Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, has stated that all school children, particularly those from faith schools, should be taught that same-sex relationships are “normal and harmless”.
He also said:
“Crucially faith schools should have a requirement to have an anti-homophobic bullying policy at their school.”
Surely, there should be a requirement to have a policy against all bullying in schools? It seems strange that he has managed to single out bullying just related to homophobia.
Of course, there is an election approaching and like all political leaders in the UK, he is pitching for votes wherever he can get them. It just so happens that the UK has a large gay community, who are often referred to as the “pink vote”. Hmmm….maybe that explains it.
What I find to be of greater concern, though, is that he is promoting the idea that homosexuality is “normal” – it is not.
My dictionary defines the adjective as:
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
The majority of relationships in this country are not those of same-sex couples, so none of the above definitions come into play when referring to homosexual relationships.
Before I am attacked for being homophobic or offensive by an outraged section of the gay community….I am not and neither am I trying to be. I am purely taking issue with the concept of a portrayal of normality as being something which it isn’t.
Normality, to a child, means the everyday experience of life. Very few of them, knowingly at least, have contact with members of the gay community as part of that everyday life. For most, therefore, “normal” means heterosexuality.
Forgetting, for a moment, the human race alone, surely “normal”, in any lifeform, is about survival of the species. That cannot be achieved by a same sex relationship, so “normal” in nature, at least, takes two differing sexes coming together for life to be preserved.
Of course, in the natural world some same sex relationships do exist but they are behavioural relationships and not survivalist.
It is a subject which can generate complicated and emotive arguments from both sides and we could go on all night discussing the pros and cons. What might have been more constructive, however, is for Mr Clegg to choose a more suitable word.
Perhaps, without intending to sound even slightly patronising, he should have used something like “acceptable” .
If you have better alternatives then please let me know but just because a statistical minority group has persuasive powers, does not mean we should accept the propogation of a myth by a political leader just to win votes.
After all, that is just not “normal”
