In today's Times: Should heterosexuals be allowed to govern our country?. The interesting part of the article starts just over halfway down.
A look at the flip side of the coin in light of recent events.
But it has to be asked: should heterosexuals be permitted to occupy important or sensitive posts in our country? I’m as tolerant of diversity as the next man and would never condone the persecution of anyone solely on account of his or her sexuality, so this is not a moral judgment but a practical one.
Simple observation suggests — and the last couple of months of newspaper headlines demonstrate — that heterosexuals in public life do seem to find difficulty in maintaining lasting relationships with a single partner. This is a matter for sympathy rather than censure, but can instability at the very core of their lives, in their relationships, be without effect on the stability of their professional judgments?
It may be something about the heterosexual culture rather than inherent in their condition, but promiscuity among them appears to be the norm. This being so, there is obviously a danger of blackmail. For their own sakes as well as the sake of national security and the integrity of our institutions, this is a risk we should surely not want them to run.
Nor can it be conducive to the calm exercise of judgment at work if these people have to lead (as they so often do) a double life: constant anxiety is a potentially destabilising state of mind, and one must ask whether heterosexuals are able to place honesty at the centre of their professional lives when deception rules in the private sphere. Prominent people in the media, as well as senior politicians, are especially vulnerable because they face disgrace and ruin if exposed.
I would not go so far as to suggest that no heterosexual should ever serve in the higher reaches of government, politics or the media. There are a handful of examples of heterosexuals who have made a huge contribution to human history – Henry VIII or the Duke of Wellington, for example, although in both cases their private passions did sometimes get in the way. And even in the Armed Forces there have always been heterosexuals who have shown as much valour and patriotism as their brother officers. I count many heterosexuals among my friends.
But exceptions should not make the rule. On the whole, and until society changes its attitude to the colourful tastes and exotic practices of so many of today’s heterosexuals, then, adore them though we do, it might be better if they were restricted to careers in the arts, hairdressing and airline cabin crew, where their “butterfly” lifestyle is less likely to interfere with the exercise of their duties.