Not in the majority, therefore you have no right to your opinion. Got it.

Seems reasonable...

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...]

[...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 :-)

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.

@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.

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