sexuality and their emerging love for other people. I use the word "love" very carefully. In my experience, when young men and young girls have their first early contacts with either the opposite sex or the same sex, the first powerful feeling is one of love. That loving feeling for their first partner may not last for the rest of their life--it rarely does--but why should that surge of loving feeling between opposite-sex couples be denied to same-sex couples, and not all same-sex couples at that? It has already been said, far more poetically than I could say it, that there is a love that cannot speak its name. But let us speak it, because it is love.
I do not accept that married love between two people of the opposite sex is somehow more valuable, and has a special place--that would be to deny same-sex love. It does not mean that I denounce marriage, which has its place in society. Marriage is considered, not just by this place, but by most religions, as a special relationship in which children are brought into the world and have a special place in that family. We cannot talk about the emerging sexuality of children without talking about love. Love includes the love between parents and the love of parents for their children. It means that we accept the love that our children feel for the people with whom they have relationships throughout their life. Therefore, equalising the age of consent is an objective of paramount importance.
We also have a duty of care, which should not be about emerging sexuality, but about whether someone has a relationship of power over another person. That is where the Bill draws distinct and important lines. It does the debate a disservice to draw those lines in a trivial way by saying that, if young people go swimming, for example, or engage in a fun activity with others in a youth club, the adult running the club or in charge of the outing has a powerful relationship over those young people. That is a silly contention.
"Sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes at the age of 16."
It continued:
"Men aged 16 to 21 are not in need of special protection because of a risk of being 'recruited' into homosexuality."
I absolutely agree.
"The risk posed by predatory older men would appear to be as serious whether the victim is a man or a woman and does not justify a differential age of consent."
The argument is that young men aged between 16 and 18 are more vulnerable than young women of that age. That is a preposterous argument. Young women, if they
experience unwanted sexual activity--or sexual activity they have consented to that is unwise and leads to pregnancy or disease--face at least the same dangers as a young man. Young women also face the risk of pregnancy, which can be grave indeed at that age. I do not propose that we change the age of consent for young women, because it would be ludicrous to deny the fact that young people engage in sexual activity--which anyway would be impossible to police. If we are providing protection for young women at the age of 16, why should there be a difference for young men? I have seen no evidence that makes me believe that young men are more vulnerable.
"continuing discrimination in the law against homosexuals stigmatises young people growing up gay. It hinders them from developing a positive self-image and prevents them from seeking information and help in coming to terms with their sexuality."
We know that the current situation provides a platform for homophobic bullying. If there is any risk to health, it is in the law as it stands, which means that people do not have information with which to protect their bodies and are not supported in protecting their mental and emotional development.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |