Same sex marriage and doctors

A significant number of members of the Australian Medical Association have written a letter in favour of same sex marriage (although they are critical of those who use that term rather than ‘marriage equality’)

As a body of medical professionals we are concerned at the move by some of our colleagues to speak out against Marriage Equality. Referring to it as “same‐sex” marriage underscores some of the hurdles that are still to be overcome. The move for change is an issue of redressing a wrong, whereby the previous status quo has been to deny some sectors of our community the ability to access a fundamental right that is enjoyed by the majority. In much the same way as when racism was the norm people referred to “marriage” and “interracial marriage”, we now have individuals isolating some members of our community by placing their relationships in a different class: “same‐sex marriage.” As a group, our first step in addressing the injustices against this sector of our community is to be diligent in using the terms “marriage” and “marriage equality”

They are quite wrong here – ‘same sex marriage’ is a far more accurate descriptor than the loose words ‘marriage equality’. My wife and I have long practiced equality in our marriage.

But the most outrageous part of the letter is the claim

The emotional distress to the LGBQTI community of having a group of doctors publicly speak out against them being able to access fundamental human rights will show its effects in increased depression, anxiety, self‐harm, and suicidal behaviours.

The footnote has three papers that have been cited, not one of which has anything to do with same sex marriage. One would hope that the many doctors who signed the letter had better research capacity, but apparently not. I want my doctor to understand clinical trials and good evidence, not make a claim which is not backed by evidence. There has been no scientifically valid study that shows that LGBTI people in Australia – who enjoy exactly the same protections in their same sex relationships as married heterosexual couples – are more likely to have depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal behaviours because they cannot call their relationship a ‘marriage’.

By all means argue for same-sex marriage. Even call it marriage equality if you must. But don’t try to submit Australians to emotional blackmail on the basis of a false claim of depression etc.

Do these doctors really believe that allowing same sex relationships – which have the same protections as marriage – to become marriages will suddenly reduce mental illness among LGBTI people? That’s absurd.

Perhaps Australians will vote in favour of same sex marriage. But they are more likely to vote ‘no’ if they feel bullied into a particular viewpoint.

I’m seriously considering voting ‘no’ because of the crap that the marriage equality lobby having been putting around. And yet I could care less about same sex marriage – I’m ambivalent and if a gay couple wish to call their relationship a marriage it doesn’t worry me in the slightest. But it concerns me a great deal to be subject to emotional blackmail and bullying.

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Same sex marriage and doctors

  1. Confused Old Misfit

    What bloody hurdles are there to be overcome? They a;ready enjoy exactly the same rights as heterosexual unions.
    The drive to change the Marriage Act is part of the continuing effort by the so called progressive left to subvert language to its own use.
    It is disappointing that LQC is ambivalent about the nomenclature. A general of any standing should recognise the damage the loss of the choice of battlefield will do to the odds of a victory.

  2. RobK

    Augusto Zimmermann did a well researched reply in Quadrant on line.
    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/08/childrens-welfare-sex-families/
    Final considerations

    One of the primary concerns of a fair and compassionate society is to make sure its government implements policies that represent the best interests of all citizens, including children. As seen in this article, the most creditable social-science research available indicate that, broadly speaking, children raised by heterosexual married couples do far better by almost every measure than those who grow up in same-sex family configurations.

    If we believe that a medical association should rely on the best research available, not personal opinion, the AMA president should be forced to withdraw such far-reaching comments. As for doctors affiliated to such association, continuing to pay subscription may convey the message that they endorse such unsubstantiated claims, and that the AMA leadership can get away with a purely political point-scoring move like this. Thankfully, about 400 medical doctors, including 26 professors, have since signed a letter protesting the AMA’s politicisation of a fundamental debate, which is particularly detrimental to the well-being of children and the homosexual community itself in this country.”

  3. JohnA

    And we should all note that so far no-one has been prepared to draft legislation representing the actual change to the Marriage Act, nor document the putative protections to be afforded to adherents of religions (mainly Christian variety), and proponents of free speech.

    And no-one is saying anything about the swift moves towards the erosion or blatant removal of said protections in places such as the UK and Ireland, once the change in definition was actually passed.

    Since we dared not to trust our politicians with a Republic of no fixed form, why should we be stupid enough to do it with this – the equivalent of trying to repeal the law of gravity?

  4. Rabz

    A man cannot be married to a man, just as a woman cannot be married to a woman.

    The concept is utterly absurd.

    Yet, here our terminally degenerate society is, engaged in a furious mass debate on this obscene, irrelevant idiocy.

    Beyond parody, beyond lunacy, beyond belief.

  5. H B Bear

    Doctors are now doctors’ wives.

  6. Rabz

    Not quite, Bear, the Doctors Reform Society has become the AMA.

    Conquest’s Law in action, yet again.

  7. Rayvic

    Although many Australians erroneously assume that there is material discrimination against same-sex couples, under current law same-sex couples are already treated ‘equal’ to opposite-sex couples. Few know about the 85 laws changed in 2008 giving same-sex couples equality under the law with heterosexual couples.

    SSM advocates have proven themselves to be violent and vitriolic.

    From what transpired in Canada following marriage redefinition about 10 years ago, the recent homosexual activist attacks, viz. on Christian-owned Coopers Brewery, and on IBM and PwC for hiring Christians who were members of Christian groups, are indicative of the bullying that would become commonplace should marriage be redefined in Australia.

    As LQC argues, there is no scientific evidence that shows that LGBTI people in Australia are more likely to have depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal behaviours because they cannot call their relationship a ‘marriage’

    It becomes increasingly clear that a logical, fact-based argument for SSM does not exist. Since SSM activists cannot hold their own against the biologically based, natural argument for traditional marriage, they must resort to demonising traditional marriage supporters, and using any means necessary to silence them.

  8. Rayvic

    It is notable that Rowan Dean in Spectator Australia in countering Janet Albrechtsen’s ‘conservative argument’ for SSM, said:
    Unfortunately, the evidence from overseas suggests that rather than strengthening the conservative nature of marriage, ‘marriage equality’ will irrevocably weaken it, if not destroy it altogether. The ferocious determination of the more extreme ends of the endless LGBTIQ etc community is clearly to remake marriage in their own fashion; an infinitely flexible and malleable concept based on ‘love’ and ‘identity’ gratification…

  9. In much the same way as when racism was the norm people referred to “marriage” and “interracial marriage”, we now have individuals isolating some members of our community by placing their relationships in a different class: “same‐sex marriage.” The LGBQTI community are not seeking a form of marriage different to that accessed legally by the rest of the community…

    It is amazing just how dumb some doctors are, and yet we put them on a pedal-stool. They are in fact seeking a different form of relationship which is substantiated by the need to redefine marriage as it has been understood for the last 3000 years in Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Western Christian Civilization. Further, the analogy regarding laws against interracial marriages which only appeared in a very few jurisdictions in the late 18th, 19th and 20th C, and the failure to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’ is absurd. No one denied that interracial marriages were marriages as is the case with same-sex unions. The reasons provided for making interracial opposite-sex unions illegal had nothing to do with marriage itself, whereas the reasons given for not recognizing same-sex unions as marriage have everything to do with it being structurally different from opposite-sex unions.

  10. In much the same way as when racism was the norm people referred to “marriage” and “interracial marriage”, we now have individuals isolating some members of our community by placing their relationships in a different class: “same‐sex marriage.” The LGBQTI community are not seeking a form of marriage different to that accessed legally by the rest of the community…

    It is amazing just how dumb some doctors are, and yet we put them on a pedal-stool. They are in fact seeking a different form of relationship which is substantiated by the need to redefine marriage as it has been understood for the last 3000 years in [email protected], Greek, Roman, and Western Christian Civilization. Further, the analogy regarding laws against interracial marriages which only appeared in a very few jurisdictions in the late 18th, 19th and 20th C, and the failure to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’ is absurd. No one denied that interracial marriages were marriages as is the case with same-sex unions. The reasons provided for making interracial opposite-sex unions illegal had nothing to do with marriage itself, whereas the reasons given for not recognizing same-sex unions as marriage have everything to do with it being structurally different from opposite-sex unions.

