Revisiting gay teachers

Earlier this year, a right-royal broo-hah-ha was caused when I stated that I wouldn’t let homosexuals teach my kids.

I was commenting about proposed changes to anti-discrimination legislation. They would have removed freedoms that allow religious schools to exclusively hire teachers whose lives and values accorded with the school’s educational philosophies.

It makes no difference that these changes were never passed into law because in practice they are fully enforced.

One of the first things that happened after I made my comment was that I was contacted by any number of men gleefully claiming to be openly gay teachers at Catholic schools. One even interviewed me on radio. The bishops need to sort that little problem out.

Then Bob Katter suspended my membership with his party, my Army CO told me that “my views were offensive to the homosexual community” and the media went nuts. That’s without even mentioning the drag queens and transvestites who fell swooning about themselves on Oxford Street in a quivering mass of human outrage before taking to Twitter to vent their spleens.


For what possible reason should they all be so upset?

What right of theirs had I transgressed?

Looking back in hindsight, I guess it’s all clear now. I had poo-poohed the right of sodomites to educate my children.

And even though the law, morality and common-sense enshrines this privilege as mine, not theirs, I was expected to know that a silent revolution had stripped me of all parental license and handed these responsibilities to the “homosexual community”.

I’m still not sure when that revolution occurred, but it surely has.

Because all sorts of people in positions of power backed this revolution up.

Firstly, not a word was uttered by a Catholic bishop anywhere. In fairness, they were probably too busy hiring more gay teachers and watching their compromises collapse the Church around them to notice that a real Catholic politician was being crucified by the media for the crime of standing by Catholic teaching.

Then there was Bob Katter. He was supposedly the most courageous, outspoken man in a hat in Australia. And he cowardly backed the gays.

Enter Christopher Pyne. That attack dog on the opposition benches in Federal Parliament. He backed the gays too.

Penny Wong also had a shot. But seeing as she believes it’s hunky-dory to deliberately raise a child without its father while she’s shacked up with her lesbian lover, it’s not surprising she backed them as well.

The Army got in on the act too. It told the world my comment was inappropriate. Then my Commanding Officer signed a written statement that my views about my children’s education were offensive and not to be repeated. He also started this “counselling session” by stating that my beliefs were of “wrongful morality”.

And when I queried why the Army was casting judgment on my religious, political and sexual beliefs, despite its own policies stating that ADF members are entitled to religious, political and sexual freedom, I was told that there was no case to answer.

That’s not surprising, considering the Deputy Chief of Army also wrote to scold me that my views were offensive.

So Australia’s military has also backed the right of gays to teach children, regardless of parental consent.

That’s right. The body charged with defending Australia’s interests thinks it’s in the interests of Australia to interfere in the educational choices of Australian parents.

In fact, I’ve been told that the Australian Defence Force has over 2,500 pages of documentation floating around on its computer systems devoted to dealing with the “stink-up” that I caused by talking about my parental rights.

I can only hope that this hasn’t detracted from more important things, like trying to win the war in Afghanistan. But considering the results there and the effort put into monitoring my every move, I can only imagine that the Army actually holds the view that limiting my parental educational choice is more important than winning a war against Islamic crazies.

Sadly for Australia, the common view now is that parents have no right to object to objectionable people teaching their kids.

This sentiment was aptly expressed by Mike Stuchbery – a Twitter character of truly objectionable nature in his response to a comment of mine a little while back.

Who’d have thunk that our society has progressed to the point where you can roll those words off your tongue, down your mouse, through the keyboard and out to world, without blinking an eye or pinking up in shame.

Apparently, homosexuals have more right to determine how my children are educated than I do. And if that’s the case for me, then it’s also the case for you. Australia’s children belong to the gays.

It makes no difference that Mr Stuchbery and Australia’s political leadership listed above are wrong both in morality and in law.

Australia might be a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that clearly states that “[p]arents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” But it counts for nothing.

Australia might also be a signatory to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that also enshrines the right of parents to ensure the “religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”  This, too, is conveniently ignored.

Because parental choice and responsibility has been given over to a bunch of people bereft of sexual morality and who deliberately pursue a barren life. Except when they want to pay someone else to have a kid for them.

