What do you think?
Rate this book
Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality
Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality is written by American-born, Australian-based veteran family researcher and activist Bill Muehlenberg. This comprehensive, detailed and thoroughly documented volume deals with every aspect of the homosexual debate, including lengthy chapters on homosexual marriage and adoption rights.
The book also examines the biblical and theological material on this subject, rebutting the various theories of the theological revisionists. With over 700 footnotes, this is the most extensively researched and referenced volume on this topic available in Australia. Yet much of the book features international research and data as well, making it fully of use and of value to anyone from around the globe concerned about this issue.
The book also examines the biblical and theological material on this subject, rebutting the various theories of the theological revisionists. With over 700 footnotes, this is the most extensively researched and referenced volume on this topic available in Australia. Yet much of the book features international research and data as well, making it fully of use and of value to anyone from around the globe concerned about this issue.
268 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 22, 2014
1 person is currently reading
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 7, 2014
The Challenge of Totalitarianism
Muehlenberg clearly has little understanding of history or valid scientific research. Most of his sources are from right-wing, anti-freedom, anti-science Creationist fronts and patriarchal institutions (NARTH, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council etc).
The remainder of his arguments lie in theology and the "traditional" definition of marriage (hint: it doesn't include biblical polygamy).
Unsurprisingly, Bill Muehlenberg resorts to red herrings. So what if only a handful of gays and lesbians wish to marry their loved ones? That is a red herring, and in any case, the revenue provided by this new sub-industry (and the compassion provided by jettisoning Bronze Age ideals) will vastly benefit any society that makes such a move. Muehlenberg's sources are right-wing "research" with a vested interest in proving their own conclusions. They fail to do so. Bill is fond of creating the myth of marriage for reproduction. This is a modern invention. Most marriages throughout history were brutal arranged affairs and had more to do with political power and little, if anything, to do with love.
If he had used government sources like the CDC, he would at least have based his claims on larger data sets, which would have provided at least a veneer of truth. Bill also fails to contrast the rate of STDs among homosexuals with STDs among heterosexuals, which should have been his first step if proving the risks of a homosexual "lifestyle" was his goal.
So, after a brief introduction designed to palliate his raw hatred for the LGBT community, Bill launches into a surfeit of wild accusations and baseless slander. Here's just a sample:
- Placing the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage. I can only posit that the embrace of Christianity's imperialist doctrines and warmongering was too close to home (not to mention intellectually honest) for Bill to give passing mention to.
Clearly, his veneer of compassion and calls for civilized debates based on truth ring utterly hollow.
The lion's share of Bill's sources come from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. With the basis for his "facts" coming from such a biased political action group, one cannot help but shake their head at the irony with which the author accuses some of his opposition of being firmly entrenched against the facts and reality of the issue.
On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual. Moreover, it is generally easier for men to have access to young boys, as parents tend to be more protective of the fairer sex.
The mudslinging doesn't stop there. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage." Yet he cannot produce a single example of these militant liberal campaigners fighting to make opposite-sex marriage illegal.
The only liberal he mentions is David Blankenhorn, who, during California's recent Prop 8 trial, recanted his former position (namely, that children require both a father and a mother to be well-adjusted). Research into the vastly heightened scrutiny that adoptive parents (whether gay or straight) has been shown to lead to better outcomes for the children (at least on some measures). Psychologist Michael Lamb has published several studies on this issue, and has testified that no child would be aided through outlawing same-sex marriage. Even Robert Spitzer retracted his research study which claimed efficacy for so-called "reparative therapy."
Bill also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required. So why doesn't he start clarion calls for all available heterosexual couples to annex the care of children currently raised by single parents? In actuality, the most thorough studies have shown that having same sex parents does not harm children, and in some cases, can outstrip the outcomes that would occur in opposite-sex households (US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics). The conglomeration of these findings also disprove the accusations he levels on page 20 and 21, in which the lack of a father is claimed to be the ONLY reason why such children suffer from increased suicide rates, juvenile delinquency and lives of crime.
Consistency is clearly not one of Bill's strong suits. In his introduction, he freely concedes that homosexual feelings are not a choice. One would logically conclude (and hope that Bill would do the same) that homosexuality, therefore, is not a choice. This should be a tautology, but the connection (or perhaps simply the intricacies) is lost on the author. Yet Bill cites NARTH (a repeatedly discredited and proven harmful "treatment" organization) as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible. What actually occurs is brutal repression and/or celibacy. In the case of bisexual individuals, the "change" is made easier to bear via their versatile natural attractions.
Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book. They are also groundless. The marriage rate in the Netherlands began falling in 1970, whereas same-sex marriages were recognized by the government in 2001. To draw a causal link between the two is specious at best. Spain's falling marriage rates during the 2005 to 2011 timespan can be more accurately traced to the inordinate and abrupt rise in unemployment (9% to 22%). Among the under-25 crowd, it more than doubled, from 19% to 47%. This is the other side of the story that Bill hopes his readers will either gloss over or ignore entirely. For a more thorough statistical analysis, the Box Turtle Bulletin blog has a wealth of data.
Bill's case for how same-sex marriage will hurt everyone generally (a blatant appeal to selfishness) begins on page 52. I will tackle them one-by-one.
1. Gay marriage will increases tax rates to compensate for marriage tax breaks given to gay couples.
- So what? If, as Bill claims, 4% of the LGBT population (4% of 5% or so) marry, the tax benefits will hardly be noticeable. The author also fails to consider the productivity and mental health benefits that will clearly follow if gays and lesbians are no longer required to live sham lives and marriages. Moreover, the more married couples there are, the more unmarried individuals will be required to subsidise their taxes. Why isn't Bill calling for everyone to marry less, or for these tax breaks to be revoked?
2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) to fund payments to widows and widowers of gay couples.
- The author's anti-equality stance could not be made clearer with this statement. Also, the productivity gains and medical savings mentioned above would more than compensate for this.
3. Medical premiums will increase as gay marriage will lead to more homosexual behaviour leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis etc.
- Evidence? Bill's (decidedly dishonest, deceitful and deceptive) word. If he's so concerned about unsafe sex and polygamous sex among the LGBT community, he should be encouraging them to get married. With current policies in place, there are no incentives to remain faithful to a single partner.
4. Employee benefits will fall as corporations are required to cover homosexual partners.
- An extension of Bill's initial three points, and refuted by the gains in productivity and reductions in medical expenditures.
5. Gay couples will be given preference when seeking to adopt children as they cannot procreate.
- Given the studies mentioned above, this could well be seen as a positive. By encouraging paternal instincts, familial attachments and responsibilities, gay couples would become less likely to engage in risky activities.
Bill asserts, with no evidence, that children will also be treated as trophies. This is clearly refuted by the studies shown above (trophies would not be showered with love and affection. They would be confined so the parents could gaze upon them and bask in their arrogance and pride), although such a bizarre claim does not even warrant a cursory refutation. He also provides no reason as to why this insult would not equally apply to any couple who adopt children.
6. Children will be indoctrinated in schools to accept gay and lesbian behaviour as morally equivalent to heterosexual behaviour.
- Good. Perhaps we can finally move out of the Dark Ages on this issue and do something about the breathtakingly stratospheric LGBT suicide rates.
7. Workplace indoctrination akin to point 6.
- So reducing harassment and fostering respect for all employees is somehow undesirable?
8. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals.
- Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation. Would you be perfectly happy if divorced individuals were verboten in your congregation?
9. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.
- Wrong. The only things that will be made illegal will be the incitement of violence and unconstitutional discrimination. Catholic charities are meant to serve all of society. If they refuse to do so, and hold their anachronistic doctrines over the well-being of orphans, then they reveal their onerously pernicious prejudices and inverted priorities.
10. More big government.
- Utter nonsense. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its most obvious. More freedoms and rights are synonymous with governmental intrusion, at least according to Bill's tawdry imagination. A further leap of logic is revealed when he claims that governments will be required to step in to mend the societal harms induced by same-sex marriage (a claim that requires a strong foundation, which is conspicuously absent).
One of the points raised in the second half, in which he attempts to refute arguments for same-sex marriage (and hate crime legislation) is that the LGBT and straight communities are already treated equally (a nonsense - gays and lesbians cannot marry those they love) and that hate crime legislation is unjust, because all crimes should be punished equally (says Bill), regardless of the particular class of victim. He misses the point - when someone is beaten or murdered simply for being gay (or being a police officer), harsher punishments serve as powerful deterrents.
