A register for same-sex couples has been proposed by the Melbourne City Council deputy lord mayor Gary Singer. But this idea has several serious implications.
Why does Singer call it a “same-sex” register? Two sisters or a mother and daughter living in the same household are “same sex”. So why doesn’t Singer call his proposed register what it is—a register for homosexual couples?
The issue of social and economic justice for homosexual couples can be achieved in ways other than by registering their sexual relationship. They have the same rights as any individuals to make wills, sign powers of attorney, establish business partnerships and joint rental and property arrangements.
One of the dangers of a register giving official status to homosexual relationships is that such a status will be used by the vociferous homosexual lobby to promote the teaching of homosexual lifestyles in school sex-education programs. The tragedy of AIDS and HIV infections and allegedly “homophobic” attitudes in society are already a rationale to mandate such permissive curricula.
A current example is the “Sexual Diversity School Audit”, a document which purports to offer a tool for changing the culture of a school to one that is “supportive and appreciative of sexual and gender diversity and a safe place for those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual”. This document is apparently being used even in some Catholic schools.
Another danger is the impact on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Pastors will be hesitant to quote from the Bible or to affirm that the physical expression of homosexuality is sinful. A pastor has faced prosecution in Sweden and teachers have lost their jobs in Canada. Organisations such as the Boy Scouts of America, who have refused to have homosexuals as scout leaders, are banned from hiring public facilities such as parks which they have used for decades.
In Britain, the Blair Labour Government has refused to grant the Catholic Church an exemption from the requirement to include homosexual couples in its adoptions program, though the Catholic request was supported by the Anglican Church and even the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland.
Many Christian and pro-life groups are refused accreditation at universities if they decline to endorse homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. But it is the impact on public health which may be most devastating to hapless taxpayers.
Steve Jalsevac reports in LifeSite News.com (December 1, 2006) that Kathleen Melonakos, MA, RN, a representative of the Delaware Family Foundation says that, while she worked as a nurse for several years during the ’80s and ’90s at Stanford University Medical Center, she “saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices”.
The experiences of the unnecessary suffering that Melonakos saw eventually led to her current role of informing the public about the medical issues related to homosexual practices. She exposes the tragic unwillingness of the medical community to admit the truth about the death and suffering of those who engage in such practices.
In her article, “Why isn’t homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences?”, Melonakos bluntly, but also compassionately, addresses this issue that has become so important to her.
She writes that she “knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an engineer, and a hairdresser who died in their mid-forties of infectious diseases related to their homosexual behaviour patterns …”
She adds: “As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals. This, to me, is tragic, when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help.”
Her article points out a long list of diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable and “the solid, irrefutable evidence that there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse”.
The author holds the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association “criminally responsible” for their complicity in helping to create “the culture of denial about the lethalness of homosexual sex” and for their “attitude of political correctness that is killing a substantial proportion of persons” engaged in active homosexuality.
She also implicates those same, highly influential organisations for allowing themselves to be influenced by gay activists into denying that many homosexual persons can be helped by therapy to overcome their same-sex tendencies.
Melonakos writes, “What if doctors said, ‘We refuse to treat cancer (or, say, alcoholism) because we only achieve a 50% cure rate—and many people who don’t want to be cured find it oppressive that we do cure the others?’ Why wouldn’t lawsuits for malpractice be filed?”
The article concludes, “What will it take to insist on truth? Lawsuits? Protests? In my opinion, doctors and other health professionals must exert pressure, or share culpability.”
A “same-sex” register for homosexual couples will not ameliorate their plight. Only a change of lifestyle will.