If there is one thing to make me hop with intolerant fury, it is the intolerance of other people. Have you noticed how unreasonable they can be?

Stranger still, religious types are sometimes the most screamingly intolerant of the lot. On a radio phone-in the other day, a caller rang in to support the 'campaign' to keep Section 28. This is the piece of legislation that makes it illegal to use taxpayers' money to promote homosexuality.

I suspected this caller's brain had turned to a pillar of salt as soon as he started to go on about the 50 years he had spent "studying the Scriptures".

Oh no, here goes, I thought. And it was so. Before my finger could find the off button, he was ranting in a mean little voice about the unnatural evils of homosexuality, which had been condemned from the mouth of God himself.

Yes, here was one of those Bible readers who can lay their stern hand on all the relevant passages, in particular those of a sexual nature.

As ever, the Bible - a source of comfort to many, no doubt - had been used to reinforce the narrowest sort of prejudice. For it is well known that you can turn to the Bible to find evidence to support whatever batty view you hold.

The astonishing fuss caused by the Government's plan to repeal this rotten legislation has spread from a local argument in Scotland to the mainstream political agenda. Chris Titley made passing mention to the politics of this debate on Tuesday, but what interests this column is the nature of intolerance, that most stubborn of society's stains.

Section 28 is a small and nasty-minded piece of legislation which can be traced to a speech Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, made to the Conservative conference in 1987. The then Prime Minister complained that children were "being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay". The law was consequently changed to ban councils "promoting homosexuality".

The form of these words brings to mind some odd images. How exactly do you promote homosexuality? Are supermarket ruses to be used - two for the price of one, that sort of thing?

Well, no. You can't 'promote' homosexuality at all. Most people are not homosexual, some are.

Those who are were pretty much born that way. They are happy with their sexuality, and should be allowed to live as they want. The notion that teachers can 'persuade' children to be one or the other is blatantly potty - even though it is improbable any teacher has ever tried to deliver such a lesson.

James Jones, the normally reasonable Bishop of Liverpool, has had his head turned by this

issue. He argues that we should test the ethics of homosexuality by asking what would happen

if we were all homosexuals: "If homosexual practice were to become such, the species would not be in a position to recreate itself."

Oh Bishop, that really is a peculiar argument, and quite unworthy of you. To test the ludicrousness of that line of thinking, imagine what it would be like if we were all God-fearing celibates. Ditto: no children. Neither state of sexual affairs is ever likely, so to fall back on such an argument is to summon up a lousy defence.

As a liberal-minded, boringly heterosexual father-of-three, I have no direct personal interest in this topic. Being gay never struck me as a life option. I always liked the look of girls better. But some people are, and that's fine by me.

What I can't understand is why we just can't leave people to live their lives in peace, unscathed by our silly, ridiculous prejudices.

Those who oppose change to Section 28 cite morality and common sense, but all they are really doing is putting a moral gloss on the pathetic objections they keep in their crevice minds.

03/02//00

If you have any comments you would like to make, contact Julian Cole directly at julian.cole@ycp.co.uk

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.