The internet is all a-twitter tonight with news that 150 Australian doctors, operating under the moniker Doctors for the Family [Senate submission 229], oppose same-sex marriage on the basis that it would be detrimental, both to children and community health.
It all sounds so credible when this kind of nonsense comes from doctors; so credible and, regrettably, so familiar.
The fact is, I’ve exposed this lot of mendacious medicos before and there’s a certain sense of deja vu at having to front up and do it all again.
These people may have medical degrees but they are not speaking as scientists or medics; they are religious bigots using their professional credentials as a smokescreen for their despicable, discriminatory dogma.
So, here we go again.
Dr Lachlan Dunjey is the leader of the pack. Dunjey has priors. According to Dunjey, his anti-abortion ‘Liberty of Conscience in Medicine’ website and associated group, ‘Medicine with Morality’ have “no religious or faith component”.
Bullshit.
As I showed in a previous blog post, “In Good Conscience?” the list of signatories at Liberty of Conscience in Medicine is chock-a-block with religious fundamentalists and evangelists.
Dunjey fails to disclose on both his Liberty of Conscience in Medicine website and his Doctors for the Family senate submission that he was Western Australia’s Christian Democratic Party candidate for the senate in 2004, along with his co-signatory, Dr Norman Gage. When not pretending to be ‘non-religious’ Dunjey describes himself as ‘a church musician of 40+ years’ and a ‘church elder’ at Morley Baptist Church, Western Australia.
Dunjey is also the former president of the Baptist Churches of Western Australia.
Strange, he considers none of this relevant as he rails against abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.
Dr Kuruvilla George has also been in the news for appending his signature to this pestilent piece of pusillanimous propaganda. Dr George is Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist and (for now) a member of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.
After completing his medical training, Kuruvilla George worked in India as a missionary.
Dr George is known for arguing that psychiatrists should discuss their own spiritual beliefs with their patients. To me, that seems dangerously close to exploiting a position of influence to evangelise emotionally vulnerable patients.
Psychologist, Dr John Mathai similarly argues for a ‘Biblio-centred model of therapy’. Yes, really. Psychiatric therapy based on scripture.
Dr Mathai’s ‘Christian perspective’ leads him to tout the benefits of ‘revelational therapy’.
“‘Revelational Therapy’, he says, “applies to the revelational gifts – the gifts of knowledge, wisdom and discernment as described in one of the books of the Bible, 1 Corinthians chapter 12. These are spiritual gifts that are imparted by the Holy Spirit as the need arises.”
But, of course, it is science, not the Holy Spirit which tells Dr Mathai that homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens. Who could doubt it?
Another signatory to the Doctors for the Family submission is Dr Teem-Wing (TW) Yip, a member of Kwatja-Etatha Lutheran Church in Central Australia. Helpfully, Dr Yip assists Pastor Basil Schild in the congregation’s ministry with Aboriginal people.
I wonder if Dr Yip knows her co-signatory, Dr Robert Pollnitz. Curiously enough, he’s the chairman of the Lutheran Church of Australia’s Commission on Social & Bioethical Questions and another signatory on Dr Dunjey’s senate submission against same-sex marriage. Quelle suprise!
Signatory, Dr Murray James-Wallace, appears to be under the thrall of the notorious Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries. You remember, Pastor Danny – he’s the guy who said the Black Saturday bushfires were God’s retribution for Victoria’s pro-choice abortion laws.
In a ‘confession’ that will horrify everyone but the religiously deluded, Dr James-Wallace writes of an incident which occurred while he was travelling with Nalliah in Israel. As they left their hotel one morning, a woman travelling with them exhibited all the symptoms of a heart attack.
Dr James-Wallace takes up the story:
“We are on the outskirts of Tiberius, I explain that clinically she requires a hospital. She could have had a heart attack, asystole or otherarrythmia, hypoglycaemia or a stroke or seizure. Danny says this is spiritual and has generational links to Freemasonry. John receives a word that this is an attack from Satan to end her life in Israel and that if she can get to Jordan the Lord will heal her.
I have 2 choices, professionally to pull rank and as the only qualified medical practitioner ‘order’ the bus to a hospital in Tiberius. Having witnessed the miraculous recovery of the lady from death to life in that she responded to a verbal command. I explained that this lady is very sick, she ought to go to hospital but ‘I place myself under the authority of the pastor and the Lord Jesus Christ.’
