Doctors for the Family
Supporting the traditional familyNews
For an example of how just stating a simple belief re marriage can affect people, see https://marriageada.org/donationland/?ref=IB111115DANT
Allowing same sex couples to adopt children deprives them of a mother or a father and subjects them to a dangerous social experiment. See http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game
Submission to Senate Inquiry re
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010
28 March 2012
Doctors for the Family was established in November 2011 to highlight the health aspects of marriage and family and ensure a healthy future for our children.
We believe that marriage as reflected and proclaimed in the Marriage Act 2004 “…the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” to be the basis of healthy marriage and family.
We believe that marriage as defined is the basis of a healthy society. We submit that the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without .
We believe it is important for the future health of our nation to retain this definition and we oppose moves to alter this definition to include “same-sex marriage”.
We also believe marriage as currently defined is more stable than so-called same-sex “marriage” .
We further submit that legalisation of same-sex marriage will have significant ramifications that have been confirmed by research and events here and elsewhere
• the further “normalising” of homosexual behaviour through education with all the health consequences of that behaviour for our children
• denial of parental option to withdraw their children from that education – a fundamental rejection of the rights of the family
• charges of “hate-speech” and vilification, if we voice our belief that every child needs a mother and a father, will gain further legitimacy
• likewise freedom of speech and belief regarding the position we believe marriage has in society will be more limited
• further pressure on adoption agencies to approve adoption to same-sex couples and closure of agencies that fail to do that .
We trust that this Senate Inquiry will realise the significance of any distortion of what marriage really is, the continuing benefits of marriage to the Australian community, the place of marriage in history and our culture and we strongly recommend that there be no change to the definition of marriage as presently enshrined in law.
Names of signatories follow. For full references see submission 229 at
19 December 2012 Submission to Senate Inquiry re
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012
As convenor of Doctors for the Family I write to express my concern regarding the threat to freedom of expression apparent in the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.
As a result of the submission (number 229) from Doctors for the Family to the Senate Inquiry re Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, another doctor and myself were both the subjects of complaints made to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), formerly the Medical Board of Australia.
The submission was in support of marriage being between male and female and in support of the Marriage Act 2004. The complainant – a medical practitioner – took exception to the submission on several grounds including “further marginalising same-sex attracted people”.
I received a letter from AHPRA asking me to respond to the complaints and I did so after advice from my medical defence organisation.
AHPRA dismissed the complaints. A satisfactory conclusion.
Under the proposed legislation the complainant could also have made allegations/charges of discriminatory “conduct that offends, insults or intimidates” and the onus of proof of innocence would then have fallen on me to prove that I was not guilty of such offence or insult.
The fear of legal process hindering expression of any view that might be judged as offensive would seriously inhibit scientific discussion and rational expression. Even the presentation of studies that demonstrate different conclusions to one being promoted can be labelled offensive. The effective silencing of debate and dissent would have particular significance in matters pertaining to public health.
It may well be that such silencing is exactly what is intended by some of the proponents of this legislation, but the consequences to our society are so big that the legislation in its present form should not proceed.
Dr Lachlan Dunjey MBBS FRACGP DObstRCOG
END.
