Saturday, 22 October 2011

I have a confession to make: it is about homosexuality

After much agonising of my conscience, I have decided to "out" myself.
I know that I am laying myself open to attack from the prejudiced, and I expect a sackful of hate-mail tomorrow morning.

But I can keep my secret no longer, and it is this: I disapprove of homosexuality; I find public displays of sexual desire between members of the same sex distasteful; I think that even long term and faithful relationships between homosexuals can never be more than a parody of heterosexual marriage; oh, and the very thought of buggery disgusts me.

I have other prejudices, too, which I may as well get off my chest while I am in this confessional mood. I believe that there is a number of character weaknesses to which male homosexuals are particularly (but by no means exclusively) prone - cattiness, selfishness, promiscuity and cowardice among them....

....What prompted me to "out" myself in this way was Wednesday's leader in the 'Sun', commenting on Peter Mandelson's refusal to react to the assertion made on 'Newsnight' by Matthew Parris, a newspaper columnist and former Tory MP: "I think Mandelson is certainly gay."

"The fact is: Mandelson is gay," the paper said.  "He also has a brilliant mind.  He is also a talented politician.  And it is also true that times have changed.  The British people will not turn on Mandelson because he is gay.  And they will sympathise with him for the way in which he was 'exposed'.  We say to Mandelson: tell the truth.  You will win respect for your honesty."

The 'Sun' was right about one thing.  Times have certainly changed when the editor of what was once the country's greatest bastion of political incorrectness is prepared to say that an admission of homosexuality should not count against a politician.  But I wonder if the paper is right to imply that the majority of the British people have undergone the same conversion.  I suspect not - and I hope not, which is why I venture today into the politically incorrect breach.

If my suspicion is right, the great majority of us still believe, in our heart of hearts, that there is something nasty and wrong about homosexual intercourse.  What has changed is that it is no longer considered respectable to say so publicly.
 Whereas half a century ago it was a jolly brave thing to invite scorn by admitting to a weakness for the love that dared not speak its name, today all the opprobrium is directed against those of us who disapprove of the love that shrieks its name from California to Clapham Common.

Our condition has even been given a fancy-sounding name, "homophobia", as if we are suffering from an irrational disorder.  If I thought that this was indeed the case, I would keep very quiet about my affliction.  But it is because I believe that homophobia is right, and nothing to be ashamed of, that I feel I should say so. 

Let me say at once that I am not suggesting that homosexuals should be victimised.  I would not wish any man to lose his job simply because he finds other men sexually attractive.  Nor do I think that anybody should be rude to homosexuals, let alone harm them physically.  What I do think is that the proper attitude to adopt towards homosexuals is one of tolerant disapproval, because homosexuality is an unsatisfactory and often squalid and unhappy way of life, and nobody should be encouraged to take it up.

Perhaps some will think it is too late now to try to soften the remarks that I made at the beginning of this column, which many will have found offensive.  But I would like to record with perfect truth (although how people will mock the familiar 'apologia' of the bigot) that Some of My Best Friends Are Homosexuals.  I realise that some excellent qualities are particularly to be found in homosexuals - wit springs to mind - and of course many of the worlds's greatest artists have been homosexual. 
I know, too, that many homosexuals have fought valiantly for their country and that many bore calumny and violence with astonishing bravery at a time when they had to expect it.  They are not all catty cowards, by any means.

Above all, I would like to say that if any of my four sons turns out to be homosexual, I will not love him the less for it. 

What appals me, though, is the way in which militant homosexuals seem to be engaged in a massive recruitment drive, with the Gay Pride marches and those flesh-creeping advertisements for Gay Exchange and other similar chat-lines, shown night after night on the television.

I do not mind a bit what homosexuals get up to in private (although I do not like the idea of it).  But it is when they go public that my stomach turns.  The homosexual lobby seems to have moved on from its campaign to redress civil wrongs to proclaiming that it is positively a good thing to be gay.  Well, it isn't.  In far too many cases, homosexuality is a squalid and - since the advent of Aids - a downright dangerous way of life.  The less that society disapproves of it, the more likely are the young to get into it while they are going through what may be only a phase.

All I ask is that these people shut up about it, and stop pretending that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as the love between a man and a woman.  I applaud Mr Mandelson's refusal to "come out".  I hope that other homosexuals follow his example and stay firmly in the closet, where they can do none but themselves any harm.

