no Kipp

'The disturbing issue as regards these docters, is that they are high Roman Catholic church and religous fundamentalists.'

The disturbing thing is that the homosexual lobby and its supporters deny all the evidence as to what is good for kids, what is healthy behaviour and do no more than label anyone homophobic who opposes their warped views. That is disturbing!

btw Your disgusting slur on the many compassionate Christian doctors is typical of the Chritophobic bile that we are getting use to. Is Q & A stacked with your relatives by any chance?

Could the 'Gay rights" advocates posting here please enlighten the rest of us on the future of their movement after the resolution of the marriage debate?
"Gay Rights" is a political program originating from the strategic changes to the hard left platform in the washup of the failed '68 risings.
So what's going to happen if you A: Win or B: Lose?
Could you see a sort of fifth international or another major strategic rethink of Socialism in the event of widespread defeat of the proposal or repeal of such laws that do exist?
On the other hand if the vote is passed in the affirmative then what's the next step toward complete equality for homosexuals?
Furthermore what changes to the law will you be promoting in order to enforce community acceptance of married homosexual couples?
See formalising equality is one thing, substantiating it is quite another.

Hey here's an idea. Let's have a special kind of marriage-like relationship, under different legislation to the marriage act, for the minority. No, I don't mean gay people. I mean that minority of people who are welded on to the idea that marriage is this one thing that existed from about 1960 to about 1980, no earlier, no later, and must never change from that - notwithstanding the considerable evolution in the concept of marriage before that period. Well, maybe 1930 to 1970 for some religious people.

I had been inclined to call these relationships, say, "religious unions"- to reflect the demands of that minority of religious bigots that insist that they own marriage. If they want to insist on relationships that are out of step with community norms, then perhaps they should have their own special kind of relationship, just don't call it marriage.

That, though, would be entirely unfair to the many people of faith who get that they ought not ram their views down the throats of society, or even support and welcome same-sex relationships. And, of course, as this article shows, there are a few non-religious becardiganed old buffers who think that "I just think so" can stand in for rational argument. A good object lesson for those who assume that not being religious automatically provides intellectual superiority.

@ Runner: have you read the letter from the doctors, and the references they rely on for support?

The USyd 'report', even though it was (I understand) funded by the ACL, doesn't even support the position claimed of it. The relevant section (about p48ff if I recall correctly) is about the effects on children of marriage breakup. It is not about heterosexual vs non-heterosexual couples. Bottom line: there is no good evidence that non-heterosexual relationships are bad for kids. If you think differently, feel free to provide citations of evidence for our delectation. A quote from George Pell or similar is not evidence, by the way.

On which point, some of the references to the letter are not evidence but just opinions! Ref 6 complains that if gay marriage is allowed, then people won't be able to criticise it as much! And ref 7 talks about the terrible things that happened in Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal. What were these terrible things? Well, gay people started to get married! And people started talking about the issue, and even in schools it began to be recognised that gay people exist and are not evil( shock! Horror!) This just underscores the irrational and biased position taken by the authors of the letter.

Some background on the doctors:

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/doctors-for-the-familys-hidden-religious-agenda/

wearestardust

I think you need to reread the letter and notes. Among them

'
The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men was 44 times that of other men and 40 times that of women,and primary and secondary syphilis rates were 46 times that of other men and 71 times that of women, according to data presented atthe 2010 National STD Prevention Conference in Atlanta.http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/view.aspx?rid=61780 CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Menhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html see alsohttp://www.drugs.com/news/number-partners-doesn-t-explain-gay-hiv-rate-9307.html

The evidence is clear that homosexuality is not normal and definetly not healthy. Given that under 8 % yes 8% of homosexual relationships last less than 4 years one wonders who is driving this nonsense.