Yes. The homosexual community views children as commodities to be traded around the planet.

And while they don’t go through the pains of pregnancy and labour, they will stamp their feet in a frenzy if mothers don’t let them teach their children.

And while they don’t work like fathers to feed them, house them, clothe them or school them, they will demand exclusive rights to educate them.

That’s because homosexuals know that teachers have a lasting influence over children. And they are desperate to indoctrinate them that homosexuality is normal, even good.

It’s not.

And while gutless and cowardly politicians and bishops continue to feed this glittering dragon, their demands will only get stronger.

Firstly, they will demand that schools include homosexual activity in sex education classes. And they will get their way. How can any state illogical enough to declare that homosexual relationships are worthy of taxpayer funded certificates deny the right to include sordid homosexual practices in compulsory sex education classes.

It’s already happening. Just see this grossly offensive document outlining various forms of homosexual behaviour that was handed out to school kids in America.

Then they will demand that any parent who refuses to expose their children to this explicit material hand their offspring over. To them.

It’s time to fight back and put homosexuals in their place. They have no right to be anywhere near our children or to educate them without our consent.

And I’m not giving mine.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. HOME SCHOOL …..the best thing I ever did.

    !. Your government is not a democratically elected body but a foreign owned corporation registered on the USSEC It has an agenda and a duty to profit for its foreign share holders. Go check it out. Part of the agenda also is to destroy the family and our society as we know it. We have the same situation here in NZ.

    2. There is nothing FREE. The so called free education system is a giant scam as you are beginning to discover. It teaches and proliferates lies, perverts history, promotes bad health, ignorance, unsocial behavior, immorality, disrespect, vaccines, the corporation line and teaches children how to fail. That is why 90% of our population, is either dead or dead broke at retirement. How many really wealthy and investment-wise teachers do you know? Is not that part of what should be taught, how to invest wisely and have a good understand of how to make money work for you?

    3. I am tempted to use the phrase “You get what you pay for” but FREE??? No you are paying for it and all the waste and inefficiencies that go with it, whether you like it or not from our taxes. If we were honest, it is at best a convenient baby sitting service for most of us, at worst a high risk institution where we send our children to be brainwashed.

    4. All teachers are not bad, as you might be forgiven for believing is my opinion. No, they are just brainwashed like the rest of us. Some of us have woken up that’s all.

    Home school it is YOUR duty to educate your children, not the corporations. The fact that you did not know that Australia is being run my an illegitimate corporation tells you all you need to know about you own education. So go educate yourselves first so that you do not pass on the lies that your teachers taught you.

    Post a Reply
  2. For some reason, I’m unable to reply to both Patrick’s and Kat’s comments. Upon reflection, aided by Patrick’s very thorough analysis, I’d like to apologize to Bernard, not because he’s a war vet, or for any reasons other than my own unprovoked hostility towards him. I remain eagerly opposed to nearly everything that’s been said in this article, however I do agree with you, Patrick; Xavier probably does a poor job of retaining its students’ faith. Kat, you too are right – my position is nothing more than for a fundamental education, and a pretty good one at that. It’s likely I’ll send my children to a secular school. For me, secularity is a wonderful thing – and I guess that’s the difference between myself and you guys. What will always continue to baffle me about the church, and believers such as yourselves, is your ability to so easily exclude a good chunk of society, who might easily believe in Jesus Christ, his teachings, and therefore participate in Church activities, if it weren’t for issues such as homosexuality. But I guess it’s a testament to your principals; hopefully it never becomes a matter of pride, or tradition, but always remains an issue of fundamental morality; I can’t sit here and tell you something is acceptable when, for you, it is utterly wrong.But, I think you’d be naive to think fleeting church attendance is due mainly to “failing” schools like Xavier – the issue is far more profound; maybe it’s worth a compromise to keep the world’s favourite religion flourishing in a place like Australia. What would I know, anyway – I’m just a schoolboy, right? Thanks, guys.

