Thank you, Lachlan, for making this stand along with Doctors for the Family.

In the course of events it has been implied that doctors should not be opposed to same sex marriage; or if they are, that they should keep their opinions to themselves. For example, Dr Steve Hambleton of the AMA was repoted as saying that "doctors must be mindful of putting their opinions forward because they hold influential positions in society."

In context, he is clearly saying that if a doctor is against gay marriage, he or she should keep quiet about his or her opinion. What ever happened to free speech? Do we now gag any doctor whose opinion differs from the majority? Is that the kind of society we want to live in -- where only "approved" opinions are allowed to be expressed in public, and other opinions are censored?

Every doctor knows (or should know) that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with higher incidences of physical and mental illness, and a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, compared to heterosexuality. And we should reject the simplistic and unsubstantiated explanation that this poorer health is caused by discrimination.

It is claimed that there is no evidence children raised in a homosexual household are worse off, but this claim is not based on sound evidence, as this press release explains.
http://www.acl.org.au/2012/05/mr-gay-activists-claim-commissioners-scalp-on-back-of-flawed-research/

I applaud Doctors for the Family for being willing to voice their concern for the wellbeing of our nation's children.

Dr J Kok MBBS

Dear Dr Kok… (Ahem, sorry I was distracted by a rogue thought)… I have no desire to gag you.

You say "It is claimed that there is no evidence children raised in a homosexual household are worse off, but this claim is not based on sound evidence, as this press release explains", when in fact the press release says no such thing and I fail to see how you could have drawn that conclusion.

Equally the original Doctors for the Family submission was flawed in its reliance upon research based on examinations of fractured heterosexual relationships.

I assume that you are aware (or should know) there are sociological studies showing that doctors have higher incidences of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse compared to other professions. Nevertheless, we should reject the simplistic and unsubstantiated response to discriminate – including denying them the right to an opinion freely expressed.

If Doctors for the Family turn "their concern for the well-being of our nation's children" to the existing and real issues of sexual, physical and emotional abuse – none of which derives from same-sex marriages – I will applaud them.

When did equal opportunities come to be synonymous with support of same sex marriage?!
And when did abusive language and vilification of pro same-sex marriage supporters against those who differ become acceptable? This too is discrimination!

"Then how come near 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorce or separation."
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 17 May 2012 1:05:01 PM

Good question. But the real question you need to ask is how long do most marriages last (even those that end in divorce).

The answer is 80% of heterosexual marriages last over 20 years. 20 years is enough time to raise children in a healthy biological mum/dad environment.

Less than 2% of homosexual partnerships last more than 4 years.

(Note: before you go all "where's your references for those stats" on me - why don't you just look them up for yourself. You and I both know none of you pro SSM people would put an ounce of credibility in any source a conservative posts - no matter how impartial and factual - so check these stats and facts yourself so that you will know the truth on your own).

So in reality heterosexual marriages 80% of the time last long enough to provide for child raising.

If you take your logic to the n'th degree technically 100% of marriages end when either one of the partners dies.

"There hardly is any "INTENTIONAL robbing an innocent child of a mother just to satisfy the lifestyle choice of a couple of men"
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 17 May 2012 1:07:01 PM

Ummm. Yes there is McReal. By definition 2 men = a motherless family. If two men set out to INTENTIONALLY acquire (for lack of a better term) a child; they are absolutely specifically setting out to deny that child their biological mother. This is just a biological fact. 2 men can not produce a child.

Houellebecq - I stay monogamous (and go against the very same biological, from birth, DNA urges that drive gay people) for a multitude of reasons (including that I love my wife very much), but primarily because I respect the social contract that monogamous biological mum and dad teams have been proven since the dawn of time to be by far the best environment for children to be raised in.

If I can deny my biological urges for the good of society, why can't gay people?

Take 10 seconds a google "statistics for kids without mothers" and "statistics for kids without fathers" and see the heartbreaking tidal wave of overwhelming evidence that motherless and/or fatherless children are vastly worse off. It is a form of terrible child abuse to intentionally do that to a child.

DPE1978 Is there love in that marriage, or as mentioned staying together for the childrens sake.
Have you any statistics on average, how long a hetrosexual marriages/relationships last, of course not, you just throw figures around to suit your bigoted attitude towards those you dislike, and do not conform to your extreme fundamentalist beliefs.