“Why do mental health professionals like Professor Patrick McGorry (SMH 4/10) keep telling LGBT people that that are emotional basket cases? That they are so weak that they cannot possibly play their role as citizens in the plebiscite debate?“ asked Dr David van Gend, a GP and President of the Australian Marriage Forum.
“That is an insult to the LGBT people I know, who are not the precious petals Dr McGorry makes them out to be.
“Doctors, more than anyone, should understand the risks of continually suggesting to LGBT youth that they are weak and incompetent to hold their own in a public debate with people who might – shock horror! – hold a different view on gay marriage or gay parenting or gay sex-education.
“Doctors, above all, should be telling LGBT people that they are strong individuals and equal citizens, and that they should defend their views with the same self-confidence as any other citizen.
“I say reclaim your pride, LGBT people! Tell these well-meaning nannies like Professor McGorry, ‘Thanks, but we don’t need to be treated like psychological invalids’. Demand your right to argue your case in the public square, not be wrapped up in cotton wool in case somebody bruises your delicate feelings!
“That includes letting LGBT people argue their case against gay ‘marriage’- there is a whole chapter in my book, STEALING FROM A CHILD: THE INJUSTICE OF ‘MARRIAGE EQUALITY’, about gay men who oppose gay marriage. They are the really brave ones, and they are the men who cop real abuse, but they don’t play the victim card!
“Mental Health Australia says we should not hold a public discussion about whether or not to ‘protect any part of the population from discrimination’. That rests on the fallacious view that it is ‘discrimination’ to say two men cannot marry – but it is not; it is statement of the biological obvious. They seem blind to the biological foundation of marriage, which is built on a truth of nature – that only a man and woman can create a child, and only a man and woman can give that child her mother and father, her biological identity and ancestry. Obviously two men do not meet nature’s job description for marriage and family. That is common sense, not discrimination.
“Same-sex relationships matter greatly to the individuals involved and demand neighbourly civility, but they are a different type of thing to the great natural project of marriage and family – and they need to find a different word.
“Where are the brave LGBT men and women who will stand up and say “Not in my name!” to this usurping of an institution that is built around the child, not around adults? That is founded on a truth of nature, not a fashion of ideology?
“Let this plebiscite proceed, so all citizens – including LGBT citizens - can decide on the future of marriage, and let political leaders stop recklessly playing the suicide card to silence public debate”, Dr van Gend concluded.
You can read Dr McGorry's and MHA's comments at SMHShare