Homophobic doctor in Charnie?

R. Slicker said :

Prettykitty said :

While I acknowledge that it’s been over 4 months since this happened, I have finally found the strength to discuss the issues, as this incident happened to me directly and caused a great deal of stress and trauma.

Blah, blah, blah

This thread is really very silly and demonstrates that many people are simply hypersensitive and can’t keep their personal feelings out of what should be a serious and on the level relationship with a health professional.

I am a client of someone who might be described as a homophobic doctor. When our old family doctor retired, a new doctor arrived and took over the practice. He is an Irish Catholic and fairly conservative and straight-laced. When I contracted Hep A I told him how it happened (gay sexual practices) and his facial expressions demonstrated his reaction. But he prescribed medication and told me to return if it didn’t work.

When I told him I had balanitis on my foreskin he referred me to a specialist who booked me in for a circumcision. Again he was doing all this in between seeing little Johnny and his mum over everyday ailments.

Even today, more than 20 years after he arrived I still see him for any medical problems and he has always dealt with me in an even-handed and professional matter. He even bulk bills if it is a short appointment. Why would I want to put all that at risk over some silly moral position which has nothing to do with his duties as a family doctor?

The problem many gays have when dealing with doctors and other professionals is that they (the gays) quite often get so caught up in political activism and “causes”, they react with dismay when others do not share their enthusiasm. They believe it is homophobia. The gay marriage issue is a case in point.

I would suggest, princess, that you take a Bex and have a good lie down. To jeopardise your relationship with your doctor over such an irrelevant issue demonstrates a high level of preciousness on your part and shows that you have an innate inability to separate the medical from the political.

Well said.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

I hate religion of all kinds with a vengeance but you have to admit marriage is a religous ceromony, designed to bless a union in front of god.

The concept of marriage predates organised religion (and certainly monotheism) by a loooooong way.

The Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians all had marriage. I’d assume that similarly ancient civilisations in China, America, etc. had similar concepts.

In most of these cases, there wasn’t a hell of a lot of religious significance to it – marriage is primarily a social compact.

Some christians’ (certainly not all) attempts to define marriage as ‘a religious thing’ is arrogant and obnoxious, being premised on little more than bigoted nonsense. If marriage is such ‘a religious thing’, why aren’t they upset when atheists get married?

+1 Jim, well said.

Well, they are right about one thing though, marriage is about children, just not the way they would like. It’s about the man supporting his wife so she can produce lots of children.

Religions survive by getting bums on seats, lots of followers means lots of money and lots of power. Which means having lots of new followers. If you can’t convert ’em, breed ’em. And a woman could be perpetually having babies if there was someone to look after her and the children. But why would a man look after a child which wasn’t his.

Marriage became used to prove ownership of the woman, her womb and the children out of her. Remember it isn’t that long ago the wife had to vow to ‘obey’ her husband.

The product of marriage became so important that, in spite of what the more puritan religionists (is that a word) would like to believe, it was fairly common for the bride to be proven ‘with child’ as she walked down the aisle. And that was still happening less than a hundred years ago. The woman on the Ancestry Oz ad shouldn’t be so surprised. Wonder how many marriages didn’t go ahead because the woman couldn’t get pregnant?

And when you add inheritance issues into the mix, no wonder the male dominated religions and societies enforced behaviours that strengthened their power.

And while ‘marriage’ existed in early history and prehistory it wouldn’t of existed in the form we now know. A couple probably stayed together until the child was weaned, which could of been up to 5 years. Or longer if a second child came along. Mothers only really needed to be supported while they were breast feeding. They could then just of as easily move into another ‘marriage’ having another child to a different mate. Remember the whole society/village/tribe/extended family would have helped bring up the children together. Parentage wasn’t as important as survival.

I dont understand why the doctor has to agree with and support your lifestyle choices. Surely, like any other professional, you should simply be seeking the best medical service available. Whether they share your lifestyle choice, religion, politics etc is immaterial. Has any aspect of their medical service been unsatisfactory ?

Do you make sure your plumber or car mechanic agrees with and supports your lifestyle choices ?

If there is some gaping philosophical point Im missing – enlighten me.

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

I hate religion of all kinds with a vengeance but you have to admit marriage is a religous ceromony, designed to bless a union in front of god.

The concept of marriage predates organised religion (and certainly monotheism) by a loooooong way.

The Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians all had marriage. I’d assume that similarly ancient civilisations in China, America, etc. had similar concepts.

In most of these cases, there wasn’t a hell of a lot of religious significance to it – marriage is primarily a social compact.

Some christians’ (certainly not all) attempts to define marriage as ‘a religious thing’ is arrogant and obnoxious, being premised on little more than bigoted nonsense. If marriage is such ‘a religious thing’, why aren’t they upset when atheists get married?

I don’t think so. Your assertion that it pre-dates “organised religion” depends on a lot on how you define organised religion, but every one of those cultures you mentioned had a long history of religion/spirituality that was an essential part of their culture. Marriage certainly pre-dates Christianity (defined as those who follow Christ – Christ having lived some 2000 or so years ago) but to say it pre-dates any form of religion or spirituality would be a heck of a stretch, especially as both marriage and religion appear to have existed before reliable historical records.

Prettykitty said :

While I acknowledge that it’s been over 4 months since this happened, I have finally found the strength to discuss the issues, as this incident happened to me directly and caused a great deal of stress and trauma.

Blah, blah, blah

This thread is really very silly and demonstrates that many people are simply hypersensitive and can’t keep their personal feelings out of what should be a serious and on the level relationship with a health professional.

I am a client of someone who might be described as a homophobic doctor. When our old family doctor retired, a new doctor arrived and took over the practice. He is an Irish Catholic and fairly conservative and straight-laced. When I contracted Hep A I told him how it happened (gay sexual practices) and his facial expressions demonstrated his reaction. But he prescribed medication and told me to return if it didn’t work.

When I told him I had balanitis on my foreskin he referred me to a specialist who booked me in for a circumcision. Again he was doing all this in between seeing little Johnny and his mum over everyday ailments.

Even today, more than 20 years after he arrived I still see him for any medical problems and he has always dealt with me in an even-handed and professional matter. He even bulk bills if it is a short appointment. Why would I want to put all that at risk over some silly moral position which has nothing to do with his duties as a family doctor?

The problem many gays have when dealing with doctors and other professionals is that they (the gays) quite often get so caught up in political activism and “causes”, they react with dismay when others do not share their enthusiasm. They believe it is homophobia. The gay marriage issue is a case in point.

I would suggest, princess, that you take a Bex and have a good lie down. To jeopardise your relationship with your doctor over such an irrelevant issue demonstrates a high level of preciousness on your part and shows that you have an innate inability to separate the medical from the political.

I can’t speak for them but I’m pretty sure they are upset. Try going to a priest telling him you’re an athiest and ask him to marry you in his church.

I’m pretty sure he will say no.

shadow boxer said :

I hate religion of all kinds with a vengeance but you have to admit marriage is a religous ceromony, designed to bless a union in front of god.

The problem with the Gay Marriage argument is that the people are opposed to it from a religious point of view, where as the people who are campaigning for it are coming from a legal point of view.

I don’t see any person (except some self important idiot) having an issue from being refused a religious ceremony because there life doesn’t match up with the doctrines of the faith, like suicides refused funeral services in some churches.

But denying a same sex couples the same (legal) rights as a mixed sex couple is just stupid, and I for hope that the law is changed soon.

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

I hate religion of all kinds with a vengeance but you have to admit marriage is a religous ceromony, designed to bless a union in front of god.

The concept of marriage predates organised religion (and certainly monotheism) by a loooooong way.

The Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians all had marriage. I’d assume that similarly ancient civilisations in China, America, etc. had similar concepts.

In most of these cases, there wasn’t a hell of a lot of religious significance to it – marriage is primarily a social compact.

Some christians’ (certainly not all) attempts to define marriage as ‘a religious thing’ is arrogant and obnoxious, being premised on little more than bigoted nonsense. If marriage is such ‘a religious thing’, why aren’t they upset when atheists get married?

+1 Jim, well said.

shadow boxer said :

I hate religion of all kinds with a vengeance but you have to admit marriage is a religous ceromony, designed to bless a union in front of god.

The concept of marriage predates organised religion (and certainly monotheism) by a loooooong way.

The Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians all had marriage. I’d assume that similarly ancient civilisations in China, America, etc. had similar concepts.

In most of these cases, there wasn’t a hell of a lot of religious significance to it – marriage is primarily a social compact.

Some christians’ (certainly not all) attempts to define marriage as ‘a religious thing’ is arrogant and obnoxious, being premised on little more than bigoted nonsense. If marriage is such ‘a religious thing’, why aren’t they upset when atheists get married?

I hate religion of all kinds with a vengeance but you have to admit marriage is a religous ceromony, designed to bless a union in front of god.

I imagine religous people would be quite peeved when outsiders just show up for marriages and funerals and expect the red carpet rolled out for them.

You can hold whatever service you want to mark your union under law but I don’t see the churches have any obligation to provide anyone a marriage if they don’t agree with that particular churches teachings.

I would write a letter to them and make sure that your sexual preference is of no concern of theirs. Every time you go back to consult with them you could educate them a little and outline just how little sexual preference affects anyone other than those participating. I urge not to let them be, get in their faces and teach them. I agree it is easier to do the former but if you have such a problem with this you have no choice but to pursue it to the point of understanding and reason.

Prettykitty said :

And to @Rebow, I too have been seeing the van Rensburgs since they opened, and I too believed that Dr Riana was a wonderful, kind, caring, gentle GP. But how could I feel comfortable returning to her after seeing this displayed in her practice? She may as well have told me outright “I don’t respect your sexual preference, please leave”, I would have actually preferred her saying this direct to me.

Has your doctor ever been unprofessional about this? Has your doctor ever asked you to leave? Does your doctor even know your sexual preference?

I’m not trying to bait you here. It just seems as though a doctor has an opinion that differs to you in something important to you, and you can’t handle that.