Yes, folks. You heard it right. Instead of honouring his medical training and getting this woman to a hospital, he defers to Pastor Danny Nalliah.
But, of course, we are meant to believe that Dr James-Wallace’s opposition to same-sex marriage is based entirely on scientific evidence – and has nothing whatsoever to do with his religious fundamentalism.
Bullshit!
Writing in Sight Magazine (a website covering local and global news from a Christian perspective), Senate submission signatory, Dr Yoke Mei Neoh, tells of being called to a double medical emergency on board a cruise ship.
“Of all times, it had to be now, God, is there a lesson here for me?” she wonders as she struggles to cope.
I remember signatory Dr Lucas (Luke) McLindon from my post on Liberty of Conscience in Medicine. It is rather alarming, but sadly not surprising, to hear that, “As a committed Catholic, at the end of the day” Dr McLindon’s “loyalties must lie with Scripture first and foremost …”
So, when it comes to science or religious propaganda which rules, Dr McLindon? No need to answer. I think we all get the picture.
Dr Elvis Seman is a member of the Catholic Medical Guild of St Luke. Dr Lucia Migliore explains their creed:
“As Catholic doctors, we should be foremost inviting Christ into our work, which completely changes the nature of what you are doing.”
It certainly seems to change the nature of interpreting the medical and sociological research on homosexuality!
Catholic, Dr Joseph Santamaria is one of the signatories to the Canberra Declaration, a conservative Christian document inspired by the theocratic Manhattan Declaration.
Dr John Muirden is on the bioethics committee of the Uniting Church.
Dr Tanuja Martin and her husband Wayne were called as missionaries to Nepal because, “People are dying daily in countries without ever having had the opportunity to hear the gospel.”
(Some of us might think good nutrition and proper medical care were greater priorities.)
As with my post on Dr Dunjey’s Liberty of Conscience in Medicine I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point.
The submission from Doctors for the Family is no more than religious propaganda masquerading as medical knowledge.
I am delighted to see that the Australian Medical Association has rejected the specious claims made in the Doctors for the Family submission. They are certainly far more qualified to do so than me.
The simple fact is, that the claims made in this deceptive piece of poorly disguised religious propaganda simply don’t hold up under academic scrutiny.
Of course, this group of homophobic medicos has as much right as anyone to state their views in a Senate submission – even if those views are fundamentally false. My objection is that, just like Medicine with Morality and Liberty in Conscience in Medicine, Doctors for the Family fails to disclose the religious agenda behind its propaganda.
If their Senate submission bore the name Christian Doctors for the Family, that, at least would be an honest representation.
I can’t help thinking that Dunjey’s proclivity for setting up Christian lobby groups which deny any link to religion reeks of Peter’s denial of Jesus.
Medicine with Morality, Liberty of Conscience in Medicine and now Doctors for the Family – three times they have denied Him.
It’s not a good look, Dr Dunjey. Not only are you and your cronies deceiving the Senate and the Australian people with your lack of transparency, your denialism fundamentally dishonours the tenets of the religion you purport to follow.
Chrys Stevenson
See also:
Who are Doctors for the Family? – The Conscience Vote blog
The Doctors for the Family Senate Submission, Translated – Mike Stuchbery
Drs 4 Family “disingenuous” about their religious beliefs says critic – Dr Jennifer Wilson, No Place for Sheep
Ersatz science does not help inform debate about social policy – Dr Michael Vagg, The Conversation
Herald Sun falsely implies that “doctors” think gay marriage a “risk to kids” – Jeremy Sear, Pure Poison on Crikey
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear 
Genius.
Finally the realization the question that should be asked is not about support for “gay marriage” but instead – what about the children!!! – and that should be the leading issue in all this debate instead of HIDING the real issue, the children behind a “gay marriage” question! In any case the majority DO NOT support “gay marriage” – an Australian poll of 120,00 people 2 days ago said 55% opposed “gay marriage” with similar results over the course of the past year! So don’t pretend there was a “yes” vote for “gay marriage” when the actual Greens commissioned poll question asked something like “do you think gay marriage it is inevitable” – the answer to that is completely different from “do you agree with it”!!!!!!! WE do not want this very fundamental issue decided by a minority of people over the 50% line in a poll (even if they happened to get that level of support some time) – it needs to get the support in a referendum before we can say the “people” want this very fundamental change!!!! ….. I have never met an adopted child who does not crave both their biological Mother AND Father parent!…. this isn’t rocket science people!!!
