Sir, In response to points made in ‘The Inconvenient Truth of Sexual Fluidity’, I agree that amongst single young people, the status of ‘sexually fluid’ is a nonjudgemental and binary-defying description of how they view their sexuality. However, as people age their thoughts may turn to commitment and some of them may marry (oppositesex or same-sex partners). At this point, married people are effectively saying to society and to the Church, ‘I have chosen to solidify my sexuality and my sexuality is straight/gay – please respect this’.
The respect given to married couples (both opposite-sex and same-sex) honours their commitment to both monogamy and indeed solidification (and we cer tainly don’t suggest that people are going to desert their spouses, their marriages, or their chosen sexuality at the first oppor tunity).
The author reminds us that the St Andrew’s Day Statement states that ‘at the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as “a” homosexual or “a” heterosexual; there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ’. So then, let’s take this seriously, aspiring to become ‘sexuality-blind’ to our neighbour, not even noticing if they are in an opposite-sex or same-sex marriage and just doing our level best to suppor t their individual ‘redeemed humanity in Christ’.
(I’ll take the oppor tunity to remind readers that the St Andrew’s Day Statement also maintains that ‘there can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality in Christ’ which might lead to a view that non-Christian people are sub-human, which, of course, isn’t the case.)