  11. In much the same way as when racism was the norm people referred to “marriage” and “interracial marriage”, we now have individuals isolating some members of our community by placing their relationships in a different class: “same‐sex marriage.” The LGBQTI community are not seeking a form of marriage different to that accessed legally by the rest of the community…

    It is amazing just how dumb some doctors are, and yet we put them on a pedal-stool. They are in fact seeking a different form of relationship which is substantiated by the need to redefine marriage as it has been understood for the last 3000 years in [email protected], Greek, Roman, and Western Christian Civilization. Further, the analogy regarding laws against interracial marriages which only appeared in a very few jurisdictions in the late 18th, 19th and 20th C, and the failure to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’ is absurd. No one denied that interracial marriages were marriages as is the case with same-sex unions. The reasons provided for making interracial opposite-sex unions illegal had nothing to do with marriage itself, whereas the reasons given for not recognizing same-sex unions as marriage have everything to do with it being structurally different from opposite-sex unions.

  12. Peter

    Even call it marriage equality if you must.

    No.

    The Marriage Act does not discriminate. Gays can and do get married legally in Australia, and have done so for years. I well remember Elton John’s Sydney wedding back in 1984

    Aha you say, but they can’t get married to each other! Well, I can’t marry my sister either. What’s your point?

  13. Craig

    I’m voting no just to spite the intolerant bigoted bastards

  14. Herodotus

    By calling racism the doctors are helping along Orwell’s proposition that Newspeak would be promoted to decrease people’s ability to express any complex thoughts. By reducing the vocabulary and redefining words, this will be achieved.
    Eventually they’ll have just one pejorative to hurl, a word used for every situation. Racist is well on the way to becoming that word.

  15. cynical1

    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

    Homosexuals role playing man and wife is an abomination.

    How the fuck can a man be a wife? Or a woman a husband?

    Just add them to “Gay” “Rainbow” and many other words already bastardized by the homosexual mafia.

  16. The medical profession in this country would do well to jettison whatever ideology it is that has overtaken their association.
    Medicine is a field that must adhere to the scientific method, or else it becomes the plaything of shamen, myths, and witchcraft. The AMA already ignore the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of ‘global warming’, or that atmospheric carbon dioxide has the remotest effect on temperature.
    The ideology to which the profession has succumbed is bent on social engineering the destruction of Western Civilisation. Vote EARLY. Vote OFTEN. Vote NO!

  17. A Lurker

    Same-Sex Marriage is so limiting, which is why activists prefer the term Marriage Equality.
    Marriage Equality reflects all the different combinations within the current age of consent.
    After all. Love is Love.

    Polygamy

    Then when incest is legalised.
    Dad + Adult Daughter/Son (birth control eliminates the issue of birth defects)
    Mum + Adult Daughter/Son (birth control eliminates the issue of birth defects)
    Adult Sibling +Adult Sibling (birth control eliminates the issue of birth defects)

    Then, when you lower the age of consent (which some activists are agitating for).
    Adult + Child/Children

    Just wait and see. SSM is simply the first turn down this particular slippery slope.

  18. cynical1

    Just wait and see. SSM is simply the first turn down this particular slippery slope.

    You forgot the Muslims wanting a harem…

  19. struth

    I’m seriously considering voting ‘no’ because of the crap that the marriage equality lobby having been putting around. And yet I could care less about same sex marriage – I’m ambivalent and if a gay couple wish to call their relationship a marriage it doesn’t worry me in the slightest. But it concerns me a great deal to be subject to emotional blackmail and bullying.

    Do a little bit more research.