Tony, I must be living in a different Country to you – what has marriage got to do with children?
Wow… You’re so wrong about everything you’ve written.
“The ALP Facebook account asked users ‘Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in Australia’. Nearly 200,000 votes have been lodged in the poll, with a clear majority in favour. At current count there are 161,150 ‘yes’ votes and only 34,356 opposed.”
This is from the labour party, and more than 4x the ammount agreed with it. You’re entire argument is bunk, and you’re by far the minority here.
So what about the kids who are born to single parents? You state that all children want their mother and father. What are you doing to ensure that these children have both? (though i had a couple of friends throughout school who did have lesbian or gay parents, and they turned out better than most)
It is scary to find out how seriously devious these religious people can be. We must be alert at all times. Thank you CEB for pointing this out.
However, Tony is asking the right question. What about the children? I have seen up close and personal what happens to a child reared by gay parents. A gay friend of mine (a Scot) living in Thailand has been raising a young boy ever since his Thai partner and father of the then 6 year old boy abandoned them both. The young boy has serious issues and he is seriously sexualized at 10 years old today. He thinks nothing of grabbing the genitals of male visitors. He is unruly and shows no respect for his “adopted father”. The boy throws tantrums to get his way knowing his “father” is powerless to discipline him. That boy will grow up a very maladjusted individual.
Nor is he the only child I have observed inside a gay relationship. They all have serious issues.
Do we, the Australian people, approve of gay marriage? I consider myself a very open minded individual, but I cannot see the point. All Australians are protected under the law as soon as they are in a committed relationship. Gays like to point out that they are not being given their “human rights”. This disingenuous argument ignores the fact that no Australian has any “human rights” under our constitution. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you do so here: http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/our-current-constitution/
Marriage is a serious institution that has united a man and woman to enable them to raise a family for millenia. Gay couples are not psychologically or biologically capable of this. That is the indisputable fact of the matter.
I have no problem with gays cohabiting. But please don’t ask us to ignore reality and give them the same rights as heterosexuals. It just doesn’t make sense.
Thankfully we don’t make judgements based on anecdotes, especially one where the major issue appears to be that the biological parent left. There is no argument that kids in broken homes often do worse than those in stable family environments – regardless of the genders of the parents.
Your argument is based on the same one that rules our the elderly and infertile getting married, and there is no ‘indisputable fact of the matter’ that they are psychologically unable to raise children, quite the opposite.
Don’t ask me to ignore reality and believe you aren’t just a bigot.
Craig, of course I understand that not all heterosexual couples raise their kids well. But I believe the allowing gay couples to raise children is making it very difficult for the children to grow up in an environment that gives them a perspective of the male and female side. Same sex parents live a different lifestyle, and it is unfair to the child to bring them up in what is regarded by many as a ‘skewed’ relationship. My point was that children are easily influenced by their environment and if they only see same sex relationships this can predispose them to the same lifestyle because they don’t understand any other. This is the psychology I was referring to.
It was unfair of you to accuse me of being a bigot, especially as you don’t know me from a bar of soap. I have plenty of gay friends, and I daresay my wife has even more. And having lived in Thailand for 30 years where gays are not only accepted but even lauded for their artistic talents, I do not deserve to be vilified that way.
Besides, I don’t see any point to gays getting married. They already have all the same rights under the law here as married couples. And let’s face it, do they really want to get married and be as miserable as the rest of us heteros?! lol
It’s different in the USA which is one of the most religious Western countries around. Gays have very few legal rights there, making their situation very different to ours. The fact that our politicians are jumping on the bandwagon after Obama’s statement of support is proof that the whole question has been politicized and the pollies see an opportunity to score points with their electorates, mistakenly believing that the voters will ‘like’ them better for being so ‘liberal’. Don’t forget that our pollies did exactly the same thing when George Bush vilified all Muslims after 9/11. The British and Aussie politicians jumped right in and started braying the same bullshit, even going to war because the Yanks wanted to.
I sincerely believe that only a small number of people in Australia are in favor of gay marriage. Many, like me, are quite happy to let them get on their with their lives (and lifestyles) but marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, as it has been ever since man climbed out of the trees.
Clearly you are living in a fantasy world. Some “gays” want to get married, just like some “straights” want to get married too. Some “gays” don’t want to get married, just like some “straights” don’t want to get married.
As a privileged person in our society you wouldn’t appreciate being discriminated, being told you’re not good enough for something, and denied the right to access it.
There is no justification that you can come up with for denying marriage to any same-sex couple.
Until gay people (yes, we’re people) are allowed to get married, we don’t have the same rights as you. We don’t have the right to get married. Marriage has it’s own special status in society, simply because it’s the “ultimate” relationship status, irrespective of it’s merit.
If you want to live in a miserable marriage, it’s your choice. A no-fault divorce is easy to get these days. Just jump online and a few hundred dollars later you can kiss your miserable marriage goodbye.
While you believe you’re better than me and more entitled to get married, you remain a bigot, and a homophobe, and a douche.
Michael.
@MikeyBear and Craig Jackson, ad hominem attacks just show you don’t have any decent arguments to put forward. If you want to attack me go ahead, but you have lost all credibility with me. MikeyBear, you also accuse me of being ‘privileged’. No idea where you got that from. You don’t even know me, so don’t judge me.
The ideal situation to bring up children is with a male and female partner simply because they provide a balanced role model for the child. Living in a “gay” situation gives the child a skewed view of how the world works. And let’s not forget that gays are notorious for allowing their emotions to rule their lives, so a child seeing this would believe that it’s ok to do that outside the home. Temper tantrums, hissy fits, overt sexual innuendos, all this is likely in a gay environment. That is not normal behavior.
It may be possible for a same-sex couple to bring up a child in a loving environment, but I find it hard to believe based on my personal observations. And as I said before, I have been up close and personal. My anecdote was only one example. You missed the point that I have lived in Asia where “gayness” is common and not stigmatized like it is in the West. But the same problems exist in East and West when it comes to raising children in a gay environment.
That is pure bullshit. Quote your source of evidence that same-sex patents are not as good as opposite-sex parents.
Yes, you are privileged by your heterosexuality. You get marriage by default. You even take it for granted.
You are a bigger fool than I thought.
“And let’s not forget that gays are notorious for allowing their emotions to rule their lives…Temper tantrums, hissy fits, overt sexual innuendos, all this is likely in a gay environment.”
Citation needed.
(There won’t be any, of course.)
Is he talking about the love child of John McEnroe, Shane Warne and Mark Latham there? Or maybe any one of a brazillion heterosexual Hollywood mega-stars who get married one day and break up the next, such as Britney Kardashian. I wonder what it’s like to be so blind to reality.
It seems his stereotypical view of homosexuals is Nathan Lane in ‘The Birdcage’. Sad to see such ignorance so readily displayed. I guess by this assessment, Mikey, you and Gregory aren’t ‘real’ homosexuals – not enough flouncing! So, I wonder if it’s only effeminate gays who shouldn’t be allowed to marry and have kids, since the flouncing seems to be the big issue! 😉
Not everyone gets married because they want to have children and not all couples who have children want to get married, so denying people the right to marry on the basis of ‘what about the kids?!’ argument is spurious, in my view. Deciding who can marry and who can’t on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.
Having said that, the rights of children born into this world via a system of donor eggs, donor sperm, surrogacy and all sorts of other assisted reproductive technology are being subsumed by other factors. Kids need to be able to access biological parents if they choose to, not only for emotional reasons but also for medical reasons. It is an area which has been neglected and needs to be visited as a matter of urgency along with an overhaul of the adoption system to give children already on this planet a chance of a family. Let me stress, I see this issue as separate from the marriage equality issue (which I wholeheartedly support) as it applies equally to heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce without assistance and homosexual couples. I also don’t pretend to have the answers to this highly complex matter…
Mike, you are not homophobic coz you’ve got a gay friend, right?
“Trissy MP” – I can list a string of university Post Graduate qualifications longer than your arm, in multiple disciplines, and I have children, so please don’t give us an “MP” suggesting you know better, most MP’s are not even qualified beyond being law graduates who have virtually gone straight into being career politicians, or something similar, though there are exceptions….If indeed you are an MP I presume you might be a Green(?), if you are not even an MP you are a misrepresentation which seems to happen too on your side much with this issue!!!
@Tony – oh puh-leeze. If you DO have a ‘string of post graduate qualifications longer than your arm’ you should have the basic skills to analyse scholarly research for methodological weakness and ideological bias. Your comments to date suggest you have none of these skills. Either you’re a shocking scholar or a shockiing liar – I’m having some trouble deciding which.
Gladly, I suggest both shocking scholar and shocking liar. Arsewipe also comes to mind.
What an incredibly specious argument. Even if what you say is true, are you suggesting that there aren’t children of heterosexual parents who have behavioural problems or are highly sexualised for various reasons?
I remember some nice, middle-class, heterosexual married friends of mine who had a three year old who happily told his mummy that when he saw those pretty ladies on TV his pee pee went all hard. Should we have stopped them from marrying too?
The overwhelming evidence from credible scientific, psychological and sociological research is that the children of same-sex parents suffer NO disadvantage in comparison with children parented by heterosexuals and, in fact, do better by some measures.
The only thing ‘indisputable’ in your post is your ignorance and homophobia.
And “Gladly…..” I think you are just “gay” (politely) – not that there is any thing wrong with that – but there is something wrong with you raising children without the ideal situation of a Mum and Dad. And you don’t need to spend too time studying up that a child is better off with a mum and a dad as a first preference!!!!!!!…K.I.S.S. principle!
@Tony – for the record Tony (and this is further evidence of your ignorance), not everyone who supports gay rights is gay. I am straight.
In an ideal world, Tony, every child would be parented in a loving and responsible fashion by their biological parents. However in the real world that we live in sometimes biological parents can’t parent their children, for whatever reason. And some of those biological parents who do raise their children are not able to care for them in a loving and responsible fashion. Sometimes they abuse their children or neglect them. Yet in your argument they are the first preference for the children.
You do not see that some biological parents are not good parents, whilst some, if not most, same-sex parents are in fact good parents. Gay couples don’t have unwanted children, nor do they have them by accident.
Your lack of logic and reason on this matter shows that you are biased against same-sex parents in general. Yet you support the notion that all biological parents must be a child’s preferred parents, even if they are not guaranteed to be good parents.
If you are clearly concerned for the welfare of children, you might like to direct your energies at those heterosexual parents who neglect and abuse their children, and leave alone the same-sex parents who want the very best for their children.
You might also want to direct your energies at heterosexual single parents and get them to bring their child’s other parent back on the scene, because no doubt you’d want that parent raising the child, even in they’re abusive, or alcoholic, or neglectful, or don’t want the child, or just bash the living daylights out of the mother. Or maybe the mother doesn’t even know who the father is. And you reckon those heterosexual parents would be best for the child?
Tony, if you are an example of a child raised by heterosexual couple then your argument has a problem. (straight, married, child just in case you want to accuse me of teh gayz).
To all those who argue that two biological, middle class, preferably religious, (though you won’t come out and say that) married heterosexual parents is necessary to some mythical standard of proper child raising, I would like to point out that I am one of many dragged up by such nominally “ideal” parents who were left permanently scarred by abuse, violation, dysfunction and neglect. And that was before they prostituted me to a sexually predatory catholic religious.
By comparison the joint but separate parenting my kids receive from me, a single mum, and my gay former husband and his stable and loving life partner, is a model of love, co-operation, support and nurturing. With a good range of role models, which can always be supplemented by friends (or extended family if they are non toxic).
These kids were born to two married biological parents – a traumatised mother and a controlling and abusive father. Their prospects were not good.
What they have now is so much healthier. It is healthier for reasons that have nothing to do with the sexual orientation or marital status, or even the number or sex of the parents. It is healthier because we are no longer bound by your narrow minded world view and choose to live and to parent in the best possible way for the good of all involved, without reference to what is acceptable to bigots and hypocrites. And our family now breaks the intergenerational cycle of abuse and dysfunction.
But as long as the point you are arguing supports your narrow minded world view, do any of you promoting bigotry and hypocrisy disguised as “family values” actually care what is best for real, not mythical, children?
In terms of lobby group names, “family” is generally code for Christian right (e.g. Australian Family Association, Family First Party, Focus on the Family Australia etc). Surprised that the media generally didn’t pick up on this at all.
I think it is shocking the media did not put any investigatiomn into this crap. None at all. Even the ABC just repeated it.
There are infinitely more examples of heterosexual parents abusing and neglecting their children.
Tony and Mike, CEB’s argument here is not so much about the numbers and the children, as the typical dishonesty.
“Annette Constance Williams” – you are the one being dishonest, you can’t handle the truth!, hence why your “side” continues to use so much dishonesty and deceit with this issue, I actually care beyond my own “selfish needs” – I actually put the children’s best interests first!!! – lets put it to a referendum, surely the children are worth it!?!
Tony, you have not presented any example of dishonesty. The Doctors for the Family are totally exposed as dishonest and unprofessional and bigoted. Their use of their professional credentials is a misuse of those austere ranks. You yourself have just put forward stupidity, spite and bigotry.
Let’s not forget the study quotes from USyd which was paid for by the ACL and Tasmanian businessman and former pastor Michael Vos…
Let’s not forget the author of that study specifically said it did NOT refer to gay parenting.
“pestilent piece of pusillanimous propaganda”
That made me smile…only momentarily though, til the gravity of this issue wiped the smile away.
Like your dissenting commenters above, I too can relate anecdotal stories of children brought up by gay parents, and these children are completely well-adjusted, happy and normal.
The very concerning issue here is the dishonesty of this group claiming their views are informed by their medical background, not their religious views.
Wonderful again, as always, Gladly.
My point exactly Louella.
I love the passion of this piece. I love the downright bravery for researching and exposing these downright lying Christians. I love the way you punctuate the piece with pugilistic pops at the pathetic pretend pastors for the pusillanimous prejudiced.
For Tony and Mike et al they really really need to learn some manners, some compassion and some understanding at what children really need.
Thank you GCEB for standing up and showing up the sneaky and snide side of dangerous bands of fundamentalist voices.
I think that’s the best review I’ve ever had! Thank you! 🙂
I second that whole heartedly.
Gays are deserving of some security in their relationships so some form of legal Union for gays is fair enough – but not marriage. That is between a man and a woman and should stay that way.
Noel, what is your justification for marriage being between a man and a woman? Many other countries have moved beyond that version of marriage.
In Western Society the accepted practice is for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Anything else is a deviation from the norm. I have several gays in my circle of friends so can claim that I am not homophobic and to compare this view with the horrers of apartheid is drawing a long bow. This ‘ version’ of marriage has existed since day one in every civilisation that has arisen in the history of this planet and the fact that some countries have adopted changes do not make them right.
Noel, you need to watch this video to understand what traditional marriage really is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
noel., you argue that because something has been done a particular way in the past, this by itself is a good and self evident reason to arbitrarily refuse to consider evolving or improving. No reference to whether the “norm” is effective, beneficial, or has been imposed and enforced by the self interested and the powerful as the only possible choice.
Vive la mediocracy.
Ah, equal but separate. And here I was thinking only bigots support apartheid.
Noel You are suggesting that the concept of same sex marriage does not and has never existed anywhere in the world in the history of humanity ?
MMMM You need to do some research mate !
Cushla. I have never made any comments at all about children and parenting and I agree that the raising of children by Gays is no different from other couples. However, the point I wish to make is that any legal union between same sex couples should not be called a marriage. The may just be semantics but I still say that marriage is between a man and a woman and comments that this has not always been the case have not been backed up with facts.
Noel, despite your belief that you “are not homophobic”, you final remark: “the fact that some countries have adopted changes do not make them right” exposes that for the self-delusional lie it is.
As for your claim that marriage actually has an absolute definition as a union between male and female, that, too, is a delusion. Albeit one with a considerable following.
Western society has had many varieties of marriage in its long history – homosexual unions amongst them – there is no “norm” when making such a large claim. Besides, the deviation from the “norm”, which you find so alarming, is the way social evolution is achieved. Had we not “deviated from the norm” over the years, women would have no rights, marriage by abduction would still be legal, heretics and homosexuals would still be burnt at the stake, and the holding of surfs and slaves would be the cornerstone stone of our economy.
We fail to evolve at our own peril.
Referring to an earlier post of yours: although others have debunked your claims re the necessity for heterosexual parents, can I draw your attention to the appalling statistics for the failure of this arrangement? A little honest research on your behalf will demonstrate that heterosexual parents are possibly MORE likely to neglect or abuse their children than homosexual ones; perhaps because they are not come by so easily? The unfortunate child in Thailand you reference (if he actually exists) was very probably a victim of that country’s lax treatment of its children, and the international child sex trade. Children there are not infrequently sold into sexual servitude before they reach puberty – and for those persons favouring paederasty, it is not too difficult to obtain a tiny slave or either sex. Those people are not parents – they are criminals.