Huff! You say and maybe much more but.....these are not my words...they are an extract of an article written by journalist Tom Utley, and published in The Daily Telegraph some 13 or so years ago.

However, I do like the sentiment he expresses; it sums up much of what I believe about homosexuality and those who follow that path.

I do not think that it is "homophobic" to criticise homosexuals, I even do not think it is "homophobic" to say that one dislikes them, as a generalisation.
One may dislike a person but still hold a Christian love for them.

It would be "homophobic" to find it impossible to remain in the same railway carriage as one or to run screaming from the room when a homosexual enters.

Tom Utley now writes regularly for The Daily Mail. He is a father of four boys and a Catholic.
I hope he will forgive me for airing this article from the 1990s.


  1. I wonder how many years we have left before it's illegal to say such things.

  2. It has been said that Homosexuality is studied under the subject of Pathology at Medicine Colleges. I worked with many (being a hairdresser '60's -'mid '70's) I got on well with them, interestingly, back then, they were not so "affected".
    The anger I feel for that subject matter is the intrusion on children at school where they have a Homosexual month. February is where they learn that famous people (whether it is true or not) are possibly same sex attracted. Florence Nightingale being one.
    They want to impose information like, The Pleasures of Homosexual Sex to seven year olds.
    I get Homophobic at that! And other odious things I won't go into now.

  3. Not long, Father, not long.

    Momangelica - precisely!

  4. I too am homophobic, as the word is now used. I am also adultero-phobic, contracepto-phobic, pornographo-phobic and so on and so on. To put it another way, humanity is deeply wounded in the area of sexuality as the result of Original Sin.

    This plays out in different ways in different people, but attempts to 'normalise it - in the sense of making it accepted as legitimate and moral, are always to be resisted - which is why I find myself objecting more frequently to homosexuality than to many other dysfunctions.

  5. Richard,
    May God be praised for your faith,honesty and strength, this issue should have been addressed long ago by our weak bottled hierarchy(Bishops' Conference of England and Wales) years ago! May God Bless You Richard!


  6. Congratulations to Tom Utley for his truthful and courageous article written a decade or so ago, and thank you for reproducing it.The homosexual lobby is a tiny vociferous minority group wielding insidious and totally disproportionate political power in high places.I was reading today that the Government Minister responsible for managing the Oversea Aid Programme ,Rt.Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, has decided that the UK will no longer donate aid to a particular African nation apparently because that country's laws do not encourage homosexuality. I don't know what right this Minister has to take such a decision himself, just because the African nation has laws with which he does not agree,laws which we had in this country until relatively recently.Perhaps yet again, the malign influence of the homosexual lobby has been brought to bear. It seems that only those countries adhering to the materialistic, secular view so favoured by the Coalition government, that is the pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro virtually anything you like as long as it isn't Christianity, particularly Catholicity,are eligible for this country's Aid. Not to forget David Cameron's promise a year or two ago, to provide £300 million pounds in grants, to the Planned Parenthood organisation for the provision of contraceptives and Abortion facilities in Third World countries! This is in addition to I think £40 million previously promised! Now here there are real humanitarian grounds for withholding this money, for it would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies. What about it Mr Mitchell-and I really do mean it?!

  7. Not long indeed. Amongst my online news trawling, this:

  8. I'm a little concerned you spend such a lot of time and energy thinking about such things. It really makes one wonder....

  9. 1) I wonder if Tom Utley would get such an article published now?
    2) Assuming the majority of people could function bi-sexually if they had to (and that seems to be suggested by societies such as Ancient Athens where homosexual activity was encouraged as an element of sexual behaviour) are we allowed these days even to express a mild preference for our children to act heterosexually, or is that to impose 'heteronormativity' or some such thing? (I think this is where many liberals display some sort of bad faith: they might tolerate their children's homosexuality or even celebrate it after the event; very few would encourage it as an activity beforehand. A remnant of commonsense?)

  10. Jonty - so what am I supposed to do? Not think about offensive issues? And it didn't take much time or effort so wonder not.

  11. The latest I hear is that Tesco is supporting the 2012 London 'Gay Pride' march and boasting about it too.

    What next?

    Gay parking in Tesco supermarkets?

  12. Johnf - please see my post of 7th November.

  13. I have a friend who's convinced that, at the rate that homosexuality has apparently become acceptible in society at large over the past few years, within twenty more it will be compulsory. As to Peter Mandelson, I do sympathise with him over the way he was outed by the purring, preening, ghastly Matthew Parris.