Homophobic bullying is still rife. A survey of gay people published in 1996 revealed that over a period of five years, 34 per cent of the men who were contacted and 24 per cent of the women said that they had experienced violence; that is one in three gay men and one in four lesbians. Seventy three per cent of all respondents said they had been verbally abused at least once.

What is particularly shocking and relevant as far as the debate over Section 28 - the repeal of which is opposed by some senior clergy - is concerned is that the percentages for those under 18 were even higher. One in two people under 18 who were surveyed had experience of violence, 61 per cent recorded harassment and 90 per cent had suffered verbal abuse.

Whatever is Section 28 was designed to stop, it has certainly done nothing to prevent homophobic bullying of young people. On the contrary, it is likely to have reinforced negative attitudes and given them an illicit veneer of respectability.

From a Christian point of view two criteria should be used in assessing not only Section 28 but any amendments that are put down to replace it. First of all, all sex education in schools must be clearly set within a moral framework. Furthermore, marriage should be set out as the proper context for full sexual intimacy. Secondly, there needs to be a proper understanding of and sensitivity to the fact that at least one and probably more pupils in a class will be experiencing feelings of attraction towards members of their own sex. For some this may be a phase. For others it will be a lifelong orientation, something which is a given part of their very being.

Although it is difficult to get hold of hard evidence, teachers certainly seem to have been under the impression that they have been inhibited in dealing with homosexuality in the classroom in the sensitive way that this requires. The Government are surely right in believing that the repeal of Section 28 does not mean that "anything goes". On the contrary, the framework for the teaching of personal, social and health education (PSHE) and citizenship which the Government has introduced requires that the nature of marriage and family life is properly taught. As David Blunkett has written: "Our guidance makes clear our strong support for marriage and the family and I could not have been clearer on this when I launched the revised curriculum in September."

In addition the Government are preparing further guidance in the shape of a new sex and relationship circular and a parents' pack to help parents talk to their children about sex and relationships. This will also reflect the framework of the PHSE and citizenship curriculum.

The real problem in our society is not the small percentage of gay and lesbian people who are trying, sometimes under very difficult circumstances, to make a decent life for themselves. It is the casual attitude towards sexual expression generally but particularly by heterosexuals. Indeed I sometimes think that the hysteria generated in relation to gay issues is in fact a displacement by the heterosexual community of their own unease about such loose, promiscuous relationships. Interestingly there is some reaction against this now in the United States. There the so-called "abstinence" movement is gaining ground, with a very high percentage of schools now teaching that full sexual relationships should properly be confined to marriage. If heterosexual morality was properly in place in our society, there should be little difficulty accepting the fact that there is a minority - probably less than two per cent - who are attracted to members of their own sex, who need all the support they can get in sustaining loving, faithful relationships.

The Church of England is about to publish its long-awaited report Marriage In Church After Divorce in which it will be argued that the Church should allow couples to marry in church even though one or both of them might have been through a divorce with a previous partner still living. It is argued that the teaching of Jesus, crystal clear though it is about the nature of marriage as a life-long union, does not finally rule this out. But if the Church is now to offer some understanding and compassion to those many people in our society who have been through the trauma of a divorce but who really want to make a fresh start with someone else and who sincerely desire God's blessing on their new union, then surely there should be at least equal understanding and compassion to those who find that their orientation is homosexual or lesbian.

Jesus was a firm upholder of the principles upon which the Torah was based. Indeed as far as marriage was concerned he drove people back to the very purpose of marriage and criticised easy divorce. At the same time he went out of his way to identify with and eat with the most marginalised and rejected people of his time. The Church is quite right in wanting to wean our society away from its casual attitude to sex and once more draw people into the Christian vision of the proper relationship between sexual intimacy and marriage. At the same time, if the Church is to be true to its founder, it will want to stand with anyone who is being sneered at or bullied, doing what it can to change the climate of opinion so that such cruelty becomes a thing of the past.

I believe that we need to take fully into account the feelings of vulnerable teenagers, of both sexes, conscious that their sexual longings are directed towards members of their own sex and who are in a school environment which is full of the usual cracks and innuendoes about gay people. Teachers need the authority and confidence to be able to address such situations.