Ordinary homosexuals are NOT paedophiles, any more than ordinary heterosexuals. Those opposing same-sex marriage have made considerable use of this canard, but it is a fact – verifiable, if you bother to look at the literature – that adult homosexual males are no more likely to predate children than adult heterosexuals; like most men, they prefer their bedmates to be grown up.
As for children needing parents of both sexes to develop satisfactorily – I am the child of a sole parent. My father died when I was very young, and along with my five siblings, I was raised by my mother. Admittedly, I had no “second mother” in my life, but I am here, 67 years old, holding university degrees, trade qualifications, and a lifetime’s experience of dealing with the hurt, and the damaged products of heterosexual marriage, to tell you that a child CAN be raised without male and female parents, and can achieve mature adulthood without developing dreadful psychological defects. On the other hand, a child can be raised in a heterosexual marriage, with both parents living, and emerge more damaged than if she/he had been an orphan from birth.
If you wish to be of any use to the world, Tony – stop trying to dictate to others how to live their lives, and go out into the world with your eyes open, looking to see what is really happening to the children – and learn to help heal, rather than help perpetrate harm to those who are harming no-one.
Cushla Geary
Cushla, nice reply. Alternatively, or in addition, there’s this wonderful resource to refer to: http://erebusnekromantia.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-same-sex-marriage-chronicle/
Noel, and yet in many Western, civilised countries on this planet their government’s definitions of marriage and marriage legilsation include same-sex couples. So it looks like you’re out of touch with reality.
Oh dear, Noel, spare us the ‘some of my best friends are gay’ cant!
Pingback: …here's a whosit » Blog Archive » Christians bearing false witness
the question remains why they are ashamed or frightened to nail their colours to the mast and state proudly and without fear that they are christians and this is a christian belief ?
Precisely.
Because they’d observed what short shrift other fanatics have been given when they hoist their flag – this lot obviously believe in obtaining their goals under false colours.
They aren’t afraid. the arrogant pricks use their qualifications as an argument from authority. They should be stripped of their positions.
“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” -Mark 8:38
From their own book !!!
Pingback: Drs 4 Family “disingenuous” about their religious beliefs says critic « No Place For Sheep
Pingback: Doctors for the Family – Debunked « Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear
@Tony: in response to (quote):”Cushla. I have never made any comments at all about children and parenting and I agree that the raising of children by Gays is no different from other couples. However, the point I wish to make is that any legal union between same sex couples should not be called a marriage. The may just be semantics but I still say that marriage is between a man and a woman and comments that this has not always been the case have not been backed up with facts.”(end quote)
My sincere apologies – the comments about the unfortunate child in Thailand were made by your supporter, Mike Holt, although you did preface your initial post with this declaration, which seems to imply grave concerns for the children of married Gays: (start quote) “…the question that should be asked is not about support for “gay marriage” but instead – what about the children!!! – and that should be the leading issue in all this debate instead of HIDING the real issue, the children behind a “gay marriage” question! ” (end quote)
But maybe I misread this, and you have no concerns regarding the welfare of children born to same-sex couples?
As for the petty argument about what you call a marriage when it doesn’t conform to your specifications: the word “marriage” is not specific to the union of male and female humans – in fact, it means the joining of two complementary parts (hence the marriage of electrical units, of chemical components, and more attractively, Shakespeare’s “marriage of true minds”). Given that the word has been applied to such diverse concepts, there seems absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t apply to any two people joined together in a formal union for the purpose of co-habitation for life.
Incidentally, you are mistaken about the exclusivity of monogamous heterosexual marriage in Western culture – there is considerable evidence to support the view that homosexual unions have been both accepted, and formalised in certain Western societies within the past two millenia. Although why that should be of concern to a modern, secular and democratic society, I am at a loss to comprehend – I have been married (heterosexually) for the last 45 years, and have no fears that I’ll be “less” married if my Lesbian friends are permitted to achieve that state!
Cushla Geary
BTW: My apologies for responding out of order – I simply cannot work out how to reply to the “reply” to a previous post.
Cushla
Same problem here Tamlyn123. I’m outta here.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/antigay-stance-leads-to-quit-offer-20120514-1yn51.html
wonderful article
Just wondering if conservative gays ie homcons in the us could also do the same thing within the gay context
That would be an interesting scenario wouldnt it?
Sad but true
Pingback: Dr Catherine Lennon – Any means to a ‘moral’ end? | Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear