Comment (17)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggA tale of two sisters
In the mad world of 21st century relationships the home of two sisters incurs a tax while that of ‘civil partners’ is exempt.
It gets very tiresome finding yet another newspaper story in the "You couldn’t make it up, could you?" category, but, here we go again.
Two English sisters have shared a home for years. It has been a real family home, serving different generations. In it, they have cared for various elderly and frail relatives over the years, provided hospitality, built up the links that help to form family networks.
If Joyce and Sybil Burden had proclaimed themselves lesbians and formed a “civil partnership” they would get a massive advantage: when one of them died, the other would receive the whole of the property, tax-free. But they are not lesbians and have no wish to pretend to be. They have a normal and natural bond: they are sisters. So, under our tax laws, when one dies the other will have to pay a massive 40 per cent tax on the property if she wishes to remain living there.
Daft? Of course. Unjust? Undoubtedly. So the sisters took their case to the courts – and eventually to the European court. And now they’ve had the final ruling: they do not qualify for any tax benefits as their situation cannot be compared to marriage or a civil partnership -- in short, because they are not lesbians. So the inheritance tax must be paid in full.
“Rather than the length or the supportive nature of the relationship, what was determinative was the existence of a public undertaking, carrying with it a body of rights and obligations of a contractual nature,” the court piously explained.
Now, I could just about take this if the tax ruling referred specifically to married couples. Marriage between a man and a woman, who normally will have children of that union, is the foundation of family life and hence of our community and our country. It makes legal and financial sense to give it special status.
Oh, I know not everyone is married with a nice bunch of children. We don’t all fit a neat pattern. And every law, however well founded, will create some anomalies. But a just and stable society requires that the law notes the biological reality and the truth about our human condition: children are born of a male/female union. People have a right to know who they are, to have a name and to belong to a family, aware of who their brothers and sisters are. Marriage ensures this, and giving marriage a legal form and status protects us all, including the unmarried.
As soon as the nonsense began about pretending that lesbian and homosexual activity could be given status as a form of matrimony, the link between law and biological reality, between official pronouncements and the truth about our human nature, was snarled up. We’ve now got nonsense.
Two women with an actual family bond have to be treated as though they are complete strangers for legal purposes, while two others who have – perhaps only briefly – engaged in some form of sexual activity together and marked this with a celebration, would be given a special and legally-protected status.
No, this isn’t a diatribe against homosexual or lesbian liaisons. It’s a plea for justice and common sense. Until fairly recently, the cry was that sexual activity was a private matter: “What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no concern of the law”. Just so. Let’s have no special status for those proclaiming that they have a “same sex union”.
Inheritance tax is in many ways unjust, and overdue for reform. Ditching the special status given to those who have established a civil union is an obvious component of any reforming plan.
Joanna Bogle writes from London.
Hello Rea, If I make the same point ad nauseam it’s because it’s very hard to come up with new ways to defend what is OH, SO (yes!) OBVIOUS.
No, the argument cannot be aimed at certain others. If someone is born with a disease that threatens to cut thier life short, would we say, “Oh well, they were born that way, let `em die.”? No, we do all we can to help them.Do we consider the infirm to be burden? (Sadly some do.)No, we do all we can to comfort them, help them, sacrifice if need be.
Sickle cell anemia is a “trait”, not a good one either, do we judge people by their illness, do we black men and women from
marrying? No, we try to cure this disease. Your sexual tastes, interests etc., are not “traits” and cannot be compared to the aforementioned conditions.
If marriage is the right of one human’s right to marry another, do we do away with incest laws? If a “bi-sexual”, a male, finds a man and woman he wants to marry and the other two are ok with it, do we then permit de-facto polygamy? You might say no, but the male in question can make the same arguments you made in defense of your “trait”.
As to your comment about “that right”. I did not say prove you DESERVE THAT RIGHT. prove that what you say is a trait is indeed a trait, in the same vein as eye color, race, height.
It is true ,you more than likely did not chose your, for want of a better term, orientation, however that doesn’t make it a natural facet of your identity as a human female.Do what you like, but the law nor society has to recognize your lifestyle proper.You have the same rights as me and anyone else.
Darren
Darren:
I notice that in both posts you’ve replied to… you make the same point ad nauseum; that because there are males and females, what more is there to question? The end! It’s obvious how things are meant to be, by the way male and female bodies fit together.
But it’s dangerous to make things that are ‘obviously the way things should be’ the -only- way things -can- be, which is what you would advocate by restricting marriage solely to males and females; as you state, clearly, since males and females are the only ones who can reproduce, they are the only ones who may get married.
Other arguments in this vein could be directed against the infirm, the gifted; anyone who simply does not exemplify traits deemed to be ‘the way things are meant to be’.
And because my traits are not -inferior-, it is the law’s responsibility to make sure they are treated as -equal-. Their status as minority traits is not in question.
Next bit: it is -not- all about sexual freedom. It is about marriage equality; that is, one human being’s right to marry one other human being, to have their loving union recognized in full equality to that union which is already in place among other parties.
You might say that I should prove why I deserve that right.
You prove why I don’t. I don’t love women out of some bizarre fetish that I chose; I love women because that is how I work, how my brain works, and it is perfectly acceptable.
If the law cannot deem me inferior, I must be treated equally.
Sincerely,
Rea
This happens when promulgated human laws disregard the universal moral laws. Thus these laws more than promoting and protecting justice become avenues for moral pemissiveness and human degradation.
Mr.Adebowale Oriku might find the following phrase helpful.
“Red Herring”
My ultimate point in any of these such discussions is that
homo and yes, hetero sexual are not natural identities of humans. There is male and there is female; they mate and the species continues.
Mr Darren Hall might find the following story helpful.
I recall telling a Catholic/Irish lady that I have a lot to think about than bother my head about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. I don’t care, I am hetero and that’s all that matters to me.
The lady had shocked me in a way that only a religionist could. She asked, What if I am violated by a gay man, will I still feel the same about homosexuality?
Talk about religious shock-tactic. I replied her though: such an act will not make homosexuality wrong, anyhow. Homosexuals don’t go around raping - even far less so than heterosexuals. Remembering what a logician might call ‘defeasible reasoning,’I told her that what she was implying was that heterosexual rape is right because in involves a man and a woman.
She was stumped.
Hey Rea, You haven’t said anything I haven’t heard before.
Typically you have either missed my main point or deliberately ignored it. PROVE that homosexual relations are a normal, biological, inborn characteristic!!
As for that bit about manipulation of children for sexual purposes, I’ll tell you this; the teaching about and promotion of homosexuality in schools is STATE SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE! iT’S A SHAME AND A DISGRACE. In religious parlance it is a SIN!Within a generation you will have some very confused young people. If “gays” want to flirt and date,FINE, but why the demand for acceptance and approval for what is OBVIOUSLY a misuse of body parts?Homosexual acts by thier very nature are “deviant”.If that,s what you like, fine, but again why the demand for recognition of a false identity? And again where is the proof that it is a true identity?
Why support “gays”, but criticize sado-masochists? Hey, it’s all about sexual freedom, right? It’s private, keep it that way.Ah, but what about “heterosexuals”? Hey, I know, we’ll just pretend the stork delivers babies!
You said “If you learn to love the `sinner`, you’ll learn
the `sin` does not exsist.” WOW! I suppose if the Jews loved the nazis who shoved them in to ovens the Holocaust wouldn’t have existed. OY vey!
Sincerely,
Darren
Hey Darren,
Perhaps after you’re done throwing up, you can follow the link my name points to; a series of essays explaining why each of the points you brought up is invalid.
But because you probably won’t, and I feel obligated to respond ...
“Aren’t sado-masochists and latex fetishists as good as “gay” people?”
No. Sadomasochists inflict pain on others and enjoy it being inflicted upon themselves; by arguing with me, you appear to be exhibiting similar behavior.
The typical homosexual is neither a sexual deviant nor a fetishist, just as the average heterosexual is not.
“Why not abolish the age of consent?”
Rhetorical questions are always adorable.
Well, in case this is a -serious- question, that’s a bad idea because it would result in the manipulation of children for sexual purposes; something that is obviously immoral.
This has nothing to do with homosexuality, because homosexuals do not typically coerce others to have sex with them in any devious way; they flirt and date just as anyone would.
If you think they live a life of promiscuity and broken hearts, you’ve been mislead by media misrepresentations. “Will and Grace” represents my life about as much as “Friends” represents yours.
I have but one suggestion: get some homosexual friends. If you’re friends with more than twenty people, you may have one already.
