Australian Medical Association Ignores Facts to Support Politically Correct Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Campaign

The credibility of the Australian Medical Association has been called into question after choosing to step into the political arena and make spurious, unscientific claims regarding genderless marriage.

The AMA quotes a “quasi-natural experiment”1 to bolster claims that “marriage” improved overall health outcomes among LGBTIQ populations.

Perhaps of greatest concern is this claim by the AMA: “The lack of legal recognition of same-sex couples can have tragic consequences in medical emergencies, for example, when one partner may need to make decisions on behalf of their ill or injured spouse. Without a legally recognised marriage, individuals may not have the right to advocate for their partner, and decision-making power may be deferred to a member of the patient’s immediate biological family.”

This claim is simply untrue. The AMA references the Bulmer-Rizzi2 case which related to recognition on a death certificate and funeral arrangements. This loophole has since been closed by the SA Government and is no longer the case anywhere in Australia. There is no truth to the claim that a partner was denied decision making rights in a medical emergency, simply because of his sexual orientation.

The AMA also claims: “There is no putative, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that children raised in same-sex parented families suffer poorer health or psychosocial outcomes as a direct result of the sexual orientation of their parents or carers.”

Once again, this is patently untrue. It begs the question: why did the AMA overlook the Mother of All Same-Sex Parenting Studies?

What we do know is that children removed from a biological parent do suffer emotionally and psychologically as a direct result (just ask victims of forced adoption). What we are seeing in countries where genderless marriage is legal is that words like ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are being removed from Government documents and children are stripped of the right to know the identity of their biological mother or father. The repercussions for these children are immense – medical history, genealogy and identity are all stripped away, with no rights for children to access this information.

The AMA also claims that same-sex parenting is a separate issue to same-sex “marriage”, but as we have seen from countries where same-sex “marriage” is legal, the two are intrinsically linked:

How do two men get a baby? At a baby market! A direct result of degendering marriage in the USA is a rise in the demand for commercial surrogacy in places like Belgium. From Ethics Forum: “Branding unwanted childlessness as discrimination and injustice, several branches of the LGBT community are lobbying for gay men and transgender women to have biological children of their own…”

“New terms were launched to keep the transactions as business-like as possible: the surrogate mother was called “a carrier”, the egg donor “a genetic material contributor”. Some agencies also offered money-back guarantees (no kidding) and “multiple cycle package” deals.”

Women and children are not commodities and the negative psychological implications of being treated as such should be obvious.

Why on earth did the federal Australian Medical Association publish this spin?

It has bowed to pressure by the gay lobby group, led by former AMA President Dr Kerryn Phelps. Her unfortunate comment that “Christians now have nowhere to hide” speaks volumes about her true motivation. Ordinary AMA members were denied a vote on this issue; therefore it is not representative of the true view of its members.

1Hatzenbuehler ML, O’Cleirigh C, Grasso C, Mayer K, Safren S, Bradford J. Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment. Am J Public Health

2012;102:285-91. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390442

2Dumas, D. 2016. Australian authorities refuse to recognise same-sex marriage of man who died on honeymoon. Sydney Morning Herald. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-authorities-refuse-to-recognise-samesex-marriage-of-man-who-died-on-honeymoon-20160120-gma1l4.html

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

18 Responses

  1. Actually, AJ, commercial surrogacy remains illegal in Belgium. Check out Wikipedia’s page “LGBT rights in Belgium” and go to the summary table.

  2. Thank you for this important information which, perhaps understandably in view of the media bias, I have not seen elsewhere and which I hope can be passed on to many.

  3. Two fairly straightforward questions come to mind.

    First, does the AMA normally consult with ‘ordinary AMA members before making a media statement on a contentious public issue?
    If so it is certainly regrettable that they did not do so in this instance.

    Second, the issue in the Bulmer-Rizzi case was that an overseas marriage was not recognised under Australian law.Has this ‘loophole’ been closed as is suggested? I would be surprised to hear that this is the case, since one of the less well known provisions of the 2005 amendments to the 1961 Marriage Act was to exclude same sex marriages, validly conducted overseas, from recognition in Australia.

    An additional comment i would make is that I do not understand why AMF continues to refer to the ‘typical’ same sex marriage as between two men who then decide to’ purchase’ a child.Since the vast majority of same sex parenting in Australia involves two women raising the biological child of one partner from a previous relationship it would seem that these are the couples who will choose to marry to provide more stability for child rearing.

    Surrogacy, and in particular commercial surrogacy, is a separate issue and involves heterosexual as well as same sex couples.

    • Margaret,

      The AMA normally consults their members such as they voted on a legal assisted suicide/euthanasia and legal abortion etc. The AMA is suppose to represent its members. The AMA has proposed a belief in “Marriage Equality for all consenting adults to have their rights to a relationship recognised by the Marriage Act 1961.” Since this belief isn’t based on a religion then who’s idea are people following? The word “adult” isn’t only used for people, but this word is used for animals including cats/dogs and the evidence is found on the labelling of cat/dog food. The words “legal consent” means “to give permission for something to happen.” The government authorities such as the local council gives permission for an owners to legally consent to purchasing a cat or dog registration as he/she isn’t forced to purchase a cat/dog. Therefore, a new belief in “marriage equality” creates a civil registered marriage union between an owner and dog which can be celebrated in a public wedding ceremony. Not all Australians will believe in this new type of marriage (legal union) between a human and animal, but this legal union already exists in our society and it hasn’t been causing society any harm. Why should any person/society stop people from marrying their cat/dog in a public wedding ceremony and having their relationship legally recognised with the legal status of a “civil registered marriage” and have access to the Family Court for a legal divorce and receive any other government marriage benefits? A legal consent can be made by either a legally consenting person or the legal consent can be made on behalf of an adult/state authority, and in this case the council can give legal consent on behalf of the dog to have a legal union with their owner.

      Are all beliefs and values the same in order to be legally treated as equal under Australian laws? The AMA belief in”marriage equality” includes “all consenting adults” as this has a legal problem in not all consenting adults want nor desire a genuine bonafide marriage because some people want to marry themselves, a non-living thing, animal, and people including more than a couple, children, sibling, parent, or same-sex (gay/non-gay) partner/housemate. What will be a genuine bonafide marriage? Does the “marriage equality” belief brings unity or disunity to the Australian society for the good of society and will society be harmed by removing sexual activities and sexual intercourse from the word “marriage”? The Marriage Act is unable to support two different types of beliefs about marriage. “Marriage equality” is “the exclusive legal union between any 2 people” which is very different to the marital act of consummation of “one flesh” between a man and woman which can procreate new-life (natural human reproduction).

      I can easily identify my “one flesh” marriage with the ABS legal status “separate but not divorced” in order to separate from the civil “registered marriage” practice but not divorce from my “one flesh” marriage. This allows me to defend, maintain, and support my public commitment to a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” marriage between husband and wife as this has procreated, nurtured and raised children. Also, I want to protect my “one flesh” marriage from the harm of coveting-adultery-divorce which leads to family breakdown and this harms spouses, children, and society with dishonesty, family violence, corruption, and murder. My belief in “one flesh” marriage is a natural human behavioural practice which has existed since the beginning of mankind and womankind, and this has existed with and without the support and protect of the state. This natural human behavioural practice is supported by the scientific evidence, nature, science, history, religion, and social science. When my family and extended family start to identify with “separate but not divorce” then all statistic on a civil “registered marriage” practice will become meaningless as it will be identified as a non-procreative relationship between any 2 people. Governments have included Uber and have made taxi licences become basically worthless. Governments have included educational institutes which used the good name of Victorian school system but the certificates weren’t even worth the piece of paper they were written on so they can to shut down the sham educational practice.

      I am extremely concerned that a minority group of people are threatening ordinary Australians with protests, violence, harassment, self-harm/suicidal thoughts, name calling, fines, jail, re-education, financial/business/company/community/political abuse when they don’t believe in the sexuality and gender theories including a legal same-sex marriage. This contradicts the AMA stand on domestic violence as women have been told by doctors that females shouldn’t accept from husband/partner/children all forms of negative behaviours such as violence, self-harm/suicidal threats, name calling or harassment, financial abuse etc. Why is our society allowing the LGBTIAQ party/ legal assisted suicide party to threaten our society with self-harm/suicide and abuse a group of ordinary Australians who may identify as Christians?

      Adolf Hitler used his power and authority to threaten people with death and he ended up committing suicide. Also, the Nazi Party belief system confused the language and then identified certain groups of vulnerable people had a legal right to die under state law. This belief system wasn’t treated as the same as the Christian belief system -“thou shalt not murder,” and Germans, like my long distant relative were executed post World War 2 as they legally killed Jews under German laws. The Nuremberg trials showed evidence of genocide and mass murder. The ISIS belief system which believes in killing infidels and they’re prepared to die for their belief and this isn’t treated the same as the Christian belief system. The western world continues to be at war against ISIS. A belief system doesn’t have to be a part of any religion, but it can “confuse the language” and have a “killer mind-set” which threatens a healthy society with harm like self-harm/suicide. Every time Christians want to discuss marriage the threat of mental illness is used against them and this is the same type of tactic which domestic violent partners use with their spouse/partner. Yesterday, The Age reported that the nuclear family in Australia will become a minority group and this would be a good thing for society as there would be less household with children and more single-parent families and people would have more money to spend on ourselves rather than children. Australians would maintain its population by immigration and I assume this would be muslims as they’re having the highest population of children. There is no doubt Australians culture will cease to exist in the future if we don’t find ways in encourage and promote a healthy society and protecting the public from harm.

  4. Janine marriage under the Marriage Act is a contract, and only ‘legal persons’ can enter into a contract, so with due respect the point about animals does not hold.

    Also as regards AMA consulting I more had in mind their statements on other social issues such as asylum seekers where they are offering a medical opinion on a contentious social i/political issue on which the community is sharply divided. I may be wrong but i don’t think they consult members in these instances. it can of course be argued that they should.

    The Marriage Act does not actually specify any associated sexual activity, though at least some Christian Churches do in requiring a couple to be capable of consummating the marriage.

    I think that if we rely simply on legal definitions it becomes quite difficult to make a watertight case for retaining the current legal definition of marriage.We are actually asking for legal recognition of a form of relationship on which we place a high value.

    The question then becomes whether it is equitable to withhold legal recognition from a comparable relationship which others consider to be of high value. That does not necessarily have to be recognition by using the same term.Croatia is a good example of a country where there are parallel and equal systems of relationship recognition, and this solution was achieved by a positive and respectful campaign by Croatian Christians.

    I do not think we are doing as well in Australia.

  5. we need more medical practitioners to speak out the scrutinise those so-called scientific research and survey from LGBTIQA+ related instituition. they can be made up or what/who are these samples are taken and manipulated. 2 references may be interested to look at America college of Pediatricians : GENDER IDEOLOGY HARMS CHILDREN. UPDATED JANUARY 2017.

    PAUL CAMERON & KIRK CAMERON : Homosexuality exploding among youth ( the gaying of America )

    • Timothy with respect the ACP is a very small breakaway group of pediatricians.

      They have broken away precisely because they disagree with the main body of American pediatricians (the American Academy of Pediatrics) on this and allied issues.

      Of course they have the right to disagree but it is important to recognise that theirs is a minority view.

  6. Margaret,

    You stated, “only “legal persons” can entered into a contract” but this isn’t true as the state/government authorities can provide legal consent on behalf of a person/animal/non-living thing and this happens in emergencies situations or when it isn’t possible to get their/its legal consent but government authorities grant legal consent on behalf of the state. There are local councils which demand owners must purchase a legal registration for their cat and or dog. Therefore, the government authority in this case is the local council which provides a legal consent on behalf of the cat or dog in order that the owner can have a legal contract/union with their cat/dog. Since the Marriage Act is changing for what is considered a “sham registered marriage practice” then it is possible for the federal government to change everything to accomodate adults’ self-determination, animals and non-living things.

    Do Australians place a high value on a civil registered marriage? There are plenty of examples to show that lots of Australians don’t value a “civil registered marriage” as there are a large number of defacto relationships and many partners have no interest in getting married, and many single people have no interest in marriage. Also, there is a high level of divorce rate in Australia, and the Ashley Madison affair exposed millions of husbands and wives who were cheating on their spouse. Also, the increase of “open marriages,”and “bachelor-married man” who is the man with his multiple affairs/partners/unrelated children. The government could regulate a civil “registered marriage” practice to include a “lifelong, loving relationship” but this is like the word “kindness” which couldn’t be included into the professional code of conduct for nurses and midwives because it can’t be defined or measured. The only group of people who have a defined understanding of “one flesh” marriage are Christians because the Biblical laws about “one flesh” marriage, sodomy, adultery, fornication, abortion, prostitution, divorce and sexual immorality. I agree with you that I don’t think Australians are doing well. Males and females are now focused on their identity such as doctor, nurse, bipolar, fat, sexuality and gender etc. Today, The Guardian reported, “The human service minister has described welfare dependency as the most pressing problem facing Australian’s social security system, likening it to “poison” for the unemployed.” I am not surprised that Australia has this particular problem of welfare dependency as I grew up in a sexually immoral community where everyone I knew was receiving some level of welfare from the government. I believe Christians and their Christian churches will move to an “independent marriage” in order to maintain their Biblical beliefs about marriage and family, and I think the “civil registered marriage practice” will be regulated like Iceland where they tell partners what is expected of their relationship. The Australian government has a document about domestic violence so they’re already into people’s bedrooms.

    • Janine with respect a contract in the strict legal sense is as I described.It must involve two ‘legal persons’ capable of entering into a contract.

      There are other forms of legal agreement including those you describe, but they are not contracts.

      Almost 80% of marriages now being entered into in Australia are simply civil marriages.Possibly the real figure is much higher, with some church marriages simply relating to the attractions of the venue and traditional ‘trappings’ of a church wedding.

      I agree that there has already been discussion in some Christian denominations (for example the Presbyterian Church) about an independent ‘definition’ of marriage, so that a marriage ceremony conducted under such a definition would not be legally recognised.

      However the main thrust of AMF advocacy in this area seems very much against such a separation.

      • Margaret,

        I would have to disagree with you as a legal contract to purchase a house happens between an house/investment owner and a bank. The government has created laws to allow government agencies to act on behalf of people (children), animals, and non-living things to give legal consent for the good of society and protect the public from harm. The only way an abortion is legal is for the government to give registered nurses/doctors the legal right to kill an unwanted neonate with the mother’s legal consent under state law. The only way 2 men or 2 women, or an owner with a cat/dog or owner with a robotic sex doll can have the legal status of “civil registered marriage” is for the federal parliament to allow them a legal right to purchase a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony under federal/state law.

        The federal parliament can change the Marriage Act to include same-sex partners (gay and non-gay), animals – cat/dog, and non-living things -robotic sex doll as this encourages and supports self-actulization and self-determination which is seen as a good thing for society. The behavioural practice of “one flesh” marriage will become “independent” from the civil registered marriage practice which won’t recognise marriage between a man and a woman as they can naturally procreate new-life (natural human reproduction) and this doesn’t need to be recognised as a legal union as no Biblical person ever had their “one flesh” marriage recognised be a civil “registered marriage” practice. The government could recognise the marital act of consummation between a man and woman needs to be protected by an “independent marriage” as they can naturally procreate new-life, and this can be separated from the Marriage Act because “one flesh” marriage is self-sufficient as it supports and protects all of its members and doesn’t need government marriage benefits such as legal divorce because they make a lifelong commitment. The celebration of a live birth isn’t identified with a legal abortion practice. Therefore, the celebration of an independent “one flesh” marriage doesn’t need to be identified with a civil “registered marriage” practice as they mean different things with different consequences.

        The AMF doesn’t want the federal parliament to change the Marriage Act because it is trying to defend, maintain, support and protect the traditional understanding of marriage between one man and one woman.

      • Margaret,

        I would have to disagree with you as a legal contract to purchase a house happens between an house/investment owner and a bank. The government has created laws to allow government agencies to act on behalf of people (children), animals, and non-living things to give legal consent for the good of society and protect the public from harm. The only way an abortion is legal is for the government to give registered nurses/doctors the legal right to kill an unwanted neonate with the mother’s legal consent under state law. The only way 2 men or 2 women, or an owner with a cat/dog or owner with a robotic sex doll can have the legal status of “civil registered marriage” is for the federal parliament to allow them a legal right to purchase a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony under federal/state law.

        The federal parliament can change the Marriage Act to include same-sex partners (gay and non-gay), animals – cat/dog, and non-living things -robotic sex doll as this encourages and supports self-actulization and self-determination which is seen as a good thing for society.

        The AMF doesn’t want the federal parliament to change the Marriage Act because it is trying to defend, maintain, support and protect the traditional understanding of marriage between one man and one woman.

        • Janine I’m not wishing to be picky but a bank is a legal person. Any incorporated body is.

          A legal person is an entity that has legal status, so can enter into contracts or can sue and be sued. That’s why associations incorporate.

          The most common forms of legal persons are natural persons (individuals) and companies or incorporated associations.

          Cats, dogs , computers and robotic sex toys aren’t legal persons.

          And neither unfortunately are unborn children.

          My point about the AMF is that i don’t believe it would be satisfied with the outcome you suggest whereby marriages conducted by religious celebrants are not recognised in civil law.Within the Presbyterian Church that outcome has been very seriously considered in recent years and my impression was that you might accept that outcome too.

          • Margaret,

            In New Zealand, a river was legislated in parliament as being recognised as a “legal person,” so our federal parliament can legislate for cats, dogs, computers, robotic sex dolls and neonates to all become recognised as a “legal person.” The original understanding of marriage is between a biological man and biological woman because of procreation of new-life (natural human reproduction. However, when a nation of males rejects all woman because they believe their not sexually attracted to their body as a natural procreation of new-life, then government changes the civil “registered marriage” practice to accomodate other desires including people of the same-sex, animals and non-living things. The AMF rejects the “marriage equality” because it removes natural procreation of new-life and the Australian governments are interested in children as they’re the next generation and government agencies monitored sexually transmitted diseases, sexual relationships and birthrates, and there are laws around sexual relationships.

  7. Ash

    There is no ‘tragic consequence in a same-sex couple’ where one member is in a medical emergency. These people can be next of kins and enduring powers of attorney to each other without the need to be married. Decision making in such situations are straight forward. Parenting children may not be equated to marriage, but marriage most commonly leads to progeny out of that relationship. Many same sex couples even show interest in having children to rear as if to mimic parenthood. But there is no substitute to biological parents and what they mean to their children. We should not be confusing children that they have same-sex parents. The AMA have simply gone outside of the scope of their practice here.

  8. Did you miss the study that found a 14% decline in suicide attempts among LGBTI youth after marriage equality became legal where they live?

    • Nick,

      Any study which can suggest a 14% reduction in suicide attempts from a group of people who identify with a particular belief system which is the sexuality and gender theories is like saying there is a 14% reduction in suicide attempts from a group of people who identify as Christians who have a particular belief system in Christianity. It is obvious that this 14% means nothing because we don’t know how many people in the world identifies and will in the future identify with the sexuality and gender theories nor do we know how many people in the world identify with the Christian belief system and we don’t understand how many people will identify with it in the future.

      • No. “Belief system” wasn’t the issue. Sexuality/gender was the issue. Not the same thing.

        • Nick,

          The sexuality and gender theories are a belief system as there are men who have sex with men who don’t identify as “gay.”

Leave a comment