    I had the same opinion, but Cultural Marxists will use this to destroy families.
    They do not deny this.
    They believe the state should be in total control of the kiddies.
    This is a desired, and necessary stated goal.
    Safe schools will have a field day………………………..that will continue the next day, and the next and the next and the next………………………

    Don’t expect a government form, or any politically correct (Marxist correct) organisation to use the terms Mother or Father.
    Think of the implications of this.
    This has got more to do with the state (Marxists) gaining control over our kids than anything else.
    This is exactly the Alinsky rules for radicals way.
    This is their text book (read it for yourself) attack on the west by cultural Marxism.
    It’s why no one is asking a Muslim nation to look at it’s marriage laws or open it’s borders.
    It’s no less than war on our civilisation from within.

  20. Alan

    The above comments on the 2008 amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are absolutely correct – the Greens and Nick Xenophon assented to the legislation, aligning full legal equality to all provisions as defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) s 5. These included all property settlements, spousal maintenance, superannuation splitting and financial agreements provisions.

    The “Civil” Union amendments were specifically designed for “non-spiritual” couples (agnostics, atheists etc) joined by a judge, celebrant, JoP or ship’s captain etc; basically someone empowered by the state to conduct a *secular* ceremony and confer full legal rights … whereas the “Marriage” Union remained within the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) for couples joined by a “minister of religion”: ie priest, rabbi, or other individual with “spiritual” authority to conduct a “religious” ceremony.

    See other Govt websites here and here regards the enabling legislation: Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws–General Law Reform) Act 2008

    There was even some news about it.

    These changes were the result of international agreements, as recently shown by a Qld Lawyer.
    Australia ratified and then extended the right to equality under the ICCPR Treaty Articles 2 & 26.
    Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee [see p.22 – para 68] and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage.

  21. candy

    As they call conservatives “racists” – very mean – extreme indeed – I think it would be wise not to consult them.

    Indeed, if they knew a patient was of conservative leanings too, I doubt one would get the best treatment, as they would see you as a “racist” or even the equivalent “Nazi”. Best avoid them, I think. I would be doubtful they could provide the best medical advice. Or at least don’t in anyway engage in chit chat or friendly doctor patient relationship. You don’t want to be marked down as a “racist” in their notes. So be careful.

  22. Leo G

    They are quite wrong here – ‘same sex marriage’ is a far more accurate descriptor than the loose words ‘marriage equality’.

    “Marriage equality” implies an agenda for further rights-based claims once the “same-sex marriage” goal has been scored.

  23. Vagabond

    The other way round Rabz, the AMA has become the Doctors Reform Society. I’m a (reluctant) member of the Victorian AMA, paid for by my employer. In the last few years the long march has gone right through them and they have embraced every left social justice cause you can imagine. The most nauseating article I have ever seen was in their Victorian rag when Hazelwood closed, produced by some lefty front organization that nobody had ever heard of called ‘doctors for the environment’ or some such. The AMA is a lost cause. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see them embrace anti-vaccination.

  24. Bruce

    The AMA represents a lot of folk who should be in jail.

    The toll of death and maiming by “medical misadventure” in this country is staggering.

    More people die at the hands of these people than from many other “high profile” causes.

    Healer, heal thyself.

  25. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    But it concerns me a great deal to be subject to emotional blackmail and bullying.

    It concerns me even more that young children, from their earliest years right into the period of their developing into young men and women, will be subject to the sorts of emotional blackmail and bullying that we have seen so far concerning ‘gender fluidity’. It is abusive and even criminal to confuse young children and adolescents concerning their normal sexual development, as is beginning to happen in our schools and universities already. This lies ahead if the Nation votes ‘Yes’ and there will be no right of reply.

    All we will get will be further intrusions limiting our freedom of speech, action, and belief, plus the diminution, denigration and eventually dismissal of our roles as mothers and fathers within natural families. Parent 1 and Parent 2, then parenthood itself will dissolve, and we will have Special Person 1 and Special Person 2 to 5, 10, 15, 20 etc. Eventually, Government Officer District 9 will replace the whole lot. Dystopian? You bet. Until we laugh it out of existence.

    Rabz is perfectly correct. The whole thing is utterly ludicrous. Unless they win. In which case, see you in the 5th column re-education camp, Rabz, where we can continue La Resistance.
    Special Cat signal is scratch two ears simultaneously and look bewildered. 🙂

  26. Senile Old Guy

    Excellent post by Lizzie. Her points about the young and freedom of speech are why we should all vote “no”.

  27. Suburban Boy

    LQC, you have a very short memory.

    I, for one, am still traumatised by the news reports from the Irish referendum on SSM a couple of years back. The devastating wave of suicides by young gay people was horrendous. The morgues were quickly filled up, and so grieving parents were forced to leave the bodies of their gay children in huge stacks on the footpath outside.

    Never again!

  28. I keep wavering on this issue.
    Sometimes I think nah, fuck ’em, I’m not letting those bastards lead us down the slippery slope where Aussie Muzzies will be able to get their wish of polygamy into law.
    Then I think to myself, these lezbos and pooftas don’t know what they’re in for. Over 60% of marriages break down, and mostly in tragic circumstances. Add to that the fact that domestic violence is highest among the lezbo and poofta community, we’re looking at the escalation of a terrible situation into a tragic one. They deserve that tragedy for their abysmal behaviour in this debate, so let ’em have it.

    But I’m not a cruel person, so I’ll be voting no to save these poor bastards from themselves. If we delay this for a few years more, stats from other countries will start to come in, people will wake up.

  29. DrBeauGan

    I too have no objection to two blokes or two sheilas describing their relationship as a marriage. That’s not what this is about. It’s about them trying to force meto call it a marriage. And everyone else, particularly Catholics.

  30. Konrad

    I would ask readers concerned about the appalling behaviour of the “Yes” protesters to think about something. Have you ever seen the real gay community acting like that before? No? Well that’s because most of those protesters are not actually part of the gay community. They are GetUp, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, Antifa and National Union of Students perennial protesters.

    As a member of the gay community, I have been proud to work on organising a float in the Sydney Mardi Gras for over a decade. What started as a street protest against police violence in 1978, became a pride parade and now a celebration and huge tourist attraction. It brings $50 million into city every year. The goodwill the parade attracts both here and internationally is significant. Good weather can see a cheering crowd of 400,000 people lining Oxford street. After the left have done their work, I’m not sure there will be crowds or cheering next year.

    These leftist protest groups are trashing the good standing the gay community has worked hard on. Groups like Antifa, GetUp, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance and the National Union of Students are not helping anything. I wish they would take their well worn megaphones, their freshly acquired rainbow flags (still with the packaging creases), their $oros funded mass produced posters, their hate and their violence and just go away. These groups claim to be helping the gay community, when really they are just looking for people to fight. The gay community has never needed angry haters before and they are not needed now.

    Not all of the gay community even care about SSM, as the law already has equal recognition of same sex life partnerships. But we are all being harmed by the actions of leftist protesters.

  31. anonandon

    To quote George Carlin “guesswork in a white coat”

  32. LGS

    If a conservative makes ostensibly controversial or outrageous claims, he is excoriated even if he can back it up with facts.
    But leftists – like many at the AMA – can make the most outrageous claims and get away with it, and without a shred of evidence to back them up.

  33. Chris M

    Any footnotes from the doctors about have safe gay anal sex is?

    Probably the same bunch pushing to have homosexual blood donations accepted.

  34. Chris M

    *how

    Point is if they are writing as doctors only the health aspect is relevant. And as Lucy points out their argument in this case is completely dud which speaks to their skills as doctors.

  35. mh

    I’m seriously considering voting ‘no’ because of the crap that the marriage equality lobby having [sic] been putting around.

    Seriously considering, Quinny? FFS man, there is nothing libertarian about voting for SSM at this point in time. It’s being pushed by fascists. Frenzied people who will congregate outside a function in Melbourne where Australian sporting legend Margaret Court is attending all because Court supports the current legislation – which was overwhelmingly supported by parliament only five years ago!

  36. LGS

    Chris M
    #2493013, posted on September 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm
    Any footnotes from the doctors about have safe gay anal sex is?

    Frank discussion about the actual and greater risks to health in performing gay sex is verboten in this day and age. It seems PC expediency supersedes health concerns now.
    We have forgotten all about the old AIDS campaigns – even if that is far from being the only homosexually-transmitted disease.

  37. Tel

    Not all of the gay community even care about SSM, as the law already has equal recognition of same sex life partnerships. But we are all being harmed by the actions of leftist protesters.

    Anyone in a fringe lifestyle type group who supports socialists is an idiot.

    Fundamentally, socialism is about envy, it is about central control, and socialists cannot tolerate difference. Only freedom and liberty can be the paths towards people living their own life on their own terms.

    But why don’t those gays speak up who are uninterested in this new leftist agenda? Well we know why, because the left reserve their most extreme hate for anyone attempting to escape their plantation.

  38. Lem

    A significant number of members of the Australian Medical Association have written a letter in favour of same sex marriage (although they are critical of those who use that term rather than ‘marriage equality’)

    Are you sure it is a significant number? On what do you base this assertion?

    I could just as easily say most doctors don’t give two hoots about whether gays can marry under the marriage act or not. Just because third year medical student got 2000 signatures (maybe mostly other medical students, I don’t know) how does that constitute a significant number of doctors?

    In fact the brouhaha that broke out was a fight with doctors mounting a No case on the issue I thought. So apparently there is a dichotomy of position on the issue amongst members of the AMA.

  39. Boambee John

    Konrad

    Have you ever seen the real gay community acting like that before? No? Well that’s because most of those protesters are not actually part of the gay community. They are GetUp, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, Antifa and National Union of Students perennial protesters.

    Good point, will the gay community speak out to reject these “supporters”?

  40. Ian George

    If SSM is approved, then we will be able to dispense with the meme that it is critical that a young child needs its mother.
    There will be many men who may be able to use this when contesting custody of their young children.

  41. stackja

    Yes supporters want a socialist dictatorship. First change marriage, then change the family, then change children. Stalinism again. Big Brother love.

  42. Crossie

    I’m seriously considering voting ‘no’ because of the crap that the marriage equality lobby having been putting around. And yet I could care less about same sex marriage – I’m ambivalent and if a gay couple wish to call their relationship a marriage it doesn’t worry me in the slightest. But it concerns me a great deal to be subject to emotional blackmail and bullying.

    Gays can call themselves married now, nobody is stopping them. What’s more, they already have all relationship rights and privileges that heterosexuals do. The aim of new legislation is to humiliate Christians and force them to recant what Christ taught. That’s all.

  43. Nerblnob

    Konrad, your contribution is appreciated and is in line with what little I knew first-hand of gay people’s opinions before the whole gay marriage circus cranked up when the rabble realised it was a wedge issue they could exploit.

    They don’t give a fuck about you, or any gay person per se, They certainly don’t give a fuck about marriage, gay, straight or multiple. They just need a peg to hang their tantrums on.

  44. Cynic of Ayr

    Oh, I’m not seriously considering voting No, I AM voting No.
    In fact, it’s difficult in the sensible part of the country to find someone who is voting Yes, if they are not mentally different.
    All seemingly valid arguments aside, the most compelling argument for a No vote, is the incessant yelling, abusing, threatening, “Do as I tell you”, so-called arguments from the Yes side.
    I am voting No because the NRL told me not to. The AMA, all sorts of weird little organisations with their head up their bum, thinking they are important, and much, much smarter than I am, also told me not to vote No.
    I am voting No because every pompous, self assured, actor or actress, or head on a TV told me not to.
    So, if there is a NO result, and I sincerely hope there is, there will be no one but pompous doctors, actors, actresses, football players and the queer people themselves to blame, as they all prove themselves to be liars and cheats.

  45. Stan

    “…I couldn’t care less…”

    Typo correction aside, I’ll also be voting NO to spite the intolerant, abusive, bigoted haters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *