Book Shelf

BOOK SHELF

“WHY GAY MARRIAGE - YES - NO”: Rodney
Croome and Bill Muehlenberg. Published by Pantera
Press, P.O. Box 357, Seaforth, NSW 2092,
info@panterapress.com. Price $15, Reviewed by John
Morrissey.

It would be fair to say that Melbourne writer on matters of religion and family policies Bill Muehlenberg and Tasmanian gay human rights advocate Rodney Croome are diametrically opposed on this issue, so it was a surprise to learn that the two had collaborated on a book to debate it. Why
Gay Marriage: Making sense of everything invites the reader to start with either “Yes” or “No”, read the supporting arguments, and then flip the book over to start from the other end and repeat the process.

The two authors meet each other half-way, literally, but neither makes any compromise or concession. Each is given space for a brief rebuttal in the other’s half of the book, and readers of this publication will doubtless award the debate to Muehlenberg, but it should be a reasoned decision, based on an appreciation of the respective arguments and evidence. Croome argues that under current marriage laws in Australia same sex couples are not free and equal citizens, and that legal disadvantages result, as well as a denial of social and cultural benefits. He maintains that alternative arrangements such as civil unions do not translate to full equality and that there is growing public support for ‘marriage equality’. In addition, he makes the extraordinary claim that same sex marriage is good for the institution itself and that religion and children should be seen as arguments in its favour.

Looking at the issue from the other side, Muehlenberg maintains that same sex marriage negates what marriage really is and also its very purpose. He argues that there is little actual demand for it among homosexuals, but that the real agenda is to extract full public approval for the gay lifestyle, and that it would be the thin end of the wedge for other bizarre relationships. Claims of discrimination against
gay people resulting from denial of their right to marry he rejects as spurious. However caring and committed they may be described, he argues that not all relationships are alike, and he is adamant that they are a harmful environment for children.

Both authors have supported their contentions with a battery of authorities. Accordingly, their arguments are peppered liberally with end-note notations – 128 for Croome and 121 for Muehlenberg – but they are not included in the printed text. The reader is invited to go online to www.WhyvsWhy.com in order to locate “authors’ citations and sources”. Readers will no doubt find this frustrating, and although both writers attempt to give some indication of their sources and their provenance, the effect is clumsy.

Croome frequently prefaces his claims with ‘research confirms’ and relies for religious support on one Baptist pastor, Rev. Nathan Nettleton, a number of times, making his argument appear rather threadbare.

In this debate, the sticking-point is a familiar one: Muehlenberg argues for a definition of marriage – ie between a man and a woman - based on objective truth, endorsed by anthropology, history and religion, while Croome appeals to a subjective definition, based on a seductive appeal for tolerance and a willingness to accept change, which some Christians confuse with the virtue of charity.

Muehlenberg maintains that marriage redefined to suit the fashion of the time would not be marriage at all. This seems to be borne out in his rebuttal of Croome’s claim that same sex marriage in Scandinavia has not harmed the institution itself, as divorce has in fact declined. When Muehlenberg
tells us that 60% of first-born Danish children are born out of wedlock, we realise that a generation of same sex marriage has separated marriage from parenthood, and has in fact done irreparable damage to the institution.

On the effects of same sex parenting on children, these writers cite authorities and case studies which are completely contradictory. One is reminded of the advice of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in recent years when advising the Victorian government on legislation concerning access
for same sex couples to artificial reproduction technologies: it simply ignored all of the research which demonstrated the harm done to children growing up without male and female parents. Here Muehlenberg makes a very strong case, while Croome quotes the American Psychological Association and the research of a number of university departments whose very titles brand them as bastions of gay rights and hardly impartial.

Where Croome is more plausible is when he argues that same sex marriage could encourage fidelity among the [small minority of] gay couples who wish to be monogamous and that the alarming statistics for promiscuity among gays have been gathered in the course of research into HIV and Hep C and overstate the incidence among homosexuals in general.

It is also true that same sex marriage would confer social advantages on gay couples such as family ties and the selfrespect which comes from public acceptance of their lifestyle. But at what cost to traditional marriage and confused young people! Most outrageous among Croome’s claims are the ones that equate the “discrimination” involved in refusing same sex marriage with those of South African Apartheid and “Jim Crow” segregation in the USA. Muehlenberg responds that society works only because we have to discriminate in many areas in order for society to work, and poses the ludicrous question of whether denying the right of American soul singer Aretha Franklin to play for the Melbourne Football Club would also be a case of discrimination.

Why Gay Marriage is informative and would be a useful guide for anyone wishing to participate in the debate, and to follow up the end-notes would be to acquire a quite impressive bibliography for both sides of the argument. However, the bottom line is that redefining marriage to admit same sex couples might recognise any number of loving and committed relationships, but however much they mirrored
traditional marriage they would always be something else.

NSW - same-sex adoption bill
The NSW parliament will be debating a bill that proposes to legalise adoption by same-sex couples. The debate is expected to be held when the NSW Parliament resumes for the spring session. Endeavour Forum Inc.is opposed to adoption by same-sex couples.

The Bill was introduced in June 2010 as a private member's bill by Clover Moore, a long-time supporter of homosexual rights.

In July 2009, the NSW Legislative Council's Law and Justice Committee completed an Inquiry into same-sex adoption and published a report. The government’s response in January 2010. said "the committee concluded that the gender of parents is not a significant determinant of children's wellbeing and that, as such, the sexual orientation of prospective parents is of no material relevance to the best interests of adoptive children." A majority of the Committee recommended that adoption by same-sex couples be legalised.

However there was considerable opposition to the proposal. At the time the government said they had decided not to enact the recommendations of the Inquiry - thus deciding not to legalise adoption by same-sex couples in NSW.

Linda Burney, NSW Minister for Community Services, said that the state Government believed there was "some merit" in the committee's findings. "However, members were unable to reach a consensus, reflecting divisions on this issue in the wider community. She justified the decision of the state government not to legalise adoption by same-sex couples on the grounds that they were "not satisfied there is broad enough community support to justify new state legislation at this stage".

The introduction of Clover Moore’s Bill has changed the situation. Although the proposed bill is a private member's bill - and not a government bill - the Premier, Kristina Keneally, has already said she will support the bill.

A conscience vote will be allowed for all MPs on the bill. It is important for Endeavour Forum supporters, your friends and families in NSW to contact your MPs to ask them not to support the legalisation of adoption by same-sex couples. You have one MP in the Legislative Assembly representing your electorate. You also need to write to ALL Members of the Legislative Council - download the names from the NSW government website or ask your local MP for a list.

Letter from Dr. Andrew Foong to the Premier of NSW
Dear Ms Keneally,
Premier of NSW.
I understand that the parliament of NSW will vote on whether to allow same sex couples to adopt children.

As a doctor who sees first hand what dysfunctional families are like, I urge you to vote against this proposal because an authentic family in the ideal has parents of both sexes namely a father and a mother.

The delicate balance of psycho-sexual development would be virtually irreparably disturbed by same sex couples adopting children as the child would have difficulty in developing proper relationships in adult years.

One old patient of mind brought up by a lesbian couple including her natural mother, was terribly confused in her sexual identity in adult years. She had 2 children out of wedlock and even took up with living with a hermaphrodite, so mixed up she was.

I understand that you are a practising Catholic. If that means anything to you at all please do not have added to your conscience the hundreds of disturbed children that will develop from being brought up by same sex couples, to add to the moral decay of our society which is disintegrating so rapidly.

If this bill goes ahead, you can be sure there will be far fewer children placed for adoption, (especially from those overseas as parents will want to protect their children at any cost), denying loving childless heterosexual couples the opportunity to have a family and there will be more abortions as adoption will no longer be seen as a viable option to a so-called "unwanted pregnancy" because the mother would not want the possibility of a so-called "gay-couple" taking her child.

Please show some moral leadership and reject this misguided leglislation.

ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 140, October 2010
Home \| Contact Us \| Newsletters
BOOK SHELF “WHY GAY MARRIAGE - YES - NO”: Rodney Croome and Bill Muehlenberg. Published by Pantera Press, P.O. Box 357, Seaforth, NSW 2092, info@panterapress.com. Price $15, Reviewed by John Morrissey. It would be fair to say that Melbourne writer on matters of religion and family policies Bill Muehlenberg and Tasmanian gay human rights advocate Rodney Croome are diametrically opposed on this issue, so it was a surprise to learn that the two had collaborated on a book to debate it. Why Gay Marriage: Making sense of everything invites the reader to start with either “Yes” or “No”, read the supporting arguments, and then flip the book over to start from the other end and repeat the process. The two authors meet each other half-way, literally, but neither makes any compromise or concession. Each is given space for a brief rebuttal in the other’s half of the book, and readers of this publication will doubtless award the debate to Muehlenberg, but it should be a reasoned decision, based on an appreciation of the respective arguments and evidence. Croome argues that under current marriage laws in Australia same sex couples are not free and equal citizens, and that legal disadvantages result, as well as a denial of social and cultural benefits. He maintains that alternative arrangements such as civil unions do not translate to full equality and that there is growing public support for ‘marriage equality’. In addition, he makes the extraordinary claim that same sex marriage is good for the institution itself and that religion and children should be seen as arguments in its favour. Looking at the issue from the other side, Muehlenberg maintains that same sex marriage negates what marriage really is and also its very purpose. He argues that there is little actual demand for it among homosexuals, but that the real agenda is to extract full public approval for the gay lifestyle, and that it would be the thin end of the wedge for other bizarre relationships. Claims of discrimination against gay people resulting from denial of their right to marry he rejects as spurious. However caring and committed they may be described, he argues that not all relationships are alike, and he is adamant that they are a harmful environment for children. Both authors have supported their contentions with a battery of authorities. Accordingly, their arguments are peppered liberally with end-note notations – 128 for Croome and 121 for Muehlenberg – but they are not included in the printed text. The reader is invited to go online to www.WhyvsWhy.com in order to locate “authors’ citations and sources”. Readers will no doubt find this frustrating, and although both writers attempt to give some indication of their sources and their provenance, the effect is clumsy. Croome frequently prefaces his claims with ‘research confirms’ and relies for religious support on one Baptist pastor, Rev. Nathan Nettleton, a number of times, making his argument appear rather threadbare. In this debate, the sticking-point is a familiar one: Muehlenberg argues for a definition of marriage – ie between a man and a woman - based on objective truth, endorsed by anthropology, history and religion, while Croome appeals to a subjective definition, based on a seductive appeal for tolerance and a willingness to accept change, which some Christians confuse with the virtue of charity. Muehlenberg maintains that marriage redefined to suit the fashion of the time would not be marriage at all. This seems to be borne out in his rebuttal of Croome’s claim that same sex marriage in Scandinavia has not harmed the institution itself, as divorce has in fact declined. When Muehlenberg tells us that 60% of first-born Danish children are born out of wedlock, we realise that a generation of same sex marriage has separated marriage from parenthood, and has in fact done irreparable damage to the institution. On the effects of same sex parenting on children, these writers cite authorities and case studies which are completely contradictory. One is reminded of the advice of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in recent years when advising the Victorian government on legislation concerning access for same sex couples to artificial reproduction technologies: it simply ignored all of the research which demonstrated the harm done to children growing up without male and female parents. Here Muehlenberg makes a very strong case, while Croome quotes the American Psychological Association and the research of a number of university departments whose very titles brand them as bastions of gay rights and hardly impartial. Where Croome is more plausible is when he argues that same sex marriage could encourage fidelity among the [small minority of] gay couples who wish to be monogamous and that the alarming statistics for promiscuity among gays have been gathered in the course of research into HIV and Hep C and overstate the incidence among homosexuals in general. It is also true that same sex marriage would confer social advantages on gay couples such as family ties and the