    Post a Reply
    • Hello Adam. Thanks for your comments. I think debate is always healthy if it is aimed at finding the truth. And I accept what seems to be a sincere comment from you that Xavier doesn’t teach the faith well but that you respect those who hold it. I also accept your point about pride. St Paul writes strongly about a clanging gong being a person devoid of charity. For my part, I do criticise actions, but I don’t do it to be holier than thou. I have my own ailments and temptations that constantly remind me of my fallen humanity. But I cannot be silent either when there are such great attacks on the truth and I would be devoid of charity if I was silent while I saw people engage in activity I know will send them to hell. Finally, I agree with your point about church attendance and failing schools. Xavier is not the cause of the problem but a symptom of it. When the faith is not taught and jealously protected by the bishops, their castles will become irrelevant. Compromise is not the solution. It is the problem. And the last two generations have clearly shown that.

      Post a Reply
    • Adam – I am pleasantly astonished at your commendable response and sincere apologies. Well done young fellow! As to the success Xavier enjoys in passing on the Catholic faith intact and complete to its students, it does much worse than just a “poor job”. It has performed disastrously in this respect for some decades. This school prides itself on average grades that are up with the highest anywhere in the State as to this Arts subject, or that Science subject or in Maths. Oh! How much pleasure it derives from its laudable successes in all these secular areas! But in the one area that defines Xavier as a Catholic school – the formal instruction of young men over many years in the Catholic faith – the school is a complete failure. If any subject master had a 95% failure rate in any area, they would be sacked and tossed out on to the street so quickly they wouldn’t have a clue what hit them. But the Jesuits in charge of RK (“Religious Knowledge”, as it was known in my day – heaven knows what it’s called today – if it’s called anything at all) smile serenely and sanguinely and benignly upon a 95% failure rate in the most important reason the school exists: Catholic education. And every year another class of Year 12 Xavier boys marches out into the world, spiritually armed with nothing but atheism or agnosticism; or varying levels of interest in any other religion other than Catholicism; but with a universal, patent contempt for Catholicism. The only common ambition shared by Xavier graduands is a driving urge to succeed (code word for “get rich”). As to homosexuality: Adam, you cannot be a committed Catholic AND an active homosexual. The two are mutually exclusive. However, one can be a Catholic and a homosexual provided that man fights every day against the temptations that constantly assail him. Men like this are to be commended, applauded and supported – and there have been plenty of them throughout history. A most recent example is the South Australian journalist Christopher Pearson, who died recently and whose struggle for Catholicism and against homosexuality was nothing short of heroic. May his soul, and the soul of all the faithful departed, rest in peace. As to Church attendances that consistently diminish – the cause for this is exactly the same as for Xavier’s disastrous failure to teach Catholicism to its students in over 35 years: modernism, encapsulated in the fruits of Vatican II. Before Vatican II, Catholicism was well instructed, well understood and vocations flourished. Mass attendances were regularly observed by the vast majority of Catholics. However, since Vatican II, the term “apologetics” has been redefined to mean “apologise for the Catholic Church and all its sins”; no-one is taught any more than the thinnest and most saccharine version of Catholicism (including you) and vocations have become as rare as massed orchids blooming spontaneously in the middle of the Sahara. You suggest compromise? That is the path taken at Vatican II: the results are plain to see. Compromise leads to extinction. Catholics are better than that and will do better than that. What you must decide – despite the disinclination towards Catholicism you have garnered from the Jesuits – is whether you actually want to know your faith and stand by it through thick and thin. Which is what Bernard does every day.

      Post a Reply
      • To be honest, I wouldn’t have the faintest idea as to how to improve Church attendance. Faith eludes me; I am content living free from specific spirituality. However, I understand the enlightenment, liberation and fulfillment it can bring; Xavier isn’t totally void of healthy Catholics. It’s been a pleasure to engage in such rigorous discussion; no amount of time of head in book would ever compete with this kind of intellectual challenge. You know Xavier mightn’t do such a bad job; I knew exactly who you were talking about when you said Dr Mannix – and, in even greater depth, Vatican II. You really made me think – that’s always important. Farewell.