Facts were left behind on the copyright information page. The rest of the book consists of little more than unctuous, baseless diatribes and strenuous mental gymnastics and leaps of logic.
Those familiar with Bill Muehlenberg's Culturewatch website will find nothing new, and little particularly logical or cogent. It's fun black humour though.
Muehlenberg clearly has little understanding of history or valid scientific research. Most of his sources are from right-wing, anti-freedom, anti-science Creationist fronts and patriarchal institutions (NARTH, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council etc).
The remainder of his arguments lie in theology and the "traditional" definition of marriage (hint: it doesn't include biblical polygamy).
Unsurprisingly, Bill Muehlenberg resorts to red herrings. So what if only a handful of gays and lesbians wish to marry their loved ones? That is a red herring, and in any case, the revenue provided by this new sub-industry (and the compassion provided by jettisoning Bronze Age ideals) will vastly benefit any society that makes such a move. Muehlenberg's sources are right-wing "research" with a vested interest in proving their own conclusions. They fail to do so. Bill is fond of creating the myth of marriage for reproduction. This is a modern invention. Most marriages throughout history were brutal arranged affairs and had more to do with political power and little, if anything, to do with love.
If he had used government sources like the CDC, he would at least have based his claims on larger data sets, which would have provided at least a veneer of truth. Bill also fails to contrast the rate of STDs among homosexuals with STDs among heterosexuals, which should have been his first step if proving the risks of a homosexual "lifestyle" was his goal.
So, after a brief introduction designed to palliate his raw hatred for the LGBT community, Bill launches into a surfeit of wild accusations and baseless slander. Here's just a sample:
- Placing the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage. I can only posit that the embrace of Christianity's imperialist doctrines and warmongering was too close to home (not to mention intellectually honest) for Bill to give passing mention to.
Clearly, his veneer of compassion and calls for civilized debates based on truth ring utterly hollow.
The lion's share of Bill's sources come from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. With the basis for his "facts" coming from such a biased political action group, one cannot help but shake their head at the irony with which the author accuses some of his opposition of being firmly entrenched against the facts and reality of the issue.
On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual. Moreover, it is generally easier for men to have access to young boys, as parents tend to be more protective of the fairer sex.
The mudslinging doesn't stop there. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage." Yet he cannot produce a single example of these militant liberal campaigners fighting to make opposite-sex marriage illegal.
The only liberal he mentions is David Blankenhorn, who, during California's recent Prop 8 trial, recanted his former position (namely, that children require both a father and a mother to be well-adjusted). Research into the vastly heightened scrutiny that adoptive parents (whether gay or straight) has been shown to lead to better outcomes for the children (at least on some measures). Psychologist Michael Lamb has published several studies on this issue, and has testified that no child would be aided through outlawing same-sex marriage. Even Robert Spitzer retracted his research study which claimed efficacy for so-called "reparative therapy."
Bill also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required. So why doesn't he start clarion calls for all available heterosexual couples to annex the care of children currently raised by single parents? In actuality, the most thorough studies have shown that having same sex parents does not harm children, and in some cases, can outstrip the outcomes that would occur in opposite-sex households (US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics). The conglomeration of these findings also disprove the accusations he levels on page 20 and 21, in which the lack of a father is claimed to be the ONLY reason why such children suffer from increased suicide rates, juvenile delinquency and lives of crime.
Consistency is clearly not one of Bill's strong suits. In his introduction, he freely concedes that homosexual feelings are not a choice. One would logically conclude (and hope that Bill would do the same) that homosexuality, therefore, is not a choice. This should be a tautology, but the connection (or perhaps simply the intricacies) is lost on the author. Yet Bill cites NARTH (a repeatedly discredited and proven harmful "treatment" organization) as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible. What actually occurs is brutal repression and/or celibacy. In the case of bisexual individuals, the "change" is made easier to bear via their versatile natural attractions.
Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book. They are also groundless. The marriage rate in the Netherlands began falling in 1970, whereas same-sex marriages were recognized by the government in 2001. To draw a causal link between the two is specious at best. Spain's falling marriage rates during the 2005 to 2011 timespan can be more accurately traced to the inordinate and abrupt rise in unemployment (9% to 22%). Among the under-25 crowd, it more than doubled, from 19% to 47%. This is the other side of the story that Bill hopes his readers will either gloss over or ignore entirely. For a more thorough statistical analysis, the Box Turtle Bulletin blog has a wealth of data.
Bill's case for how same-sex marriage will hurt everyone generally (a blatant appeal to selfishness) begins on page 52. I will tackle them one-by-one.
1. Gay marriage will increases tax rates to compensate for marriage tax breaks given to gay couples.
- So what? If, as Bill claims, 4% of the LGBT population (4% of 5% or so) marry, the tax benefits will hardly be noticeable. The author also fails to consider the productivity and mental health benefits that will clearly follow if gays and lesbians are no longer required to live sham lives and marriages. Moreover, the more married couples there are, the more unmarried individuals will be required to subsidise their taxes. Why isn't Bill calling for everyone to marry less, or for these tax breaks to be revoked?
2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) to fund payments to widows and widowers of gay couples.
- The author's anti-equality stance could not be made clearer with this statement. Also, the productivity gains and medical savings mentioned above would more than compensate for this.
3. Medical premiums will increase as gay marriage will lead to more homosexual behaviour leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis etc.
- Evidence? Bill's (decidedly dishonest, deceitful and deceptive) word. If he's so concerned about unsafe sex and polygamous sex among the LGBT community, he should be encouraging them to get married. With current policies in place, there are no incentives to remain faithful to a single partner.
4. Employee benefits will fall as corporations are required to cover homosexual partners.
- An extension of Bill's initial three points, and refuted by the gains in productivity and reductions in medical expenditures.
5. Gay couples will be given preference when seeking to adopt children as they cannot procreate.
- Given the studies mentioned above, this could well be seen as a positive. By encouraging paternal instincts, familial attachments and responsibilities, gay couples would become less likely to engage in risky activities.
Bill asserts, with no evidence, that children will also be treated as trophies. This is clearly refuted by the studies shown above (trophies would not be showered with love and affection. They would be confined so the parents could gaze upon them and bask in their arrogance and pride), although such a bizarre claim does not even warrant a cursory refutation. He also provides no reason as to why this insult would not equally apply to any couple who adopt children.
6. Children will be indoctrinated in schools to accept gay and lesbian behaviour as morally equivalent to heterosexual behaviour.
- Good. Perhaps we can finally move out of the Dark Ages on this issue and do something about the breathtakingly stratospheric LGBT suicide rates.
7. Workplace indoctrination akin to point 6.
- So reducing harassment and fostering respect for all employees is somehow undesirable?
8. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals.
- Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation. Would you be perfectly happy if divorced individuals were verboten in your congregation?
9. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.
- Wrong. The only things that will be made illegal will be the incitement of violence and unconstitutional discrimination. Catholic charities are meant to serve all of society. If they refuse to do so, and hold their anachronistic doctrines over the well-being of orphans, then they reveal their onerously pernicious prejudices and inverted priorities.
10. More big government.
- Utter nonsense. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its most obvious. More freedoms and rights are synonymous with governmental intrusion, at least according to Bill's tawdry imagination. A further leap of logic is revealed when he claims that governments will be required to step in to mend the societal harms induced by same-sex marriage (a claim that requires a strong foundation, which is conspicuously absent).
One of the points raised in the second half, in which he attempts to refute arguments for same-sex marriage (and hate crime legislation) is that the LGBT and straight communities are already treated equally (a nonsense - gays and lesbians cannot marry those they love) and that hate crime legislation is unjust, because all crimes should be punished equally (says Bill), regardless of the particular class of victim. He misses the point - when someone is beaten or murdered simply for being gay (or being a police officer), harsher punishments serve as powerful deterrents.
Facts were left behind on the copyright information page. The rest of the book consists of little more than unctuous, baseless diatribes and strenuous mental gymnastics and leaps of logic.
Those familiar with Bill Muehlenberg's Culturewatch website will find nothing new, and little particularly logical or cogent. It's fun black humour though.
August 4, 2015
This is probably the best book you will find on this issue. It covers all areas of the debate including combatting the arguments that are most commonly used for gay marriage/homosexuality. Not only that, but it backs up this information with factual evidence/statistics etc. Most importantly its views are true to the Bible. I would recommend this book to everyone interested in this debate.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews