For risk it is now in the UK in public - and that is key, for no one cares what primitive, retrograde opinions people privately have, for those who hold such opinions are a dying breed and will soon pose no threat. Those who dare publicly challenge the regime are muzzled with state-sanctioned intimidation and threats of being prosecuted by the police - serving to deter any who might venture to do likewise.

In any case, people in general do not feel right about going into 'all that' - erotica, genitalia, sexual alternatives and so forth - and thus remain at an ignorant, comfortable distance, safe from possible moral contamination. Other than those who make a fortune from porn or are addicted to porn, who really wants to know and possibly be sullied by such 'carnal' knowledge?

So we have information withheld, pressure to public silence and a natural distaste for the unsavoury. These in turn combine with a fairly overwhelming reluctance to question or admonish another adult in relation to her or his code of private behaviour - except possibly in relation to safe-because-politically-correct areas such as feminism, environmentalism and anti-war pacifism. Thus most people, even most devout Christians, now appear unable to articulate much more than a 'Well, ah, for me personally, X seems wrong but ...'

I believe these factors combine to keep social and moral conservatives and people of faith including Christians gagged, passive and indeed, inadvertently co-opted into support of the prevailing contemporary ideological regime. If this highly successful indoctrination programme is to be challenged people must have access to 'the facts'- all of them - the nice ones and the ugly ones, the actual physical realities which lay behind the euphemism and linguistic camouflage. I am convinced people have the right to know the complete version in order to make fully informed decisions both in terms of their own convictions, values and lifestyles as well as those of their community, their country and their world. One of post-modernity's 'truths' is that knowledge is power; without independent access to an uncensored knowledge base, one is at the mercy of those with their own ideological axe to grind. At the end of the day, one will believe what they do - which is, of course, the whole point of the exercise.

I am deeply concerned about the whole range of sexual and moral conundrums which now pose their challenge to the post-modern, post-Christian world. Sexual sin has no hierarchy: sin is sin. However, there are those who continue to speak out clearly and vigorously on sexual matters in relation to heterosexual relationships. There are those who want to get the facts out to the world about the destructive influences of adultery and casual sex, about the cost to children of cohabitation replacing marriage as the societal norm etc. And at least for Christians, some ethical lines in the sexual realm remain drawn in the sand, even if the lines grow fainter by the day. (In particular, the lines on cohabitation, divorce and especially abortion have become more fuzzy, and at times run the risk of being totally effaced.)

For the most part, however, issues in the ethics of same-sex relationships are not being addressed and the realities of what is going on in the gay subculture remain invisible to most ordinary people. Anglican Mainstream takes a clear stand on the ethics of same-sex relations; my column will supplement this with factual information about what is actually like in the various strands of the homosexual subculture.

My column will try to present information the reader is not likely to gain from other sources. I realise there are many components of and angles to issues surrounding homosexuality. I have no wish to point the finger or blame; heterosexual sins abound and damage the family unit profoundly, perhaps irretrievably. But as I have said, others are willing to target that Goliath - and thank God for it! Nor do I wish to 'gross readers out'.

If you have a queasy stomach or a too-active imagination, perhaps it is best to limit access, take peeks rather than view the entirety. However, I will put things up which are of an explicit nature in order that those who wish to can be informed of what is in the pipeline, and what is emerging in increasingly mainstream venues. I do this so they can both know and respond accordingly. Not to know does not make it go away: indeed, it positively hastens its realization.

Blanket statements tend to be both unhelpful and untrue; I am not labelling any specific person with any specific characteristic. I fully realise that homosexuality is not a monolithic entity. However, there is much information out there on homosexuality and gay issues which most remain ignorant of, except those who want it kept quiet for now.

I reiterate what I have written elsewhere: if this battle is lost, Christians, those of other faiths and moral and social conservatives will have lost everything else as well on the moral/sexual front. If the 'gay' agenda succeeds, it will, intentionally or not, mandate a situation which demands the acceptance of de facto pansexuality. Even now bisexuality, polyamory and polygamy are coming to the fore in the US, their practitioners strong, proud and defiant, just like gays of decades ago.

The rhetoric of self-evidently-true sexual liberation which empowered the gays to throw off their chains and come out of their closets does the same for non-gay sexual alternatives. Soon we all will have the freedom to 'choose' and no one will have the right to tell us that any of our varied sexual expressions and lifestyles are immoral. Indeed, it will be illegal to.

---Lisa Severine Nolland BA MCS MA PhD
Ms Nolland can be reached at Ls.noll@tiscali.co.uk
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=786