tip off

Herald Sun falsely implies that “doctors” think gay marriage “a risk to kids”

Pure Poison IconA shamelessly misleading story in today’s Herald Sun headlined “Gay unions a ‘risk to kids’, say doctors“:

VICTORIA’S deputy chief psychiatrist – and State Government-appointed equal opportunities champion – has joined forces with doctors lobbying the Federal Government to ban same-sex marriage.

The word “doctors” in the headline clearly implies that “doctors” in general say this, rather than a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of partisan medicos completely out of step with the vast majority of their colleagues making a nasty claim completely unsupported by any credible research whatsoever.

I mean, according to the Herald Sun, this is the pro-discrimination doctors’ reasoning:

In a letter to the Senate’s inquiry into marriage equality, the group wrote that it was “important for the future health of our nation” to retain the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman.

“We submit the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without,” they wrote.

The doctors also said they were concerned legalising gay marriage would “normalise” homosexual behaviour and the “health consequences” linked with it, such as HIV and syphilis.

Any unprotected sexual behaviour comes with the risk of HIV and syphilis, not just homosexuality. What’s wrong with homosexual behaviour being treated as normal? On what basis do they claim it isn’t and shouldn’t be? And as for the headline assertion that kids grow up better in families “with a mother and father” – unless Prof George has commissioned a brand-new study which genuinely would be actual news ( which the Herald Sun doesn’t claim that he has), then that long-discredited claim will without doubt be based on old studies comparing two parent families with one parent families, rather than comparing the the kids of homosexual parents with the kids of heterosexual parents. (You’ll note how George and his mates fudge the claim a little so it implies the latter but is sort of within the ambit of the former. That’s the level of honesty you get from anti-equality advocates.)

Lyle Shelton from the so-called “Australian Christian Lobby” was this afternoon twittering away his fears that one of the signatories to the submission – this “deputy chief psychiatrist Prof Kuruvilla George” – might suffer some consequences for signing up to such an outrageously stupid letter. For expressing such a dubious understanding of science. For, despite apparently being on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, advocating against citizens’ human rights:

On the plus side for Professor George, we understand that no-one is proposing to amend the Marriage Act to stop the state recognising his marriage. There’s equally little evidence that his marriage is a risk to kids than there is that a gay couple’s is.

Meanwhile, could the Herald Sun not work to confuse its more gullible readers into thinking there’s any kind of credible evidence of a “risk to kids” from gay marriage until or unless it actually sees some? If the Herald Sun is going to have a story featuring a small group of anti-gay doctors vs “gay activists”, could it please include something from mainstream doctors’ organisations like the AMA – and not just from a former head who’s now expressly a “gay rights advocate” – clarifying that the vast majority of health professionals who know anything about the issue completely disagree with the assertions in that letter.

Clearly some readers were confused by today’s effort, hence comments like this one:

Glad to read this. Posted at 2:50 PM Today

Well the professionals should know, they hear people’s problems and see the fallout from these issues on a daily basis. I agree with them.

The vast majority of professionals who hold that there is no health problem with homosexuality, or the tiny number of anti-equality advocates who promote a view completely at odds with all credible medical science, despite the Herald Sun implying that they represented doctors in general?

Sadly, I suspect that letter represents someone misled into thinking it’s Prof George who represents most doctors’ views, rather than the reverse.

ELSEWHERE: The ABC covers the same story, but its report quotes the current AMA president (who says the evidence suggests the opposite and the majority of medical opinion agrees), and critically adds the word “group” after the word “doctors”, to indicate that it’s a subset of doctors, not doctors in general. (And a very tiny subset at that.) Surprisingly, “Professor George has declined the ABC’s request for an interview.” Which is unfortunate, because I’m sure many of us would LOVE to hear him questioned on what basis he made those extraordinary claims.

PS Also – “equal opportunities champion”? “Champion”? Merely being on the board of Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission doesn’t make him a “champion”, particularly if his advocacy work is against “equal opportunities”.

UPDATE: Here’s one of the “doctor” signatories to that submission, Dr Murray James-Wallace, writing on the website of Danny Nalliah’s “Catch The Fire” extremists about an incident when a lady with whom they were travelling had some kind of stroke or heart attack:

We are on the outskirts of Tiberius, I explain that clinically she requires a hospital. She could have had a heart attack, asystole or otherarrythmia, hypoglycaemia or a stroke or seizure. Danny says this is spiritual and has generational links to Freemasonry. John receives a word that this is an attack from Satan to end her life in Israel and that if she can get to Jordan the Lord will heal her.