While I acknowledge that it’s been over 4 months since this happened, I have finally found the strength to discuss the issues, as this incident happened to me directly and caused a great deal of stress and trauma.

I had been a patient of both the doctors since they opened, and never felt uncomfortable or discriminated against because of my sexual preference. I knew they were religious, and I respected that.

On the day I saw the petition I was attending an emergency appointment following on from a very traumatic surgical procedure. I was already in shock from the surgery and pain, and then came face to face with this.

My issues is that I do not feel it is appropriate for medical professionals to display their personal opinion in a public forum. When the doctors signed that petition as Dr Riana and Dr Thinus van Rensburg and displayed it in their pratice it was no longer their personal opinion, in my eyes, it’s now their professional opinion.

The bottom line is, this was hurtful, and to be honest I wish the Doctors had advised me of their opinions prior to me becoming a loyal client of 4 + years, or, kept their opinion to themselves entirely.

And for those who keep saying “find another doctor”, WHERE? HOW? WHO? I trusted Riana, and never before now have I had a long term doctor who I actually liked and trusted. I feel betrayed and hurt by this. I am gay, but I am also human and I respect your right to religion and personal opinion, but PLEASE remain professional when I am paying you for a HEALTH SERVICE.

And to @Rebow, I too have been seeing the van Rensburgs since they opened, and I too believed that Dr Riana was a wonderful, kind, caring, gentle GP. But how could I feel comfortable returning to her after seeing this displayed in her practice? She may as well have told me outright “I don’t respect your sexual preference, please leave”, I would have actually preferred her saying this direct to me.

“Lukewarm acceptance is more bewildering than outright rejection.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

peterh said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

peterh said :

really? I must go out and convert muslims, hindus and buddhists to christianity?

So, you haven’t bothered to read the Bible then?

Not trying to get into an argument here, but could you provide the reference?

I think it is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, but can’t be sure. as for reading the bible, I do. I just don’t practice what it says word for word, old testament and new. I believe in choice, like opinion. mine may not be the same as yours.

I asked the question because it seemed to me whenever I’ve looked at it there are lots of references to telling others, and the conversions happened when people heard and chose to, not because they were forced to.

Of course, the history of religion has an awful lot to answer for, and isn’t consistent with that approach.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

peterh said :

really? I must go out and convert muslims, hindus and buddhists to christianity?

So, you haven’t bothered to read the Bible then?

Not trying to get into an argument here, but could you provide the reference?

I think it is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, but can’t be sure. as for reading the bible, I do. I just don’t practice what it says word for word, old testament and new. I believe in choice, like opinion. mine may not be the same as yours.

In the future, people will look back on this era as the second dark ages, comparing it with the old days when people used to huddle in caves and pray to their imaginary dieties for food, rain and whatever else they needed at that time. As a friend of mine has said many times, “religion is about who has the best imaginary friend.” To me though, religion, and I mean all religions has been about one thing, opressing people with different views than you.
What has religion brought us:
The burning of people at the stake for suggesting that Earth was not at the Center of the universe. The crime of Heresy, or basically disagreeing with the church was punishable by this cruel and unusual punishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning
The Spanish Inqusition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
The Crucades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucades
All sorts of religious wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
The Irish troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
The Waco Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_massacre
The September 11 attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

You see a trend here? People killing each other because of differences of opinion over who has the best imaginary friend, or what their imaginary friend said, told them to do and so on. Oh, and that’s not the last of it. What about all the priests raping kids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Europe
Note in that article that there are numerous cases of priests raping boys, so it seems there are a lot of gay priests out there folks. I mean you have to ask, if they’re so against gays, why do so many priests rape boys? Mind you, the intelligent human beings amoung us would correctly argue that rape does not costitute a loving relationship no mater what genders it occours between.

So, then we come to gay people, and lesbians, and transgender, and intersex, and so on. What do they want? Love, and the legal recongition of that. Oh, hany on, no burning people at the stake? Nope. No wars? Nope. What abour crashing of planes into buildings? No, none of that either hey?

So, the gays want love. The religious people (I mean the people with the imaginary friends) are supposed to be all about love, but only love of some people for some people depending on which body parts they have.

Now if there were a god, I am sure this god would be in favor of love, and somewhat less in favor of people going about killing each other because of differences or percived differences between each other. I’m pretty sure that this enlightened god would get pretty pissed off by countless mobs of people killing, hurting and discriminiating against each other.

So, why don’t the religious people go on having a conversation with your imaginary friends and leave the rest of us to live our lives without having to be opressed by your limited and outdated views.

Jim Jones said :

peterh said :

really? I must go out and convert muslims, hindus and buddhists to christianity?

So, you haven’t bothered to read the Bible then?

Not trying to get into an argument here, but could you provide the reference?

peterh said :

really? I must go out and convert muslims, hindus and buddhists to christianity?

So, you haven’t bothered to read the Bible then?

Given she owns the practice, its simple if you don’t like it don’t give her your business. if it were in a public practice or any other public place it would be a different story. I could not care what the beliefs of my doctor were as long as they were professional in my health care needs.

Vix said :

Damn…have I missed the atheists’ meeting where they call down on Science to damn the fundamentalists for their ignorance?

I think a basic difference between ‘Christians’ and ‘non-believers’ is that Christians are taught to go forth and convert the heathens…it is this imposition of wills that the ‘non-believers’ seem to object to.

really? I must go out and convert muslims, hindus and buddhists to christianity? wow. need to check with my minister about that I guess. I am a christian, but my beliefs aren’t shoved down other people’s throats, in fact, i doubt most of you if meeting me would realise that I am christian. I have faith. I don’t have a burning desire to hunt down other religious groups and force them to join my beliefs. I listen to 1WAY FM from time to time, but then, I listen to most radio stations – as I spend a lot of time in the car.

What the doctor in charnwood is doing is effectively capturing their audience. they want to get out a message about their beliefs in the easiest way, yet haven’t considered that people like me hate to see posters of this type, avoid jehovas witnesses,cross the road to avoid the nut with the pamphlets about scientology.

My religion doesn’t define me, my actions and attitudes towards others does. If you had no money, and needed a good feed, I would help you. If you had a need for clothes or blankets, you would probably get them from the salvos, and I like to think that mine go to you.

Religion helps me in times of crisis, like my recent separation, and it is my choice to read a bible, visit church on a sunday.

A doctor’s surgery doesn’t need stressful items. you are there because you are sick, or a family member is. You don’t need to be reminded of the doctor’s attitude towards others, the doctor doesn’t have to agree with other people’s life choices, but really, it isn’t their business to convert to their religion, that is what missionaries were for.

You’d “probably still argue”??? Not quite the same as “I’d definitely object to a pro-gay marriage petition as well because it’s just not the place to try and push politics on a captive audience.” Also, who’s pushing it? Is putting a petition up on the wall really “pushing” something? That’s a bit sensitive isn’t it? Hell, I’ve been approached on the street with my kids in tow to sign petitions which is a hell of a lot more pushy than having something stuck up on a wall somewhere which I can choose to read or not.

So I don’t put more of my opinions in your mouth, let me ask you flat out – would you have objected if it just said “Save your soul and attend Church XYZ this Sunday?” Would you have objected if it WAS a petition in support of gay marriage? Once you’ve pondered that, ask yourself who decides what is and isn’t acceptable to put up on a wall in a private place of business? Is it you? Do we take a vote? Maybe we need an authority to do that for us. Maybe that authority could also decide whether making nasty comments about someone who has a religious belief is as bad as making nasty comments about gay people. To me being anti-Christian is just as bigoted as being homophobic. I am not religious at all and I’m very much pro-choice about most things – lifestyle, orientation – but that doesn’t mean I want people who disagree with me to shut up.

Whether you like it or not people are entitled to their opinions and they’re entitled to expressing those opinions even if they’re not especially well-informed or socially acceptable. A lot of doctors don’t check their morals and values in at the door – there’s a doctor at University of Canberra who will not provide information or access to any contraception beyond info on the Billings method. I find that more offensive than the petition because she’s not even leaving her opinion in the waiting room – she’s actively imposing it on her patients. But you know what? It’s her choice and her right. And if people don’t agree they can simply vote with their feet and find another doctor. To my knowledge the Tillyard doctors don’t even go that far – as I said in my first post, they’ve certainly never challenged my family planning practices or my openly gay brother-in-law’s sexual orientation.

Let me be clear. I am not endorsing or condoning this petition or its sentiments. In fact, I’ll be mentioning it in my next appointment and expressing my disappointment (I’m not sure why you think their subtle approach would stem complaints, especially given the reaction here). But I find some of the nasty comments posted on here way more offensive than the petition. I’m really disturbed that people are speaking of acceptance and tolerance in the same breath as they slag off at people who believe in God. And yes, I doubt very much that there would be this many negative comments if they’d hung a petition in support of gay marriage.

Rebow said :

I’ve never noticed it but I’d have to say it’s their business and they can have what they like on the walls. The important thing is that they don’t express their opinion to their patients or pressure them about their lifestyle.

Except when they do subtly, right in the waiting room where nobody wants to cause a scene by complaining?
I just don’t think a doctor’s office waiting room is an appropriate location for religious or political recruitment.

Rebow said :

Would you be so angry if it was a petition in support of gay marriage or being pro-choice? No you would not.

Don’t try and put your opinion in my mouth.
I’d probably still argue, a doctor’s office really isn’t the place.to try and push politics on a captive audience.
As to pro-choice decisions, wouldn’t a doctor’s office be just the place to have medical information available to help make informed choices?

Rebow said :

You’ve decided to get up in arms about a fairly innocuous expression of political leanings/personal belief. Would you be so angry if it was a petition in support of gay marriage or being pro-choice? No you would not.

“Innocuous” is not the word I would use, “underhand bigotry” would be a better term.

Most people of any intelligence find this sort of antiquated, restrictive, hate promoting, mean minded, prescriptive, baloney, repulsive, especially when promoted with religious overtones in a place where sick and ill people congregate.

So is it any wonder the vast majority here are decrying it?

Oh please. We’ve been going to the Tillyard Drive Medical Practice since it opened and we’ve never received anything other than the very best care despite our family being as rainbow as it gets. As for the petition, I’ve never noticed it but I’d have to say it’s their business and they can have what they like on the walls. The important thing is that they don’t express their opinion to their patients or pressure them about their lifestyle.

While we’re discussing this, has anyone bothered to check out the Medical Centre’s website? Their mission statement includes the line “We are committed to promoting health, wellbeing and disease prevention to all patients. We do not discriminate in the provision of excellent care and aim to treat all patients with dignity and respect”. I believe them. Not once in five years have they ever challenged us about our family planning choices, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. In fact, have any of you had anything like that thrust down your throat by these practitioners? No.

You’ve decided to get up in arms about a fairly innocuous expression of political leanings/personal belief. Would you be so angry if it was a petition in support of gay marriage or being pro-choice? No you would not.

Jim Jones said :

GODWIN!

There was an indirect Godwin comparison back at #46…

Skidbladnir said :

…“I won’t speak up because I’m not a homosexual”?

GODWIN!

Jim Jones said :

How do you think people would react if I put up a notice that said the same thing about, I dunno, black people, or Asians, or Jews?

Probably the same way this argument is panning out…

Some people would agree with the sentiments expressed on such a notice and join your cause while others would take the opposite side and seek to change your mind (one way or another). Others still will sit on the sidelines watching these two parties tear each other apart claiming the argument is ‘non of their business’.

Actually, there’s a lot of materiel available on this type of scenario, most recently due to a really big racially/religion based argument between lots and lots of people around 1939-1945.

Damn…have I missed the atheists’ meeting where they call down on Science to damn the fundamentalists for their ignorance?

I think a basic difference between ‘Christians’ and ‘non-believers’ is that Christians are taught to go forth and convert the heathens…it is this imposition of wills that the ‘non-believers’ seem to object to.

housebound said :

Skidbladnir said :

You’re _all_ falling into the trap of simplifying and demonising the ‘other side’, yet still expect that escalation of argument to carry your debate, instead of recognising your opponent will continue the escalation until you’re both totally polarised and there’s on middle ground to compromise on.

+1

And all this because a doctor DARED to put a notice on the wall?

A notice that states that gay people are undermining the country, are dangerous to children and are unnatural.

How do you think people would react if I put up a notice that said the same thing about, I dunno, black people, or Asians, or Jews?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

‘This is another argument where I think we could probably bleat at each forever and never resolve anything!’

Agreed. over and out.

😉

‘This is another argument where I think we could probably bleat at each forever and never resolve anything!’

Agreed. over and out.

Skidbladnir said :

You’re _all_ falling into the trap of simplifying and demonising the ‘other side’, yet still expect that escalation of argument to carry your debate, instead of recognising your opponent will continue the escalation until you’re both totally polarised and there’s on middle ground to compromise on.

+1

And all this because a doctor DARED to put a notice on the wall?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Religions should not be more tolerant. They should stick to their extreme fundamentalist roots so that everyone can see them for what they really are.

But this is exactly the point: the majority of religious people are, by and large, pretty tolerant and accepting of most things. Very few are fundamentalists.

This is another argument where I think we could probably bleat at each forever and never resolve anything!

Skidbladnir said :

You’re all falling into the trap of simplifying and demonising the ‘other side’…
it makes you look like a group of bickering children if you’re doing in front of your audience…

Mysteryman said :

Actually, I think my opponent lacks the interest or aptitude to understand the debate.

Maybe I was too subtle earlier, but I’ve quoted only the part where you’ve clearly missed my point.
(‘The readership’ counts as an audience by the way)

PS: Learn to simplify your quoting, and your own point will be easier to make and for others to find and follow.

Mysteryman said :

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

Your comments are bigoted and intolerant. It’s as simple as that. People like you bash religion for the very thing that you are now doing to others.

You’re all falling into the trap of simplifying and demonising the ‘other side’, yet still expect that escalation of argument to carry your debate, instead of recognising your opponent will continue the escalation until you’re both totally polarised and there’s on middle ground to compromise on.

(and it makes you look like a group of bickering children if you’re doing in front of your audience…)

PS: Atheist, but of the non-zealot variety.

Actually, I think my opponent lacks the interest or aptitude to understand the debate.

That’s right, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is either stupid or lazy.

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

Your comments are bigoted and intolerant. It’s as simple as that. People like you bash religion for the very thing that you are now doing to others.

You’re all falling into the trap of simplifying and demonising the ‘other side’, yet still expect that escalation of argument to carry your debate, instead of recognising your opponent will continue the escalation until you’re both totally polarised and there’s on middle ground to compromise on.

(and it makes you look like a group of bickering children if you’re doing in front of your audience…)

PS: Atheist, but of the non-zealot variety.

Actually, I think my opponent lacks the interest or aptitude to understand the debate.

Mysteryman said :

Your comments are bigoted and intolerant. It’s as simple as that. People like you bash religion for the very thing that you are now doing to others.

You’re all falling into the trap of simplifying and demonising the ‘other side’, yet still expect that escalation of argument to carry your debate, instead of recognising your opponent will continue the escalation until you’re both totally polarised and there’s on middle ground to compromise on.

(and it makes you look like a group of bickering children if you’re doing in front of your audience…)

PS: Atheist, but of the non-zealot variety.

georgesgenitals said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am not tolerant of intolerance – puts me in something of a bind.

seriously though, if people have ridiculous beliefs that they try and push on others the deserve to be ridiculed.

Noone is expecting you to tolerate intolerance. This is different, though, from tolerating the people who you perceive as intolerant.

Based on your logic, why should religions change to be more tolerant? You yourself are demonstrating no tolerance for them.

Religions should not be more tolerant. They should stick to their extreme fundamentalist roots so that everyone can see them for what they really are.

georgesgenitals said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am not tolerant of intolerance – puts me in something of a bind.

seriously though, if people have ridiculous beliefs that they try and push on others the deserve to be ridiculed.

Noone is expecting you to tolerate intolerance. This is different, though, from tolerating the people who you perceive as intolerant.

Based on your logic, why should religions change to be more tolerant? You yourself are demonstrating no tolerance for them.

I guess it comes back to what our parents were supposed to teach us: two wrongs don’t make a right. Meeting intolerance with intolerance right back is not a winning solution for anyone when it applies to people. Not tolerating certain behaviours is completely fine, but we need to separate that from people, I think.

Personally I prefer the thirty years war approach to religious fundamentalism. Sure it devastates europe for decades, but it made the world safe for the enlightenment.

I’m as christian as any of these intolerant nutbags. Christ had a message of love and forgiveness. These fundies are not christian, they’re just nutbags and they need to be opposed IMHO.

Mysteryman said :

And with that, you’ve made my point.

Your comments are bigoted and intolerant. It’s as simple as that. People like you bash religion for the very thing that you are now doing to others.

I don’t even know what that means.

Am I bigoted if I poke fun of your complete lack of grammatical sense?

Or do I have to embrace whatever nonsensical rubbish you claim to win your internet argument.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am not tolerant of intolerance – puts me in something of a bind.

seriously though, if people have ridiculous beliefs that they try and push on others the deserve to be ridiculed.

Noone is expecting you to tolerate intolerance. This is different, though, from tolerating the people who you perceive as intolerant.

Based on your logic, why should religions change to be more tolerant? You yourself are demonstrating no tolerance for them.

I guess it comes back to what our parents were supposed to teach us: two wrongs don’t make a right. Meeting intolerance with intolerance right back is not a winning solution for anyone when it applies to people. Not tolerating certain behaviours is completely fine, but we need to separate that from people, I think.

Mysteryman said :

So long as you understand that you fit into that group.

Well, actually, all I try to do is argue with people about the way their beliefs impact on other peoples lives.

I do not try to lobby governments to have laws made to restrict the freedoms of other people to practice their religions. On the other hand, the people I have been picking on in this debate are calling for the government to restrict a service it offers, to make that service unavailable to a sector of the community, for no reason that I understand.

If I use some flippant and careless language (because I think it’s funny) and that offends peoples, well, sorry. It is not really my intention to do that, except in a spirited competition “little bit of sledging to rile up the opposition” kind of way.

If people can’t engage in a debate via text on a message board without feeling vilified, imagine how they would feel if the government refused them the right to be married because they were black, or red haired, or vegetarian, or some other similarly arbitrary descriptor.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

p1 said :

chewy14 said :

…but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

Granted, absence of proof of existence is not proof something doesn’t exist. Which is why I sit slightly to the agnostic side of atheism.

___________________________________________

I think that the majority of debate you see between atheists and god botherers (specifically on the internet) stems from a fascination with people who believe, not just in the possibility that there is “something” out there bigger then us, but in every little snippet of doctrine of their chosen denomination. The debate is not about trying to convince them, or even ridicule them, but just to see what they will make up next.

That kinda debate is what makes religious people so distrusting whenever someone who doesn’t believe does try to enter a conversation, however genuine they may be.

That’s funny… it appears to me that most of the debate stems from bigoted atheists who gripe and moan constantly about Christians, Muslims, and any other religion in their crosshairs, and feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority. This thread is certainly evidence of that.

The entire history of organised religion is the biggest laundry list of systematic bigotry and intolerance, yet it’s the atheists who are bigoted because they poke fun at stupidity?

You can believe whatever the hell you want, but you don’t have a ‘right’ not to be ridiculed for being stupid.

And with that, you’ve made my point.

Your comments are bigoted and intolerant. It’s as simple as that. People like you bash religion for the very thing that you are now doing to others.

I am not tolerant of intolerance – puts me in something of a bind.

seriously though, if people have ridiculous beliefs that they try and push on others the deserve to be ridiculed.

p1 said :

Mysteryman said :

That’s funny… it appears to me that most of the debate stems from bigoted atheists who gripe and moan constantly about Christians, Muslims, and any other religion in their crosshairs, and feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority. This thread is certainly evidence of that.

There is a certain amount of blind nastyness from people who wish to stir up religos for the fun of it.

But any group who actively vilifies people with different beliefs to them (I’m talking Christians and Gays here), then claims OTHERS “…feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority…” are missing out of the greatest of ironies.

Sadly, it seems the vilification runs in many directions.

This thread just goes to show that many apparently educated people are not capable of tolerance (and that applies to all sides of the fence).

p1 said :

Mysteryman said :

That’s funny… it appears to me that most of the debate stems from bigoted atheists who gripe and moan constantly about Christians, Muslims, and any other religion in their crosshairs, and feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority. This thread is certainly evidence of that.

There is a certain amount of blind nastyness from people who wish to stir up religos for the fun of it.

But any group who actively vilifies people with different beliefs to them …

So long as you understand that you fit into that group.

Mysteryman said :

That’s funny… it appears to me that most of the debate stems from bigoted atheists who gripe and moan constantly about Christians, Muslims, and any other religion in their crosshairs, and feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority. This thread is certainly evidence of that.

There is a certain amount of blind nastyness from people who wish to stir up religos for the fun of it.

But any group who actively vilifies people with different beliefs to them (I’m talking Christians and Gays here), then claims OTHERS “…feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority…” are missing out of the greatest of ironies.

Mysteryman said :

p1 said :

chewy14 said :

…but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

Granted, absence of proof of existence is not proof something doesn’t exist. Which is why I sit slightly to the agnostic side of atheism.

___________________________________________

I think that the majority of debate you see between atheists and god botherers (specifically on the internet) stems from a fascination with people who believe, not just in the possibility that there is “something” out there bigger then us, but in every little snippet of doctrine of their chosen denomination. The debate is not about trying to convince them, or even ridicule them, but just to see what they will make up next.

That kinda debate is what makes religious people so distrusting whenever someone who doesn’t believe does try to enter a conversation, however genuine they may be.

That’s funny… it appears to me that most of the debate stems from bigoted atheists who gripe and moan constantly about Christians, Muslims, and any other religion in their crosshairs, and feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority. This thread is certainly evidence of that.

The entire history of organised religion is the biggest laundry list of systematic bigotry and intolerance, yet it’s the atheists who are bigoted because they poke fun at stupidity?

You can believe whatever the hell you want, but you don’t have a ‘right’ not to be ridiculed for being stupid.

p1 said :

chewy14 said :

…but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

Granted, absence of proof of existence is not proof something doesn’t exist. Which is why I sit slightly to the agnostic side of atheism.

___________________________________________

I think that the majority of debate you see between atheists and god botherers (specifically on the internet) stems from a fascination with people who believe, not just in the possibility that there is “something” out there bigger then us, but in every little snippet of doctrine of their chosen denomination. The debate is not about trying to convince them, or even ridicule them, but just to see what they will make up next.

That kinda debate is what makes religious people so distrusting whenever someone who doesn’t believe does try to enter a conversation, however genuine they may be.

That’s funny… it appears to me that most of the debate stems from bigoted atheists who gripe and moan constantly about Christians, Muslims, and any other religion in their crosshairs, and feel the need to ridicule others in an attempt to display some sort of pseudo superiority. This thread is certainly evidence of that.

Jim Jones said :

Captain RAAF said :

I’m abstaining from giving my opinion on this until I hear directly from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sauce be upon him!

I have been blessed by his noodley appendage and am a proud Pastafarian.

does this deity do baptisms, in a slow cooked tomato sauce perhaps??

Jim Jones said :

Are we supposed to respect the beliefs of people who think that unicorns exist now?

Are you disrespecting the Invisible Pink Unicorn now?

Captain RAAF said :

I’m abstaining from giving my opinion on this until I hear directly from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sauce be upon him!

I have been blessed by his noodley appendage and am a proud Pastafarian.

chewy14 said :

Sure don’t believe in God if you don’t want to (I don’t), but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

I thought that was called ‘bigotry’…

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

p1 said :

I love how not believing in something is also called a belief.

… and how rejection of religion and denial of the existence of a metaphysical realm is somehow ‘a religion’.

I’d suggest it’s because of your deliberate mocking of them and their ideas with no direct proof that they are wrong.
Sure don’t believe in God if you don’t want to (I don’t), but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

Proof that they are wrong? What an odd concept – as far as I’m aware no-one has proven that the ancient Norse gods don’t exist … or the Ancient Egyptian Gods for that matter … or any other gods that you might want to invent on the spot.

Actually, it’s never been conclusively proven that unicorns don’t exist.

Are we supposed to respect the beliefs of people who think that unicorns exist now?

chewy14 said :

…but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

Granted, absence of proof of existence is not proof something doesn’t exist. Which is why I sit slightly to the agnostic side of atheism.

___________________________________________

I think that the majority of debate you see between atheists and god botherers (specifically on the internet) stems from a fascination with people who believe, not just in the possibility that there is “something” out there bigger then us, but in every little snippet of doctrine of their chosen denomination. The debate is not about trying to convince them, or even ridicule them, but just to see what they will make up next.

That kinda debate is what makes religious people so distrusting whenever someone who doesn’t believe does try to enter a conversation, however genuine they may be.

I’m abstaining from giving my opinion on this until I hear directly from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sauce be upon him!

Jim Jones said :

p1 said :

I love how not believing in something is also called a belief.

… and how rejection of religion and denial of the existence of a metaphysical realm is somehow ‘a religion’.

I’d suggest it’s because of your deliberate mocking of them and their ideas with no direct proof that they are wrong.
Sure don’t believe in God if you don’t want to (I don’t), but I don’t see how claiming other people’s beliefs are wrong and stupid with no proof of your own could be described as anything other that a belief.

housebound said :

Looks like we might find out next year

I knew someone would mention it, but even if they were successful, securing a swing or majority in a handful of disgruntled NSW Labor seats when they’re an easy target for anger isn’t quite the same as being the national majority political power.

Skidbladnir said :

fgzk said :

It wont be too long till Islam has the majority political power in this country.

Move along, that bell won’t ring here.
Even if you managed to unite every enrolled-to-vote Muslim in Australia under one banner, convince them to set aside all of their personal feelings, and churn out a few policy ideas they’d still only be the largest political party in Australia, not the largest voting movement.
In any case, do you have any idea how hard it would be to teach those cats to dance in a line?

Looks like we might find out next year

p1 said :

I love how not believing in something is also called a belief.

… and how rejection of religion and denial of the existence of a metaphysical realm is somehow ‘a religion’.

fgzk said :

It wont be too long till Islam has the majority political power in this country.

Move along, that bell won’t ring here.
Even if you managed to unite every enrolled-to-vote Muslim in Australia under one banner, convince them to set aside all of their personal feelings, and churn out a few policy ideas they’d still only be the largest political party in Australia, not the largest voting movement.
In any case, do you have any idea how hard it would be to teach those cats to dance in a line?

I love how not believing in something is also called a belief.

I’m not an Ashiest. Not wanting to dismiss your ideas, just want you to keep them to your self and in the church. Normality and common sense are constructs and once again you should keep your version of them to your self. Enjoy your religion for what it is, but don’t feel the need to share it. It wont be too long till Islam has the majority political power in this country. I look forward to your christian democratic freedom speech then.

fgzk said :

MM “While you may see that as the difference, it’s still completely beside the point. The point is that these people have a right to do what they’re doing whether you agree with their ideology or not.”

These people being “gays” have a right to marriage. Spot on. They have a right to do what they want without being vilified by extreme right christians.

I’ve yet to see a petition from the Christian Science Church asking that the government ban doctors and encourage spiritual healing. While they believe this, they seem to apply it only to themselves.

Keep religion in the church and out of our government.

Evidently the law doesn’t see a petition concerning a proposed legislation as “vilification”. You don’t really have much of an argument in that regard.

Also, it seems that perhaps you don’t understand the way democracy works. Everyone gets their say and has the opportunity to lobby the government, regardless of their beliefs. You can spout off about the separation of church and state all you like but your cries are misguided. The government is elected to represent the people and while there are people of religious persuasion, as well as atheists, in our community the government will probably be a mix of those persuasions and the associated beliefs. For all the cries about “open mindedness” that comes from people who think similarly to you, they’re very quick to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Like it or not, being an atheist doesn’t make you the yard stick by which normality or common sense is measured. Yours is just another set of beliefs among many.

Jim Jones said :

miffed said :

pug206gti said :

The Van Rensbergs are reasonably mad.

And you base this statement on?

Well, they believe in an invisible man in the sky who created the world and is going to send everyone to hell unless they do exactly what he wants, who is omnipotent and omniscient, but hasn’t communicated with anyone for about 2000 years or so (since he organised for his son to be nailed to a couple of bits of wood).

That’s completely insane.

+1. would have been +2 if you had added the bit about the red pyjama wearing, pitchfork wielding guy who lives under the ground and +3 if you had used the phrase “jesus the purportedly magical jew’

miffed said :

pug206gti said :

The Van Rensbergs are reasonably mad.

And you base this statement on?

Well, they believe in an invisible man in the sky who created the world and is going to send everyone to hell unless they do exactly what he wants, who is omnipotent and omniscient, but hasn’t communicated with anyone for about 2000 years or so (since he organised for his son to be nailed to a couple of bits of wood).

That’s completely insane.

pug206gti said :

The Van Rensbergs are reasonably mad.

And you base this statement on?

MM “While you may see that as the difference, it’s still completely beside the point. The point is that these people have a right to do what they’re doing whether you agree with their ideology or not.”

These people being “gays” have a right to marriage. Spot on. They have a right to do what they want without being vilified by extreme right christians.

I’ve yet to see a petition from the Christian Science Church asking that the government ban doctors and encourage spiritual healing. While they believe this, they seem to apply it only to themselves.

Keep religion in the church and out of our government.

The Van Rensbergs are reasonably mad and hail from South Africa. No apartheid here, thanks a lot.

Jim Jones said :

If the gheys are allowed to get married, marriage will cease to be meaningful, civilisation as we know it will crumble, Nazis will ride Dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

This is the silliest thing I’ve ever seen on this website. How do the editors allow it to be posted?

Everybody knows that the world was actually created by God over a period of seven days about 4500 years ago, and that all the fossilised dinosaur bones were deliberately planted in the ground by God to mislead those paleontologist chappies. There never were any dinosaurs, so how could Nazis possibly ride them? Hmmm???

I know this to be true, because the fundamentalist Christian folks at my workplace told me so. And as for all that Carbon-14 radioactive decay pseudoscience. Just let me say that God has little tolerance for people who try to propagate that nonsense!

Guess you could say that for prostrate issues I should visit a gay male doctor as he would be more experienced?

schmeah said :

I’m more concerend that the petition apprears to support some kind of pro-life stance.

You’re falling into the trap of using their reference framing devices.

Anti-choice describes much the same stance for the same topic. But it drives them up the wall if you use it to their face. 🙂

There is absolutely no problem with them making their views known or that they oppose gay marriage. If any gay person is dumb enough to visit them having been put on notice then expect them ideologically to disapprove of both your sexual preferences and your views on marriage but that doesn’t mean you will be treated any differently if you do chose to go there. Trying to whip up some sort of homophobia around the issue is quite misplaced. Phobia is some sort of pathological condition in my view and it has, like the word gay, been hijacked.

fgzk said :

The difference would be the flag is a sign of diversity and inclusiveness, of hope and of yearning. The christian petition would seem to be exclusive, discriminating and divisive. Are these christian values?

Yes.

I’m more concerend that the petition apprears to support some kind of pro-life stance.

Considering we live in a self governed terriroty where a woman’s right to parental choice is safe-guarded, I’d be more worried that this doctor is giving women biased advice and directing them to similiarily aligned ‘pregnancy support groups’ (read, have the baby or you’re going to hell .. but we won’t help you at all .. just have the baby, and then go away). Be warned – avoid doctor’s in Charnwood!

fgzk said :

“I think it’s about as appropriate as businesses that display the gay pride flag. Both are displays of opinion – one in support of something, one in opposition to something. Neither are illegal. Many people seem to have trouble separating their personal feelings on the matter from the matter itself. Nothing amazing about it.”

Right on, some people have a problem with separating their belief and reality.

The difference would be the flag is a sign of diversity and inclusiveness, of hope and of yearning. The christian petition would seem to be exclusive, discriminating and divisive. Are these christian values?

While you may see that as the difference, it’s still completely beside the point. The point is that these people have a right to do what they’re doing whether you agree with their ideology or not.

“I think it’s about as appropriate as businesses that display the gay pride flag. Both are displays of opinion – one in support of something, one in opposition to something. Neither are illegal. Many people seem to have trouble separating their personal feelings on the matter from the matter itself. Nothing amazing about it.”

Right on, some people have a problem with separating their belief and reality.

The difference would be the flag is a sign of diversity and inclusiveness, of hope and of yearning. The christian petition would seem to be exclusive, discriminating and divisive. Are these christian values?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

Yes, they would. While our constitution doesn’t protect freedom of speech like the US one, my understanding is that unless they are breaking the law (I don’t think that would fall under the racial vilification laws) then they are free to say what they like.

Would I agree with that petition? Doesn’t matter. That’s not the issue. You seem to forget that.

No, I don’t forget that. It amazes me that you would not think it was inappropriate, absolutely amazes me.

I think it’s about as appropriate as businesses that display the gay pride flag. Both are displays of opinion – one in support of something, one in opposition to something. Neither are illegal. Many people seem to have trouble separating their personal feelings on the matter from the matter itself. Nothing amazing about it.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

Yes, they would. While our constitution doesn’t protect freedom of speech like the US one, my understanding is that unless they are breaking the law (I don’t think that would fall under the racial vilification laws) then they are free to say what they like.

Would I agree with that petition? Doesn’t matter. That’s not the issue. You seem to forget that.

No, I don’t forget that. It amazes me that you would not think it was inappropriate, absolutely amazes me.

Hey, life’s a rich tapestry.

Mysteryman said :

Yes, they would. While our constitution doesn’t protect freedom of speech like the US one, my understanding is that unless they are breaking the law (I don’t think that would fall under the racial vilification laws) then they are free to say what they like.

Would I agree with that petition? Doesn’t matter. That’s not the issue. You seem to forget that.

No, I don’t forget that. It amazes me that you would not think it was inappropriate, absolutely amazes me.

Jim Jones said :

By this time we’ll be too busy fighting off Dinosaur-riding Nazis to be too concerned about the actions of a few fundy d1ckheads.

If you could arrange for people to be able to gamble on dinosaur-riding nazis over the 2 mile steeplechase, you would be on a dead-set winner!

Yes, they would. While our constitution doesn’t protect freedom of speech like the US one, my understanding is that unless they are breaking the law (I don’t think that would fall under the racial vilification laws) then they are free to say what they like.

Would I agree with that petition? Doesn’t matter. That’s not the issue. You seem to forget that.

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

housebound said :

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing. One bit talks about how people should be able to be open about their religion/faith – but you are all saying ‘no’, not if you’re a doctor. Somehow being open has turned into imposing. It’s the same argument those intolerant religious bigots use to oppress others of different views – that being open means imposing one’s morals.

absolute rubbish. they are free to promote their views but not in their surgery.

No, housebound makes a good point. And as it’s THEIR surgery, they are free to promote their views. As patients, you can choose to go elsewhere if you don’t like it.

If they received no public money via Medicare you may have a point.

That’s got nothing to do with it. They (the doctor/s at this practise) aren’t discriminating against anyone. They aren’t refusing service to anyone. They are still providing the same service to everyone and as such are entitled to the same Medicare funding as any other doctor’s surgery. These doctors are not employees of the government, nor are they government representatives. The practice belongs to the doctors, and they have a right to post the petition whether people like you agree with that right or not.

Would they also have the right to have a petition calling for the banning of inter-racial marriage, if not why not?

Meh.

These people are on the wrong side of history – give it another few years and they’ll be thought of in the same way as those who were opposed to equal rights for women and people who aren’t white.

By this time we’ll be too busy fighting off Dinosaur-riding Nazis to be too concerned about the actions of a few fundy d1ckheads.

Mysteryman said :

That’s got nothing to do with it. They (the doctor/s at this practise) aren’t discriminating against anyone. They aren’t refusing service to anyone. They are still providing the same service to everyone and as such are entitled to the same Medicare funding as any other doctor’s surgery. These doctors are not employees of the government, nor are they government representatives. The practice belongs to the doctors, and they have a right to post the petition whether people like you agree with that right or not.

The government on the other hand, offers a service in the form of a recognition of the status of being married. This isn’t open to all people; it is limited to consenting adults, who are not already related (too closely), or already married, and to people with matching genitals.

The relationship is between the GP and the patient – same as between any small business and their customers. The patient pay the GP and can then get some of that money back from the Government via an insurer which in this case is Medicare.

If a GP chooses to bulkbill a patient then he does the patient a favour by giving him a discount. This still does not mean that the GP works for the Government or Medicare and what they do in their private business is for them to decide and no-one else.

fgzk said :

“Better then that, I’m going to avoid the who suburb. But on the list of reasons to avoid Charny, don’t even register.”

Fundy god squaders control the old Charnwood high school which they use to run a business.

Actually they purchased the high school when the government decided they didn’t want it any more. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorant ramblings.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

housebound said :

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing. One bit talks about how people should be able to be open about their religion/faith – but you are all saying ‘no’, not if you’re a doctor. Somehow being open has turned into imposing. It’s the same argument those intolerant religious bigots use to oppress others of different views – that being open means imposing one’s morals.

absolute rubbish. they are free to promote their views but not in their surgery.

No, housebound makes a good point. And as it’s THEIR surgery, they are free to promote their views. As patients, you can choose to go elsewhere if you don’t like it.

If they received no public money via Medicare you may have a point.

That’s got nothing to do with it. They (the doctor/s at this practise) aren’t discriminating against anyone. They aren’t refusing service to anyone. They are still providing the same service to everyone and as such are entitled to the same Medicare funding as any other doctor’s surgery. These doctors are not employees of the government, nor are they government representatives. The practice belongs to the doctors, and they have a right to post the petition whether people like you agree with that right or not.

“Better then that, I’m going to avoid the who suburb. But on the list of reasons to avoid Charny, don’t even register.”

Fundy god squaders control the old Charnwood high school which they use to run a business.

earthrepair said :

Similarly if a doctor is gay I would like to know too, as I doubt I would be seeing him for a rectal examination. Each to their own.

We need to do something about all those straight male gynecologists.

housebound said :

p1 said :

I think the voting with the feet approach is the only way to go for people who care about this.

Please do. They’re good doctors with a long waiting list.

Better then that, I’m going to avoid the who suburb. But on the list of reasons to avoid Charny, fundy god squaders don’t even register.

p1 said :

I think the voting with the feet approach is the only way to go for people who care about this.

Please do. They’re good doctors with a long waiting list.

fgzk said :

Doctors discriminating against clients on moral grounds is common. Ask the drug using community and you will find a lot of it. Much better to openly state that you don’t want to treat people on moral grounds than be humiliated in person.

That’s a fair point, but is that actually happening here? Have the doctors actually refused treatment to anyone? Are they stating they won’t treat or assist some people based on sexual preference or marriage thereof?

This isn’t supposed to be a gee-up, but a genuine question.

I think this thread is getting a little confused addressing two separate issues.

One is whether a pair of consenting adults with matching genitalia should able to get a legal status from the government to confirm their relationship.

The other is whether a doctors surgery has to be non-offensive to the greater community in a way that the average panel-beater or cheesecake shop doesn’t.

Personally I feel that it should be held to something of a higher standard (for many reasons to do with peoples ability to access vital services without feeling discriminated against), however in the absence of a realistic way to define such a thing it would be crazy to actually try and make laws about it.

I think the voting with the feet approach is the only way to go for people who care about this.

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

housebound said :

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing. One bit talks about how people should be able to be open about their religion/faith – but you are all saying ‘no’, not if you’re a doctor. Somehow being open has turned into imposing. It’s the same argument those intolerant religious bigots use to oppress others of different views – that being open means imposing one’s morals.

absolute rubbish. they are free to promote their views but not in their surgery.

No, housebound makes a good point. And as it’s THEIR surgery, they are free to promote their views. As patients, you can choose to go elsewhere if you don’t like it.

If they received no public money via Medicare you may have a point.

housebound said :

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing.

I don’t think that such people need much help in having their beliefs affirmed. Anything short of enthusiastic agreement just shows that we’ve fallen under the evil influence of their family-destroying, cross-burning, child-murdering nemeses.

chewy14 said :

trickyxr said :

And I’m sick and tired of people who want to have a go at those of us against inter-racial marriage. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Eieisha.

And i’m sick and tired of people having a go at those of us against polygamous marriage. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Steve and Eieisha.

and i’m downright fed up with those who castigate me for railing against intra-class marriage: god made adam and eve, not adam and sharmaynne-brooke, or jayydyn and eve…

People are free to have their opinions, others are equally free to have opinions about them.

Doctors discriminating against clients on moral grounds is common. Ask the drug using community and you will find a lot of it. Much better to openly state that you don’t want to treat people on moral grounds than be humiliated in person.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

housebound said :

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing. One bit talks about how people should be able to be open about their religion/faith – but you are all saying ‘no’, not if you’re a doctor. Somehow being open has turned into imposing. It’s the same argument those intolerant religious bigots use to oppress others of different views – that being open means imposing one’s morals.

absolute rubbish. they are free to promote their views but not in their surgery.

No, housebound makes a good point. And as it’s THEIR surgery, they are free to promote their views. As patients, you can choose to go elsewhere if you don’t like it.

Solidarity said :

Why does an opposition to gay marriage automatically mean the person is homophobic? Hell, I know homosexuals who are opposed to it…

Because labelling someone as “homophobic” is the easiest way to dismiss their ideas/opinions without ever giving consideration to them. It’s like name calling in primary school.

housebound said :

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing. One bit talks about how people should be able to be open about their religion/faith – but you are all saying ‘no’, not if you’re a doctor. Somehow being open has turned into imposing. It’s the same argument those intolerant religious bigots use to oppress others of different views – that being open means imposing one’s morals.

absolute rubbish. they are free to promote their views but not in their surgery.

You know, you are all confirming the need for something like the Canbera Declaration in the minds of those who would sign such a thing. One bit talks about how people should be able to be open about their religion/faith – but you are all saying ‘no’, not if you’re a doctor. Somehow being open has turned into imposing. It’s the same argument those intolerant religious bigots use to oppress others of different views – that being open means imposing one’s morals.

Grail said :

My worry is basically this: doctor finds out I’m gay-friendly and living in sin. At some later date, I present with certain symptoms eg: bleeding from the eyes: the doctor has to decide whether it’s a bad case of ebola or just the flu. Doctor, being the religious nutcase, tells me I got what I deserved for associating with sinners.

That gave me a good giggle – cheers.

(You’re not serious, right?)

Here’s how I see it: if I was going to that doctor as a regular client, and I saw that petition up, I’d switch doctors. At some point in time my opinion is going to collide with hers head on, and I don’t want the person I’m paying to help manage my health getting their knickers in a knot just because I happen to (a) regularly copulate with a woman whom I’m not married to and never intend to have children with, (b) be gay-friendly, and (c) support legal abortion (with emphasis on “legal/illegal” being entirely disconnected from “good/evil” or “right/wrong”).

My worry is basically this: doctor finds out I’m gay-friendly and living in sin. At some later date, I present with certain symptoms eg: bleeding from the eyes: the doctor has to decide whether it’s a bad case of ebola or just the flu. Doctor, being the religious nutcase, tells me I got what I deserved for associating with sinners.

You never know when a religious nutter is going to turn against you because their god told them to. At least with capitalists you can smell the money.

The very idea that women could vote/work once invoked similar outrage. The very idea of allowing gays to serve in the military once invoked similar outrage. Inter-racial marriage once invoked similar outrage. Really – the laws will (hopefully) change – life will go on, the people who are rampantly against it will find their lives quite unaffected by the change (because they probably don’t have any gay family or friends – that they know of), gay people (and their friends and family) will feel a lot happier … and in ten years time, nobody will remember why anybody made such a fuss.

In the meantime, I would be loathe to go to a doctor who held and overtly displayed such non-progressive, non-inclusive views. What else are they non-progressive about??

In response to Miffed.

Whether it’s 1 hour or 30 mins for an initial consultation, it doesn’t matter. The point is they did have a space for regulars but wouldn’t give it to my very sick daughter who needed antibiotics. I was recommended to ring them because it was the closest practice. It was three years ago, we had just moved from interstate and did not have a regular GP. I fully understand about the books being full but at the time, they had openings for new patients but not for that day! Fortunately, I found another practice (on the other side of Belco) willing to see my daughter and we’ve been going to that practice ever since.

I am glad you think they’re great with emergencies for regulars (as they should be) but I still think they’re hypocrites.

trickyxr said :

And I’m sick and tired of people who want to have a go at those of us against inter-racial marriage. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Eieisha.

And i’m sick and tired of people having a go at those of us against polygamous marriage. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Steve and Eieisha.

trickyxr said :

And i am sick and tired of people who want to have a go at people who are against Gay marriage.

And I’m sick and tired of people who want to have a go at those of us against inter-racial marriage. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Eieisha. Marriage is there to create racially pure children.

Ok… I’m clearly being facetious here, but I think my above comment helps show why people should argue against those who want to discriminate against two gay people in a loving relationship who want to get married simply… Their views are discriminatory and offensive.

The arguments used against interracial marriage – which was illegal in many parts of the US until relatively recently – are very similar to the arguments against gay marriage (Unnatural, against god’s will, children will grow up in perverted household, etc). Nowadays, we (rightfully) find the idea that interracial couples should not be allowed to marry abhorrent and outdated. In the future, so it will be when it comes to gay couples.

Kan said: “I once tried to get my extremely sick kid (raging temp, infected tonsils) into that practice but was told they only had appointment times available for regular patients. They had this ridiculous policy that new patients needed an hour appointment and they only had half an hour sessions available. It didn’t matter that my daughter needed antibiotics ASAP.”

Like many other practices their books are closed. When they were taking new patients they asked for a 30min initial appointment and all their regular appointments are 15min. Your facts are therefore not correct. We have always found them to be able to help with emergency appointments for their regular patients. They are simply too busy to take on new patients.

Pork Hunt said :

I agree but if they want to get divorced, we’ll have to put up with the whole shit fight all over again…

I hadn’t even thought of the gay devorce debate. God help us all then that has to go through parliament.

Better let my friend know (whose sister has been in gay relationship for decades) that her GPs are religious nut jobs!

Plus they are hypocrites if they claim they’re concerned about so-called family values. I once tried to get my extremely sick kid (raging temp, infected tonsils) into that practice but was told they only had appointment times available for regular patients. They had this ridiculous policy that new patients needed an hour appointment and they only had half an hour sessions available. It didn’t matter that my daughter needed antibiotics ASAP.

Jim Jones said :

If the gheys are allowed to get married, marriage will cease to be meaningful, civilisation as we know it will crumble, Nazis will ride Dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

Can’t wait for the movie to come out (no pun intended)…

vandam said :

Having said that, personally I couldn’t give a rats what they do with the marraige thing. If it takes a simple marraige ceremony to make them happy, get it changed and be done with it. I’m sick of hearing about it, especially when there are so many other more important things affecting our daily lives.

I agree but if they want to get divorced, we’ll have to put up with the whole shit fight all over again…

housebound said :

So – you’re mortally offended by a notice you haven’t seen in a doctor’s surgery you didn’t attend? And, all that in a democracy where we do have an implied right to freedom of speech (except in Victoria).

As someone else already said – don’t go there if you don’t like it. Those two doctors are very, very good, frantically busy, and if you leave another patient will be grateful. (Speaking as one who might phone up to see if they will take a new patient if all you lot leave!!)

It is highly inappropriate for health care professionals, who are, to a significant degree on the public purse via medicare, to use their place of business to promulgate a view that is not in any way related to their profession.

So – you’re mortally offended by a notice you haven’t seen in a doctor’s surgery you didn’t attend? And, all that in a democracy where we do have an implied right to freedom of speech (except in Victoria).

As someone else already said – don’t go there if you don’t like it. Those two doctors are very, very good, frantically busy, and if you leave another patient will be grateful. (Speaking as one who might phone up to see if they will take a new patient if all you lot leave!!)

Some of the bigotry and phobia on this thread is astonishing. Gay people are not conspiring to bring about the end of Christianity. They simply find themselves attracted to the same sex and feel the need to struggle against persecution for the right to live openly and freely in the relationships that they are destined to form.

And that’s the simple version. Real life has bisexuals, intersex, transsexuals, queer Christians, polyamory and all kinds of combinations. None of which deserves any attitude from someone completely uninvolved and unaffected by it.

If the gheys are allowed to get married, marriage will cease to be meaningful, civilisation as we know it will crumble, Nazis will ride Dinosaurs through rivers of blood.

trix said :

For example, “double entendre” no longer exists in French in the way we use it.

i asked a barmaid for a double entendre once and she gave me one.

but: I still haven’t heard a reasonable argument as to how the lobbying by many gays for the right to get married – not something I’m personally interested in – would have the slightest impact on the marriage of fine upstanding Christian citizens. I really don’t know what these people are on.

bingo! (apart from ‘impact’ when ‘effect’ might have worked… /pedantry)

p1 said :

Personally I think the government should get out of the marriage game all together. If people want a legally binding contract between themselves and their partners, they can go to a lawyer and draw one up.

Surely we could use the laws around de facto for legal purposes. Those laws apply as long as the couple are both adults, so then gay or not becomes irrelevant. Then, allow people to ‘marry’ if they choose, under whatever institution they want.

Solidarity said :

Why does an opposition to gay marriage automatically mean the person is homophobic? Hell, I know homosexuals who are opposed to it…

+1.

Big deal if the doctor is “homophobic”. Find another doctor if you don’t like it.

I see the “marriage as a religious construct” issue, but why are religious groups opposed to the sectarian legal construct of civil unions? Because it’s similar to marriage and they thought of it first?

PantsMan said :

Totally irrelevant – would have to go to Charnwood or be gay to be affected. Neither going to happen; not that there is anything wrong with that…

You’re actually defending something, using logic of “I won’t speak up because I’m not a homosexual”? Seriously?
I might not be gay, but I have gay friends, and there’s always an outside chance that one of my children will be.

The problem with marriage, gay or otherwise, is that it crosses the political/religious barrier that we like to think exists.

It is a traditionally religious construct, actually it probably pre-dates religion, and is simply a social construct, but it has been part of organised religions for as long as they have been organised. And I think all religions have some concept of marriage.

Since governments have taken over the administrative functions surrounding marriage (presumable as a result of the married “status” being important for legal reasons) it has no longer been subject to the control of the leaders of whatever church you happen to be a member of.

But is is still a religious construct. So no matter what the government tries to do, they are pretty much f*#ked.

Personally I think the government should get out of the marriage game all together. If people want a legally binding contract between themselves and their partners, they can go to a lawyer and draw one up.

Pommy bastard said :

Are there not parallels here in the way that religion, (esp, christianity) use people’s state of ill health in order to foist their views on them?

Christianity is notorious for promising “jam tomorrow”, everyone will be well and whole when they get to heaven as jeebuz loves them.

Suffer now, but as long as you adhere to our views and not those of any other Christian cult, or heaven forbid, another religion, and although your life is crap and we’re draining you of cash you cannot afford, we will give you a guarantee of everlasting life and health at the foot of our father.

This “doctor” is promoting a religious view, one mainly of intolerance, which seems to be teh hallmark of christianity these days, to people who come to them for relief of illness.

That’s religion through and through gang, the devious exploiting the weak, ill and stupid for their own ends.

What else would you expect from a slaves religion. It is fundamentally designed to subjugate.

@#26 I filed +1

Freedom of speech – enough said and make your own choice to agree or disagree. No need for the tirade of nonsense being spouted by most of this thread’s contributors.

Are there not parallels here in the way that religion, (esp, christianity) use people’s state of ill health in order to foist their views on them?

Christianity is notorious for promising “jam tomorrow”, everyone will be well and whole when they get to heaven as jeebuz loves them.

Suffer now, but as long as you adhere to our views and not those of any other Christian cult, or heaven forbid, another religion, and although your life is crap and we’re draining you of cash you cannot afford, we will give you a guarantee of everlasting life and health at the foot of our father.

This “doctor” is promoting a religious view, one mainly of intolerance, which seems to be teh hallmark of christianity these days, to people who come to them for relief of illness.

That’s religion through and through gang, the devious exploiting the weak, ill and stupid for their own ends.

Solidarity said :

Why does an opposition to gay marriage automatically mean the person is homophobic? Hell, I know homosexuals who are opposed to it…

It is being used as a dog whistle.

earthrepair said :

Similarly if a doctor is gay I would like to know too, as I doubt I would be seeing him for a rectal examination.

Uh-huh, cause you are such a desireable piece of totty that they would lose control of themselves and say ‘too hell with professionalism, I can’t resist this hot piece of tale.’

If you are really concerned, and I am loathe to tell you this, I hope you are sitting down, or at least have your back to a wall; there are some women, possibly even some women doctors, who enjoy inserting digits into mens nether regions.

So it may be best if you ask your doctor, male female or transgender, if they are into that sort of thing at the start of the consultation.

Why does an opposition to gay marriage automatically mean the person is homophobic? Hell, I know homosexuals who are opposed to it…

earthrepair said :

Similarly if a doctor is gay I would like to know too, as I doubt I would be seeing him for a rectal examination. Each to their own.

Yeah, that’s why there are no male gynaecologists.

Wait…

And I doubt that the petition would provoke such a strong negative reaction if it wasn’t written in such a weaselly way. It’s an incredibly transparent attempt to scare non-extremists into agreeing with their flawed point of view.

Pommy bastard said :

Is it reasonable to expect a doctor, who after all holds a valued and respected position in society, to keep their personal beliefs to themselves and not promote their intolerance in their place of work?

+1

Personal beliefs and professional conduct are two very different things.

I would feel much more certain of that if the doctor concerned at kept those personal beliefs personal, and not chosen to broadcast them in their professional environment, to the public.

If someone has such poor professional boundaries in that respect, how would you expect they do in more critical areas?

Others have already covered off the proper definition of -phobia – it doesn’t just mean “fear of” something, it can mean “hatred for” or “aversion”. And in any case, given the commonly-accepted use of the word, hair-splitting about the Greek roots is just pathetic. Plenty of words shift in meaning once they are commmonly used in English. For example, “double entendre” no longer exists in French in the way we use it.

Secondly, I love it how presumably-straight people are quick to assure us it’s not homophobic. Does it only count if people are actively assaulting you? No, attempting to deny a class of people the same rights they get to exercise themselves is a pretty bloody blatant exercise in bigotry, and in this case, homophobia.

Thirdly, I’m a bit torn about how I would feel about seeing this in a waiting room. Doctors have a set of professional ethics that means that they are supposed to provide proper care to -anyone- who avails themselves of their services. If I went healthcare professional like this, who was so public about their bigotry, I would seriously question that I would actually get adequate care if the doctor learned that I was queer. (And it’s fairly frigging obvious, in my case.) On the other hand, their putting it right out there means that I can decide whether to take the risk of going under their “care”. But on the third hand, doctors are like hen’s teeth in Canberra, so those busily saying from their comfy armchairs that we are free to go elsewhere are being completely disingenuous about the actual amount of choice is available.

Personally, I do actively fear many Christians, and all of the fundamentalist and charismatic ones. Despite their bullshit, it’s not us queers who are attempting to impact on their lives – we don’t attempt to shut down their frigging churches and I still pay taxes that support their frigging schools (and I resent that bitterly) – but there are a hell of a lot of them trying to persecute us. I still haven’t heard a reasonable argument as to how the lobbying by many gays for the right to get married – not something I’m personally interested in – would have the slightest impact on the marriage of fine upstanding Christian citizens. I really don’t know what these people are on.

It is about as offensive and stupid as any other petition I have seen. I really wouldn’t have any issues going to this doctor based on a petition such as this. Personal beliefs and professional conduct are two very different things.

Is it reasonable to expect a doctor, who after all holds a valued and respected position in society, to keep their personal beliefs to themselves and not promote their intolerance in their place of work?

LSWCHP said :

virgin birth

Virgin birth my arse, that girl was a whore. In that part of the world it was make up a real good story or get stoned to death.

She must have been a damned good story teller. “No honey, it wasn’t Ned next door….ummmm God did it”

It’s best for all of us sensible folks if religious nutjobs furiously advertise their weird views on rubbing genitals together, sky fairies, burning for eternity, being poked with pitchforks, living forever, rising from the dead, transubstantiation, sexually transmitted diseases, parting the waters, miracles of all varieties, speaking in tongues, papal infallibility, virgin birth, the flood, women being created from mens ribs and…and…and all that other wacky nonsense they believe in.

When they advertise their beliefs, we know where they stand. So, be thankful that you now understand where this person is coming from on a wide range of social issues. Armed with that understanding, make the sensible choice, and take your business elsewhere.

Totally irrelevant – would have to go to Charnwood or be gay to be affected. Neither going to happen; not that there is anything wrong with that…

Skidbladnir said :

vandam:

You did read what you’re trying to defend, didn’t you?

Skid- have a think about what people are signing (a declaration- not authors, underwear size, etc.)

They’re calling for ‘going back to the traditional Christian way’ (ie: exceptional privilege for one faith over others), protecting their own view on ‘marriage’ (rights and methods of public expression already shared by the majority they are a part of, they want denied to a marginalised few), and claiming that public office deserves a religious test (in violation of the Constitution).

You did read what you’re trying to defend, didn’t you?

Where does it state traditional christian way?

I dont see to much wrong with what the doctor is petitioning here.

#20 I agree with you. And i am sick and tired of people who want to have a go at people who are against Gay marriage.

earthrepair said :

No problem. They are doing us all a favour by telling us they are Christian fanatics, intolerant of other religions wanting us to join their non-secular society.
Homophobic? No; but if you are gay (or LGBT) you would best give them a wide berth.
Their intolerance and the fact that they are creationists should be enough of a hint to go to a brighter doctor, especially if you are after something like the Pill.
I thank them for putting up their petition and putting us on notice.
Others may want to visit them just for that reason. Similarly if a doctor is gay I would like to know too, as I doubt I would be seeing him for a rectal examination. Each to their own.

Don’t flatter yourself!

I’d rather an honest person such as this – openly expressing their views – than damaging closet (!) festering of such.

Freedom of speech folks.

And I disagree with her entirely.

As a left-hander, I’m glad they haven’t resurrected the ‘sinister’ use of the left…

vandam:
I’m all for your freedom of speech, its an implied right of the Constitution under Australian law. I’ll defend your right to speak fairly regularly.
But for mine, a person’s demands to be heard, treated equally, and listened to in a forum of views end up on very shaky ground when those very ideas they’re relying on are what their Canberra Declaration is attacking for other people.
They’re calling for ‘going back to the traditional Christian way’ (ie: exceptional privilege for one faith over others), protecting their own view on ‘marriage’ (rights and methods of public expression already shared by the majority they are a part of, they want denied to a marginalised few), and claiming that public office deserves a religious test (in violation of the Constitution).

You did read what you’re trying to defend, didn’t you?

“One man’s theology is another man’s bellylaugh.” Robert A Heinlein.

maybe I am thinking about this a little too hard, but here is a bit I posted on another page on this topic:

For background, I am hetero, married and have offspring, so I embody this supposedly ideal marriage model, so i could happily walk away from with the view that I am okay, I fit with this, I know my bible even though I am an atheist, I am not at risk here.

But I am at risk. I am at risk in any society that is guided by narrow religious belief, where a religious group is pushing to blur the necessary lines between church and state and legislature. Where doctors are openly stating that they will listen first to a slanted interpretation of christian teachings over any other thought, evaluation and consideration. Where a bigoted view is supported by an uninformed interpretation of certain biblical teachings. Where instead of the humanist teachings that are universally present in all major religions, a narrow, dangerously bigoted approach is openly pushed as being the “real truth”. I am at risk in a society where religious doctrine is put above human rights.

Now please don’t take this as a position against religion, it isn’t. Mine is a position against mindless bigotry. Mine is a position against a “canberra declaration” that bizarrely focusses on a requirement that the genitals in any marriage must be different from one another and that the only sex should be about procreation. Oddly, I have never heard of a religious married couple being told they must no longer have sex once the wife is pregnant because no further child can be produced, or that as soon as the wife is through menopause no more loving interaction is allowed. Or that women over the age of 50 can’t marry because no natural babies are possible. Or that couples who are adopting must not have sex. Ergo it is not about the children folks, it is clearly about the genitals. This is wierd to me.

And further, that there seems to be an idea that combining different genitals is some kind of magical protection against domestic violence, abuse or any other terrible things that can happen in families. There is so little analysis of what makes for a healthy family – eg trust, respect, love, care, effort, understanding etc. Things that are about what is in our minds and hearts, and not about our genitals at all really.

And i am informed on this, I have looked at the declaration, and i have considered thease issues in depth, including as part of my personal journey away from christianity and towards atheism and humanism. This is scary, slanted stuff in this declaration.

But to finish this essay, I think I am at risk in a society that does not value the people based on their individiaul merits. That is blind to the fact that good people ARE good people, that stereotypes are simply myths, that an individual’s worth is proven by THEIR actions, and not by some bigoted unsupported declaration about how people in a particular ‘class’ of person are bad for society.

No problem. They are doing us all a favour by telling us they are Christian fanatics, intolerant of other religions wanting us to join their non-secular society.
Homophobic? No; but if you are gay (or LGBT) you would best give them a wide berth.
Their intolerance and the fact that they are creationists should be enough of a hint to go to a brighter doctor, especially if you are after something like the Pill.
I thank them for putting up their petition and putting us on notice.
Others may want to visit them just for that reason. Similarly if a doctor is gay I would like to know too, as I doubt I would be seeing him for a rectal examination. Each to their own.

Clearly a bunch of you are hypocrits.

So it’s ok to have petitions supporting homosexuals but not against it?

What happened to this place being free speech?

Having said that, personally I couldn’t give a rats what they do with the marraige thing. If it takes a simple marraige ceremony to make them happy, get it changed and be done with it. I’m sick of hearing about it, especially when there are so many other more important things affecting our daily lives.

Late starter for a mully, but I reckon its a contender….

What their beliefs are aside, its not as though this is in a public hospital or you are somehow forced to read it. As a private business the Doctor can do what they want within the boundaries of the law. As a consumer you have every right to take your business elsewhere.

What their beliefs are as point of focus, who gives a shit. There was some wanker interviewed on 666 trying to brush aside the Joel Monaghan incident by saying that dogs were full of ‘christian forgiveness’ so would not have been affected by the incident. Lets face it, we’re surrounded by nutjobs of all persuasions and everyone thinks their persuasion is the way everyone else should be/feel/act.

CraigT said :

The fact is that plenty of us don’t agree with attacks by the homosexual lobby against the basic social structures of our society.

Apparently, disagreeing that the word “marriage” should be redefined to suit an obnoxious political lobby comprised of clearly quite disturbed people makes us “homophobic bigots”.

If anybody is finding their inability to participate in the institution of marriage stressful, they can probably access counselling or even psychiatric care.

pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

I have been looking for a doctor to check my prostate, I have found one 🙂

Well that doctor just earned the declaration another signee.

Though I doubt somehow they’ll be printing my name and address on it.

Dr An*s P W*nkst*in at your service

Religious people saying we need to protect our children from gay people is hilarious, we need to protect our children from religious people

Mysteryman said :

Homophobic? No. Disagreement with something does not mean one is afraid of it.

I used to think that xxxx-phobic meant “fear of xxxx”, as per arachnophobia and claustrophobia.

But apparently the definition of homophobia also includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, etc.

The fact is that plenty of us don’t agree with attacks by the homosexual lobby against the basic social structures of our society.

Apparently, disagreeing that the word “marriage” should be redefined to suit an obnoxious political lobby comprised of clearly quite disturbed people makes us “homophobic bigots”.

If anybody is finding their inability to participate in the institution of marriage stressful, they can probably access counselling or even psychiatric care.

No, it is not necessarily homophobic. That word is thrown around too often with out an appreciation of it’s meaning.

(Really, go read the Canberra Declaration, then go read up on its authors, then go back and play ‘Spot the code words’ in the Declaration on your second read-through. Its authors are friends and colleagues of Danny Nalliah.)

(Anyone coming late to the show, I’d recommend reading the other thread first… It covers how the Canberra Declaration originates from the fiery far-right of Fundamentalist Christianity in Australia, it’ll give a better background for my rant below…)

I spotted one of the Sign the Canberra Declaration for Yourself petitions in a cafe at Tuggeranong a few weeks back. I knew the owner had put it up, but didn’t think much of it.
My reasoning was pretty simple:
I knew they were Christians before, but I didn’t realise they were intolerant Christians until now. If they want to let their religion drive alongside their business, so be it.
They make a good pasta for the price and their religion didn’t change the quality of service.
Also, you expect to see wierd petitions in greasy spoon cafes, its part of the fun.

I have no issue with doctors holding personal beliefs, or having religious experiences.
I have no issue with doctors holding certain opinions on social issues, which to a degree, may have been informed by their religious inclinations.
I can accept that it can be hard to quarantine one set of beliefs from amother, up to a point.

However, if someone in a respected and trusted professional role, such as a lawyer, CEO or doctor, thinks that their opinions on topics totally unrelated to their field of expertise should be granted equal merit, based solely on an unsupported blurring of the line between professional respect and social politeness, they can bash that idea right up their arse, and climb down off that pedestal before they hurt somebody.
Also, the information and flyers on display at a doctor’s office is a wholly different concept to the Community Noticeboard outside the shopping centre.

Like Gimmeth, I’d take issue with someone letting their overbearing arrogance, lack of tolerance, religious dogmaticism, and patronising attitude potentially get in the way of doing their job (‘protect life’ you say, instead of ‘protecting a patient’s right to choose’?), and trying to exclude non-Christians from everyday life and political discourse.
So much so, I’d probably find a less exclusionary doctor.
At least someone who recognised that anyone living a non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosex, or ‘non-whatever’ lifestyle doesn’t deserve to be secretly judged by their doctor on non-health issues

Maybe she could put up a warning sign to give people time to deal with the fact that certain some forms of treatment, advice, and logic (so hopefully also the benefits of the dogmatically questionable science) may be off the table at her medical practice, since even though they achieve sound medical results, don’t get the Beardly Nod of Approval from her (notably, non-medically trained) priest or pastor?

toriness said :

pretty damned unprofessional and i dare say unethical for a medical professional to alienate patients on the basis of religion. if i saw that in my doctor’s surgery i would let them know about my disgust, probably rip down the petition and walk out with it, and let the world know about it on the interwebs. so the doctor really is doing this sort of thing at their own peril aren’t they? which makes you think they’re pretty stupid. which makes me wonder about the level of medical care you’re going to get from them – would they refuse to issue a prescription of the pill to a teenage girl for example? would they given substandard level of healthcare to a family – gay or straight – which hadn’t bothered with the piece of paper with marriage stamped on it than a ‘traditional christian family’?

Calvary Hospital is allowed to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs, so why not anyone else?

Mysteryman said :

Homophobic? No. Disagreement with something does not mean one is afraid of it.

+1

Obviously said doctor feels marriage has a significance worthy of being saved from self-interest groups intent on sabotaging a basic tenet of our society for many centuries. Said doctor probably prefers to have nothing to do with individuals who hold directly contrarian views so strongly that they would take offence. Sounds to me like doctor has made a smart move, in that he or she doesn’t have to pretend to like something that he or she doesn’t and is standing up for his or her rights.

The solution for those who disagree with the doctor’s views on this matter, go elsewhere, and you and the doctor will both benefit.

Mysteryman said :

Homophobic? No. Disagreement with something does not mean one is afraid of it.

Technically correct, though the assumption is that what leads to this irrational hatred of homosexuals is an irrational fear of them. Other hypotheses gladly entertained.

Homophobic? No. Disagreement with something does not mean one is afraid of it.

Just goes to show that even doctors can be ignorant homophobic bigots.

I suppose they’re as entitled to their crackpot views as anyone else, and we should be glad that this particular loon has at least warned potential patients of hers.

pretty damned unprofessional and i dare say unethical for a medical professional to alienate patients on the basis of religion. if i saw that in my doctor’s surgery i would let them know about my disgust, probably rip down the petition and walk out with it, and let the world know about it on the interwebs. so the doctor really is doing this sort of thing at their own peril aren’t they? which makes you think they’re pretty stupid. which makes me wonder about the level of medical care you’re going to get from them – would they refuse to issue a prescription of the pill to a teenage girl for example? would they given substandard level of healthcare to a family – gay or straight – which hadn’t bothered with the piece of paper with marriage stamped on it than a ‘traditional christian family’?

hold up. i’ve changed my mind. better off the nutters are open about their opinions – then we are able to completely steer clear of them.

Pommy bastard said :

Who would trust a doctor who believes in the big sky fairy zombie?

Surely you;d prefer prayer over real medicine, PB

Who would trust a doctor who believes in the big sky fairy zombie?

If someone posted that kind of text here they would be flamed up the wazoo for incoherent ranting. Why would humans conspire against human children? Who is trying to destroy life? And why is religious freedom sitting in at the end looking awkward and embarrassed at the company it is keeping?

I would definitely prefer to take my physical health to a doctor with enough basic intelligence to filter out ranty gibberish and would gladly walk away from one who displayed it proudly.