I was on my way in to the office this morning when a friend of mine retweeted this from Mike Stuchbery. The article is from a Doctor in Toowoomba Queensland, and it’s his opinions of gay marriage. It sent me in to a rage, I responded but I’m not sure if any of my replies are going to be approved so I’ve decided to quote the article and my responses here as well. They’re short and designed to be comments on an article, so for the most part there’s no real references.
The article shows very clearly the blinkered views of life and reality that is stopping equality from happening. It is stopping people from seeing their own blindingly obvious bigotry and errors in ways of thinking. I know none of the people who need to read this will, which is a shame really.
Labor will create a ‘gay stolen generation’ of children forcibly deprived of a mum, says Dr David van Gend
IF YOU hold to the old-fashioned idea a baby deserves both a mother and a father, the president of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party, Andrew Dettmer, calls your views “abominable”.
The state Labor conference recently voted to destroy the timeless meaning of marriage and redefine it to include a pair of men or a lesbian couple, and Dettmer slurred opponents as being no better than racists: “Discrimination against people on the basis of their gender or their sexual orientation is just as abominable and just as unsupportable as discrimination on the basis of race.”
There is no “timeless” meaning of marriage, otherwise neither the government nor religion would have anything to do with it. Marriage has been redefined hundreds of times over the centuries. The earliest forms were little more than announcements in the public square to the village. It has, over time and over places, included multiple spouses of either sex, slaves, and many other variations.
Yes, it is discrimination to prohibit the “marriage” of two men, but it is just and necessary discrimination, because the only alternative is the far worse act of discrimination against children brought artificially into the world by such men, compelled to live their whole lives without a mother. Now that approaches the abominable.
It’s most certainly not necessary discrimination, unless you consider single-parent families to be an abomination as well? Note that I am using your own words.
There have been dozens of studies done showing children brought up in families with parents of the same sex are no better or worse off than those brought up in families of dual sex parents. What affects the children is how stable the family is and how much love is shown to the child.
His analogy with racism is false because a black person cannot stop being black, but a gay person can certainly stop being gay, as a large number of formerly gay men and women around the world have demonstrated.
Homosexual people are able, where motivated, to modify unwanted homosexual attractions and even achieve complete transformation to a heterosexual orientation, as documented in peer-reviewed clinical papers, such as that published by American psychiatrist Robert Spitzer in 2003.
Against critics who say that attempts to change sexual orientation can cause emotional harm to homosexuals, Spitzer noted: “For the participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm”.
The success of gay “anti-discrimination” activism has largely been due to portraying gays as another persecuted minority group like blacks, women, Jews.
This illusion cannot survive Spitzer’s conclusion, that being gay is a potentially treatable psychological condition like any other, not an inborn identity. The only true analogy with racism is to compare the Aboriginal Stolen Generations with Labor’s proposed “gay stolen generation” of children forcibly deprived of a mother. The offence is the same; only the justification changes. This time round the justification for separating a baby from the love of its mother is that it meets the emotional needs of homosexual men.
To the claim that sexuality is a choice, I have one simple question – when did you choose to be straight? Yes one can change their sexuality naturally over time, but being forcibly changed as you are suggesting is more often than not extremely damaging, simply resulting in suppression of natural feelings, self loathing and self hate. The study you cite has been highly controversial due to its selection methods (only cases that would be positive) for a start, and just gets worse from there. One sponsoring member of its peer review status even resigned in protest. That’s never a good sign.
One of Australia’s leading human rights lawyers, Frank Brennan, shows the way forward: “I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same-sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother.”
Non-discrimination against same-sex couples is exactly what federal Parliament achieved in 2008 when more than 80 pieces of legislation were amended by a bipartisan majority. Homosexual couples now enjoy effective equality with married couples in every way short of marriage. The process must stop short of marriage, because marriage is about something deeper than civil equality; it is about a natural reality – male, female, offspring – which society did not create and society’s law cannot alter.
The greatest anthropologist of the 20th century, Claude Levi-Strauss, notes that throughout recorded history the human family is “based on a union of two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise children”.
That is the truth about human culture and human nature and that is the context in which any child deserves to be born and raised. Queenslanders should be dismayed at the truly abominable Labor attempt to trash this truth and rob marriage of its objective meaning and honoured purpose.
This effective equality you speak of is nothing more than one small step closer. They are still a long way off. Many areas of law still do not see civil partnership in the same way of marriage and offer those in a civil partnership the same things they do those who are married. From hospitals treatments of “spouses”, to tax laws and what constitutes a family.
It must not stop short of marriage. Every argument you have put forward has been highly flawed, and your language throughout your piece has made clear your blinkered views towards this situation.
Ultimately we are talking about legal adults of stable mind. That is what counts. That is all that should count.
Edit: Mike Stuchbery has posted his response to David van Gend in his own blog, have a read. It’s quite good.