Rebutting delusion

It’s hard not to feel sorry for Mike Stuchbery. His response to my post yesterday defending the right of parents to control who teaches their children clearly shows that he’s replaced logic with delusion and emotion

That explains his silly statements.

And they are silly because they don’t make sense.

Just to give you one example, Mike has criticised me for linking a graphic piece of homosexual literature that was handed to school children in America.

This is what he had to say:

“The ‘Little Black Book’ that Bernard links to is an informational pamphlet, intended for gay men, erroneously distributed at a single Massachusetts school gay pride event in 2005. It will never, ever be distributed at schools in America and it certainly does not comprise any part of Sex Ed programs.”

I don’t know about you, but I think it’s hard for Mike to categorically state it will ‘never, ever’ be distributed at schools when in the sentence prior he’s already acknowledged that it was distributed at a school. During a ‘gay pride’ event, no less.

I’m prepared to admit the possibility that this particular pamphlet will not be distributed again. But I’m not naive enough to think that similar sordid ‘informational pamphlets’ won’t take its place. Especially when teaching guides in Australia insist that ‘safe sex information for same sex relationships’ be ‘included in sexuality education programs’.

Mike can jump up and down about the Little Black Book all he likes, but unless he says that the above ‘educational’ guidelines are rubbish, he’s advocating for something similar in the classrooms of Australian kids.

In another example of silliness, on 29 June, 2013, Mike boldly proclaimed to the world via that medium of pretty much useless drivel, Twitter, that homosexuals have a right to teach my children. I’ll put his post up again in shining lights.

But then just last night, he admitted that I had a right to deny gays from teaching my offspring.

His words might be a little garbled, but at least I think that’s what he meant. Here’s what he said on his blog:

“He’s well within his rights to not GLBTIQ people to teach his children, as odious an idea as that might be.”

Now, any logical person would be immediately struck by something funny about these contradictory statements.

Firstly, there is the logical inconsistency between them.

How can homosexuals have a right to teach my children if I have a right to deny them that opportunity?

It takes two seconds to realise that they can’t both be ‘rights’.

Perhaps neither is. Or possibly one or the other is. But not both. That just doesn’t make sense, unless you are delusional and emotional.

And if your thinking is based on these traits then you are not really thinking at all. That’s Common-Sense 101. But you are possessed of that blissful ability to live in a subjective fantasy land.

However, we don’t live in a fantasy land, so I’ll state the truth again. Parents do have a right to exercise discretion over who teaches their children. That’s because parents also have a responsibility educate their children.

That’s the thing about real rights. They carry responsibility.

And this right is recognised by the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a signatory to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Part 4 of article 18 states:

“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

Now this is not a right because the government signed a piece of paper with a UN logo at the top. This right exists regardless of whether a government recognises it at all.

That’s another thing about real rights – they exist despite of what any law says.

Secondly, Mike makes a strange comment. He states that a ‘right’ can be odious.

Now, I’m not sure how real rights are odious. The right to life is not odious. The right to pursue truth and goodness is not odious. The right to love God is not odious. Any other real right that you can name is not odious.

That’s one more thing that Mike should understand about real rights. They are good.

Perhaps Mike’s acknowledging that unreal rights are odious. Like the supposed right to gay marriage. That’s certainly an odious proposition and, therefore, it is not a real right.

But at least the last four weeks have seen an improvement in Mike’s ability to reason. At least he’s recognised a real right. One that he did not acknowledge previously.

Unfortunately, Mike still has a way to go before he regains total control of his senses.

Because he’s demanding that the ADF sack me for defending a right that he now acknowledges exists.

If he was logical, he’d argue that the ADF should never have taken administrative or disciplinary action against me for the statements that I had made.

If he was logical, he’d condemn those politicians who attacked me or suspended my membership because I defended that right.

But instead, he’s gone and got all emotional again. And emotion is the enemy of logic.

Mike’s upset that so many people read this blog. So he’s hit out at and slandered you by stating that you will harass and intimidate GLBTIQ people.

And Mike’s also upset that I said it’s time homosexuals were put back in their places. He thinks that is hate speech.

It’s not.

I’m simply stating that all those raving, frothy loonies who carried on because they didn’t like me talking about parental rights were out of line. And they should get back in line if they respect the rights they love to carry on about.

Furthermore, with their continual noise and clanging, they have succeeded in having cowardly political leaders back up their evil demands for all sorts of rubbish. Like the supposed right to adopt children. Or the right to have anyone punished that dares speak about real parental rights.

Mike’s not gay but he loves to defend that community. He’s an ‘ally’ as they like to say. But he’s also now accepted that homosexuals have no right to teach my children. That’s one thing that my last post forced him to accept, by outing his earlier profoundly stupid remark. It put him back in line and he’s taken the first step to revoking his previous belief. The rest of the gay community would do well to follow his example.

And if they do that, then they will also accept that there is no problem with me making the point that parents have the right to choose who teaches their children. This includes the right to deny homosexuals this opportunity.

And then they will apologise for the fake outrage, the death threats, the rape threats, the demands that my children be taken from me, the insults and derision, the curses and hate-filled wishes of ill-health and their mocking celebrations for the punishments I have received for defending my God given rights.

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. I understand Bernard’s concerns about who teaches his kids but how do we tell the character of the people who teach? Let’s say we ask all gay teachers to declare their sexuality so we may choose for an alternate teacher but do we do likewise for any teacher who has sex out of marriage, male or female, gay or straight? Apart from sexuality, do we also ask teachers to report if they have ever taken/smoked illegal drugs? I certainly wouldn’t want my child to be taught by a drug user? We should also check that teachers haven’t been charged with other offences such as theft or speeding??

    Again, I totally support the right of parents to choose who teaches their kids but where do we draw the line and how do we check?

    Post a Reply
  2. Now that you’re here, Mike, why don’t you explain how homosexuals have a right to teach my children and how they obtained this right? Under the law they have a right to be teachers but I am under no legal obligation to subject my children to their teaching.

    Post a Reply
  3. Poor Mike! With encouragement, let’s hope he can learn. I am constantly amazed at the willingness of public figures to expose the quality of their intellectual ..err …’faculties’ [to be polite]. Its like shooting fish in a barrel to refute their propositions – and you and some contributors do it so effortlessly and entertainingly well.

    Reason, logic, truth and charity are our weapons of choice! Thanks, Bernard!

    Post a Reply
  4. I can’t believe you wrote an entire essay to rebutt some Twitter posts. Get a job!

    Post a Reply
    • Pete – I can’t believe you spent so much time reading Bernard’s post to make such an inane comment that, in reality, shows how much Bernard has really annoyed you – because he is correct! Pete – get a life!

      Post a Reply
      • I can’t believe I’m being told to get a life by someone waving pom-poms for a failed soldier, politician and father. Too funny! 🙂

      • So Peter are you admitting that you are demeaning Fatherhood, and the military personel amoung the ADF?
        So what do you do for a job? I am guessing none of the above.

      • In English please, Kat.

      • Ah so are now resorting to projected insults toward me.

      • No, I genuinely didn’t understand your question. How have I demeaned any of those groups? I simply said that Bernard is a failed example of each. You seem very pleasant, so please accept my sincerest apologies if I’ve offended you.

      • So can you please tell me how Bernard is a failed Soldier, And Father?

      • Teaching kids that there’s nothing dangerous about homosexuality is really bad parenting. Homosexuals have a very short lifespan. The rate of HIV, Hep A, suicide, domestic violence and homicide among homosexuals is very high. No parent can consider themselves a successful carer if they’re not alerting their children about these alarming statistics.

      • What is wrong with his reasoning Mike? Do you understand about fundamental rights as opposed to rights that are claimed but are not rights? Do you know the difference?

    • if you read the article you would have discovered it was about more than just twitter. Have you got something constructive to add? Can you add something that resembles well thought out reasoning or do you just have cheap shots and bs to add?

      Post a Reply
      • @Mick
        he preaches bigotry and hatred.

        and considering the church he worships has been raping young hundreds of thousands of children for centuries, many of whom committed suicide, i find his pontificating extremely hypocritical.

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