I have 2 choices, professionally to pull rank and as the only qualified medical practitioner order the bus to a hospital in Tiberius. Having witnessed the miraculous recovery of the lady from death to life in that she responded to a verbal command. I explained that this lady is very sick, she ought to go to hospital but “I place myself under the authority of the pastor and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The lady continued to vomit and become incontinent. She was not allergic to anything, had a mild hypothyroid condition had no heart problems, but had had mild diarrhoea in the morning. My concern was that continued vomiting and diarrhoea might lead to hypokalaemia (low potassium in the blood) and that this would precipitate a further cardiac event. I asked her what she wanted as far as medical care: she chose to stay on the bus, I could have influenced this decision but chose not to. People continued to pray.

What a doctor!

52
  • 1
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Well Aunty parrots it so it must be true.

  • 2
    Brown Bob
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    The word “doctors” in the headline clearly implies that “doctors” in general say this,

    No Jeremy – “doctors” means more than one doctor. You just choose to interpret it the way you have because outrage is your “thing”.

    So if the paper said that Tony Abbott had joined people rioting outside your house, no doubt you would be expecting the whole Australian population to come crashing through the front door because “people” means “all people” right ?

  • 3
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    No, Bob, the headline clearly implies that doctors in general hold that view, which is false. So does the Herald Sun’s failure to publish a contrary view by a single doctor not identified as a “gay activist”.

    You’re being disingenuous to deny it.

    Compare the ABC version, which isn’t misleading.

  • 4
    Fran Barlow
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Yes … the ellipsis that is common in headlines is seriously misleading as you say Jeremy. Perhaps if, in the first line after the headline they had said:

    VICTORIA’S deputy chief psychiatrist – and State Government-appointed equal opportunities champion – has joined forces with a group of doctors who are lobbying the Federal Government to ban same-sex marriage.

    and as you say, gone onto make clear that the groups is a tiny and marginalised fring within the medical fraternity holding controversial views, then there would be less to be troubled about.

    The story could then have been about the apparent conflict of interest between the Chief Psychiatrist being an EEO board member and participating in this group that is clearly giving aid and comfort to homophobia, in direct contravention of Victorian government policy.

    .

  • 5
    Captain Obvious
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Jesus Christ had two fathers and he turned out OK.

  • 6
    donkeyotee
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    A Christian fundie appears to be the brainchild behind this one:

    http://consciencevote.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/who-are-doctors-for-the-family/

    You could have knocked me over with a feather.

  • 7
    Ronson Dalby
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Can this be the same Prof George (down the page a bit)?

    http://anzmh.asn.au/conference/committee.html

    “Positive change – investing in mental health”, “recently appointed to the board of the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Rights Commission”

    One has to wonder about who decides all these appointments.

  • 8
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    “Jesus Christ had two fathers and he turned out OK”

    Hmm. I’m not sure that’s theologically sound.

    Anyhey, this astroturf group has been created by Dr Lachlan Dunjey from WA. He’s a previous christian democrat party senate candidate, and something in the back of my brain is telling me I’ve heard of him or his medical group (in WA) before for some newsy-related thing. I’ll have to ponder.

    He’s got a few web addresses:

    http://www.churchinperth.com/articles/ldunjey/index.htm

    You can read some his “medical” reasoning here:

    http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/why-the-battle-for-marriage-is-so-significant/

  • 9
    Ronson Dalby
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Worth a read on this topic:

    http://consciencevote.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/who-are-doctors-for-the-family/

  • 10
    SHV
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    It’s heartening to see, and indeed smell, the desperation of the Murdoch trolls.

    One here pretending that: “Doctors say smoking reduces risk of lung cancer” suggests that such a headline would be ‘honest’ in any sense if two doctors had actually said such a thing, and another one over on the weekend thread trying to convince people (or even tempt them through imagined vanity?) that they should PAY to read Murdoch’s vile filth at the Oz when everyone with a brain knows:

    (a) you really shouldn’t support the phone-hacking-scum Murdoch corporations;

    (b) even if you wanted to peek behind the curtain, you can easily do it for free; and

    (c) they are irrelevent.

  • 11
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Ronson beat me to it. Darn you!

    I don’t think the question of how many doctors signed this thing is as significant as the question of what motivates their point of view. If they have evidence, let’s see it – I don’t think anyone should hold their breath. If they’re coming from a self-referential religious point of view, then I think it would be useful for that to be known as well. If they’re REALLY just worried about not being able to vilify gay couples any more, then that’s a bit disappointing.

    I can think of one blogger who’s probably sharpening his quill right about now. Dr George appears to be a fairly well-regarded academic, with ties to notre dame and the occasional appearance at the australian association of catholic bioethicists colloquium. I’m surmising that he’s catholic. Personally, I don’t care – see previous comment about waiting to see the evidence. But that possibility alone practically auto-generates one of tomorrow’s threads.

  • 12
    SHV
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    MoC,

    On their ABC I heard someone (head of the AMA perhaps?) completely debunking this News Ltd crap and saying “The evidence is that there is no difference between children raise by heterosexual couples or gay or lesbian couples”.

    We really need the Finlestein regulations on our lying media. They might have to provide an equally prominent front page correction: “WE TELL LIES AND ARE FULL OF SHIT: NEWS LTD”.

    They could even save it as a template to be used every second day!

  • 13
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Tomorrow in the Herald Sun:

    'Vaccines cause autism', say doctors.

    …or…

    'Earth actually only 10,000 years old', say geologists.

    …or…

    'Global warming ended in 1998', say scientists

    …oh, hang on…

  • 14
    Aliar Jones
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:21 am | Permalink

    No Jeremy – “doctors” means more than one doctor. You just choose to interpret it the way you have because outrage is your “thing”.

    Hahaha, holy shit that is some desperate pathetic straw clutching..

    Oh Bob, never let it be said you have any pride worth saving…

  • 15
    AR
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    SHV – why ‘ever second day“? Every page more like it, perhaps even on the footie section. Or especially there – doesn’t Limited News have summat to do with some football or tuther?

  • 16
    monkeywrench
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Pathetic, Bob, even by your notoriously casual standards.

  • 17
    Black Joe
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Let’s see how happy all the politically correct slaves who say they support gay marriage today will actually be when mainstream hollywood movies transform over coming years.

    No more token gay guy. Bedroom scenes (as if that’s not enough already) will soon include full homosexual acts, in your face.

    It’s amazing what 1-2% of the population can achieve in such a short time when they put their minds to it.

  • 18
    AR
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Drs George & Phelps interviewed by Philip Clark on RN (sitting in for FranK – shame, I’d love to have heard her do it). George did the usual argumentum ad verecundiam by citing “US College of Paediatrics” as supporting his bizarre views which Phelps pointed to be factually inaccurate, aka B/S.
    Unfortunately they weren’t talking simultaneously, it would have fascinating to hear Phelps shred George – “this one will run & run!”.

  • 19
    returnedman
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Welcome, Black Joe.

    We find here that it helps to explain and support your arguments.

    Firstly, what do you mean by “politically correct slaves”? Are you saying that everyone who supports gay marriage is somehow a “slave”?

    Secondly, who is this 1 – 2% of the population? It can’t be the homosexual proportion of the population because we KNOW that that number is closer to 10%.

    Look forward to hearing your educated contributions to the discussion. Have a great day and welcome again!

  • 20
    Aliar Jones
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Let’s see how happy all the politically correct slaves who say they support gay marriage today will actually be when mainstream hollywood movies transform over coming years.

    Yeh! remember how disappointed everyone was when we stopped seeing african americans constantly portrayed as servants and drug dealers?!

    No more token gay guy. Bedroom scenes (as if that’s not enough already) will soon include full homosexual acts, in your face.

    Oh mercy no! Imagine that! sex organs IN YOUR FACE Oh the humanity, how will we ever survive the free market that allows us to choose the movies we see?!

    It’s amazing what 1-2% of the population can achieve in such a short time when they put their minds to it.

    Worked for the mining industry..

  • 21
    Mercurial
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Let’s all pull together to prevent the recognition of same sex marriage so Black Joe is not forced to watch full homosexual acts (whatever they are) in his face.

  • 22
    SBH
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Once again the question of what gets picked as the news narrative is at issue. This was one submission out of tens of thousands. I heard no analysis about the breadth or weight of opinion, nothing thing that said what the majority view might be just a deliberate polarisation of issues.

    Media today appear to have almost no critical capacity and rarely say to the mendacious, tendentious or simply mad ‘sorry mate, on balance, you’re not making sense.’

  • 23
    Ravenred
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Black Joe… how many full hetrosexual acts are there in movies nowadays? Or maybe your “mainstream” movies are a bit different to mine.

    It’s amazing what 1-2% of the population can achieve in such a short time when they put their minds to it.

    Exactly what I was thinking about this story. Although I think my emphasis is a fair bit different to yours.

  • 24
    monkeywrench
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    @17 You might consider rephrasing that second sentence; and any sex scenes in movies are subject to the same rules of censorship regardless of gender. Or are you suggesting that gay rights activists want censorship laws relaxed for scenes between gay people?

  • 25
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    From The Conversation, Michael Vagg, Clinical Senior Lecturer at Deakin University School of Medicine & Pain Specialist at Barwon Health

    I have to say up front that it seems clear to me that their submission relies heavily on the social authority of the medical profession, as it is very thin on health-related evidence. The first piece of research they cite is this report which is commissioned study by a Professor of Law. It is quite evidently NOT a piece of peer-reviewed evidence. I also note that this report was commissioned and funded by the Australian Christian Lobby, so its appearance in a submission with a supposedly evidence-based healthcare approach raises the reasonable suspicion that Doctors for the Family is just another of the many religious groups which oppose the amendment on ideological grounds.

    The next study they cite is this one. I only have access to the Abstract but it sounds like it is a study comparing teens living with step-parents with those living with both their biological parents. There is no mention of gay parents in the Abstract. The quote included in the Senate submission looks like it has been cherry-picked from a study which is not really about same-sex parents. This is pretty disingenuous.

    https://theconversation.edu.au/ersatz-science-does-not-help-inform-debate-about-social-policy-6893

  • 26
    Bebonis William
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Such a load of tripe, Joe.

    Homosexuals are still overwhelmingly under-represented in mainstream media. Much fewer than 1-2% of romantic scenes in mainstream Hollywood films are homosexual.

    I would put my bets on you being insecure about your own sexuality, Joe. I bet even the most innocuous acts of affection between gays triggers overwhelming anxiety and insecurities in you. You poor, pathetic soul… get a life.

    It’s about time gays and lesbians were better represented in the media, television, music industry, film industry etc. They are individuals, just like you. They had no choice in the matter of their sexual orientation. They should have an opportunity to see their lives reflected honestly in film.

  • 27
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Black Joe = Poe?

  • 28
    ninjacheck
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    As doctors, I suppose they had to print the word “evidence”, although Professor George is a psychiatrist and not actually a medical doctor and as such would be registered with the APA and not the AMA.

    Most have already pointed out that they haven’t inlcuded any evidence to support their claim, which they neglected to say is actually their moral argument and not their medical one, but there is now evidence to show that kids of lesbian couples are actually better adjusted and more compassionate individuals than those of hetero couples.

    The site for the longitudinal test is here: http://www.nllfs.org/ although most may find the articles summarizing the results to be easier to read.

    I first heard of it from the Radio National podcast, which I recommend to everyone: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/lesbian-families/3035900

  • 29
    Timothy Can
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Shamelessly dishonest, like the ABC?
    Doctors’ group says heterosexual marriage better for kids

  • 30
    splangy
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    I must say, for an paper that bemoans the influence of the “elites” the Hun does use the argument from Authority a heck of a lot… (When they are not doing the argument from popularity AKA the Bolta manuever)

  • 31
    wilful
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Bedroom scenes (as if that’s not enough already) will soon include full homosexual acts, in your face.

    Do I detect a faint whiff of excitement from Black Joe here?

    But really, how absurd. If you want to watch gay porn, go for it, that’s what the internet’s for. Otherwise, I’ll expect about to see about as much homo sex as hetero sex, i.e. nil.

  • 32
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    I saw a homosexual act once.

    It was Ian McKellan in “Richard III”.

    Bloody good film, actually.

  • 33
    Fran Barlow
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    And further to Brown Bob’s defence of equivocation …

    Gays vote Republican
    H|tler supported by Germans. Russians also supported Stalin Spaniards supported Franco. Portuguese supported Salazar. Chileans supported Pinochet. Zimbabweans supported Mugabe. Cambodiansd supported Pol Pot, and Indonesians both supported and opposed Sukarno and Suharto.

    Women oppose abortion. Women support temperance and Pr0n …

    Gosh Brown Bob says some silly things

  • 34
    The Pav
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Liked the Post

    “Glad to read this. Posted at 2:50 PM Today

    Well the professionals should know, they hear people’s problems and see the fallout from these issues on a daily basis. I agree with them.”

    Hope the poster has the same view on climate change as there seems to be a determined effort to ignore the overwhelming scientific eveidence

  • 35
    Bloods05
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    This should not be an argument about evidence. When the psychiatric profession labels some behaviour “healthy” or “unhealthy” there is always a whiff of moralising about it. That is what this is about. This guy thinks homosexuality is morally wrong, but rather than being honest about that he uses his professional standing to add weight to the idea that it’s “unhealthy for children”. God knows, it’s less than 40 years since they removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

  • 36
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Shamelessly dishonest, like the ABC?

    Apparently you missed the “elsewhere” update above. The ABC report shows up the Herald Sun effort quite brutally.

  • 37
    Bloods05
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    So, Timothy Can, you don’t see the obvious difference beteween “doctors” and “doctors’ group”? Are you dumb, or just pretending?

    These people have every right to express a view about this matter, but they need to tell us where they’re coming from. Pretending they’re coming from a “scientific” perspective (whatever that means in the field of psychology) rather than a moral one is simply disingenuous. As someone once remarked, intellectual dishonesty is pure poison.

  • 38
    Bloods05
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    “Jesus Christ had two fathers and he turned out OK”

    Hmm. I’m not sure that’s theologically sound.

    Seems pretty orthodox to me. Where’s the heresy, pray tell?

  • 39
    monkeywrench
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    well, Bloods05, relying solely on biblical evidence, he really only had one. Joseph was a cuckold. But then the whole story is hilariously mythic, so none of it matters.

  • 40
    Bloods05
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Myths matter more than anything.

  • 41
    Jay
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Aaaah yes, Black Joe. Those pesky gays are doing their sinful things right in your face…right there! In your face! They’ve stalked you and are now purposely getting right in front of you, making you watch!!!

    You remind of the bunch of rednecks at the end of the movie “Bruno” when Bruno and his lover were getting it on at the end of the movie. Those rednecks were so outraged, so incensed, so offended…so much so they couldn’t look away, or leave the arena and go home, they just kept watching….and watching….and watching….and being outraged….and watching.

    Secretly I think they liked it.

  • 42
    Marty
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    @ninjacheck

    If Prof George is a psychiatrist, he will have completed a medical degree and worked as a junior doctor before commencing specialist training in Psychiatry. As a medical specialty, Psychiatry is definitely covered by the AMA.

    It is Psychologists that are represented and accredited by the APS (the APA is the American Psychological Association).

  • 43
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    “No more token gay guy. Bedroom scenes (as if that’s not enough already) will soon include full homosexual acts, in your face.”

    I can only imagine what this would be like in a 3D movie … Honestly, you’d end up dodging the stuff.

    Seriously, though, given the limits of what can be depicted on screen in terms of sexuality in general, I honestly think that we needn’t fear the regular sight of graphic boy-on-boy action when we go to the cinema. I fear that “Black Joe” (one of PP’s less imaginative and subtle trolls) will still have to get the hard (ha!) stuff from teh intertubes just like everyone else.

  • 44
    Aldaron
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Ninjacheck @28

    As doctors, I suppose they had to print the word “evidence”, although Professor George is a psychiatrist and not actually a medical doctor and as such would be registered with the APA and not the AMA.

    Just a point of order, here. A psychiatrist IS a medical doctor, whose specialty is psychiatry, just as dermatologist is a medical doctor whose specialty is dermatology. They can prescribe medications the same as any other doctor, and will always (read: “should” – not all of them are as good as the others) address potential physiological issues before the assumption of psychological issues. A psychiatrist has as good a level of medical training as your average GP.

    I think you’re mixing up “psychiatrist” with “psychologist”. A psychologist isn’t a medical doctor, but rather closer in concept to a practising physiotherapist or clinical nurse consultant.

  • 45
    Aldaron
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Gah! Marty beat me to it! :)

  • 46
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Exactly, MW, I don’t believe joseph had any part in the process.

  • 47
    EKDV
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Well technically Joseph was acting as the beard.

  • 48
    Fran Barlow
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    I don’t believe joseph had any part in the process.

    Is that pertinent here?

    Interesting, in this context are the following questions:

    a) Was Joseph actually married to Mary — if you’re eastern orthodox, then no. If Catholic then yes
    b) perpetual virginity of Mary — generally agreed but really, if he wasn’t having relations, then what was the point?

    If he wasn’t Jesus’s father, then Jesus’s Davidic roots disappear. Joseph makes very little appearance in the Bible at all and isn’t around for the crucifixion. How he came to be in Bethlehem is contradicted in Mathhew and Luke and apparently when Jesus, at 12 at the passover mentions his father, Joseph is confused.

    Those mixed marriages never work.

    Either way,

  • 49
    Captain Obvious
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Joseph a cuckold eh?

    Careful where you’re headed with that line of reasoning…at this rate, we’ll end up with Jesus as a poster-boy for……(Duh-duh-DAHHHHHHHH!!!!)….polygamous parenting!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40

  • 50
    Captain Obvious
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    ….or more accurately…POLYAMOUROUS parenting!!!

    Double Duh-duh-DAHHHHHHHH!!!!

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...