If you learn to love the ‘sinner’, you’ll learn that the ‘sin’ does not exist.
Sincerely,
Rea
Re: Rea Koskue’s post. Since when is “homosexual” a legitimate classification of members of the human species?
Or even “heterosexual”? These are merely social,political and faux scientific classifications.
I have asked many times on the web, in newspapers and of course face to face; where’s the proof otherwise?!?
There’s male and female. Physiologically it’s OBVIOUS how things are meant to be. One need not bring religious or spiritual arguments into the debate.
Should we have legal and social recognition for any and perhaps all sexual proclivities? Why not pedophilia? Why not abolish the age of consent? Children have rights? They are sexual beings, aren’t they? Aren’t sado-masochists and latex fetishists as good as “gay” people? Oh, and hey let’s not forget incestuous relationships? After all, it’s all about love, right?
I would continue wth this post, but I have to go throw up..
Inheritance taxes are intrinsically unjust. They originate in the Marxist desire to destroy inherited “wealth,” but in real life, they put calamitous burdens on ordinary people. Why on earth should ANYBODY have to pay a 40% tax on the family home? Then the poor souls have to look for some legal loophole that would enable simple justice to be done. Perhaps someone should consider that the mere ownership of property is NOT immoral and that laws should reflect our natural human rights of property.
Well, of course it would make sense to have a separate legal title for those that have raised families, but are not legal parents in love; Such things happen all the time.
But I wouldn’t argue that those kind sisters should be given a status completely equivalent to that of marriage. And as such, I wouldn’t argue that they should be equal to ‘civil unions’, either.
Additionally, your arrogance is only made more obvious by your feigned ‘clarification’.
“No, this isn’t a diatribe against homosexual or lesbian liaisons.” (That’s cute, ‘liasons’.)
And, in the very same paragraph…
“Let’s have no special status for those proclaiming that they have a “same sex union””
“Equal rights are not special rights unless you’re the one who doesn’t have them.”
- John S. Dixon
According to wordnet.princeton.edu…
Special - “particular(a): unique or specific to a person or thing or category”
Right - “an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature”
-Heterosexuals- are the ones with special rights. They can marry; we can not. They have rights that we do -not- have, and therefore they are ‘special’ in the eyes of the law.
Nevertheless.
Although the sisters’ situation described above is lamentable, homosexuals did not make this law; heterosexuals did. So perhaps they could also make reforms in said law without whining about how unfair the homosexuals are being for wanting -equality-.
I think that’s about it.
The aim of these laws was never to help real domestic partners. It was, rather, to use the powers of the state to erase any public recognition of the natural differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
Next time Americans hear about a gay couple whose lives would be easier with the right sort of legislation, they should ask themselves: is that gay couple more deserving of accommodation than people like Joyce and Sybil Burden? If the aim of the proposed legislation is not to change society but to make life easier for people who have made a home together for decades, it should not apply exclusively to homosexual couples. If, on the other hand, its only beneficiaries are homosexual couples, perhaps the aim is social change after all.
This is one law too many. Such laws should have been extinct by now. It is another evidence of the fact that humans more often than not, tend to allow financial considerations to take precedence over justice and proper human considerations.
This is how legislation is being organized in this world. Against the family values. If these two sister´s speak to loud they will be characterized as insane and will have an Euthanasia committee on them.
When Europe will turn upside down it will be to late.
This is really another sad and repulsive case of social engineering.
It’s just a way of making all relationships the “same” so we can all just ignore natural blood ties and be wards of the state.
The high court judge Justice Michael Kirby has been jumping up and down for months about the injustice he feels in relation to his homosexual relationship not being recognised for retirement and superannuation benefits. John Stanhope the Labor party cheif minister of the Australian Capitol Territory has repeatedly advanced the program of civil union of homosexual couples in that state, and recently Mr McClellan the Attorney General of the Federal Labor Government has said that the government wishes to remove the “discriminatory” laws of our country and this has led to the Rudd Labor government complying with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal recommendations that about 100 pieces of legislataion “discriminating” against homosexual couples should be altered. No wonder that Cardinal George Pell last sunday preached in Sydney on sexual morality, and spoke again during the week against the introduction of a “Bill of rights” which would give social legislative authority to the judiciary, who answer to nobody. Even John Stanhope eventually will have to answer to the electorate.
What country does the story about the two sisters come from?
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >