smoking healthier than gay marriage says christian lobby

catefrances

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1689 ... riage--ACL


Legalising same-sex marriage would promote a lifestyle that is less healthy than smoking, a Christian group has claimed.


The head of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) Jim Wallace says smoking is healthier than the lifestyle that would be promoted by same-sex marriage.

Mr Wallace made the claim in a debate on marriage equality with Greens leader Christine Milne at the University of Tasmania on Wednesday.

Answering a question from a student on the relevance of his views, he said health statistics among the gay community were worse than those for smokers.

"I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health - which it presents when it wants more money for health - are that is has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years," he told the audience.

"The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke."

After the debate, Mr Wallace said the figures saddened him.

"But what I'm saying is we need to be aware that the homosexual lifestyle carries these problems and ... normalising the lifestyle by the attribution of marriage, for instance, has to be considered in what it does encouraging people into it," he said.

Mr Wallace said legalising same-sex marriage in other countries had not reduced risk factors for gay people.

"Where gay marriage has been introduced, or civil unions, it hasn't changed the level of suicide," he said.

"We have to accept the unfortunate levels of suicide, the unfortunate levels of excessive drug use (are) because of the nature of the lifestyle.

"I am very sorry for that. My heart goes out to those people. But it is a fact."

Senator Milne said discrimination in laws such as the Marriage Act was a contributor to any health concerns.

"What I know is that the mental health issues for young gay people particularly are certainly increased when discrimination occurs," she told reporters.

There was little love lost between Mr Wallace and Senator Milne during the debate.

Senator Milne accused the ACL of homophobia and said Christians should be more concerned with poverty than homosexuality.

She said with bills before the federal parliament and Tasmania's lower house last week passing a same-sex marriage bill, change was inevitable.

Mr Wallace accused the Greens of demonising churches with "hate language" and caring more for trees than children.

He described gay activism as "bullying" and said a climate had been created for "legislation by fatigue".

Tasmanian marriage equality advocates said the ACL was using outdated figures from a survey of obituaries in San Francisco newspapers at the height of the AIDS crisis.

"Yes, there are health problems in parts of the gay and lesbian community, but they are caused by the prejudice of people like Mr Wallace and the discriminatory laws he defends," Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome said in a statement.

"Mr Wallace's offensive remarks show how desperate he has become, and they effectively deal the Australian Christian Lobby out of the marriage equality debate."

Mr Croome said ACL representatives had previously linked gay equality to Nazis, paedophiles and the stolen generations.

"The quoting of irrelevant and biased studies to stigmatise gay Australians is a low and desperate tactic that diminishes Mr Wallace and his cause," Mr Croome said

comebackgirl

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

aerial

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

life·style   [lahyf-stahyl] Show IPA
noun
1.
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

MotoDC

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

I guess that's valid, though "lifestyle" isn't as negative as you make it out to be. I suppose when the word comes out of the mouth of someone who doesn't support gay rights, it comes off as denigrating. But when we discuss gender and orientation as "points on a spectrum" in other threads, it makes it difficult to take it more concretely (or seriously) than the "lifestyle" concept that you find so offensive.

I think what we really learned from this article is that statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda we want them to support.

MotoDC

aerial wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

life·style   [lahyf-stahyl] Show IPA
noun
1.
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

See my post. You're both right. Lifestyle in and of itself isn't offensive. When considered in the context of the speaker, the connotation of the word changes.

comebackgirl

aerial wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

life·style   [lahyf-stahyl] Show IPA
noun
1.
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

sexual orientation n.
1. an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to another person,
2.The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses

comebackgirl

MotoDC wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

I guess that's valid, though "lifestyle" isn't as negative as you make it out to be. I suppose when the word comes out of the mouth of someone who doesn't support gay rights, it comes off as denigrating. But when we discuss gender and orientation as "points on a spectrum" in other threads, it makes it difficult to take it more concretely (or seriously) than the "lifestyle" concept that you find so offensive.

I think what we really learned from this article is that statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda we want them to support.

sexual orientation is a part of someone's identity, which has a biological basis, not a lifestyle that people "choose" Just because something has points on a spectrum doesn't mean it has any less of a biological basis

MotoDC

comebackgirl wrote:

sexual orientation is a part of someone's identity, which has a biological basis, not a lifestyle that people "choose"

You know, I typed and deleted alot of different questions here to try and get to the bottom of what you really meant with this post, but I'll just be straightforward -- what do you mean by "someone's identity"? What do yo mean by "has biological basis"? As I understand it, you are in the mental health profession in some capacity, so I feel justified in asking you of all people to define "identity" and "biological basis" meaningfully.

brianlux

Well if you smoke the right thing its all good, right? Sheesh- listen to Lithium. You will find God.

gimmesometruth27

so something that has been proven to be addictive, has been proven to cause lung cancer, tongue cancer, throat cancer, copd, emphysema, the by product of which can directly effect the health of those that live with you like secondhand smoke effects your children, is healthier than gay marriage.

ok, got it..

brianlux

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

Exactly! "Out to lunch" is the nicest thing I can come up with.

comebackgirl

MotoDC wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

sexual orientation is a part of someone's identity, which has a biological basis, not a lifestyle that people "choose"

You know, I typed and deleted alot of different questions here to try and get to the bottom of what you really meant with this post, but I'll just be straightforward -- what do you mean by "someone's identity"? What do yo mean by "has biological basis"? As I understand it, you are in the mental health profession in some capacity, so I feel justified in asking you of all people to define "identity" and "biological basis" meaningfully.

sure I can provide a working definition of those terms if you don't want to research them. Identity relates to the distinct and enduring attributes that make up who we are; it incorporates behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental attributes that characterize us as unique individuals. It's about who we are, not what we do; so you can be gay without ever having sex with someone of the same sex, just as you can be straight without ever having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Lifestyle is more about what we do. We refer to things as having a biological basis if there is some root in our biology (heredity, genetics, hormones, brain structure, etc).

comebackgirl

brianlux wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I stopped reading at "lifestyle" :fp:
If this "group" doesn't know being gay isn't a "lifestyle" I'm pretty sure everything else they have to say is just as ridiculous

Exactly! "Out to lunch" is the nicest thing I can come up with.

That about covers it

BinauralJam

Can't you do both? :P

MotoDC

comebackgirl wrote:

sure I can provide a working definition of those terms if you don't want to research them.

Uncharacteristically snarky. They were your words, thus yours to connote. Frankly I think it's a stretch to imply that "have a biological basis" is clear and concrete to the point that I could just google it and from that assume I knew what you meant.

cbg wrote:

Identity relates to the distinct and enduring attributes that make up who we are; it incorporates behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental attributes that characterize us as unique individuals. It's about who we are, not what we do; so you can be gay without ever having sex with someone of the same sex, just as you can be straight without ever having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Lifestyle is more about what we do.

That's a fair explanation.

cbg wrote:

We refer to things as having a biological basis if there is some root in our biology (heredity, genetics, hormones, brain structure, etc).

So really you just meant genetics, since aren't all those other things derived from there? I'm honestly trying to understand how sexual orientation is so different from any other part of what makes us who we are. What are some other "biologically based" facets of our "identity" that cannot be considered malleable or under our control? Intellect, perhaps? Memory capacity? The way we interpret color? Degradation of vision?

Godfather.

on one topioc you guys are using gays as the but of your jokes aginst Romney and on this one your all ready to stand ...deliver for gay rights....well which is it ? ...just not equal enough to let a good homo joke slide in there....I mean bi...I mean to funny to pass up.

Godfather.

comebackgirl

MotoDC wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

sure I can provide a working definition of those terms if you don't want to research them.

Uncharacteristically snarky. They were your words, thus yours to connote. Frankly I think it's a stretch to imply that "have a biological basis" is clear and concrete to the point that I could just google it and from that assume I knew what you meant.

cbg wrote:

Identity relates to the distinct and enduring attributes that make up who we are; it incorporates behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental attributes that characterize us as unique individuals. It's about who we are, not what we do; so you can be gay without ever having sex with someone of the same sex, just as you can be straight without ever having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Lifestyle is more about what we do.

That's a fair explanation.

cbg wrote:

We refer to things as having a biological basis if there is some root in our biology (heredity, genetics, hormones, brain structure, etc).

So really you just meant genetics, since aren't all those other things derived from there? I'm honestly trying to understand how sexual orientation is so different from any other part of what makes us who we are. What are some other "biologically based" facets of our "identity" that cannot be considered malleable or under our control? Intellect, perhaps? Memory capacity? The way we interpret color? Degradation of vision?

Not meant to be snarky - sorry if it reads that way. It's just that they're not my definitions. The APA website gives a good overview of personal identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, biological basis, etc if you're interested.

It's not just genes. If that were the case, we would see 100% correlation in identical twins, when it's more like 52%. The prevailing thought is that it's a complex interaction of perhaps one or more genes, hormones (of the individual and exposure in utero) as well as other environmental conditions in utero that can impact brain, personality and temperamental development. So while genes likely play a big part, it doesn't come down just to genes; it involves other biological mechanisms as well.

That is my point - that it's not that different than other parts of identity. There is always going to be a combination of nature and nurture at play (genetic disposition impacted by environment), but that doesn't make it a lifestyle choice, nor something that we should change. The idea of trying to change sexual orientation only makes sense if we view it as defective. While some in society may believe that, the WHO, APA and NASW staunchly disagree. It was removed from the list of mental illnesses by the APA back in 1973 - 39 years ago. and by the WHO in 1981 - 31 years ago. Society in general is lagging far behind the medical community in this regard. Being different doesn't make one defective. According to the APA "homosexuality is not an illness that requires treatment, nor is it a choice. Rather, homosexuality is a biological condition that is not subject to change by therapeutic modalities that seek to reverse a homosexual identity to heterosexuality. Further, these therapies could potentially harm patients. "

Moonpig

Godfather. wrote:

on one topioc you guys are using gays as the but of your jokes aginst Romney and on this one your all ready to stand ...deliver for gay rights....well which is it ? ...just not equal enough to let a good homo joke slide in there....I mean bi...I mean to funny to pass up.

Godfather.

Um...what?

comebackgirl

Moonpig wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

on one topioc you guys are using gays as the but of your jokes aginst Romney and on this one your all ready to stand ...deliver for gay rights....well which is it ? ...just not equal enough to let a good homo joke slide in there....I mean bi...I mean to funny to pass up.

Godfather.

Um...what?

I missed that too :?:

Godfather.

you guys don't remember the broke back mountain picture with Romney's face on it or the other pictures making fun of politions insuating that they're gay ????
it's cool by me I was just pointing out the way things are really seen by some.

Godfather.

BinauralJam

Godfather. wrote:

you guys don't remember the broke back mountain picture with Romney's face on it or the other pictures making fun of politions insuating that they're gay ????
it's cool by me I was just pointing out the way things are really seen by some.

Godfather.

That was Me