selfrespect which comes from public acceptance of their lifestyle. But at what cost to traditional marriage and confused young people! Most outrageous among Croome’s claims are the ones that equate the “discrimination” involved in refusing same sex marriage with those of South African Apartheid and “Jim Crow” segregation in the USA. Muehlenberg responds that society works only because we have to discriminate in many areas in order for society to work, and poses the ludicrous question of whether denying the right of American soul singer Aretha Franklin to play for the Melbourne Football Club would also be a case of discrimination. Why Gay Marriage is informative and would be a useful guide for anyone wishing to participate in the debate, and to follow up the end-notes would be to acquire a quite impressive bibliography for both sides of the argument. However, the bottom line is that redefining marriage to admit same sex couples might recognise any number of loving and committed relationships, but however much they mirrored traditional marriage they would always be something else. NSW - same-sex adoption bill The NSW parliament will be debating a bill that proposes to legalise adoption by same-sex couples. The debate is expected to be held when the NSW Parliament resumes for the spring session. Endeavour Forum Inc.is opposed to adoption by same-sex couples. The Bill was introduced in June 2010 as a private member's bill by Clover Moore, a long-time supporter of homosexual rights. In July 2009, the NSW Legislative Council's Law and Justice Committee completed an Inquiry into same-sex adoption and published a report. The government’s response in January 2010. said "the committee concluded that the gender of parents is not a significant determinant of children's wellbeing and that, as such, the sexual orientation of prospective parents is of no material relevance to the best interests of adoptive children." A majority of the Committee recommended that adoption by same-sex couples be legalised. However there was considerable opposition to the proposal. At the time the government said they had decided not to enact the recommendations of the Inquiry - thus deciding not to legalise adoption by same-sex couples in NSW. Linda Burney, NSW Minister for Community Services, said that the state Government believed there was "some merit" in the committee's findings. "However, members were unable to reach a consensus, reflecting divisions on this issue in the wider community. She justified the decision of the state government not to legalise adoption by same-sex couples on the grounds that they were "not satisfied there is broad enough community support to justify new state legislation at this stage". The introduction of Clover Moore’s Bill has changed the situation. Although the proposed bill is a private member's bill - and not a government bill - the Premier, Kristina Keneally, has already said she will support the bill. A conscience vote will be allowed for all MPs on the bill. It is important for Endeavour Forum supporters, your friends and families in NSW to contact your MPs to ask them not to support the legalisation of adoption by same-sex couples. You have one MP in the Legislative Assembly representing your electorate. You also need to write to ALL Members of the Legislative Council - download the names from the NSW government website or ask your local MP for a list. Letter from Dr. Andrew Foong to the Premier of NSW Dear Ms Keneally, Premier of NSW. I understand that the parliament of NSW will vote on whether to allow same sex couples to adopt children. As a doctor who sees first hand what dysfunctional families are like, I urge you to vote against this proposal because an authentic family in the ideal has parents of both sexes namely a father and a mother. The delicate balance of psycho-sexual development would be virtually irreparably disturbed by same sex couples adopting children as the child would have difficulty in developing proper relationships in adult years. One old patient of mind brought up by a lesbian couple including her natural mother, was terribly confused in her sexual identity in adult years. She had 2 children out of wedlock and even took up with living with a hermaphrodite, so mixed up she was. I understand that you are a practising Catholic. If that means anything to you at all please do not have added to your conscience the hundreds of disturbed children that will develop from being brought up by same sex couples, to add to the moral decay of our society which is disintegrating so rapidly. If this bill goes ahead, you can be sure there will be far fewer children placed for adoption, (especially from those overseas as parents will want to protect their children at any cost), denying loving childless heterosexual couples the opportunity to have a family and there will be more abortions as adoption will no longer be seen as a viable option to a so-called "unwanted pregnancy" because the mother would not want the possibility of a so-called "gay-couple" taking her child. Please show some moral leadership and reject this misguided leglislation.
Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN