Espeut buggery obsession misguided
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Peter Espeut is wrong. His assertion is that "changing the definition of rape to include forced anal sex will imply that consensual buggery should be legal ... ". (10/2/17) That is just not true. There is no such implication.
Buggery is made illegal because it is anal, whence its description as 'unnatural', 'bestial', etc. Whether it is forced or consensual is not what the law is about, though the latter is assumed. It is absurd to think, then, that extending the definition of rape to include forced anal penetration will alter the anal character of buggery on which its condemnation, both moral and legal, is based.
Nor does this widened definition seek to refute, much less attempt to remove from the books, the legislation outlawing buggery. It is on a different track altogether. It seeks to protect boys, women and men from the worst form of sexual assault. Peter and the Church ought to be defending it. But fear of homosexuality, a fear shared by many church groups, clouds the minds of even bright people like Peter.
Peter's conclusion falls flat, therefore. He concludes that the proposed wider definition of rape "is a samfie attempt to legalise buggery through the back door".
Gays are people, Peter, good and bad people like the rest of humankind. They are not at all fearsome. Procreation of the human race, which Peter et al claim to defend, has not been impeded for the thousands of years that gays have been around. Nor will it ever be impeded as long as men and women remain mutually attracted. Have you seen any signs of that attraction lessening?