In recent years homosexuality has rocketed up the political, medical and social agenda. On 30 November 2000 the Government invoked the Parliament Act to overrule the House of Lords and pass the ‘Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill’, legislation that will lower the age at which males and females can consent to anal sex from 18 to 16.[1] The bill was not mentioned in the 1997 Labour party election manifesto, and the Parliament Act is very rarely used to overrule the Lords on conscience votes of ethical and moral importance. Supporters emphasise that the bill will bring the rights of young homosexual men in line with those of heterosexuals. However, the bill legalises anal sex in men and women at the age of 16, which carries significant medical risks whether practised by heterosexual or homosexual couples.

Health risks of anal sex

The rectum is lined with a delicate columnar epithelium, only one cell thick, in marked contrast to the stratified squamous lining of the vagina, which is much more resilient. This makes the rectum inherently more susceptible to infections, including HIV, hepatitis and other viral infections that may lead to anal cancer. A recent study found anal squamous epithelial lesions in 36% of HIV positive and 7% of HIV negative gay and bisexual men.[2] In addition there is an increased risk of other venereal diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhoea. Unless already breached the vaginal lining is much more resistant to such infection. The sphincter muscles of the anus can also be damaged by receptive anal sex, which may lead to incontinence. When practised on infants, this damage is more severe.

Mechanical damage to the rectum will happen regardless of safe sex measures. Whilst the use of condoms is advocated to reduce the infectious risks of anal intercourse, there is a breakage rate of up to 32% in anal sex and a slippage rate of 21% (respectively six and three times higher than for vaginal sex). Extra strength condoms, designed to overcome the extra demands placed on a sheath by anal sex, are frequently not used because of decreased sensation and discomfort.[3] Research commissioned by the British Psychological Society showed that the rate of unprotected anal sex is on the increase.[4] A survey of about 10,000 homosexual men in the UK found that 45% had had unprotected anal sex; more than two-thirds of these did not know the HIV status of the partner.[4] Even if a condom is used without breakage, inherent flaws in latex condoms are up to fifty times larger than the AIDS virus (which is 450 times smaller than the human sperm). Therefore the effectiveness of condoms for AIDS prevention is much worse than for contraception.[5]

Despite the evidence, doctors are reluctant to highlight the dangers of gay sex for fear of fuelling prejudice or being labelled homophobic. However, the same doctors would consider it negligent not to warn their patients about the health risks of smoking, poor diet, excessive alcohol consumption or lack of exercise. Isn’t this a dangerous concession to political correctness?

Teenage sexual ambiguity

There has been much debate about the age at which sexual orientation is fixed. Aproximately 25% of 14 year olds are ambivalent about their sexual orientation, yet the overwhelming majority of them will not be homosexual as adults. Despite the BMA’s claim that sexual orientation is fixed by the age of 16, this is not supported by large studies.[6] Furthermore, the Wellings Survey of sexual behaviour in Britain found that ‘the difference in prevalence between lifetime and current homosexual experience points to the likelihood that homosexual experience is often a relatively isolated or passing event’.[7]

Do we really want to expose young teenagers, male and female, to the inherent health risks of ano-receptive sex? The absolute heterosexual age of consent (where there is no legal defence possible for the man) is actually 13, not 16 under current law. Therefore, if we were to show true equality for homosexual acts, older boys and men would be able to have sex with boys as young as 13. This also opens the door for paedophiles to escape prosecution. Around 80% of the victims of paedophilia are boys molested by adult males. Although most gay men are not paedophiles, 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men overall are homosexual.8 Thus by lowering the age of consent we are removing older children’s protection from a significant proportion of paedophiles. As one gay writer warned, a combination of precocious individuals of 13 or 14 who are tempted to experiment, and older men ready to take advantage will ‘give the ratchet of permissiveness another deadly twist’.[9]

Making a Christian response

In Britian today, the gay lifestyle is accepted as ‘normal’ and without consequence. Most of the debate focuses on people’s rights to live as they please, ignoring the medical facts. Anyone who attempts to raise awareness of the medical risks of practising homosexual acts is in danger of being regarded as a homophobic bigot.

The Bible is clear that God created the gift of sexuality to be enjoyed within a lifelong, heterosexual marriage relationship. Therefore, all sexual acts outside heterosexual marriage are wrong, whatever their context.[10] Jesus taught that we need to be sexually pure even in our thoughts, and thus none of us can claim to be blameless. But equally there is no sexual sin that God will not forgive, if people are willing to repent.

So how should Christians respond to friends, family colleagues and patients who are gay? There is no better model for us than the response of Jesus to the women caught in adultery.[11] We must not judge or condemn. We should instead show love and concern for them, faithfully point out the dangerous consequences of a gay lifestyle and offer support and encouragement. ‘Homosexuality throws down the gauntlet to the church. It invites us to understand people who are often misunderstood and to reflect on the integrity of our own sexuality. It requires us to be informed in an atmosphere of ignorance and misinformation. It bids us speak the truth at the cost of incurring the wrath of the politically correct, and it challenges us to offer unconditional love and care to those who suffer.’[12]

We must be prepared to be Christ-like in our actions, even if like him, we pay in sacrifice.