    • Thankyou Adam for your thoughtful and cosiderate reply. I once heard a Bishop use the Phrase ” God does not make rubbish” we all were school students once, brimmimg with opinions and facing the world with unfearful exasperation. As one gets older, with more experience of life itself we can learn to respect and uphold the dignity of each human being, Christ said, “go and sin no more” and this we must never compromise. I have done work with the dowtrodden and people who have found themselves on the brink of complete darkness, it is something that helped me be compassionate and understanding, However I never compromised and excused the lifestyles or action that lead to this, and helped them back up their feet.

      Post a Reply
      • Kat: *Thank you; *considerate; *downtrodden; *led (I gave up correcting punctuation).

      • Troy, your recent “comments” are rather petty.

  3. I was directed to this link by a Facebook friend. And while I do not want to get into the primary discussion topic, I just want to make a comment regarding the commentators.

    I am pleasantly surprised by the overall civility between the dissenting sides. So often disagreements such as these devolve into profanity and obscene name-calling. While one might describe some of the statements as insults, they still are filled with very intellectual insults. Is this a phenomenon of you Aussies, or do you also have the embarrassment of crass, uneducated posters as I see daily on our Stateside comment boards? Reading this exchange was very refreshing. Thank you.

    Post a Reply
    • Hello Peri. Thanks for dropping in from the United States and also for your comment on the debate. I like to think that this page does generate debate and that a logical exchange of ideas occurs. I do let pretty much every comment through – although there a minority that are blocked due to profane language and vile insult – such as wishes of ill health or death. Off topic – I thoroughly enjoyed the times I worked with US military personnel. They are professional, courteous and well trained. And they are friendly and motivated to help the world. Thanks, Bernard

      Post a Reply
  4. In fact, Kat, I made a mistake. Upon further investigation, it turns out Denis Hart was a Xavier boy. How about that.

    Post a Reply
    • Adam, Denis Hart went to this college before it was infiltrated by non practicing Catholics as well as those who seek to interperate the Catholic faith and twist It. Denis Hart knows his faith, you do not, thats if you are even Baptised, and then again you probably only are Baptised to gain entry to the College.

      Post a Reply
      • Baptism is not a pre-requisite for attending the College. In fact, I’ve been at school from a very young age with an Islamic boy (crazie).

      • yup, your there for the credentials, just as I thought.

      • In the future Adam you may want to try to understand the Catholic teaching on homosexuality, I also trust you will respect our beliefs, and understand that allowing those who are practicing homosexuals to teach in a Catholic school is a contradiction of our Faith. Also parents have a right to know who and what is being taught to their children at all times. This is not a communist country, state sanctioned atheism and indoctrination of children against the parents wishes is not the law, and hope it never will be. I wish you well in your future endevours.

      • Kat: *practising; *interpret; *that’s

  5. I attend one of the most highly regarded catholic private schools in the country – Xavier College. I have first hand experience with Catholic education, having been at the school for 12 years of my life. I would have been taught by gay teachers – I’m pretty sure one of my current teachers is gay. They are some of the best, most experienced teachers in the school, who pride themselves on a commitment to their students stretching to points of out-of-school, free-of-charge tutor sessions. It’s funny; your article is the kind of rubbish we’d analyze in English. When your writing is lavished with phrases like “shacked up with her lesbian lover” and “islamic crazies”, no politician or educated human being is going to credit you at all. You make it so pointedly obvious that, really, in the absence of any statistical evidence, or analysis, you’re just another one of those religious hate-people, who make up for some kind of psychological defect by denying a group of humans the same rights you have. What’s funnier – you’re the exact kind of person I’d hate to have teaching my children. Good Riddance Bob Katter gave you flick – you shouldn’t be surprised that no one’s interested in your 2000 year-old religious doctrines.

    Post a Reply
    • Well, isn’t this interesting! A dispute between two members of the same faith! On the one hand, we have Bernard, who has a commendable record of military service (including a number of operational deployments on active service to Iraq) and who staunchly and unhesitatingly defends his Catholic faith to the best of his ability, at the same time raising with his wife their five children. On the other hand, we have Adam, who is … a schoolboy. But not just any schoolboy, mind you! Certainly not! Adam goes to school at Xavier, which is, according to Adam, “…one of the most highly regarded catholic private schools in the country”. Here’s your first point, young Adam: it’s “Catholic”, with a capitol “C”. Which nicely allows me to make the next point: I went to Xavier, too, and know full well that 95% of boys who go to Xavier come out of that “highly regarded school” with no interest in their Catholic faith whatsoever. The Jesuits (what few of them remain) are outstanding in churning out lawyers and doctors by the hundred – but they can’t get any vocations from amongst their students to save themselves or replace themselves. Which is why they are gradually disappearing. And I’m prepared to bet that young Adam is set to be amongst that 95% of old Xavs who have no interest in their faith, because that’s why he spelt ”catholic” as he did. In fact, young Adam, as soon as I read your words, I had a flashback to my days at Xavier, and I recalled with instant clarity a certain type of schoolboy, a few of which were to be found in every form. They were arrogant, condescending and possessed of wildly over-inflated opinions of themselves. Adam: you’re one of them, aren’t you? But I digress. Two Catholics – Bernard and Adam – to whom should I have regard? The veteran soldier and staunch defender of Catholicism, or the jumped-up, popinjay of a schoolboy? I think I’ll listen to Bernard. Now off you go to school, young Adam, and dream your lazy dreams about an imminent, Catholic-free, brilliant career. There’s a good boy.

      Post a Reply
      • Hello Jim!

      • Ave, Centurion!

      • Surely in criticizing my own condescension and arrogance you’d avoid those exact same faults. As well, if you’re going to make ridiculous assumptions based on minute grammatical errors, so will I. It’s capital letter, not capitol, which might lend me to the belief that you’re uneducated, of poor intelligence and lacking in eloquence. But I’m not like that; I don’t draw ridiculous conclusions from simple mistakes. Wouldn’t you look stupid if I were, in fact, of strong faith, a practicing Catholic – yep, with a capital letter – and religiously founded? But you’re right – I’m not. A school’s productivity isn’t measured in how many priests it can churn out, or how great a percentage of students attend Monash or Melbourne University. Numbers can’t really satisfy that criterion – but I can assure you, in spite of my refusal to participate in that wild “Xaverian” patriotism of which i’m sure you’re well aware, if Xavier projected these kinds of extreme Catholic views, none of its students would ever become priests, and respect the Church in any way. Catholicism suffers because of people like Bernard, and potentially yourself, who, I can only assume, judging by your praises of him, have similar beliefs. Australia seems caught up in sexual morality, as if being gay or not really means anything at all. None of us have any real right to decide what’s “natural” and what isn’t, nor can we impose our extremist views on education, expecting discrimination law to bend at our so called religious beliefs. In now way does sexuality have any effect on an individual’s ability to teacher – to argue that would be insanity; surely you know that. So why then, do you feel you have theright to bitch and moan about this so called force of “the gays'” telling you off when you’ve publicly denied them the right to teach your children. It’s not just “the gays”, old man – see, I can be a wanker, too – but the rest of Australia. You’re never going to win this war; speaking of gays as “sodomites” only enhances that already established image of the Southern American chewing tobacco on his verandah with a double-barrel shotgun between his legs. Yep, it’s got KKK written all over it (however, I do know that the KKK are anti-Catholic, but you get the point). The issue isn’t about: “they’re my children, I get to decide who teaches them”, because that’s rubbish. Schools would allow for teacher changes, given proper reasoning. This is anti-gay protest, masked in wanky UN crap that really means nothing. Btw, you can alert the bishop. I’m pretty sure he was a St. Kevin’s boy. Good luck with your gay-dar there.

      • Well, well, Jim/Patrick. Torn to absolute shreds by a schoolboy. I’m sure you won’t be making the capital/capitol mistake again! 🙂

      • Adam if you are a Catholic you will uphold the Church’s teaching that homosexual activity is gravely immoral. But judging by your post I, you don’t accept that view. I can only assume that Xavier no longer teaches the Catholic faith because your message of support for homosexuality is profoundly anti-Catholic. It’s a pity your school is churning out people with such poor understanding of the faith.

