Sexual Orientation Regulations

It looks like the protests have failed, as have the moves in the House of Lords, and gay rights regulations will become law. I, for one, am disappointed.

Now, as soon as I say that, I will be categorised as either a 'homophobe' or a right wing religious fundamentalist. I am neither.

I am not going to use the old cliche about some of my best friends being homosexuals, because it isn't true. In any case, 'best friend' is a phrase I use very sparingly. But I have had homosexual friends and acquaintances. I used to spend a lot of time with a fellow called Robert, a pretty promiscuous gay, but our relationship was mainly based on an anorak-ish love of films. He was having an on-off affair with Ben. While Rob was extravert and displayed many typical 'gay' mannerisms - and they do exist - Ben was much more reserved. He liked to sit with a quiet pint and chat about Frank Sinatra. Sometimes he would confide his hurt feelings over Rob's behaviour and I would share my own romantic troubles.

If this pair had wanted to share a bed in my flat I would have raised no objection. My only problem would have been the same that I would have felt if a heterosexual couple were enjoying themselves in the next bedroom, while I was drinking a cup of cocoa and listening to Book at Bedtime.

But I still object to these regulations. Obviously I could not tolerate any inoffensive, law-abiding citizen's being excluded from a pub or a train or a hotel because of their colour, religion or sexual orientation.

But I can't help worrying about the small private B&B, to pick just one example, run by a couple with 'old-fashioned' views on morality. The are not just running a business. They are living in their home. And that gives them the right to set rules. If they don't want unmarried couples or children or pets or people without luggage, why should they be forced to take them? And if it upsets them to lie awake in bed knowing that anal penetration is going on under their roof, I don't see why they should have to suffer it.

It is one thing to tolerate behaviour of which you disapprove, quite another to be obliged to embrace it, even encourage it. And it's behaviour we are talking about, which is where the analogy with blacks falls down. Blackness is a state of 'being', homosexual practice is behaviour.

Why can't we let the market decide these matters. In Lincoln, for example,we have 'gay' pubs, which 'straights' avoid, and some pretty tough pubs, which are avoided by practically everybody. To live and let live is a pretty good principle, but it should not be imposed.

New presbyter is but old priest writ large.