Left Menu
Life News
Are we using our memory for the glory of God? by Timothy Raymond
Can we in good conscience vote for Labor? by Andrew Lansdown and Dwight A. Randall
National MP slams perversity of Safe Schools program
Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex marriage by Kirsten Andersen
Domestic Violence: Women can be as abusive as men by Dr Augusto Zimmerman
With the Lord: Wilma Drew
18th Annual Walk and Rally for Life
Former senator speaks up for the unborn by Joe Bullock
Qurans deadly role in inspiring Belgian slaughter by Nabeel Qureshi
Germany:Christian refugees persecuted by Muslims by Soeren Kern
Web Design and Development - abcplus Publishing Australia
by Andrew Lansdown
One for All
A Son to the war
Becoming a Christian
Train home
Sons Laid Down Their Lives
An Accurate Diagnosis
Starting again
Following hard after God
Starving our children
The first duty of fatherhood
The origin of fatherhood
An Easter Song
A Christmas carol
For This Purpose
In royal David's city
God's Placard
Believing the Bible: the issue of inerrancy
Marriage according to scripture
A biblical perspective on prostitution
Prostitution and social justice
Abortion: A biblical perspective
If people were dogs & other false arguments for euthanasia
How porn harms us
How Green is God?
Christians and Politics
When Christians Take Their Lives
The High Kings Watchmen

Rights and wrongs in relationship recognition


by Bill Muehlenberg

Homosexuals continue to demand special rights. That of course is to be expected. What is, or should be, unexpected is when Christians join the chorus, arguing that homosexuals should be given preferential treatment.

The simple truth is, as individuals, homosexuals already enjoy all the rights and benefits that others do. It is when the issue of relationships arises, that the subject needs to be more carefully examined. Activist homosexuals are demanding that their relationships be given the same treatment and considerations as married couples.

But this is where we draw the line. The reason why married couples get certain social and legal benefits that other relationships do not is because of the great advantages married couples have over other couples, and the great contributions they make to society.

The short way of putting it is this: societies grant special benefits to married couples, because they confer special benefits upon society. It is that simple. Other couples and types of relationships do not bestow the same benefits on society, and that is why societies have tended not to recognise those relationships, nor equate them with marriage relationships.

The benefits of married couples are mainly, but not exclusively, the bearing and raising of the next generation. While not every married couple will have children, exceptions do not make the rule. And the dual purposes of marriage throughout human history have always been the regulation of human sexuality and the creation and protection of the next generation.

The overwhelming weight of social science research has demonstrated what most human cultures have known instinctively throughout history: the best thing we can offer a child is his or her own biological mother and father, cemented by marriage. The research here is quite clear.

Yet adults are increasingly making demands about the kind of lifestyles they want, without considering the impact these will have on children or the rest of society. But the interests of the child and the greater community good should always be our top priority.

That in a nutshell is why we should not be granting governmental recognition of homosexual relationships. Yet surprisingly some Christians want to grant same-sex couples special rights, and/or recognise their relationships as in a registration scheme. But this is not the right way to proceed.

One reason why we should avoid such traps became evident in the UK recently. There same-sex relationships have been recognised, and with the well-intentioned but uninformed support of some Christians. But the granting of special rights to some can also mean other people losing their rights. Or it can mean preferential treatment going to a less-deserving group, while arguably more deserving groups miss out.

The story is this: Two elderly sisters living together all their life have been denied by the European Court of Human Rights the right to receive the same inheritance tax benefits enjoyed by lesbian couples. As Gudrun Schultz discusses in the December 15, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com, these sisters, who can claim to be much more of a family than two lesbians, have been prevented from receiving normal family benefits.

Recall that a family is any group of people related by blood, adoption or heterosexual marriage. Thus two sisters who have lived together for a lifetime would certainly qualify for special family benefits. But in our upside down world, they cannot get access to these benefits while homosexuals can.

“Joyce and Sybil Burden argued that their claim to legal recognition was equally as convincing as lesbian couples, since they had lived together all of their lives - Joyce is 88 and Sybil is 80. Under the UK Civil Partnership Act introduced in 2004, same-sex couples registered as civil partners enjoy freedom from taxes on inheritance, on the death of one partner. The sisters wanted the same protection as without it their family home will have to be sold to pay the inheritance tax bill when one sister dies.”

Said Joyce, “This government is always going out of its way to give rights to people who have done nothing to deserve them. If we were lesbians, we would have all the rights in the world. But we are sisters, and it seems we have no rights at all. It is disgusting that we are being treated like this. It is an insult.”

Of course one should not be surprised at the EU making such a politically correct judgement. It has been pushing radical agendas for some time now, and it probably makes sense to them to give preferential treatment to homosexual couples over familial relationships. Consider the rationale of the Court: “The EU Court, in a 4-3 ruling, said the sisters were not entitled to the same rights as homosexuals because they had not chosen to enter into a legal commitment - their relationship was simply the result of birth.” Amazing!

As attorney Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada put it, “Two sisters, or any sort of family relationship, is of enormous value to society. The family is the best health, education and welfare system we’ve got going. And yet to ignore that as being less than the homosexual or lesbian relationship is very offensive.”

She continues, “Logically and consistently, once you’ve opened the door to relationships beyond heterosexual married couples - because of companionship and other benefits - you have to grant the same rights to everybody. You’ve changed the whole dynamic and purpose of legal marriage, which is procreation. We know that lesbian and homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual married couples, because the purpose of the heterosexual union is of course procreation. That’s the only relationship the State has a basic interest in - to promote and encourage the birth of children.”

Quite so. But in a world where common sense becomes less and less common, and morality is constantly being thrown out the window, we can expect more such insanity to be foisted upon us. Indeed, how much longer before the family unit is actually outlawed altogether?

The LifeSite article referred to earlier in this article is located at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06121504.html
Another article by Bill against granting homosexual couples special rights is located at http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/07/13/an-assessment-of-the-ea-paper-on-homosexuality/
Web Design and Development - abcplus Publishing Australia
Web Design and Development - abcplus Publishing Australia
2015 Vol 3 Jul - Sep
2015 Vol 2 Apr - Jun
2015 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2014 Vol 5 Nov - Dec
2014 Vol 4 Sep - Oct
2014 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2014 Vol 2 Apr - May
2014 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2013 Vol 5 Dec - Jan
2013 Vol 4 Sep - Nov
2013 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2013 Vol 2 Apr - May
2013 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2012 Vol 5 Oct - Dec
2012 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2012 Vol 3 May - Jul
2012 Vol 2 Mar - Apr
2012 Vol 1 Jan - Feb
2011 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2011 Vol 2 Apr - May
2011 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2010 Vol 5 Nov - Dec
2010 Vol 4 Sep - Oct
2010 Vol 3 Jun - Aug
2010 Vol 2 Sep - Oct
2010 Vol 2 Apr - May
2010 Vol 1 Jan - Mar
2009 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2009 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2009 Vol 2 Apr - May
2009 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2008 Vol 5 Oct - Dec
2008 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2008 Vol 3 Jun - July
2008 Vol 2 Apr - May
2008 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2007 Vol 5 Nov - Jan
2007 Vol 4 Aug - Oct
2007 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2007 Vol 2 Apr - May
2007 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2006 Vol 5 Oct - Nov
2006 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2006 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2006 Vol 2 Apr - May
2006 Vol 1 Feb - Mar
2005 Vol 6 Dec - Jan
2005 Vol 5 Oct - Nov
2005 Vol 4 Aug - Sep
2005 Vol 3 Jun - Jul
2005 Vol 2 Apr - May
2005 Vol 1 Feb - Mar