Gay marriage: sexist, perverse and a cheap imitation

If you were hoping for a rational debate about homosexual marriage when the High Court sits next month, then you are going to be sorely disappointed. That’s because the rainbow wig-wearers will be arguing for the ACT’s new-fangled marriage equality laws by stating that homosexual marriage is not marriage at all. It’s a bizarre position that could only be held by radicals, who see marriage as a means, rather than an end.

If the ACT’s lawyers win and the capital gets to keep homosexual marriage, it will only be because the highest court in the land is satisfied that gay unions are not anything like marriages. Hey, that’s what any logical person has been shouting for free from the tree-tops for some time now. Unfortunately, this will not stop the pro-gay marriage QCs from racking up the charges to the ACT taxpayer just for taking this common-sense point to the High Court.

The great absurdity of the pro-homosexual marriage crowd’s position is embedded deep within the fine print of the ACT’s big new gay law. And soon it will be unearthed and raised up in bright, blinking, glitter-encrusted neon lights for all to see at the High Court.

At least the ACT legislature has admitted something that anyone with even a mediocre ability to reason should be able to understand: homosexual liaisons are not the same as marriage. And even if you call them ‘marriage’, they are still not the real thing. In fact, just like cheap, plastic imitations of fine art, pushed out from Chinese sweatshops, the ACT’s homosexual marriage laws only serve to highlight how tacky fakes can never reach the perfection, nobility or beauty of a real marriage.

There is an immeasurable gulf between phoney ‘gay marriage’, celebrated at the Mardi Gras as nothing more than a perverted, lusting promotion of sodomy, and the authentic article.

When a government plans to send out certificates for such a ‘marriage’, then it becomes public business. And those who cherish marriage are not only entitled to a say, but obligated to fight against this perverse attack on it.

Real marriage involves sexual activity that is complementary and leads to life and the nurturing of it through the generations. But a real wife is not a mere prostitute. And a real husband is not in it just for the sex. The events of marriage turn husbands and wives into so much more: mothers and fathers.

And only within a real marriage, where a husband and wife have pledged to love each other to the exclusion of all others until the dark adventure of death takes one of the team, can children be raised in the most ideal of circumstances. Any other family type is less than ideal. Period.

But ‘gay marriages’ can’t create children. It’s only and entirely about normalising and glorifying the gay sex – sodomy. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no next part. Unlike the selfless love of a real marriage, the activity of gay marriage has only one end: carnal selfishness. Then there is a big dead end.

Homosexual activity is empty. It cannot bring children. And when children are entrusted to a homosexual couple, it is always to their deliberate detriment: a former family torn apart; or a child intentionally created to be deliberately separated from its real parents. Surrogacy is premeditated malice against the most innocent.

Furthermore, homosexual marriage is also the most inherently sexist notion on earth. It attacks the very reason for the sexes. Males and females exist for a reason – even the godless, Darwinian evolutionist recognises this.  But in the perversion of ‘gay marriage’ the complementary union of the sexes is thrown away. In the one thing where it is more important than any other that the two sexes are present, homosexuals want to remove the feminine side of humanity altogether. And lesbians think that they can offer masculinity. They cannot.

Homosexual marriage is so ridiculous an idea that it could only be possibly entertained in a society that has truly lost its way, its nobility and values, and the very ability to reason.

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


    • To Uruveil, you say that being gay isn’t a choice well neither is being into incest and bestiality either, People who are into incest and bestiality also claim that they didn’t choose to be that way and that they were simply born that way. It can also be said that why would a person choose to be into incest and bestiality where they are also likely to face discrimination and abuse from people.

      Claiming that people are born gay and that they didn’t choose to be that way is absurd and false. Of course being gay is a choice, people who practice and live perverted lifestyles have chosen to be that way.

      Post a Reply
  1. There are several things in this post I’d like to address. The first is actually not about homosexuality, but a criticism of adoption and surrogacy. The bible says to be fruitful, and if you are christian it is your duty to do that. However, Christians don’t do everything in the bible. There are pretty bad things in there. You have to use your best judgement. The earth is overpopulated and we don’t need to be creating tons of children right now. Creating less would be much better for all of us. A gay couple, or any couple, adopting a child from a bad situation (which mind you, must be a hetero one for a child to have been part of it) is good for that kid, and it is not a crime against an innocent. My nephew is just 2 years old and he loves his mom and dad with all his heart. You can see it in the way he follows them around and hugs them close. If not for his adoption, that little boy, whom i love so dearly would be hungry and wearing dirty diapers, which is how he came to us.
    Even with what I said about population, I can understand why a gay couple would want to have their own children. Surrogacy isn’t taking a child from it’s parents because for one, half it’s DNA belongs to a gay parent, and the surrogate mother or sperm donor have no intention of taking care of that child. It was a baby, created for the intention of being loved by two individuals who love each other. And don’t say it isn’t love, because Gay people aren’t making a choice. It’s simply in their DNA, just as it is in yours to love someone of the opposite gender. Sure it’s unusual. You could even say that it doesn’t make them evolutionarily helpful. But we, as humans, are passed that. We’re all about individuality and accepting people for who they are. Gay people are gay. There is nothing you can do about it.
    Okay, and here’s the next thing. Why does it matter to you? It’s not hurting you. It’s not hurting them. It’s not hurting anyone else. Even if it IS hurting them, it isn’t any of your business what they do with their personal lives. Your marriage is just as special to you. You don’t even have to feel like what they do is the same, but for the love of god, don’t inhibit another persons rights unless you can show that some injustice is being done to you or someone else.
    And honestly, sexism? You’re trying to force gender roles onto everyone. You’re saying a woman cannot be masculine and a man can’t be feminine. You want everyone human being to fit into one of the two slots your narrow mind has created for genders. Well I’m sorry buddy, but gender is a spectrum. There are women with testes and men with ovaries and they were literally born that way. There are homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals. There are manly woman and manly men, feminine women and feminine men. There are even people that don’t like sex. There are people who feel like they need to change their sex to match their gender. And here’s the key point: None of them and hurting you or your lifestyle choices.
    So stop trying to hurt them.

    Post a Reply
  2. I just want to ask why you care whether men you don’t even know get STD’s or children you will never meet have homosexual parents. If same sex marriage does not affect you, stay out of the subject. Like its called: Mind Your Own Business. Why should people take your opinion and turn it into a major debate? I’m just saying. Nobody is gonna care what you have to say. These homosexuals are not your children, your friends, or your family so just leave them alone. Just stop. Stop.

    Post a Reply
  3. You don’t see a lot of things, Jimbo, because you lack insight. Increasing rates of HIV infection are proof that men who engage in homosexual behaviour do not have monogamous relationships and that in itself has a strong bearing on the debate over the redefinition/abolition of marriage. You still don’t understand that under the present meaning of marriage, the term gay marriage is an oxymoron. It would require the abolition of marriage as we know it to accommodate the concept. That is why I referred to the war against heterosexuality – the attack on marriage is at present the key battleground. For people who don’t think there is a war the words of Leon Trotsky may carry some relevance – – “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    Post a Reply
    • Spot on Phil, and even if gays had monogamous realtionships it does not decrease the risk of colon and anal cancer, anal fissures from penile penetration or fisting, bacteria from feacial matter including salmonella, increased risk of cervical cancer, obesity drug and alcohol abuse, guilt depression and anxiety as well as increased domestic violence. Monogamy amoung homosexual men is almost like trying to find a needle in a haystack. within heterosexuality infidelity is called cheating or affairs, amoung homosexauls it has less negative conotations.
      One study of faithfulness in marriage reported that 75% of men and 85% of women self-reported as being faithful to their spouse, but in a similar study of homosexual men, only 4.5% self-reported as being faithful to their partner.[ix] German sexologist Martin Dannecker, who is himself homosexual, says fidelity between homosexual men living in a “committed relationship” is a myth. Dannecker interviewed 900 male respondents living in a “steady” relationship in Bonn, Germany, and 83 percent of them (747 men) said that they had had frequent homosexual contacts outside their “steady” relationship within the past 12 months.
      Sex outside marriage is natural but disordered.
      Homosexuality is both unatural and disordered.

      Post a Reply
  4. So, destroying a heterosexual institution such as marriage is not an assault on heterosexuality, Jimbo? The very idea of trying to equate what is called “anal sex” with genuine sexual intercourse is an assault on heterosexuality. You are seriously deluded. Would you care to explain why the “gay movement” prides itself on its “subversive politics?” Notwithstanding this the argument against “gay marriage” gets stronger each day. The UK’s head of public health stated just this week “there is an increasing and potentially catastrophic HIV and sexual health epidemic in gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) in every part of the world.” Professor Kevin Fenton said HIV among men was was especially high for biological reasons. It is now estimated that anal sex is 18 times better at transmitting HIV than vaginal sex. The chance of HIV being caught from having receptive anal sex once with a partner with a detectable HIV viral load is about 1.4% or one in 71 encounters; but because people have sex together more than once, the per-partner likelihood of catching HIV from a sero-different partner is, in gay men, about 40%. Another factor in gay men’s higher HIV prevalence, Fenton added, was that because gay men have more partners and higher changeover rates, their sexual networks are more closely connected: 25% of gay men diagnosed with HIV were members of a cluster that had HIV viruses that were genetically identical, suggesting rapid transmission within the network, compared with 5% of heterosexual people. Why does a social group which doesn’t practice monogamy demand the right to participate in an institution which celebrates it? The answer is clear to anyone who has eyes with which to see and ears with which to hear – because they want to destroy it.

    Post a Reply
    • And of course heterosexuals are not destroying the institution of marriage are they?
      You will find more homosexuals that are in a committed relationship are the ones who want to get married not the ones that don’t practice monogamy just like heterosexuals.

      Post a Reply
      • You want to abolish marriage and replace with a perverse parody. Very few same sex relationships last a lifetime, certainly not enough to warrant the abolition of exclusive male/female complementary and procreative marriage. Even fewer of those same sex relationships are monogamous, hence the same sex concept of “open marriages.” I hope you won’t mind me pointing out that it is wrong to try and create an impression that there is a sexual orientation called homosexuality which is equivalent to heterosexuality. There isn’t. Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour, not a sexual orientation. Same sex partners cannot engage in sexual intercourse with each other. That is simply an inescapable fact.

      • For someone who isn’t gay, you are overly confident in defining what being gay is (or isn’t, as the case may be). That’s a unique position you hold, I’ll give you that, but it’s totally loony!

      • Jimbo, being gay is merely a lifestyle choice made by some men who indulge in habitual homosexual behaviour. I have said it before and I will say it again. Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation and no amount of wishful thinking or psychiatric quackery will make it so. Having said that let me paraphrase your comment: “For someone who isn’t married, you are overly confident in defining what marriage is.”

      • Phil are you saying all Heterosexual marriages last a life time?
        And believe it or not Phil some heterosexuals have “open marriages”.
        Funny that you call homosexuality a disordered behaviour…you can normally changes someones behaviour how would you change homosexuality?

      • Paul, your education continues. An “open marriage” as in a relationship that is open to non-exclusive sexual activity is not a marriage at all.

      • Now Paul, here’s the rub. Transvestism is a behaviour. Is that any easier to change than homosexuality? In fact sexual behaviour can and does change. Pederasts discovered long ago that grooming is a way to corrupt heterosexual youths. Are you claiming that while it is possible to groom a young heterosexual into homosexual behaviour it doesn’t work the other way? Strange!

      • Paul, that’s what I was going to say, but you beat me to it. Also, I don’t see what quoting stats about HIV infection rates has to do with the gay marriage debate. Seeing gay people as a threat to marriage is simply bizarre – how can people who want to join an institution such as marriage be seen as wishing to destroy it? That’s textbook wilful ignorance. You can have your god-approved marriages, gay people should have a state sanctioned marriage. Everybody wins. Can you feel the love?

  5. Make war on heterosexuality? Are you serious? One thing that always hits me hard in this debate is the argument that gay people are somehow anti-family. I love my family and they love me unconditionally – I have at least half a dozen friends’ kids who call me uncle. I love spending time with my nieces and nephews! I’m a babysitter extraordinaire. I’m often told I’d be a good father and encouraged to have children of my own. One day I might. As for your last statement, that homosexuality will sooner or later be seen as a problem, well… That’s just so… so… “out-of-touch” doesn’t do it justice, nor does “bizarre”, but somewhere in between is about right.

    Post a Reply
  6. Re-posted due to a typo.

    I would have preferred homosexual behaviour to have remained illegal. Why? Because if it had never been decriminalised I wouldn’t be having to defend marriage, family life and a child’s right to a parent of each sex. The thing is, Bob, that once decriminalisation took place the GLBT became a very powerful lobby and began to make war on heterosexuality. Sooner or later it will become clear to all and sundry that homosexual behaviour is a social problem that becomes far worse once it is recognised legally as equal to procreative complementary relationships between men and women.

    Post a Reply
  7. Kat, Phil and Bernard are cowards. They refuse to state what they stand for – re-criminalisation of homosexuality.

    Post a Reply
    • pffft cowards? try again buddy. Personal attack is a sign you have lost the debate.

      Post a Reply
      • Who is losing the debate? Homosexuality is decriminalised, the military cannot oust lesbians and gays and there is partial recognition of same sex relationships. The haters keep pushing back, but decency has prevailed over the last thirty years. Marriage will come, be it ten or twenty years, just as did decriminalisation, which the likes of Kat, Maguire and Gaynor presumably would have opposed. I pray The Lord removes the hatred from your hearts!

      • At one point it looked like the axis powers were winning WW2 and what happened in the end?

        In our day there’s been a sneak attack on normality and sexual morality and you’re cocky enough to think you’ve won the day. But seriously, how long do you think it will last? The coming society won’t be as tolerant as this one and I can’t see a long line of heterosexuals lining up to fight a war on your behalf.

      • @ant I take your words as the clarion call that the last thirty years of advances cannot be taken for granted! Homosexuals are no longer jailed, lesbians forced to have electric shock therapy…the armed forces now have open gays and lesbians raise children without the fear of them being removed to orphanages…but people like ant, Phil, kat and Bernard are still fighting to undo that! The stockade and stoning are the tools they want returned!

      • Kat you made the claim that homosexuals have more special rights that the majority…
        What are these specials rights?

    • Spot on, Bob. It’s clear that’s what they stand for. If they truly had the courage of their convictions they would say so. Ergo, they are cowards.

      They need to ‘come out’ and say they want homosexuality re-criminalised.

      Post a Reply
    • I would have preferred homosexual behaviour to have remained illegal. Why? Because if it had never been decriminalised I wouldn’t be having to defend marriage, family life and a child’s right to a parent of each sex.

      The thing is Bob that once decriminalisation took place the GLBT became a very powerful lobby and began to make war on heterosexuality.

      Sooner or later it will be become clear to all and sundry that homosexual behaviour is a social problem that becomes far worse once it is recognised legally as equal to procreative complementary relationships between men and women.

      Post a Reply
    • Seeing as how we’re on to the subject of straight talking – it’s about time Bob, Paul and Jimbo had the guts to state what they stand for – the destruction of Christianity and the elimination of the Catholic Church. Time to fess up, boyos.

      Post a Reply
      • The Metropolitan Community Church and St Joseph’s in Newtown, Sydney are but two examples of the Church supporting Gays and Lesbians, including communion. I too pray for The Lord to lift the hate from your heart.

      • Obviously they left out romans chapter 1 18:32 from their version of the Bible.
        Jesus is Merciful to those who repent.
        I pray you are given wisdom to see that homosexualit acts were never supported by Jesus Christ as they are an abomination before the Lord.

      • I don’t want the destruction of Christianity or the RC church eliminated. What on earth gave you that idea? I just want religion and the legislature kept separate.

        No one if forcing anyone to get gay married. In fact, religions are more often exempt from gay marriage laws elsewhere in the world. As far as I’m concerned that should satisfy both parties – those who love, care and nurture each other and have the support of their family and friends can get married, and the religious adherents can still go on believing gays aren’t married according to god. Simple really.

        If Bernard had the courage of his convictions he would come out and say exactly what it is he thinks and de-criminalisation of homosexuality. At the moment he’s just throwing stones from the sidelines.

      • I have never said I want the destruction of Christianity and the elimination of the Catholic Church.
        The Catholic Church and Christianity have other issues to worry about other than Homosexuals and gay marriage when we only make up 2% of the population.

      • And I have never said I hate homosexual people.
        Homosexuals often attack Christianity in particular Catholics who oppose homosexual behavior, and try to force us to accept their lifestyle, even to the extent of trying to promote the gay agenda to our Children against their parents wishes. If is was not for us Catholics and Christians being on the ball with the reforms to the Equal opportunity act 2011 we would not be able to say no to those who live gay lifestyle teaching in our schools or working in our hospitals. Homosexual activists sought to make reforms on the sly by adding that we were not allowed to discriminate on religious grounds, but instead have our freedom of religion taken away.

      • The church has attacked homosexuals for hundreds of years. Since the homos have stood up for themselves, and nothing more (there is no “war on heterosexuality”), some churches are crying victimisation from the rooftops. It beggars belief! Mainstream religions are the safest, least-questioned sections of society.

  8. Kat “Homophobe is a fabricated word made up for those who oppose homosexuality.”
    So how do u explain all the hate crimes against homosexuals?
    Wouldn’t one who opposes homosexuals and decides to bash a homosexual be a homophobic?

    Post a Reply
    • Homophobia is a manufactured word, Paul. There is good reason to be concerned and fearful about homosexual predation. A lot of people have reason to hate the homosexual phenomenon. But what about all the “love” crimes by homosexuals? Is there any sympathy for all the heterosexual teens who are groomed and raped by these criminal perverts? And are these “love” crimes any less vicious or criminal than the hate crimes you refer to?

      Post a Reply
      • Of course homophobia is a manufactured word same as paedophile priests were never covered up by the church.
        What about the “love” crimes by heterosexuals are they less vicious or criminal than “love” crimes by homosexuals.
        What do you call a person who attacks a homosexual just because he is gay?

      • And what do YOU call 10,000 homosexuals who attack Christianity and Christians at every Sydney Homosexual Mardi Gras, just because they are Christians?

      • Every Mardi Gras, church groups march, Catholic, Protestant, Jews and Quakers, cheered along with floats from conservative, labor, greens and socialist. You see, Jim, lesbians and gays are everywhere, even as open Episcopalean bishops.

    • I would say that anyone who bashes anyone else reguardless of who they are is a crime and should be punished, however I have never bashed a person who is struggling with same sex attraction or anyone for that matter, nor do I intend to as this would go against my beliefs not only as a Catholic, but against the dignity of that person. Tell me, a doctor who tells a patient that smoking or drug addiction is bad for their health is infringing on human rights, or is the doctor just seeking to help the person lead a better and more healthy life? do those who disagree with the doctor then call the doctor a smokophobe or drugophobe?

      Post a Reply
  9. These comments provide a good indication of the real leanings of much of the readers of this site!

    Many are obviously self-denying homosexuals, or are latently attracted to the homo-erotic, though repressed by Christian guilt and other societal forces.

    Much of their self loathing is expressed in a greatly over-egged fear of so-called gay marriage, and the vilification of the gay lifestyle. A great example was the outpouring of loss and sympathy upon the death of the arch gay-denier, Christopher Pearson – through canonising him the repressed homosexual feels he has dealt with his own feelings of gay love.

    Similarly, much of the opposition to gay marriage is drawn from similar emotional and psycho-sexual uncertainties. Its a sad little charade but one I’ve grown to accept as an inevitable part of the process.

    Post a Reply
    • Mate – your sorry torrent of psycho-babble betrays you as manic repressive heterosexual who clings to a flimsy homosexual façade underpinning doomed pseudo-societal structures, norms and prestige based on a post-modernistic, second-millennium attraction to gender / role obfuscation. My advice to you, me old Pinot Grigio-swilling inner-city fashionista, is this: let go the queer and suck back on a beer. You KNOW you want to be straight!

      Post a Reply
    • Christopher Pearson found a far greater love than anything he could ever have gained through the practice of homosexual behaviour. What you can’t handle is that people like him can recognise its destructive nature and overcome it. It is you my friend who plays the sad little charade. You’re obviously a very miserable individual.

      Post a Reply
  10. Gays make up about 2 per cent of the population. This shouldn’t even been an issue and it only is because the enemies of western society have identified homosexual advancement as a weapon to divide and conquer. Networked with the green movement and international socialism they have become a powerful force. The GBLT as they call their organisation proudly boasts of its subversive politics. The amount of media coverage afforded this group is way out of proportion to its numbers, just like the dollars spent on gay men’s health is way out of proportion to their numbers.

    It’s easy to see why society has traditionally outlawed homosexual behaviour and suppressed those who practice it. Gays don’t need protection and the disingenuous howling that comes from lobbyists like that so-called anti-discrimination campaigner Gary Burns is actually bullying. He’s a such a man, the creep, he’s singled out a middle aged Christian woman for his particular form of misogynistic bullying and attempted to silence her by the use of kangaroo tribunals presided over by politically correct imbeciles as bad as he is.

    The GLBT must be truly proud of this pathetic nasty little individual who is actually the kind to make any real man feel like vomiting. They’re picking on women now – stay tuned there will be much more to come.

    Keep up the fight Bernard. There are still some men in this country who value true morality, decency and chivalrous behaviour towards women and children and they are standing with you.

    Post a Reply
  11. HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
    QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:
    Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable that when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted.

    As marriages are constitutionally ” a civil contract” then clearly the States have no constitutional legislative powers to provide for “civil contracts” of same sex marriages or whatever you want to call it.
    See more about constitutional matters on my blog

    What one has to consider is if at the time of federation the Framers of the Constitution intended to have same sex relationships to be recognised as a “marriage”! If they did not, and as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view they had no such views expressed, then it remains to be between one man and one woman. To alter this I view one would need a s128 referendum to succeed to amend the constitution to accept “marriage” to include “de facto” marriage of any two people of the same sex, etc.

    Post a Reply
  12. Dirk. A brief analysis of some remarks you have written. 1) ‘Homosexuality is a natural human condition’. I disagree. Sodomy is not a natural condition, as a man’s body is not made for sodomy. This is self evident. Compare this to a man and a woman who are physically (and mentally) complementary, and naturally engage in sex. It is obvious that only heterosexuality is the natural condition. 2) ‘and there is nothing about it (homosexuality) that is inherently harmful’. I disagree. AIDS and physical illness are consequences of sodomy. Homosexuality is actually physically harmful to the men themselves. 3) ‘Homosexuals are….far more likely to be good role models for children than he (Bernard) is’. Again, I disagree. Bernard is advocating a fulfilling relationship with a woman in marriage, that nurtures not only his and his wife’s well being, but also that of their children. This is a very good role model. Contrarily, I see no good role model in homosexuality. Dirk, look away from homosexuality.

    Post a Reply
  13. Using the labels sick and perverse to describe same sex marriage is quite disturbing, and indicates that the author may have mental issues he should be talking to a specialist about. If a person of healthy mind looks around the world them and is honest with themselves, they can’t deny the fact that homosexuality is a natural human condition and there is nothing about it that is inherently harmful.

    “It’s only and entirely about normalising and glorifying the gay sex – sodomy. Nothing more, nothing less.”

    Totally wrong. It’s about equality. It’s up to Bernard if he’d like to be honest with himself and accept the fact that homosexuals are, on the current status quo, far more likely to be good role models for children than he is, or live in a shroud of intellectual dishonesty.

    I strongly recommend you talk to a specialist outside of the church, Mr. Gaynor, and please refrain from passing on your poisonous ideologies to any children you may have, so not to allow them to be a stain on our society in the future.

    Sincere thanks for letting me contribute. Kind regards, and hope you get better.

    Dirk Armstrong

    Post a Reply
    • Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes STIs for which effective treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus and others).
      Increased risk of Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer.
      Gay men risk Anal Papilloma.

      Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate (“poppers”), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines. The long-term effects of many of these substances are unknown; however current wisdom suggests potentially serious consequences.
      Gay women suffer STI risk, obesity, substance abuse, anxiety and depression, increased risk of cervical cancer.
      Both men and women who practice homosexuality have lower life expectancy.
      So please tell me Dirk, how telling children gay lifestyle is wrong?

      Post a Reply
      • *can you please tell Dirk, how telling children gay lifestyle is harmful is wrong?

      • Do you think perhaps the prevalence of substance abuse and depression among homosexuals could possibly be due to the way our society paints their orientation? As a sick, perverted, disgusting, unnatural, immoral practice? Do you yourself have any idea what it would be like for a teenager to have to face the idea of telling their ultra-conservative parents that they’re gay, know full well, through anecdotal evidence, that they may be disowned, thrown out of home, or abused as a result? And how much courage it takes to “come out” anyway?

        The only “sick people” in this are those who clearly have a rampant case of homophobia. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon in hundreds of different mammal species, humans included (see my other comment somewhere on this thread for a link).

        I’ve been happily married to my wife for over 2 years now and we have 2 beautiful sons. We’re the picture of your “ideal marriage”. However my cousin has been with his partner for a decade, in complete monogamy and fidelity, yet they’re not allowed to marry… there’d be nothing stopping anyone from hooking up with some random stranger of the opposite sex and marrying 2 weeks later, and it’d be “right”, “sanctioned by God”, “moral” and all that rubbish, and they could end up hating each other’s guts and never having children… yet two grown men who love each other and have done so for a decade can’t marry?

        Sometimes I need to take a deep breath and remind myself that sadly, a very loud and vocal minority of people in this country are still stupid, ignorant, unintelligent and unenlightened. I just find it scary that a large number of you find your way into politics. I suggest you take the blinkers off, get in touch with some of these people you seem to find so repulsive and hear their stories, and listen to them one human to another.

      • Homosexuals have more special rights that the mojority, the substance abuse and depression is because of the lifestyle itself. I am often ridiculed because I am Catholic
        Heterosexuality outside marriage is natural but disordered.
        Homosexuality is both disordered and unatural.
        We are not animals, we are human beings with intellect that trumps animal instinct and animalistic behavior.

      • I really don’t understand why the gay community use the “homosexuality is natural because it is found naturally in animals” excuse.

        Perversion is natural in animals, because they are not civilised and can not rise above their base instincts.

        Animals also have sex with their own children, kill their own children, eat their own excrement, So should we also do likewise? Of course not…

        And as a side comment, 95% of those animals that you claim are homosexual, are actually bisexual… meaning that they will quite happily root anything that moves , often as an alpha dominance positioning act. in the social group

        All you can prove is that people like animals are capable of being totally perverted.


      • Richard is getting all steamed up at the ostensibly outrageous fate suffered by homosexuals at the hands of evil heterosexuals, who are apparently all afflicted with homophobia (a term which is meant to mean “hatred of homosexuals”, but which actually means “fear of men” – however, I don’t know any heterosexuals who fear homosexuals – nor should they – it’s pretty hard to hate something that is merely sad and sorry). First point: why is homosexuality wrong? Because, mate, your mother was right: “Leave your bottom alone – it’s dirty!”. Even more so: “Leave other men’s bottoms alone – they’re even MORE dirty!”. Richard says “homosexuality is a natural phenomenon”. Mate – wallowing around in someone else’s excrement for the purpose of sexual gratification is NEVER natural. I don’t care how many times you try to portray sexual whoopee involving faeces and anal passages as normal – it simply is not, and that’s that. Get used to it and get over it. Perhaps that’s why homosexuals never make up more than 2% or 3% of the population. Second point: by the way, consider this: most homosexuals, and lesbians as well, will NEVER have children. Which means that, because of the choices they are making as to sexual / social lifestyles – they are committed to outcomes that will remove them from the human gene pool, because they never reproduce. Hey! Darwin was right! Progress through the ages occurs via the survival of the fittest – homosexuals weed themselves out because of their sexual preferences and tendencies! Personal, individual extinction is the inevitable outcome for the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians. Final point: if homosexuality = inevitable individual extinction, do you still think homosexuality is “natural”?

      • Hair and shoes are a lifestyle. Sexuality is innate…or when did you decide to be straight, Kat? You know it’s happening in the the best of families, gay sons, lesbian sisters…

      • Masculine and feminine are reality, tamper with this together with lefty social engineering and you have identity crisis.
        Fatherly love for sons to confirm their masculinity and motherly love for daughters to confirm their femininity is essential. Also a strong marriage between man and wife and the respect and love they have for each other is also important for healthy nuturing of children in order that they see how men should treat women and how women should treat men. This is all I will say on the matter as it looks as if the homosexual activists are out in force, and they are not searching for answers only to push their illogical agenda upon the majority and justify their lifestyles, which do not equate to heterosexuality

      • And feelings of peodiphilla are also innate…Are you going to argue that we should let them follow their desires as well ?

        Or can you admit that some innate sexual desires are totally perverted?

      • Kat where is your data that backs up your claim that “Both men and women who practice homosexuality have lower life expectancy”.
        Cause you would be smarter enough to know that sexuailty is not on a death certificates.

        And really one just needs to ask medical professionals the sort of prblems they treat in people who live gay lifestyle how unhealthy these people actually are. I have several medical personel in my immediate family so first hand knowledge is my source.
        Also consideriong the high risk practices of both men and women living gay lifestyle, it is not rocket science to see that their lives are somewhat cut short, I do believe averaging around 20 years shorter.

      • Kat
        I like “From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.”

      • I am simply stating that if one chooses to live that sort of life you do so at your own risk, however keep it to yourself and leave Children and Marriage to the Hetrosexuals the way nature intended, and do not try to push homosexuality on the majority.
        And just because I oppose homosexual lifestyle does not mean I am afraid of such people, nor am I restricting their rights as a human being, Homophobe is a fabricated word made up for those who oppose homosexuality. Does that mean I can call them a hetrophobe or Christophobe now? seriously if you dont think that there is a problem with homosexuality and the health risks involved then I call that an unjust lie toward the health and wellbeing of those who struggle with same sex attraction. I do not wish these people to have their lives cut short before their time, but it seems the gay lobby do as they try to justify homosexual acts too vulgar and disgusting to put into words by presenting warm fuzzy wuzzy feelings instead of the tragedy of those who lead such unhealthy lives.

      • Yes Kat, you are right on with one single issue missing – why does homosexuality not enjoy the same freedoms as heterosexuality as far as the immune system is concerned?
        Since civil societies began, the issue of homosexuality has been visited and revisited only for those noble and advanced societies to put homosexuality in the ‘too hard basket’ and simply put the matter into the the illegal basket and bury their heads.
        The issue/problem has reached our generation and fortunately, we are able to deal with it because we now have advanced technology to see more deeply that any previous generation and we have come to learn that blood and the immune system plays a major role in why homosexuality cannot be tolerated.
        The answer may be found in the question as to why the sperm can survive in the body for 4 days or so and the fetus for about none months without being attacked by the immune system.
        In the question why is this so that the immune system becomes in the most part tolerant when it is generally intolerant given our knowledge that the immune system will attack any foreign body instantly and yet, it is pacified by the sperm and the fetus or is the immune system pacified to make allowances – Why?
        My understanding is that the combination of the x – y chromosome plays a major part and if so then the answer may have been discovered in that the x – y chromosome can be likened to the lock and key and to put it simply, a lock will not open a lock and a key is useless to another key.
        If this assertion is correct then the term that homosexual activity is an abomination begins to make sense. The immune system is not pacified when the most intimate areas of the body are invaded – the immune system is confused – throws out antibodies in the vain attempt to subdue the invasion – the false bacteria infiltrates the blood system – game over?
        I invite comment/debate on
        John Abbott

    • A case of projection on your behalf, Dirk. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron but the whole idea of it is sick and perverse. Why do men who engage in homosexual behaviour refer to themselves as “queer?” Could it be because they are? Homosexual behaviour is only natural in the sense that all illness is a natural phenomenon and to say there is nothing inherently harmful about it is incredibly ignorant or delusional. Take your pick. Natural doesn’t necessarily equal normal and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will make it so. As for saying that practitioners of homosexual behaviour are far more likely to make good role models for children – you’re obviously seriously unbalanced.

      Post a Reply
    • To use Dirk argument it is happening all over the world, well so is murder, are we then going to accept this as a normality? So is theft, are we then going to accept this as normal?
      Let use a comparison. 2 people apply for a job. One seeks to b e employed as a part timer and the other as a permanent employee. Because of the different status the employee c an achieve long service leaved, where as the part timer can achieved a higher weekly pay. Well the part timer now demands to get the same long service leave entitlements just applied to the short term employment. Common should prevail that the part times isn’t employee as the permanent one and so cannot demand the same benefits while so to say having the cake and eat it. We find that many if not most same sex couples are having a status that one plays the make roll and the other the female roll. They are trying to imitate the heterosexual relationship. As like the part times, they want to be in a relationship without child bearing abilities but they still want to have at times a child in their care. While they claim that they can be good if not better parents then hetero sexual couples, they forget one thing and that is that the child’s interest is to be in a natural environment of one mother and one father. The child has no say and seems to be disregarded as to what might be in his/her best interest. My 42 year old niece (who resides in Europe) phoned me and asked if I was her biological father. I had to make known I was not. Her late father had a sex change when she was little and she had never seen him as a male. I had photo’s of him as a 20 year old and so emailed them to her. that was the first time she saw him (her late father) as a male. she might be 42 but still has the scars of living in a world not having had a real make father around. So, let us not kidding each other that children will get used to it, as my niece clearly still suffers, even at age 42. and while her late father was not in a homo sexual relationship, nevertheless, the effect was still the same to her. In my view, even ignoring any religious overtones it is contrary to natural forces (so nature) for a two people of the same sex to create a child. If nature had wanted 2 people of the same sex to be able to produce a child then it would have been possible. So, I am willing (not being a scientist) to accept natures destiny to the human race. and if I read Bernard writings and ignore any religious references then I view he still comes across as reasonable. While my wife is a Catholic I am not and have therefore no bias in favour of Catholics as such. As a father/step-father of 9 children, and so far more then a football team of grandchildren having followed, I can only be glad that I grew up with a father and a mother and many (5) siblings for that also. We all shared a genetic bond as children and that I am very proud upon. I have no right to deny anyone else that which I was given by birth and should protect any child from forces that proclaim the good but is destined to bring evil upon them, as my niece proved to suffer for so long. (And this even so this was not related to a same sex relationship!). The gay Mardi Grass is a clear example how they are needing an event to try to perceived something that is unnatural as being normal. You wouldn’t need this is it was indeed normal in the first placed!
      What people as consenting adults that is do in their own privacy is their business and I am not going to preach morality about this but trying to shove it down my throat on every opportunity to me is to violate my civil rights.

      Post a Reply
    • Why do you think “Using the labels sick and perverse to describe same sex marriage is quite disturbing, and indicates that the author may have mental issues”? Same sex marriage to many is sick and perverse. If you are in a same sex marriage, it is sick and perverse. I don’t have mental issues. I think Bernard is right. As far as equality, it can never be equal because it is not the same thing. It can never be the same thing. I would of thought is was obvious to a person of a healthy mind that they are different. Are you honestly saying they are the same? Quite an insulting comment from you Dirk, are you the type of person we should all aspire to be? Stain on society? have you heard anything about a pot and a black kettle?

      Post a Reply
  14. Another well written article Bernard! A man may lie as much as he likes about the truth, but the truth doesn’t change. In an age when telling the truth requires some courage, you are doing an admirable job.

    Post a Reply
    • Thank you David – I appreciate the support and kind words.

      Post a Reply
  15. A very well written piece, Bernard, loaded with pertinent and insightful observations. There is nothing I would add to that other than to say that innocent children will be the greatest victims of this travesty as the pretenders seek to experience parenthood through adoption, surrogacy and incredibly evil new reproductive technologies.

    Post a Reply
    • Thank you Phil. I fear that you are correct.

      Post a Reply
    • Thank both of you, Phil and Bernard, for reinforcing the idea that our country is still stuck in the 1950s. You’re both mad to think that gay adoption/surrogacy will create a whole new generation of underprivileged and morally broken children. How many kids, especially those overseas in far worse circumstances, could experience a far better life by being adopted into an Australian family (heterosexual or homosexual)?

      You have biblical prejudices towards homosexuals. That’s it. If you can wrap your head around the notion that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon, and not purely a psychological/social one, you may be able to creep past the giant “STOP” sign put up by your church. I know plenty of Christians who have absolutely no issue with gay marriage, because they have been able to reconcile their beliefs with both science and humanity (much of the bible is, after all, horribly inhumane).

      Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon in mammals.

      I find it kind of laughable that you’re bemoaning the absence of a “rational debate on gay marriage” when your arguments against it are unfounded and based either on religion, or some hastily researched pseudo-science like the “twin studies”.

      Post a Reply
      • Richard – just to make sure I’m properly understanding your point – are you saying that homosexuality, IN EVERY INSTANCE, is caused by the genetic wiring within a person? That a homosexual is a homosexual because he is a homosexual, and there’s no such thing as a homosexual because of personal choice? I await your response.

      • “Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon in mammals.” ——————————— Wild animals do all sorts of horrible things that cannot be allowed in a civilised society. Animals commit rape, incest and paedophilia just as often as they have ‘gay’ sex. It doesn’t make it okay for people to start imitating them.

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