Excellent article.

The generalisations of 'Doctors for the Family' about homosexuality are contrary to the concept of sound medical evidence and thus contrary to sound medical practice.

That they can espouse half-truths and complain when called called for them, and the unethical nature of that, including complaints their freedom to lie, unethically & immorally, is being thwarted, is incredible.

The sense of entitlement, grandiosity and lack of empathy by the likes of the members of Doctors of the Family is breath-taking.

Agreed. When the religious lobby starts to use arguments like "You are taking away our right to be bigoted and hateful" it's a sure sign they have run out of real arguments. The real decision is simple: Bronze Age Sky Fairy rules or compassion, equity and common sense?

We can disagree vehemently yet appropriately. Be respectful
or the disrespect itself poisons us more than either side's
position ever could. A healthy, vital society is not one
in which we all agree. It is one in which those who disagree
can do so with honour and respect for other people's
opinions, and our shared humanity. I can't for the life of me
understand why some people prefer to think that the path
they have chosen in life - is the only path. That they are right
in the choices they have made and that anyone else who makes
different choices is bad. And that somehow their choices are
more superior.

There seems to be a widespread malignant thought form that
"other people are the problem." Conservatives tend to blame
the more liberal thinkers for society's problems. The more
liberal thinkers tend to blame conservatives. The media
blames almost everyone. Some people are convinced that
homosexuals are the problem, while other think that single
mothers are the problem and so it goes.

Without personal commitment to the attributes of fair play
and integrity, we're in grave danger. Malice and intolerance
stalk our society, staking claims in our minds, and not one
corner of our social order is unaffected.

As I wrote on another thread - perhaps this issue of same-sex
marriage could best be resolved by allowing a conscience-vote
in Parliament by our elected representatives. After all most
Australians do approve of same-sex marriage - and in our
secular society - this may be the way to resolve this issue
once and for all. Decades from now we will all be wondering
what all the fuss was about.

A largely well written and well considered article, though I think the opening sentence is something of a generalisation.

" ... As you are well aware, doctors hold high esteem in our society and so when they form an alliance and partake in a debate their point of view is treated with reverence. ... "

I personally do not give respect easily and rather am contemptuous of what I consider and refer to as the:

*A.ustralian $M.oneyGrubbers$ A.sociation"

What I mean by that is those doctors and lawyers who refuse to provide essential and at times critically important services in the absence of some peoples inability to pay their outrageous fees.

With limited exceptions, I would put the majority of them onto something like a fixed price, means tested, sustainable fund, as the concept of universal medical and legal is just too important to me visa vi what I consider constitutes a quality democratic society.

However, alas, I digress. As said on a number of prior occasions, one argument that often goes missing in this debate is the idea of exactly what constitutes "Freedom of Religion" and it is something that needs review in my opinion.

Whilst I am largely supportive of individuals being able to hold a belief system, this in my view ought not to extend to people being able to inflict their beliefs on others, and it seems quite clear to me that more than a few who are opposed to non discriminatory marriage do so on the basis of their own beliefs.

I would point out again that their are religions, who neither discriminate against women or gays, and practice what is a "sacrament of marriage" regardless of the fact that it has no legal recognition.

Thereafter *Lexi* as you know, I do not hold to the view that we ought speak politely to individuals who are abusive in their practice and consideration of others.

Great article, very well argued

what irritates me is the attempt of this small and apparently unrepresentative bunch of doctors to enlist the credibility of their profession in support of their position. In fact, the content of their argument bears almost no relation to their medical expertise (and indeed, as the article points out, wilfully misrepresents or ignores evidence in a most unscientific way)

As usual, just flimsy excuses to justify homosexuality.

"Perhaps because you are aware that that research shows that there is no difference between the wellbeing of children whether raised by gays or straights."
From what I understand, research has shown that there is no difference in the wellbeing of children that comes from a divorced heterosexual background and those of homosexual parents. The catch is, those from divorced heterosexual parent background perform worse than intact married parents (http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf)

"Are you suggesting that the normalisation of homosexuality will lead to more children engaging in homosexuality? That is not how it works."
Wrong again: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html

"Why should all gay men be deprived the right/privilege of marriage because some in their ranks have STDs."
Missed the point: the whole homosexual lifestyle (never mind marriage) is unhealthy and should not be encouraged at all.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hiv-infection-rate-at-epidemic-levels/2006/11/25/1164341446659.html

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/hiv-rate-rising-but-other-infections-less-common-20101018-16qxf.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110825091931.htm

http://sti.bmj.com/content/77/3/184.full

http://www.science20.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data

http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/pb/27715

"Perhaps it is because lesbians have low STD levels and it does not fit your narrative.
Okay maybe not STD's (for now) but they've got plenty of other health problems:
http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691
Health problems which would be less if they stop being lesbians.

"..maybe if marriage was available (and thus, monogamy was promoted..."
Except that data from the Netherlands show that homosexuals don't care about marriages anyway (http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf)