Doctors accuse AMA of misleading public on ‘marriage equality’

A former AMA state president and two AMA life members are among a group of doctors urging the AMA to retract its “fatally flawed” Position Statement on Marriage Equality. The AMA document was published on 20th May and supports same-sex marriage.

Spokesman for the group, former Tasmanian president and AMA Fellow, Chris Middleton, has resigned from the AMA because of this Position Statement.

He says, “The AMA has strayed into social activism and has mortgaged its credibility.”

The dissident “working group” includes a paediatrician, child psychiatrist, physician, occupational medicine practitioner and two GPs. They claim “the AMA has misled the public on a great political question; it has also neglected the needs and best interests of the child.”

In a fifteen-page Critique delivered to AMA federal president Michael Gannon a week ago, the doctors identify a number of misleading clinical claims, in particular the AMA’s assertion that there is no peer-reviewed evidence of poorer outcomes for children of same-sex parented families. The Critique declares that to be “unequivocally false”:

We reference peer-reviewed articles that do find poorer outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples, and we also show that the AMA was aware of this evidence. By denying publicly that there is any such evidence of detriment to children, while admitting privately that there is, the AMA has misled the public on a crucial aspect of the marriage debate and must be held to account.

In addition, the Critique analyses “politically sensitive” but unjustified AMA claims that our current marriage laws harm LGBT health, showing that the AMA’s evidence is specious and the claims are misleading.

The AMA has declined to correct the erroneous assertions in its Position Statement. The dissident doctors have told the AMA they will now “undertake that task” themselves, sending the Critique to federal MPs and Senators “to minimise the harm done by the AMA prior to any debate next week on marriage”.

The working group expects a significant number of medical professionals to add their name to the urgent petition launched today asking the AMA to retract its Position Statement.

Find out more at CritiqueAMA.com

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

18 Responses

  1. Reasons for opposing Same Sex Marriage.

    I am sorry gay people suffer from a genetic disability, so do a few million other Australian’s

    Marriage between a male and a female is based on the eternal need to reproduce.
    The only piece of living material that may be immortal is DNA and genes.

    Gay + Gay = extinction of our species. Gay men have accepted that their DNA will not continue in future generations.

    Why do gay people want “marriage”? They already have civil union’s available to them?
    Because they control the ABC, SBS, the ACT and the Federal beaurocracy and they think they can ram gay marriage down the throats of 40 % of the population. So 2% dictate to 40%.
    The last time that happened was in the 1930’s in Germany. Cost 50 million lives.

    Why do gays want to devalue, degrade, debase, denigrate and besmirch the institution of “marriage” between a man and a woman?

    Why did the Egyptian’s, the Persians, the Turks and the Italians have eunuchs in their society and how did they select those for castration?

    Should 99% of tax-payers pay for medical care, sickness benefit and carer’s benefit for 1% of people who practice sodomy and get AIDS? Over ½ a million $ each?
    Should the same tax-payers also pay for PREP on the PBS $1,200 per month?

    Should HIV positive migrants be allowed to settle in Australia and spread HIV?

    Is it OK for Gay marriage supporters employed by MP’s and Senators to vet and veto elector’s correspondence with their democratically elected representatives in Parliament?

    Is it OK for Submissions to Senate Enquiries to be vetted and vetoed by the secretariat?

    “Bureaucracy”: a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

    What happened to govt of the people, by the people. for the people?

    Should Gay MP’s and Senators recuse themselves from any Parliamentary or Senate vote on the grounds of personal vested interest and not being impartial?

    Ivan

    All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing

    • ivan as a point of information there is no national scheme of civil unions in Australia.

      At state/territory level ACT has civil unions and Queensland civil partnerships.

      NSW, Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia provide for a register of domestic partnership.

      In WA and NT there is no form of recognition other than de facto.

      If we had a nationally recognised civil union scheme we would now be having a very different public discussion.

      • Margaret, I think the big problem is that the same sex marriage lobby want nothing other than full marriage identification of their unions. In their literature I have read over and over that civil unions are a failed experiment, they do not want them and would fight against them. Anything but marriage is still discriminatory, second class, they assert. If they were willing to accept civil unions or something like “life long pledge” that I read about on the Marriage Alliance site everyone would welcome them with good wishes I am sure, but they refuse point blank.

        • David I agree that a national scheme of civil unions/partnerships would be unlikely to find favour with activists, who would see it as second best.But my point to Ivan is that repeated assertions that we already have civil unions are not helpful to the current debate. We need to be informed about what the current situation is.I live in WA (as of course does Senator Dean Smith) and there is only the most minimal recognition of same sex relationships here, since even proving a de facto relationship can necessitate recourse to court.

          If the push for a postal plebiscite succeeds over the next few days, then obviously it will not be the activists we are looking to convince but members of the wider community. I do believe that a great deal of the ‘popular’ support for what people genuinely see as marriage ‘equality’ is ‘soft’ support.

          The strategy chosen by AMF, Marriage Alliance and other similar groups has been to try to convince those currently offering this ‘soft’ support that there are serious dangers in introducing same sex marriage.Whether or not we personally believe this may at this stage of the debate not be the most important point. Having looked into many of the stories circulated I have to say i find much of the ‘evidence’ of consequences overstated or in some instances simply untrue. (This is not an allegation impugning the good faith of those circulating the stories, simply the observation of someone with professional experience of evaluating evidence,)

          Wouldn’t we be well advised, if only from a tactical point of view, to consider instead trying to suggest a positive alternative to marriage redefinition that offers same sex couples themselves (not the activists) the legal and social benefits they want but at the same time preserves the traditional meaning of marriage?

          I also note, in relation to your response to Ivan, that the overwhelming majority of same sex couples likely to seek legal recognition for their relationship on the basis that they have or intend to have children are female couples.

    • Ivan, you make the very important point that the whole same sex marriage and all the gender theory and discrimination claims flow on campaign comes from homosexual men. They are the instigators of what has become a rampant all conquering Juggernaut whose real purpose is to get them what they crave, the blessing of anal sex by having the word marriage put it on the same plane as life bringing male – female sex. I have referred to this a number of times – it is what the Melbourne philosopher Raymond Gaita said in articles and talks around 2011, early on in the same sex marriage campaign. The rest of the “community”, the LBTIQ, would never have dreamed of marriage as a solution to their difficulties. That these powerful homosexual males are using women and children and cripples as the front line to achieve what they dare not ask openly is contemptible cowardice. Yes, the costs to the rest of us for medical treatment resulting from anal sex is around $300M per year and there are calls to remove the great shadow over their lives with the drug combination Prep so that they can have unprotected anal sex without fear of infection, which would bring the cost to the rest of us to around a billion dollars a year. That they have no shame is shown by their repeated over and over claim that the one off $160M for the plebiscite is a waste of taxpayers’ money when just a little more sexual constraint on their part would save far more than $160M.

      • David.S

        You forgot to add the costs for 2 men to have their civil right for a baby by using IVF/Surrogacy as a legal “same-sex marriage” normalises placing babies with unrelated adult/s and children (“The Handmaid Tales”).

        • Yes Janine, the total cost of homosexuality is a good bit higher than the direct medical support cost that I gave. Billions have gone into finding a cure for AIDS. Every so often I see calls for the churches to be made to pay tax. I wonder what the tax relief to churches amounts to compared with the cost to taxpayers of homosexuality, which is never questioned. The churches do so much good with their money, compared with paying for the consequences of sexual appetite.

          • David S,

            The Australian society will end up paying for all the harmful consequences of sexual appetites as a result from homosexual behaviours, prostitution, paedophilia, abortion, pornography, robotic-sex toys/dolls, chem-sex, and fornication. Parents have had a responsibility to tell children the truth and help them identify a lie. KLM airlines have currently a gay pride advertisement which claimed, “it didn’t matter who you click with” and it showed a picture of two buckles combination, two latches combination and a buckle and latch combination. It is obvious from the advertisement that there is only one seatbelt combination which has been designed for safety and can truly click together. The majority of people would choose the complimentary seatbelt including buckle and latch. Only a child or fool would choose the other 2 combinations as these aren’t a real seatbelt. The majority of Australians and people around the world have known that it takes one man and one woman to naturally procreate new-life (natural human reproduction), and it takes time to nurture and raise a child to adulthood (maturity). There are a minority of people who have rejected natural human reproduction for scientific experimentation of human reproduction. Australians can choose from a number of different types of relationships – married, defacto, and same-sex. However, the scientific research has only shown evidence that a married husband-wife with their own biological children is the only family relationship which is best designed for procreating, nurturing and raising children. The marriage doesn’t need to be registered by the state, but it is the commitment between husband and wife (covenant) which is the most important to keeping their marriage/family together for a life-time.

          • David S.,
            There are indirect costs too. Voluntary work is a big contributor to Australia’s economy. In some cases, volunteers contribute more to the economy than they cost the government in welfare. People with common sense won’t bother contributing their time and skills if they have to kow-tow to compulsory diversity training for volunteers, which would be very likely with government agencies reliant on volunteers.

  2. This is welcome news! Please continue to stand up for the families and children & tell the truth. The AMA should never have capitulated to the SSM brigade knowing how it affects children and the foundation of our society.

  3. Sam

    If anything I need to see a Dr from the continual barrage from homosexuals trying to force their forsaken agenda on me, not the other way around.

  4. ‘Put on the whole armour of God’, folks Do not underestimate the extent of people’s cunning, charm, callousness and viciousness, in their pursuit of this agenda.

  5. You make a couple of good points to me to bear in mind Margaret. Firstly that there are “activists” on both sides who do everything that they can to convince us of their position, and are not averse to taking things out of context, and secondly that a lot of support for same sex marriage is what you call “soft”. Your soft category are probably what I have called people who consider themselves fair minded and would err on the side of compassion. They have been pounded for years by the same sex lobby on how deserving they are. There has been only church based opposition which is easily cast as inculcated bigotry and out of touch with modern life. They are like swinging voters and the same sex lobby know that in a campaign with balanced for and against arguments enough of them would change their minds so that same sex marriage would be defeated in a public vote. With public fatigue and annoyance at their continued antics setting in, the same sex lobby know that the window of opportunity is closing and that is why they are desperate to get it through in parliament. It is now or never is what is behind this latest parliamentary push, I suspect. I think that if it were not for the aggressive male activists, civil unions introduced in a matter of fact low key way would have been welcomed by many people in same sex relationships. As you point out, it is too late for that now, the activists would fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

    Just a couple of observations of opportunistic reporting to win people to their side. Firstly in the Age yesterday (Monday August 7th) is an article entitled “Voters back rebels’ gay mar-riage push”. The article reported on a ReachTel survey (presumably in the last few days, the date is not mentioned) that shows that 66 to 77% of voters in the seats of 7 Liberal pro same sex marriage members support a parliamentary vote. Overwhelming support for the matter to be settled by parliament, the article says. But further down the question put is given: “Do you believe that your federal member of Parliament should be allowed to vote according to their own opinion and conscience on marriage equality or should be bound to vote according to his political party’s position on the issue.? No mention of asking the public as the alternative, but the heading and the text all very misleadingly imply that the survey showed that there was overwhelming public support for a parliamentary vote compared with the plebiscite.

    On the other hand, I read through the 63 pages of the debate in the Ontario parliament concerning the extension of the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, Bill C-16. This had been presented on this site as putting people at risk of fines and goal and being made to take anti-bias training simply for using conventional personal pronouns to a transgender person and was where a vote for same sex marriage would take us. What did I find? I found speaker after speaker saying how proud they were to support the bill to ensure that a small number of people to whom nature had given a raw deal were now specifically protected from ridicule, being sidelined in society because of their disability. Why was it necessary to do this when there are overall discrimination and defamation laws that they have recourse to? Because despite these blanket laws such people still found barriers in so many ways leading to poor health and suicide. A handful of members, maybe 3 out of 25, raised problems such as males taking advantage of identifying as women to embarrass women in toilets. However the law was very clear on that; true transgender people would not do that and any male who saw the opportunity to now harass women would suffer the full force of the law. And the wrong use of preferred pronouns has to be done with intent to cause abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection to be classed a hate act. Eventually the bill passed 67 votes to 11. The whole tone of the discussion in parliament was compassionate and totally different to what was portrayed by the alarmist source for the AMF post. As for it being what same sex marriage would lead to in Australia, here is an extract from the speech by Randall Garrison:
    “Nor are trans rights an issue restricted to the Canadian context. Now, more than 18 countries have explicit protections of the kind proposed in Bill C-16, and the list may surprise members. Argentina has been a world leader in the protection of the rights of transgender citizens, but the list also includes Uruguay, Bolivia, Spain, France, Ireland, Estonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Israel, Cypress, Nepal, Australia, and New Zealand, among others.”
    So, he uses the fact (?) that we already have that protection here in Australia as a reason why Canada should have it! And in contrast to the claim that same sex marriage will take us there, we already apparently have it.

    • David thanks as always for such a measured and well informed contribution to the debate.We sure need more people like you!

      The ones I actually characterised as ‘soft’ support are all those young people who supposedly (and I think it very telling that this is being said by the ‘marriage equality’ camp!) do not know how to use the postal system and will hence be disenfranchised.Frankly i find it totally incredible that young people who routinely use eBay and parcel lockers cannot work out how to put one envelope inside another envelope and find a red box to put it in (no stamp required…).

      Here in WA we have a well established system of postal voting in local government elections (sometimes including plebiscites) and it works well.
      A 20% turnout is considered poor and 40% or more can be expected if there is an issue of importance.Yet (here again we are not being well served as regards information) I heard an ABC reporter last night suggest we might expect a turnout of around 13% because ‘someone’ had told her this was the figure in a WA mayoral election.

      My point is that if people of any age care they will vote.And if they don’t care I would prefer that they did not vote, and that we all accepted that the vote in the plebiscite represented the views of those on both sides who genuinely care. Just as of course in a parliamentary vote we might expect an MP to take notice of those who went to the trouble of writing a letter or lobbying in person.

      The very fact that SSM lobbyists are so opposed to the postal plebiscite is as I said very telling.

      Thank you for having gone to the trouble of checking out what really happened recently in Canada. I think one problem for AMF (no offence intended to those involved) is that as the smallest of the 3 major groups defending traditional marriage they take their news in good faith the bigger groups, who in turn use other secondary sources which are far from objective or accurate.
      One of the other groups is quite frequently criticised by its own most fervent supporters for putting a spin on already slanted and unreliable sources (eg individual blogs) that makes a nonsense of the original story. AMF tends to pick up their stories.

      With a very slow/old computer I’m a little limited in checking out stories, but one frequently repeated assertion that I did check out is that Canada has legalised bestiality. I discovered that this repulsive suggestion is very far from the truth .What actually happened was that the verdict of a lower court (n a case involving a man who was convicted of multiple offences against his children) was overturned on the simple basis that the current law on bestiality only involved a certain class of offence (as is also the case in Australia). There is now a Bill before Parliament to widen the definition of bestiality.So the truth is quite contrary to the story.But the story has taken on a life of its own.

      I do notice the stories from Canada as I have relatives there who would be appalled and distressed if i told them the picture of Canada being painted here in Australia.

  6. Janine, you put so much effort into reminding us that marriage is the commitment of male and female to unite and pass on life to future generations. Just how that understanding, that no-one questioned in all the millennia before, is now portrayed as injustice to those who do not want to unite with the opposite sex and pass on life is beyond me. Someone once used the expression “educated beyond their intelligence” to me about another person. A lot of society today perhaps have been educated beyond their intelligence. Several letters in The Age today make me think of that, including the lead letter from a Christian minister. She argues against an earlier article “I am allowed to oppose same sex marriage” with the assertion that same sex marriage is evidence of “how God is transforming and reconfiguring human relationships to bring new life into the world, to extend the range of God’s love in the world”. How do you deal with that topsy-turvy view?

    • David S,

      I agree with your comments. I am also concerned that the more people believe they are educated then they believe in doctor google, alternative therapy and the magic pill. This means they lose their ability to think logical and rational, labelling people as bigot, everything-phobia when people don’t agree with them.

      Today, Margaret Kelly (teaches law at Macquarie University) reported in The Australian, “I do not know what LGBTI means. This acronym has absolutely nothing to do with my engagement with individuals. Nor do I know what “marriage equality” means. I, and the rest of Australia, am happy to embrace same-sex couples; and also to acknowledge their unions legally. But this is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman. A commitment and between a penis and vagina maybe producing a child. Medical science may suggest otherwise, but it is mistaken. A child needs his or her parents, and a parent is someone who has engaged in sexual intercourse, hopefully in love, and produced a child (of course there are other versions these days, with donor sperm, but I prefer the old fashion one, because the possible ramifications of the new donor idea are so confronting to the child). It is always the child that matters. The only real human right is that of the child to know its (his/her) parents and to be raised and protected by them. “Homosexual marriage” or same-sex marriage is really a contradiction in terms, as is “marriage equality.” This is not the major issue in Australia right now, when only 46, 800 couples, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) identified as “same-sex couples in the 2016 census, out of a total of the Australian population of 24.4 million. While attempting to read the ABS data is challenging to say the least, this means that (by halving the Australian population to 12.2 million to assume households, and dividing that by the number of “same-sex couples households, this amounts to 0.38 per cent of all Australian households…You all should be aware that our economy is going down the gurgles, and “same-sex marriage” is not going to assist our country in any fashion at all. There are larger issues. And we should be concentrating on them.”

      The identities of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Intersex, Asexual and Queer are all psychology/psychiatric words and these words have nothing to do with the marital act of consumption (sexual intercourse) of a marriage. The medical histories of patients/clients have to tell the truth as these are used as evidence in Australian courts, despite some people wanting to live their life as a lie. The person who identifies as transgender and takes on the persona of the different sex by changing their haircut, clothes, name, pronouns, change of birth and marriage certificate but they can’t change their medical history as this has to accurately record removal of heathy sexual organs, reconstructive sexual organ surgery, hormone therapy, and their biological sex. The Australian government might believe it is alright for people to mislead or be dishonest to their parents, family and their society but they can’t force healthcare professionals to lie in medical histories as this must record the truth about their biological sex, biological children, next of Kin, and even reason of death. The Victorian government wants registered nurses/doctors to be able to record the reason of death as a pt’s terminal illness rather than legal suicide in a legal assisted suicide/euthanasia, but the medical records will still have to record the lethal drug and the S8 Medication book has to record the person who was administered the lethal drug so the truth is still recorded by registered nurses/doctors as the person died by a lethal drug. I can’t believe some people don’t understand that 2 cups or 2 saucers aren’t a complimentary cup and saucer set nor does removing the handle on a cup and placing a biscuit in it makes this a saucer. Some people believe that a business should still be able to sell a complimentary cup and saucer set but for everyone else we have to accept the 2 cups or 2 saucers as a complimentary set and we also have to identify the cup with the broken handle with a biscuit in it as a saucer. This analogy applies to the identities of LGT, and the anti-discrimination commissioner will be making sure that there are tough laws against those who still believe in the complimentary cup and saucer (man-woman marriage – natural human reproduction).

      • Janine,
        Thanks for sheryling the cup and saucer analogy. I wonder if “marriage equality” advocates eat their din-dins with the complimentary set of knife and fork, or if they practise cutlery equality, and use two knives, or two forks. Do LGBTIQ supremos acknowledge the knife’s self-evident natural design and function, or do they hold the blade with their hand, and cut their snags and vegies with the handle?

        Every day, people rely on complimentary pairs joining their opposite male and female components together to make life possible. Without key and lock, bolt and nut, piston and cylinder, the world would literally fall apart.

  7. No child should be without a mother and Father. To me any one who disagrees is saying that any gay couple can rear a child, so long as it is not their child. The truth is if a child is put for adoption the biological parents have no say in the matter. If, heaven forbid, both parents are killed in an accident, and there are no relatives available to support the child, then that child can be adopted by gay couples.

Leave a comment