The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Doctors should stick with majority > Comments

Doctors should stick with majority : Comments

By Robert Battisti, published 16/5/2012

Doctors for the Family is wrong to go against the medical professional organisations that recognise the validity of same sex relationships for children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Speaking of the family, and particularly the nuclear family which is championed by so called conservatives, there is a very interesting essay on family and child raising on the Age website this morning by George Monbiot. It is titled Truth Is the Forgotten Family Virtue.

It completely shreds the various mythologies re the supposed norm and preciousness of the exclusive nuclear family.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 9:01:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
- Robert, why can't the gay community be happy that they can co-habit as they choose?
- Why do they have to force their agenda on the 90% of folk who are heterosexual?
- Why do they have to bring innocent children into their relationships?
- Why do they continue to use shreds of so-called evidence to support their demands that they make wonderful parents?
- Why are they destroying the meaning of the word 'marriage'?
- Why are they attacking doctors who hold a different view?

Robert, if two men or two women want to live together, who cares. It's no big deal anymore. Let's leave it at that, eh!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Daffy Duck on George Monbiot's article. For those interested, it can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/truth-is-the-forgotten-family-value-20120515-1youb.html
It's high time we passed this legislation and got it off the agenda. The ongoing debate is doing more to divide us than passing an enabling law ever will.
There's an old adage that applies here. It goes something like, It doesn't matter what you do as long as you don't do it in the road and scare the horses.
As long as they are loved and nurtured, any children involved will be fine.
Let's move on.
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:13:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'What is most concerning is that the group is implying that same-sex marriage will "normalise" homosexual behaviour, thereby increasing health risks.'

Anyone with half a brain knows that kids mimmick their parents in all sorts of ways including sexual preference. Why do you think so many swap from homo/lesbian to straight. It is idiotic to deny that this is a lifestyle choice for many.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:20:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, if you stop and reflect for a moment you should realise that homosexuals come from the union of two heterosexuals who generally are the ones who nurture them. If your argument was true, then there would be no homosexuals.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:33:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Battisti may not realise it but his whole rant is an attack on free speech. I may or may not agree with the “Doctors for the Family” that is not the issue. However they have every right to express their opinion. That is the issue!

The Battisti article is an outrageous attack on free speech. Following the arguments of the late Karl Popper, the intolerance displayed in this paper places the author among the enemies of the open society.

One other thing, what is the consequence of so called gay marriage? A pair of homosexuals-big deal!
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:48:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The way medicine is progressed and discovered and better performed is by Doctors working with original ideas from the assumed majority based on medical ethics.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G

Your second point should be corrected to " Why do they have to force their agenda on the 98% of folk who are heterosexual?". Less than 2% of the population is homosexual.

The rest of your points are spot on
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 1:51:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus what do you mean by “working with original ideas from the assumed majority based on medical ethics.”

Doctors like everybody else are entitled to their own individual opinions and ethical viewpoints. You must know that there are many hotly disputed issues both within the profession as well as the in the wider community. I mention a few examples such as abortion, genetic advice, euthanasia, end of life decisions and so on.

True a local group may take a majority vote on this or that issue, but such votes are not binding and may not be representative of the society as a whole. I would have thought it most unlikely that a person living in a Western Culture would react in the same way as say somebody living in an Islamic, or Chinese or Hindu culture to these issues.

It is sufficient that doctors act within the law. Further it has to be admitted that the law is not uniform worldwide but varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 1:53:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, please note the following:

"The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, which has been conducting scientifically designed surveys on homosexuality for close to 30 years – far longer than the U.S. Census Bureau – found the percentage of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the United States in 2008 was 2 percent – a number that has been stable since the late ‘80s, according to Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at NORC."

Your 2% figure is spot on and came as a surprise to me. I thought it was nearer 1:10.

How come we allow 2% of the population to generate so much angst for the other 98%?
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 2:56:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How come we allow 2% of the population to generate so much angst for the other 98%?"
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 2:56:00 PM

Its not angst for 98% - more like 2-6% that are the ultra-conservative religious that have some thing about how they think it might affect them.

The rest are ambivalent or mostly see it as an equal rights thing. Moreover, probably only half of that 2% - i.e. 1% - want the right to get married, anyway.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 3:31:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So this is the new strategy by the Religious Right: if you criticise our demands to say and do exactly what we want, you are engaging in 'hate speech'. Thus the very mechanism set up to protect minorities and the persecuted is turned into a weapon to try and protect bigots' privileges and hateful values. It's happening in Canada and it's happening here. Hopefully by now, though, most people are well-informed and rational enough to see through it.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 3:41:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not in the majority, therefore you have no right to your opinion. Got it.

Seems reasonable...
Posted by rational-debate, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 4:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey David G,

I see you have lots of questions! I'm here to help...

Q. why can't the gay community be happy that they can co-habit as they choose?

A. Your question contains a false premise. Members of the "gay community" can't choose to cohabit as a married couple.

Furthermore, that you have to even ask such a question demonstrates an utter lack of empathy and understanding. Given your admission that you don't have a clue why members of the gay community aren't happy, your uninformed opinions must count for very little in this debate.

Q. Why do they have to force their agenda on the 90% of folk who are heterosexual?

A. Your question contains a false premise. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.

Furthermore, if you are actually concerned about agendas being "forced" onto people (which I know you're not really), why do you not question the Christian lobby who unequivocally wish to force all Australians to obey their religious doctrine?

Q. Why do they have to bring innocent children into their relationships?

A. Why does anyone have to bring innocent children into their relationships?

[more...]
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 4:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...continued]

Q. Why do they continue to use shreds of so-called evidence to support their demands that they make wonderful parents?

A. If by "shreds of so-called evidence" you mean "evidence", then it is entirely appropriate to cite evidence in order to refute the suprious claims of religious zealots who proffer personal opinion disguised as medical fact.

Q. Why are they destroying the meaning of the word 'marriage'?

A. Your question contains a false premise. "Change" is not "destruction".

Traditionally, the meaning of the word "marriage" has constantly changed, so if you're honestly concerned about changing the meaning of the word "marriage", your question really ought to be: "Why are women no longer chattel?"

Q. Why are they attacking doctors who hold a different view?

A. "They" are not attacking doctors _because_ they hold a different view. This small group of doctors is being taken to task for their incomplete and misleading statements regarding evidence, and for the duplicitous stance of pushing what is really a religious agenda by using the reputation of the medical profession.

I hope that clears everything up for you. If you've got any other questions you'd like answered, don't hesitate to ask!

Regards,
Jimmy :-)
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 4:57:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Homosexuals it has been stated are a minority, and should not impose on the majority.
Yet those minority homosexuals as full taxpaying citizens of Australia, are to be denied asking for something that will have no affect or cost to the majority, but only improve the wellbeing and happiness of those minority homosexuals
The minority homosexuals will continue to pay their full taxes, and happy that those taxes are going to support and benefit the majority, is that not what a civilised society is about.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 6:10:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@David G you don't seem to realise how irrational your points are. Let me highlight by using the same comments as if directed at the aboriginal community. You could put any minority group there.

DG - why can't the *aboriginal* community be happy that they can co-habit as they choose?

Why should they settle for less than full marriage if that is what they want?

DG - Why do they have to force their agenda on the 90% of folk who are not *aboriginal*?

They are not forcing an agenda on anyone, they are seeking to have equal rights. You are suggesting forcing discrimination on them.

DG - Why do *aboriginals* have to bring innocent children into their relationships?

As there is no harm to the children, as many humans instinctively wish to raise children, why should they not, just like everyone else?

DG - Why do *aboriginals* continue to use shreds of so-called evidence to support their demands that they make wonderful parents?

Many homosexuals do make wonderful parents. Many in the heterosexual community make awful parents. Are we going to ban all people from having kids if they don't measure up to some standard?

DG - Why are *aboriginals* destroying the meaning of the word 'marriage'?

What are you talking about? The meaning of marriage is, and has always been, the highest recognised commitment in our society for people who love one another. Additional couples have included having children, although that has never been universal. Nothing is being destroyed at all.

DG - Why are *aboriginals* attacking doctors who hold a different view?

No one is attacking doctors at all. They are attacking false and misleading statements that happen to have been put forward by doctors who have put their prejudice above their profession.

DG - Robert, if two men or two women want to live together, who cares. It's no big deal anymore. Let's leave it at that, eh!

You're right. Its no big deal. Let them get married if they wish and leave them alone.
Posted by Dan Dare, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 6:27:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree with the title of the article, plenty can be gained when members of a group express a differing opinion to the majority.

What I don't like is when that opinion is expressed without reasonable disclosure of key material which might impact on how the differing opinion was formed. In this case it appears that many of the doctors involved have strong christian beliefs.

That should not preclude them from having and expressing an opinion but if they care to tell us that they are doctors but stay quiet about a shared religious faith that seems somewhat less than honest.

The issue of disclosure can become a great point for nit pickers but I get the impression that this is an instance where the faiths of those signing the letter is relevant and should have been disclosed. Keeping a shared faith quite and advertising shared medical credentials seems somewhat less that honest on an issue where a religious faith is likely to be a significant issue in how opinions are formed.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 9:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I find particularly amazing is that when one group is advocating for their rights, they seem quite happy to stomp on the rights of others.

While I personally believe that there are no significant differences for the children with same sex parenting I keep coming across articles about the beneficial role of fathers. I have also read the study done on same sex vs. heterosexual parenting, and while agreeing in the main did notice that the determination was based on a narrow set of criteria, which for the break away group of doctors might have excluded values that they considered important, and so their view is valid to them.

All in all considering the variety of families from single parents, divorced parents, multiple marriage parents, a stable relationship is the most important.

Finally, everything above is completely irrelevant when considering that children seldom get to choose their parents, and no one has the power to change them anyway.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 17 May 2012 12:28:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones,
1. What do you view marriage as?
2. What actual difference will it make to homosexuals?
There is no children (family) formed from the relationship!

Homosexuality is a degreation of the design and purpose of sex. As a flower produces seed that is fertilised to produce another in its likness for the next season, until then it has not reached its potential. The relationship of homosexuals is merely sentimental pleasure and not the reality of life which is marriage.

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman, originally drawn up between families to protect the woman and the children. That is why the parents give concent for the woman only at a wedding. "Who giveth this woman to be wedded to this man?" There is no concent for the man!

There has never been changes in the meaning of the word marriage as you claim - cite social cases to support your claim!

Marriage does not belong to the religious right as claimed it is the protection of the social institution of family. Family is a biological term meaning the group of the same genetic source.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 17 May 2012 8:49:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp,
Tax has nothing to do with the act of marriage, Homosexuals will pay the same taxes and get the same handouts no matter if the cohabit or not. It will not change one iota!

Dan Dare, Your use of a people race group it totally irrelavent here as they do not reflect the case for individual sexual unions. That refers to race and not one's individual sexuality.

The claim of equal rights is a smoke screen as it is not an issue as all individuals are equal under our laws. Homosexuals are not suitable participants in some areas of life any less than drunk drivers as Driving instructors or peadophiles as teachers. They have a lifestyle not productive in some quarters of society. As in the case of having children or husband wife or sex counselling. They are not equal in experience. Otherwise they they are pomiscuous and immoral.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 17 May 2012 9:18:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You really are a bigoted slow learner *Josephus* and your irrational prattle never ceases to amaze.

What you refuse to accept and understand is that your views are based on your particular beliefs. I support you behaving a right to have a belief, but unless you want trouble, which in my view no doubt you deserve, do not seek to impose your beliefs on others or to discriminate and denigrate their rights.

Why don't you tell us exactly what belief system you subscribe to?

As for your comments on all Australians having equal rights, quite clearly you are absolutely clueless.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 17 May 2012 2:03:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy