Skip to content

Archive site notice

You are viewing an archived copy of Christian Concern's website. Some features are disabled and pages may not display properly.

To view our current site, please visit

Royal College claim that homosexuality is compatible with normal health is “outrageous” and false

Printer-friendly version

The nation must face up to the fact that statistics show the risk of HIV infection is more than a thousand times greater for adolescent gay men than for their heterosexual peers.

Dr Peter May of the Christian Medical Fellowship made the case at a London conference where he presented statistics from the Centre of Disease Control in the United States which he said contradicted the claim by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, that homosexuality was compatible with normal health.

The “Debunking the myths” conference was held to challenge the UK ban on providing therapy for men and women to reduce or lose their unwanted same-sex feelings.

Dr May said: “It is only gay ideology that makes the Royal College say that homosexuality is compatible with normal health. These statistics provide very stronggrounds for men having unwanted same-sex desires to seek help in ameliorating them.”

You can read Peter May’s presentation here:

CORE ISSUES TRUST Conference,  Westminster June 13th 2014

Dr Peter May

I would like, if I may, to add some comments from a GP perspective.

Problems with sexuality are a significant part of a GP's workload, and woe betide GPs if they don't take an enthusiastic interest in these matters. One is always learning new things about the human condition, not least in regards to sexuality.

Early on in my career, I came across a man who was a 'spanker'. The idea that spanking could be a sexual delight was very strange to me. I phoned a psychiatrist for advice and he said to me, in words that have etched themselves on my brain, "In my experience, once a spanker, always a spanker." Having tasted the delights of spanking, he would not be able to out the genie back in the bottle.

More commonly, I had patients who, whether in desire or practice, were caught up in an adulterous affair. Making the break for them was very difficult. In the passage of time, their memory would be dulled as to why this other person was so attractive to them, but only if they remained apart. Put them together again, whether in a work or social context, and it would all come flooding back. The smile, the gestures, the voice to say nothing of the pulsating figure, flooded back into mind, and the struggle was re-ignited.

A variation on this phenomenon occurred sufficiently often that I could anticipate each sentence of the complaint. These invariably female patients attended usually on a Monday morning. They had a history of a relationship that had broken up years ago, often bitterly. Perhaps he had been unfaithful, violent and bullying and she was greatly relieved to be shot of him.

Yet, on Saturday morning she bumped into him by chance in the town centre. They chatted and then had coffee together. "I don't know why, but I invited him back home for lunch." Then the tears would come. He stayed the night, they slept together and she bitterly regretted it. She could not understand what made her do it.

Then there was the man who about twice a year would use a prostitute. He hated himself for it and his regret would last some six months before the desires once again got the better of him.

Many people feel this way about pornography. They hate the way it's addictive power controls them. Paedophilia has a similar strangle hold on people. Others have lurking homosexual desires, which they may or may not act upon.

The common feature of all these things is that initially these sexual activities had been overwhelmingly pleasurable. Such was the thrill, the buzz, the reward, that they could not forget it and found all too easily, that these desires were very easily rekindled.

These people came to me, in the first instance for counselling and help, and I could refer them on to our Practice Counsellor. None of these folk were ever 'cured' of their desires. The NHS has no technique to erase memory or re-programme the neurophysiological mechanisms that shape our sexual responses.

I draw two conclusions from this.

1)    all highly pleasurable sexual activities are profoundly addictive. None of them can be cured but they can all be managed - albeit with difficulty with various counselling approaches including CBT, to help them regain control of their lives

2)    They raise serious questions about the nature of orientations. Is paedophilia an orientation? Is spanking? Or is it much more helpful to consider sexual desires as a powerful force that any of us can inflame and channel in all sorts of highly addictive activities?

In the combined statement of the Counselling bodies, they say that they have a "researched and informed understanding of sexual orientation" and conclude that it is not an illness and therefore "it is logically and ethically flawed to offer any kind of treatment."

Now this rigid view of orientation is itself deeply flawed. Last month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists modified their statement on Orientation. They now admit there is significant fluidity in that people can change their orientation in the course of their lives. Yet in the same statement, they repeat their narrow and restricted view of orientation, which is totally at sea with reality, that there are three distinct orientations - homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual - and only bisexuals have any degree of choice in the matter.

Well, the writers of this statement need to get out more. Lisa Diamond, a researcher in Utah, makes the point that these narrow views of orientation derive from small studies, of non-random, self-selected people, who do not represent the population at large.

To find out what really goes on, you need to visit the large, representative surveys. These show that in this matter anyway, Kinsey was right and sexual desires exist across a continuum from exclusively heterosexual at one end to exclusively homosexual at the other. And the exclusive groups at the ends of the spectrum are not only surprisingly small numbers e.g. 2% of the population claiming to be exclusively gay! but even a significant proportion of that 2%, when asked directly, admit having sexual desires and even sexual activity with the opposite sex.

So the Royal College continues to propagate gay ideology rather than science in terms of orientation. Once you face the realities of sexual fluidity, it is nonsense to ban therapy for people struggling with unwanted sexual desires. Furthermore, they have an ethical responsibility to respect the religious beliefs of their patients and not impose their own ideology upon them.

Finally I must respond to their outrageous statement that homosexuality is compatible with normal health. It is like saying survival is compatible with jumping out of a first floor window. It is, but surely they have a public health responsibility to highlight the risks.

Beside the well documented risks of anxiety, neurosis, depression and suicide, which GPs are all too aware of and generally have to manage, it is well documented that MSM have vastly increased risks of contracting STIs. They have 50x the risk of contracting syphylis and gonorrhoea, seemingly due to the vulnerability of the gossamer thin lining of the rectum. But what about HIV?

I was in discussion with an inner London GP recently. I said that it is estimated that 10% of gays nationally are HIV +ve! but it is thought to be 20% in London. What did he think. He went quiet before speaking and then said, "No, I think that is quite wrong. I am thinking through my own patients, many of whom are gay. No, I cannot think of any of them who are not HIV+ve. It must be far higher that 20%."

I have a particular concern for adolescents embarking on high risk behaviour because they are being taught in school that homosexuality is normal and healthy. So I was interested to find these national statistics from the Centre of Disease Control in USA.

Maths is not my strong suit, so I forward these figure to two numerate professors to ask them to calculate the relative risk of adolescent gays compared with heterosexual peers in contracting HIV. They both replied within 15 minutes to say that on the basis of these figures, and assuming gays are 2% of the male population, the risk of HIV infection was 1088  times greater for gays.

Now that is a public health figure the nation needs to face up to. It is only gay ideology that makes the Royal College say that homosexuality is compatible with normal health. These statistics provide very strong grounds for men having unwanted same-sex desires to seek help in ameliorating them.

Thank you.