      • I explicitly said I was a non-practising Catholic, which really entails an absence of faith. To call myself Catholic would be a lie. What I don’t understand, more importantly, is how you make homosexuality out to be a defining factor of Christian and therefore Catholic teaching. Do you believe it is essential for one to view homosexuality, or behaving on such thoughts, as “gravely immoral” in order to be Catholic? Is it really worth excluding such a vast amount of people who really think it is okay from your faith? Statistically, you’re probably condemning your own faith. I guess you could say I’m evidence.

      • Adam obviously you only attend this college for credentials, you do not understand Catholicism, so do not pretend to be Catholic.

      • Young Master Adam has confirmed every worst aspect of what Xavier has become. “Arrogant” and “condescending” are the adjectives I employed to describe him, and I was right on the money. Adam – there was never even the remotest chance that you had any sort of tendency towards Catholicism: that was more than obvious in every sentence you typed. Another spotty-faced Xavier lad oozing with conceit, smarmy disposition and contempt for Catholicism. Just another, amongst so many – and what was it that you termed yourself? A “wanker”? Well, who am I to dispute the wisdom of youth! And how wrong young Adam is to airily pronounce that “A school’s productivity isn’t measured in how many priests it can churn out …” Wrong, young fellow. The precise reason Xavier was founded was to ensure that young Catholic men went out into the world fully instructed in the faith, able to apply their faith to every aspect of their lives – and to assist those students with vocations to become Priests or Brothers themselves. Understanding that young Master Adam will know nothing of history, it will come as a complete surprise to his ignorant young mind to learn that the other Jesuit secondary school in Melbourne (St Patrick’s College, East Melbourne, closed in 1968) produced so many Priests and Brothers that Archbishop Mannix regarded it as the Diocesan Minor Seminary (do you actually understand any of this, young Adam?). So a yardstick by which Xavier’s success can be measured is indeed the number of priests whose vocations were formed in their years spent as a pupil at that very College. And what does that yardstick reveal? Complete, abysmal failure over the last 40 years on the part of the Jesuits who, if they are not abandoning the order themselves for a lay existence, do their very best to stifle any embryonic vocation that might possibly be found in any of their students. Of course, once the failure of Xavier to pass on Catholicism to its pupils was complete, then all that college could do was graduate year upon year of arrogant, empty-headed young men whose attitudes are summarised almost perfectly by those presented by young Master Adam. But again, the question arises: whose example is the better? Bernard with his impressive record of service, effort, result and loyalty to his faith? Or Adam, the schoolboy with nothing to show but more attitude than a rat with a gold tooth and a supercilious demeanour that confirms the folly shown by his parents in sparing the cane in his earlier years? Adam: you have nothing to offer but a contemptible attitude and pimples. Now get back to your studies and keep dreaming about the wonderful life that surely awaits one as enlightened as you – there’s a good boy.

      • My school might be a joke – does it even matter? What continues to worry me is your readiness to expose my supposed arrogance and conceit, yet not even recognize your own. You’ve treated me horribly, constantly undermining anything I’ve said with trivial appeals to my age. You’ve disguised personal attack with fancy words and bombastic eloquence. Let it be known that a supposedly pimple-faced rat with a gold tooth treated a Catholic with more respect than he did to the teenager. You probably think I’m one of those wretched “sodomites” – you know, not worthy of respect and all that stuff.

      • Young Adam – Xavier is a disaster, not a joke. There is nothing remotely humorous about a Catholic institution that has so comprehensively failed for over 40 years in its primary task of passing on the Catholic faith intact and complete to young Catholic men. I do indeed rebuke you in the strongest terms for your arrogant conceit – who do you think you are to casually stroll onto this blog site in order to sneer and disparage Bernard, who will forever remain your senior, your superior and your better? Who do think you are to show such contemptuous disrespect towards a soldier who has served his country on operations more than once and who now performs the lonely but crucial duty of publicly defending the Catholic faith, including all its morals, ethics and teachings, in a forum that instantly attracts the enemies of morality like mosquitoes to a bright light? And who do we find prominent amidst that shrill, incessant cloud of minute blood suckers? Why, none other than the Xaverian jackanapes himself, young Master Adam. Do not mistake my anger towards your impertinent condescension as arrogance, for anger it is and arrogance it is not. And do not bleat pathetically that you have been treated “horribly” after the disgraceful disrespect you have manifested. Stiffen that quivering bottom lip of yours, sonny boy, and harden up. If you want barge into a room and start swinging punches, don’t be surprised if you get a sharp couple of jabs in the nose in swift response. However, all is not lost. Young Master Adam’s contributions to this thread indeed have some value – they have confirmed the dire straits in which the contemporary Catholic education system finds itself: tens of thousands of young Catholics commence their education at the primary level, but very few of them retain their faith by the time they emerge at the end of the secondary level. Now stifle those sniffling sobs, young Master Adam, and get back to your studies and vapid dreams of a glorious secular career that is totally devoid of any vestige of your parents’ Catholic faith, Why, if you work hard enough, you might really make something of yourself and become just what modern society really needs, such as a physician specializing in abortion. Off you go – there’s a good boy.

      • Adam, being taught by Jesuits is nothing to boast about. The fact that you spend so much time time saying absolutely nothing is testimony to that. What do you say say about the fact that the vast majority of sexual assaults by Catholic priests were carried by gay pederasts? Or are you one of those poor deluded boys who think heterosexual men commit homosexual offences? Catholicism suffers these days precisely because its schools churns out uninformed verbose little upstarts like you.

      • Sexuality loses all normality once a priest becomes celibate. To even attempt to so dogmatically explain how pederasty, which issue was never raised, occurs so much in the Church would be redundant. It is a matter of complex psychology and social dynamics which a few sentences cannot explain. I am well aware that, as you said, “a vast majority of sexual assaults by Catholic priests were carried by gay pederasts”; you’ve provided only one explanation as to why this happens. To call me “poor” and “deluded” for not supposedly agreeing with you on this issue which was never even raised seems a bit much.

      • Patrick: *capital (not capitol).

    • Thanks for that Adam, I will alert the Bishop.

      Post a Reply
  6. I want to know what are these “taxpayer funded certificates” homosexuals apparently get.

    Also, Bernard, on which part of your computer hard drive did you find that picture of Mardi Gras?

    Post a Reply
    • Jeremy – most Australian states now hand out these certificates. And this picture is in a file dedicated to exposing the filth of the Mardi Gras. I suppose you cheer at the fact that kids were brought along to watch almost completely naked grown men grope each other. And if that’s the kind of public behaviour the homosexual community applauds it is another good reason for them to be kept away from children.

      Post a Reply
  7. Mike Stuchbery and others like him are sadly mistaken. Homosexuals do not have the right to teach my children. But I will qualify that because my definition of a homosexual is a person who engages in homosexual behaviour. The recently deceased journalist Christopher Pearson who was one of the founders of gay liberation in South Australia would in recent years have been welcome to teach my children, and probably Bernard’s as well. In fact his passing was noted on this blog. I didn’t consider Christopher a homosexual at the time of his death because he had stopped participating in that behaviour years ago.

    Post a Reply
    • Good luck with that, mate, gay people have as much right to teach your children as women, Asians, black people, the disabled, etc. I don’t know what school you went to, but at mine I had no idea what the teachers did in their sex lives and nor did I care. That said, could you please make sure you publish your views on this widely under your own name? I want to be sure that your grandkids can find them and be thoroughly ashamed of you.

      Post a Reply
      • Jeremy says that homosexuals have just as much right to teach Bernard’s children as a whole bunch of other people. Jeremy is ignorant of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in Australia on 13 November 1980 (except for Article 41, which came into force in Australia on 28 January 1993). Although Jeremy is correct in his view that Bernard cannot object to a teacher based merely upon race or gender – and I doubt that Bernard would object for these reasons, because these are irrelevant bases on which to object to a teacher – Bernard certainly can object to a teacher whose views – BOTH MORAL AND RELIGIOUS – are not the same as Bernard’s. Jeremy – the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a UN covenant that Australia has signed. In particular, Article 18, Part 4 clearly states that all signatories to this convention, including Australia “… undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” Do you understand that, Jeremy? Parents have the right and liberty to decide WHO shall teach their children and HOW their children shall be educated, in order to ensure their children are educated “in conformity with their (the parents’) own convictions”. So if Bernard’s children are being taught by a homosexual who tries to influence them with his views on morality and/or religion – Bernard has the right under this UN convention to demand that the homosexual stop teaching his children. You see, Jeremy me old cock – homosexuals are not the only ones with rights. Parents have rights, too. Surprised, mate? I bet you are! Now could you please publish your comments under your full name – in the highly unlikely event that you ever have kids – I want them to be thoroughly ashamed of you.

  8. Next you are going to say Black people shouldn’t teach your kids. How about you cite some science? yeah, you don’t follow facts and evidence…hence your Eiffel in a imaginary man in the sky, pushing buttons.

    Post a Reply
    • Here’s some science for you, Shane – where is the father of Penny Wong’s baby?

      Post a Reply
    • Here’s a fact for you. The most vocal of the gay brigade don’t respect the beliefs of anyone unless they’re pro gay. Bernard should fully expect the teachers in a catholic school to teach his kids according to catholic beliefs, and the best way to ensure this is to only hire teachers who live according to catholic beliefs. However, no one should expect any particular beliefs from teachers in the public school system.

      Post a Reply
      • webboy42 we often disagree but I do respect you because you respect logic. I’m not demanding that all children go to Catholic schools and I’m not saying that other parents can’t put their kids in the care of homosexual teachers (even though I think it’s not the best thing to do). Those decisions all belong to other parents. I just want the freedom to pay school fees at a Catholic school that teaches the Catholic faith. And I want the freedom to send my children there without the government demanding non-Catholic teachers be allowed in through such things as anti-discrimination legislation.

    • The problem for people like Shane is that, while they claim to be towering gurus of science, they do not know the law and the treaties to which Australia, as a signatory, is party. So here we go, Shane: time for you to learn something, for once in your ignorant lifetime. You really need to know and understand about the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in Australia on 13 November 1980 (except for Article 41, which came into force in Australia on 28 January 1993). This is a UN covenant – got that, Shane? What you REALLY need to know about is Article 18, Part 4, which clearly, unambiguously and absolutely states that all signatories to this convention – and that includes Australia – “… undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” Got that Shane? Parents have the right and liberty to decide WHO shall teach their children and HOW their children shall be educated, in order to ensure their children are educated “in conformity with their (the parents’) own convictions”. So if Bernard objects to the convictions held and being taught by an activist homosexual teacher who is teaching his kids, he has every right in the world to DEMAND that the homosexual teacher cease teaching his kids. You see, Shane old son – homosexuals are not the only ones with rights. Parents have rights, too. Much to the horror of militant homosexuals, I have no doubt, who have no idea the UN may actually support the rights of anyone who is NOT homosexual.

      Post a Reply
      • Awesome! With that right to choose who should teach my kids and what my kids should learn, then it should be okay for me to get a murderer, a prostitute, a pedophile and a thief to teach my kids about life skills and what not!

      • Ben – with the sorts of tendencies you have just so clearly demonstrated, I have no doubt that those types would be exactly the sorts of teachers you would indeed select for your children. Except for one small detail, old mate: dropkicks like you never actually have kids, because you can never actually develop a relationship with someone from the opposite sex. Further – the same-sex “relationships” you are attracted to will never result in children – because, like most homosexuals, you have chosen the path to personal extinction. Say goodbye, Ben. Your particular strand of humanity will die and disappear with you.

    • Please show me anywhere a comment that I have made based on any person’s race.

      Post a Reply
  9. On you Bernard.
    There is a big difference between tolerance and enculturation !

    Post a Reply
  10. in all my years of engaging with adults from all kinds of backgrounds/cultures/religions/countries, in nearly every case where someone is vehemently anti-gay they have indeed been (closet) gays themselves.
    ‘he doth protest too much me thinks’

    Post a Reply
    • Is that the best you can do, “doc”? Pretend to be some sort of psychiatrist? When, as an active homosexual, you are doing everything you can to fight the pro-gay fight? Pretty ordinary and feeble effort, old man.

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest