Wednesday, 20 April 2011

Age of Consent: Evangelical Alliance issue strongly-worded statement

Fidel Patron of the Evangelical Alliance has distributed a strongly-worded statement on the question of the Age of Consent.

The statement says that "the Supreme Court judgment in the ‘Age of Consent’ case cannot be classed as anything less than scandalous. We must start by saying how aggrieved we were to see the Attorney General, to all intents and purposes ‘throw in the towel’ in court by not presenting any of the medical evidence at his disposal."

The Evangelical Alliance says it was not allowed to present its own evidence on the medical risks and so the principal issue, which is the well documented body of medical research which attests to the risks of AIDS and HIV which can be fatal and other life limiting conditions such as rectal prolapsed are more likely to occur in young men – precisely those that the Court should have been concerned with than any other age group.

The statement goes on to claim that "the judge has, in effect, followed the flawed judgement of a court in Hong Kong which ruled that the natural can be equated to the un-natural, to whit that vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse are the same, under the guise of ‘being expressions of love’. Needless to say we contest the validity of this judgement on many fronts. We believe that no right thinking person can equate what is a natural act using parts of the body designed for procreation, with an un-natural act using a passage designed for defecation as a means of gratification."  What the Judgment has, in fact done is to place a great number of people at risk, the Evangelical Alliance adds. There is ample medical evidence that anal intercourse is a high risk activity. The fact that those who perform this act are not allowed to be blood donors speaks for itself.

But the Court has gone further, not only has he put a large number of people at risk, it has put at risk those who, by the nature of our society, have no say in the matter. The law classifies those under the age of 18 as “young people” for who special treatment applies. These are those members in our society who are deemed not mature enough to vote, sign contracts, own property, drive cars or indeed even to watch X rated movies.

It goes on to say that the interests of a small lobby who vociferously claim that different acts should be treated with “equality” has taken precedence over the health and safety of our young people. For far too long the church has stood idly by and watched the moral decline of our culture. "We have a responsibility to be the ‘salt of the earth’ to speak out against injustice and we believe an injustice has been done to our children and to our society," it says,and adds:  "Yet here we are faced with a situation where our sovereignty has become subservient to a misunderstanding of European law aided and abetted by the politically correct Foreign Office, a laissez faire Attorney General and a small minority group...We would ask that public opinion make itself heard in this matter before real damage is done to the young people left exposed by this most negative court judgment."


  1. This is a bit rich coming from a Christian group. If we took our morality from the bible we'd be slaughtering other 'tribes', keeping slaves and using women like chattle. Some people are just hysterical and don't realise how ridiculous they sound.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Political correctness is clouding the judgement of politicians everywhere.
    The whole point of the argument of the Evangelical Alliance is that the blindingly obvious difference in homosexual and heterosexual practice should be recognised in law as such. If it is true as they claim that "there is ample medical evidence that anal intercourse is a high risk activity" it is the lawmakers who are irresponsible not the EA.

  4. The statement from the evangelical alliance is an interisting one. As one would expect from a group of dogma based intolerants they have clearly come out against homosexual sex but rather than use their usual 'moral arguement' they are citing health grounds as their reason for opposition. Why dont they stick to what they are good at - trotting out old ideas belonging to the last century so at least the sensible majority will see what they really are rather than hiding under a medical cloak.

  5. Catholic Priest's have indulged in non-consensual underage sex for Centuries. Religious retards.

  6. The rank hypocrisy in this statement from the evangelical alliance drips from every other line.

    They claim that the judgement is a sop to "...a small lobby who vociferously claim that different acts should be treated with "equality" "

    Would this, by any chance, be anything like the small evangelical lobby who decide to open a business or take jobs in public service and then demand the right to discriminate whomever they choose?

    At a stroke they revel in the "...research which attests to the risks of AIDS and HIV" and without a hint of irony fail to pause for thought for the lives of countless millions who have lost their lives to these very diseases as a direct result of the attestations of those who share their evangelical faith.

    I ask the evangelical alliance directly: What right do they or a priest or a judge have to stand in the bedroom of anybody and lecture on what is natural or acceptable?

    The arrogance of these people is astounding.

    If they believe that their physical bodies are created in gods image and want to regulate whatever goes in or comes out of it then by all means let them go ahead and do so for THEIR own bodies.

    But don't try and start lecturing anyone else about what they should introduce to their own bodies or, even worse, their own minds.

  7. My understanding is the medical opinion is that oral sex is considered relatively safe, compared to other forms of sex. I therefore look forward to the evangelical alliance promoting fellatio to young people.

  8. @anonymous I can't comment on the sexual mores of members of the Evangelical Alliance in Gibraltar but I think that some who share their views take a more traditional view of this sort of activity and prefer to stick to the maxim: "No Child's Behind Left"