Spare us from Christine Forster

As the High Court sits today to ponder the insane arguments of the marriage equality crowd, it’s also worthwhile pondering the qualifications of the leading proponents of homosexual marriage.

But let’s just stick with insanity for a sec. The ACT is arguing that its marriage equality laws are legal because gay marriage is not the same as real marriage.

Yup. Insanity. And so much for marriage equality. Clearly, it’s not that at all.

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that marriage and the glorification of homosexual relationships are the same thing. They are not and that is exactly what the pro-gay lawyers are arguing at taxpayers’ expense in the High Court right now.

When governments start spending up big on such silliness you should not be surprised that we are in so much debt.

But that’s a whole different story. Back to the proponents of gay marriage.

You may have heard of Christine Forster. She’s the Prime Minister’s sister. Her link with Tony Abbott and her vocal lesbianism makes her the most high profile campaigner for gay marriage in Australia.

So just exactly what does Christine Forster know about marriage?

Quite a lot really.

That’s because she was married. She did walk down the aisle. She did promise to spend her life with the man she supposedly loved. She did mumble something about ‘until death do us part’.

And then, four children later, she left to shack up with another woman.

So we know that Christine does not hold the institution of marriage in high regard at all.

And not just in a general sense. But in a personal sense. As in Christine has a public track record of making public commitments about marriage and then publicly abandoning them altogether.

In fact, Christine has said that she knew this decision would destroy her family. And she went ahead and did it anyway.

Instead of the ‘dignified’ campaigner for gay marriage as the media makes her out to be, the truth is that Christine ruined her own marriage in the pursuit of lesbian love. And the celebration of Christine by the LGBT community proves nothing more than that the Mardi Gras mob hold no respect for marriage whatsoever either.

What a disgrace.

And yet Christine thinks that she can speak from on high about the urgent need for national marriage reform, when she couldn’t even stick her own one out.

Christine Forster is the last person in the world that should be talking about marriage, let alone speaking utter nonsense about the dignity of ‘gay marriage’. There’s no dignity whatsoever in the trail of destruction Christine has left behind her in this selfish pursuit.

She might be able to talk the talk when it comes to ‘loving’ relationships.

But Christine cannot walk the walk.

And as any grade two kid can tell you, actions speak louder than words.

What I want to know is why have the media treated Christine like some goddess of love, who dispenses insights on marriage and relationships to the rest of us somehow struggling to attain her perfect approach to life-long commitments.

Why haven’t they asked why she bothers talking about marriage with her lesbian lover when she has already abandoned a life-long commitment previously.

Why haven’t they asked if she really means ‘until death do us part’ this time, when she didn’t mean it last time.

And the most insulting aspect of Christine’s hypocritical advocacy of gay marriage is that she doesn’t even want you or me to have a say.

Because she’s just one of the long line of LGBT activists seeking to change the law but resisting a call for a referendum.

Christine has the gall to say that the issue is too divisive for a public debate, but she seeks to thrust her divisive, hypocritical views on the Australian public. The same public who overwhelmingly voted for her brother and his well-known opposition to gay marriage.

And there is another aspect of Christine’s life that is a little troubling. And it also provides a glimpse into the deep, dark and hypocritical underbelly of the LGBT world.

If anyone mentions that it is possible to stop being homosexual, they are taken away to the modern version of the torture chamber, dismembered, and then their body parts are displayed in the four daily newspapers as a warning to others, lest they utter the same vile heresy.

However, just for a bit of fun, I will point out for the record that it is actually possible to stop engaging in gay or lesbian ‘sex’, just like it is possible not to commit adultery. And while the mob gather up their pitchforks and unleash on Twitter, I’ll let you think about whether I have said anything wrong, or whether the raging horde is just a sad proof that some people actually believe that they are nothing more than sexual slaves or robots, unable to control themselves. Just like the next-door neighbour’s dog.

But if it is heresy to say that you could stop being homosexual, why has the announcement that a married mother of four has found lesbianism been greeted with such joy?

Or would she also be feted from Liverpool to Lithgow if she ‘restraightened’ tomorrow and wanted to restart her life with her actual husband?

Surely if you can become gay today, tomorrow you can become ungay. Or is it just a one way door? Once you’re there, you’re there forever. Kind of like the Hotel California. And we all know what that song was about. Hell. Good luck with that.

The only other explanation that Christine can offer is that she was always a lesbian. That her married life was a sham. That it was deceitful and that she lied on her wedding day.

I’d like to think that Christine did not do this. I would like to hope that one day this mess could be rectified. That’d be a good ending, but it would mean that Christine would need to start living up to her marriage vows.

But if it was a lie, if Christine really did deceive her husband at the end of the aisle, then she is a living, walking, breathing example of contempt for marriage.

So please, spare us from Christine Forster and her destructive views on marriage. She is not fit to speak on the issue.

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. Bernard – seriously? An individual can decide to become heterosexual?!?! What a ridiculous statement to make! Being homosexual is no more a decision as to whether you have blue eyes or not. Obviously Christine tried to suppress her sexuality initially but could not take living a lie anymore. Why are so many so – called Christians so intolerant? Does it threaten your own marriage? It certainly doesn’t threaten mine. I thought all human beings were God’s creation and are loved equally by Him. As for Jim – what a bitter, angry, un – Christianlike person you are! Abortion is a totally separate issue of which I am proudly pro- choice. I don’t understand why people cannot just live their own lives according to their own values without trying to force others to live the way they feel is correct.
    How about a bit of compassion and tolerance – isn’t that what Christianity should be about?

    Post a Reply
  2. Jim old mate you asked if I had any other clichés…????
    And off you go again with the “abortion of homosexuals and lesbians.” yet again.
    And when are you going to admit that I have never made a post where I have said I support Abortion….or do you just like to make wild assumptions on other people’s position on abortion and religious belief to make you feel better.

    Post a Reply
    • Paul, you’re as easy to read as a Mickey Mouse comic – of course you’re in favour of abortion! However, if I’m sadly mistaken, here’s your big opportunity to publicly declare that the murderous practise of abortion is as horrific and unacceptable in every circumstance to you as it is to me and countless others. Go ahead mate – the floor is yours! ……….. HEY! Is this Deja Vu, or what ??

      Post a Reply
      • Looks like you have made my view on abortion for me Jim….And Its people like you that think homosexuals force views on people……

      • Paul – you’ve had a couple of clear opportunities to state clearly, succinctly and distinctly whether you are for or against abortion. On each occasion, you have spectacularly failed to man-up and confirm your position. Face it, mate – you’re a moral coward who does not have the guts to say where you stand. Having challenged you on this issue more than once – and having failed to receive from you any clear indication as to your views – I am now able to say this: “Paul is a pro-abortionist who approves of the murder of unborn children”. You are weak. Grow a spine and try to forget about other men’s backsides.

  3. Jim I said its narrow-minded people full of hate would abort the child for being homosexual.
    I never said anything like ” every expectant mother will be thrilled and delighted to be told her unborn child has the gene for homosexuality”
    Are you saying every mother is disappointed and ashamed when she finds out that they have a homosexual Child?
    But with a world with people like Bernard who has called homosexuals “Freaks” and yourself Im guessing you would be ashamed and would disown your own child if they ever told you.

    Post a Reply
    • Paul – how about you give your homosexual buzz phrases a rest for a while – eh, mate? This “full of hate” crap is so over-used that it has become worse than boring – it is merely irritating, like a mosquito’s whine in the early hours. “Full of hate” … “full of hate” … “full of hate” – haven’t you got any other clichés? Just stick to the facts, old son. 100,000 women in Australia every year find something so wrong with their unborn child that they elect to have the kid torn to pieces (if it’s young enough) or its brain removed without anaesthetic so that its head collapses (if it’s nearly full term). Once the homosexual gene is discovered – you can bet your bottom dollar that will unleash the abortion tsunami upon unborn homosexuals and lesbians. Get used to it, mate – YOU supported abortion at every level and on every occasion – well, now the chickens are going to come home to roost and it’s YOUR unborn homosexual compadres who will literally get it in the neck. Never mind – as a homosexual, you were inevitably going to become extinct anyway – as you embrace your same-sex partner, so you both personally embrace extinction (other man’s backside = no kids = personal extinction). The right to abortion you have always championed will merely accelerate the process. You’re not really in a position to whinge about circumstances that are of your own making – are you?

      Post a Reply
      • Jim find one post where I have said I support abortion old mate.
        And talk about me having any other clichés you bring up abortion on unborn homosexuals and lesbians again have you got any others champ.

      • Paul, you’re as easy to read as a Mickey Mouse comic – of course you’re in favour of abortion! However, if I’m sadly mistaken, here’s your big opportunity to publicly declare that the murderous practise of abortion is as horrific and unacceptable in every circumstance to you as it is to me and countless others. Go ahead mate – the floor is yours!

      • Paul has gone all quiet, all of a sudden. Yep – Paul is all in favour of abortion – that includes the forthcoming abortion of homosexuals and lesbians.

      • @Jim Even accepting your premise, do you not see the irony that it would only be anti-abortion parents who would have their gay or lesbian child? Is this not a sign to you of what the Lord would want – to keep all his creations safe and loved?

      • You are assuming that homosexuality is genetic, something that is not proven.

      • Bob – of course it’s ironic! Modern lefty “partners” abort their kids left, right and centre (those that somehow slipped through the contraception) – and that no doubt includes some with the homosexual gene. Christian parents accept and raise the children for which they are responsible (which is why lefty modernists will eventually contracept / abort themselves into extinction, just as homosexuals will “marry” themselves into extinction). If some children born to loving Christian parents – parents who are husband and wife – end up homosexual or lesbian, then that is the Cross those children must bear. Some will fall away because of this burden, and will eventually insist that a man’s sexual attraction to another man’s rectum is more than just natural – it is saint-like and of the highest honour, worthy of all praise and demanding absolute deference from all lesser mortals. However, others will find the courage and the strength to deal with their Cross as best they can, always recognising that the attraction is wrong in every occasion and under all circumstances – and never falling to the depraved depths of those who flaunt this attraction as right and proper, moral and praiseworthy. The latter group of homosexuals are the quiet heroes of the world – those who live with their temptations and who, despite their fallings and lapses along the way, always turn to God for forgiveness when they succumb to weakness and temptation. Enough of the from-the-heart commentary – back to you, Bob. Mate – how about you give you puerile references to “the Lord” a rest? You don’t believe in God, you have a complete contempt for Christianity and every time you type those words it is to mock God, not praise him. Give it a rest, lest you anger The Lord with you contemptuous homosexual disrespect and really draw the celestial consequences. Warned out, old son.

      • Jim, apparently even those celibate homosexuals you describe as “the quiet heroes” would not be allowed in Gaynors schools under his no homosexual teachers policy. And speaking of puerile, you obsess on the details of man sex, but not lesbian sex, you strange man. You also make wild suppositions on other people’s position on abortion and religious outlook – quote my words, not a resentful imagination.

      • Bob – any reference to homosexuals automatically applies also to lesbians – is that clear enough for you? If you’re against abortion, come on out of the closet and declare it! But my assessment is that you – like Paul above – are an enthusiastic supporter of abortion, because that is the inevitable, invariable outlook of homosexuals such as yourself and Paul. However, if I’m sadly mistaken, here’s your big opportunity to publicly declare that the murderous practise of abortion is as horrific and unacceptable in every circumstance to you as it is to me and countless others. Go ahead mate – the floor is yours!

  4. Dear Bernard

    As you know marriage ( A happy secure loving marriage ) is the best way to raise children, studies have shown this repeatedly.

    I have 2 friends who have been in a loving long term monogamous relationship for over 10 years now, they own their home and have good jobs and are secure so they are wanting to start a family.

    They know the commitment of marriage will give their children the best chance and the best start in life, yet they are unable to marry because they are both females and our laws forbid that.

    In the same way you oppose the abortion of a gay fetus will you support same sex marriage as the best possible option for children born to or adopted by same sex couples ?

    After all the rights of the child outweigh any narrow beliefs we may hold.

    Post a Reply
    • Doug you are 100% right. The rights of children outweigh any narrow beliefs that we may hold. In you case, you hold the narrow belief that gay people can have kids. They can’t – they need an actual couple consisting of a male and a female to do that. You also think that gays have the right to create children without any regard for their history or biology. This is clearly a narrow, selfish belief that hurts children.

      Post a Reply
      • @Bernard. Also hurting children is the rejection and hurt caused to gay and lesbian children by so-called “Christian” parents…how damaging would your gay or lesbian child be, knowing their father at best wants for them a lifetime of celibacy and loneliness, views them as “freaks” and “in the same category as paedophiles” .

      • bob, shouldn’t gays and lesbians think about how their actions impact on their parents? It’s a two way street. Kids should worry about their parents as much as parents worry about their kids.

      • @Bruce Check out Twenty Ten. It is a shelter for teen lesbians and gays thrown out of the family home…for gay and lesbian children and teens, coming out to their parents is the hardest step to take! Imagine the bullied 14 year old lesbian who has to keep secret both her sexuality – and the bullying she is suffering! Imagine trying to tell Phil, or Kat, or Bernard or Jim Boomba you are homosexual. Sadly, even today, some parents do see it in terms of “why are you doing this to me”. Does the Lord want this hardness and hatred for his creations?

      • Cry me a river, I can read you like a Book bob, trying to justify your guilt in engaging in homosexual behaviour much? When did I ever support the tossing out of kids struggling with homosexual tendency? And please your change of attitude regarding Christianity to support your cause is pathetic, If you truly sought the Lord Jesus, then you would reject homosexual behaviour and follow Him, Jesus never said homosexual behaviour was acceptable, it is an abomination before the Lord.

      • @kat. As you know, I have referred to the metropolitan community church, and St Joseph’s in Newtown, and similar work happens in a Jewish synagogue in Sydney. They are reconciling and repairing relationships with lesbians and gays, conducting themselves in the way God wants us all to do (Galations 3:28)

      • Ah the ol Protsetant make up your own Church to suit your lifestyle technique. I do Believe the founder of your metropoliatan Community Church was Troy Perry, who is gay, had affairs with multipal men and performing gay “marriage ” cereminoies in his ‘Church” in the name of Jesus Christ. obviously his version of the Bible does not contain scripture that condemns sinful behaviour of homosexuality such as Roman Chapter 1:18-32
        18 The retribution of God from heaven is being revealed against the ungodliness and injustice of human beings who in their injustice hold back the truth.

        19 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them:

        20 ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse:

        21 they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.

        22 While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid

        23 that they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an imitation, for the image of a mortal human being, or of birds, or animals, or crawling things.

        24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-

        25 because they exchanged God’s truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

        26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

        27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

        28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.

        29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite,

        30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,

        31 without brains, honour, love or pity.

        32 They are well aware of God’s ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die — yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.

      • St Joseph’s is a Catholic Church. See gay

      • Yes I have heard of this Church, if the Priest fails to inform the gay people who come to Mass that they are not to recieve communion if they are living an active gay lifestyle, because they are living in mortal sin and when they receive communion with mortal sin on their soul commit the sin of sacrilige, then the priest is doing a great injustice to his priesthood. It is his duty as a priest to uphold the teachings of the Church and inform his congregation inthese matters. I question the conduct of the Priest at this parish, heclearly is doing his own thing, and not that of the Church.

      • I was just reading your comments Kat, you are great, I love what you write. I love how Bob adds Galations 3:28 without understanding it’s meaning, the same as others do with other scriptures. I wonder if they are Christian or are non Christians or just non Christians who are expert on what Christians should be. (lol) Keep it up Kat, you are wonderful.

  5. Bernard, my congratulations to you for a very well written and logical article. Please keep up with your good work. More than ever Australia needs a moral compass, instead of trying to placate the illogical demands of the homosexual lobby. as it attempts to destroy the real meaning and purpose of marriage.
    Aesop’s fable about the fox who lost his tail comes to mind as very relevant. Those who are afflicted with homosexual attractions get comfort by encouraging others to join with them.

    Post a Reply
    • Hello Leighton – Thank you for your comments and support.

      Post a Reply
  6. Bernard, you complain about taxpayers dollars being spent on the High Court case. First, it’s the Commonwealth, opposing marriage equality, who has challenged the laws in the High Court. It’s the challenge to those laws that is costing taxpayers’ money. Second, and more importantly, you then advocate a referendum. Yet both the Commonwealth and the ACT agree the Commonwealth already has the requisite power to legislate for same-sex marriage under the Constitution. (When I was at the hearing, various judges appeared sympathetic to this uncontradicted view.) Why, then, waste taxpayers’ dollars to fill a gap in constitutional power when there is no gap to fill?

    Post a Reply
    • I think you’re wrong, Troy. The High Court is likely to find that the term “marriage” in the Constitution means what it meant when the Constitution was originally passed by referendum – the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. Only a referendum can change that in my opinion.

      Post a Reply
      • Phil, will you accept the High Court’s decision if you’re wrong?

      • Tory, would you accept the High Court’s decision if they decided that the ACT Same Sex Marriage Bill is unconstitutional?

      • Of course I will accept the umpire’s decision. I am confident that the High Court will say the Commonwealth has power to legislate on same-sex marriage because “marriage” has evolved from its 1901 meaning. I am less confident that the High Court will find the ACT law can operate concurrently with the current federal Marriage Act. In the worst case scenario, and the High Court confines “marriage” to its 1901 meaning, then there are still options available: 1. legislation by the States and Territories (assuming the Commonwealth cannot stop them because the Commonwealth lacks the requisite power over same-sex marriage); 2. a referral of State powers to the Commonwealth; and 3. a referendum under s128.

      • So, we now have unambiguous confirmation that the federal Parliament can legislate for same-sex marriage and that “marriage” is not confined to its 1901 meaning of “one man + one woman”. As a result, there is no need for a referendum: there is no constitutional gap for any referendum to fill. The constitutional law of the land is clear: “marriage” can include the marriage of same-sex couples (if federal Parliament decides so). Are we all going to accept the umpire’s decision?

      • Troy – well picked!! And a unaninmous decision from the High Court! However, equality is some years away. People cited their religious beliefs as a reason to gaol gays and lesbians. Now, people are citing religious beliefs as a reason to oppose amending civil law. God bless those brave members of the Liberal, Labor and National Party who are willing to make a stance, they are the abolitionists of their time!

    • The homosexual community will do anything it can to avoid a referendum for one reason only: it knows the public will overwhelmingly defeat any referendum that proposes to allow the same-sex community something which will never be theirs – marriage.

      A community which, by the way, marches bravely towards personal extinction, by and large, because of the personal life-style choices selected by its members.

      As they embrace their same-sex partners, so they also embrace personal extinction.

      And you see nothing wrong with homosexuality?

      Post a Reply
      • Unfortunately Jim, they are making use of new reproductive technologies to create and exploit children. This is one of the most disturbing and terrible consequences of the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour and it is why we have to keep on fighting this tooth and nail until we win. Surrogate babies for gay men is a billion industry and India is at the forefront of it.

      • Jim, I don’t follow you. How will the LGBTI community become extinct? Heterosexual couples will continue to give birth to gay and lesbian children.

      • You really think so, Troy? Because IF homosexuals are born that way due to DNA (something homosexuals stridently and uncompromisingly insist is the case), then the homosexual gene will eventually be detected and identified. You know what that means, Troy? Yes mate – that’s right! It means that homosexual foetuses will be aborted left, right and centre, by the (literally) bucketload! Just like other foetuses with terminal, condemnable conditions such as dwarfism or cleft palate – and why not? It’s a woman’s choice, isn’t it? And no real mother wants a son who is interested in another man’s rectum – does she? No – not at all! You don’t get grandkids out of another bloke’s backside. That is why the great women’s liberator – abortion – will ensure that unborn homosexuals will be butchered by the tens of thousands on the bloody feminist altar of women’s right to abortion. Which brings me to a couple of ironies in all of this, Troy. The first is that not one single pro-abortionist (and this includes nearly all homosexuals) are in a position to complain about this – because they reckon abortion is great! Don’t they? The second is that the only group who will fight for the rights of these unborn homosexuals are Catholics like Bernard! Hey – funny old world, isn’t it, Troy?

      • Jim why would anybody choose to be homosexual when we have people like you expressing views like you just have?
        “no real mother wants a son who is interested in another man’s rectum”
        A real mother would only want her son to be happy.
        Im guessing that if any of your children told you that they were gay you would kick them out of the house or would even try conversion therapy.

      • “Jim why would anybody choose to be homosexual when we have people like you expressing views like you just have?” ——————————– Do you have any evidence that homosexuality is caused by a ‘gay gene’? Mentally ill people make harmful choices because they’re unable to think clearly.

      • Jim, that’s an argument against – or about – abortion, not about a same-sex attraction gene. In the time it takes to type this, a lesbian or gay person had been born here in Australia, where we no longer imprison gay men or force lesbians to have electric shock therapy. It is a more humane, decent world, but reading these blogs, their anger, their hate, offering at best cold disapproval and the only option of celibacy and a solitary life…what would a lesbian child in those circumstances do? A gay son or grandson of someone like gaynor, Maguire or yourself.

        I pray The Lord removes the evil from your heart.

      • Give the sanctimonious claptrap a rest, Bob. I mean really: “I pray The Lord removes the evil from your heart”. At which two-bit institution did you learn your third-grade acting? Mate – stop shooting the messenger. It’s you homosexuals who endlessly run the mantra that all homosexuals are born that way because of their genes and there’s never an issue of choice in the matter. My response is that IF that is correct, then the homosexual gene will eventually be discovered – and that is the day that the genocide of unborn homosexual babies will begin. This is simply fact, mate. If you think that every mother will be thrilled to learn that her unborn child is a homosexual or lesbian – then you know nothing about the realities of human nature. Cling to your delusions if it makes you feel any better – but understand that WHEN the homosexual gene is discovered, that’s the day that unborn homosexuals and lesbians will begin to populate the plastic disposal bins in abortion clinics. And further understand – mate – that it won’t be people like you who will protest this outcome, will it? Because people like you support abortion, don’t you? And you’ll never know about the genocide of unborn homosexuals, because that type of abortion-related information is neither collected nor disseminated – ever. The ultimate irony in all of this then comes into play – it will be people like Bernard and the rest of us who cry out against the horror of abortion who will continue the protest against this monstrous crime. You won’t do a thing about it. It’s people like you who support abortion whose hearts are filled with evil – pity about the “own goal” the discovery of the homosexual gene will have on the rainbow community.

      • @Jim from Boomba…where I have ever expresssed my view on abortion? I haven’t. Certainly I know lesbian and gay couples who would rather adopt an unwanted child than see it aborted! And I do pray for a world where children born gay or lesbian do not have to fear from hate, and, more than tolerance, are accepted, removing the warped thinking that would lead a person to abort a same-sex foetus.

      • Jim, the cause of homosexuality is far more complicated than a “gay gene”. The current theory relates to epigenetics and the way a particular gene may be “expressed”. Also, not all parents think the way you do. Some mums and dads love their sons and daughters unconditionally. I’m afraid you’ll have to put up with us for some time yet 😉

      • Paul – shooting the messenger again, mate? You obviously believe that homosexuals are that way because of their DNA – the bad news for you is that, when that particular gene is discovered, it will be an instant ticket for abortion. Shocked you may be by this unpleasant revelation – but reality is reality, mate. Foetuses are aborted for all sorts of reasons – homosexuality is guaranteed to be just one more. Get used to it – aborted homosexuals – coming to a bucket in a taxpayer-funded clinic near you!

      • Paul, you just got schooled by Jim from Boomba.

      • Jim I have no doubt that narrow-minded people full of hate would abort the child for being homosexual but most people would have made the decision to abort before finding out the child was going to be homosexual the only people that would abort the child for being homosexual are people with the same mind set as you.

      • You really don’t know much at all about human nature, do you, Paul? The world is FULL of women who abort their unborn babies for all sorts of reasons. And many are aborted over eight months – you do know that, don’t you? Victorian abortion laws – and now Tasmanian abortion laws as well – allow abortions right up until the date of birth. Full-term abortions occur every week in Melbourne. If you believe that every expectant mother will be thrilled and delighted to be told her unborn child has the gene for homosexuality – then you’ve been sucked in by homosexual propaganda that trills that all the world loves homosexuals and think that homosexuals are God’s gifts to everybody. Mate – they don’t. So WHEN the homosexual gene is discovered, the abortion genocide will be unleashed on unborn homosexuals and lesbians, who shall disappear long before they’ve ever been born. Get used to it – smell the reality – there’s nothing you can do about it. This is the fruit of all those who have succeeded in inflicting abortion on society – and that includes you just as much as the rest of them, doesn’t it – mate?

      • @jim. Another strange reality – the opportunity for lesbians to have children has spurred a much less casual or disengaged view of abortion. But Jim, your writings don’t seem too upset at the thought of aborting homosexual foetuses.

      • The opportunity for lesbians to have IVF children – funded by the taxpayer! What a disgrace – if lesbians want IVF children, they should pay for it themselves. Bob says I do not seem too upset at the thought of unborn homosexuals being aborted. Bob appears to have but a limited capacity to comprehend what I have written so far. Let me explain again, Bob, purely for your benefit: ONE. WHEN the homosexual gene is identified, unborn homosexuals and lesbians will be deliberately aborted – this is guaranteed. TWO. When that happens, Bob will never know, because pro-abortionists (that includes you, Bob) have ensured that no statistics about abortion are ever collected or released. THREE. Pro-abortion homosexuals like Bob will never protest against the abortions of unborn homosexuals – because abortion is a woman’s right, isn’t it, Bob? FOUR. The only people who will actively protest against the abortion of all unborn children – including unborn homosexuals and lesbians – are people like Bernard and the rest of the Christian anti-abortion movement (me included). FIVE. This is irony upon irony, don’t you think? SIX. Yes, there is a great deal of black humour in recognising that the great, legendary Homosexual gene – if proven – will be the instant death sentence for hundreds of thousands of unborn homosexuals and lesbians. SEVEN. The difference between you and me, Bob, is that I will do all I can to prevent those abortions – while you will not lift so much as one little finger. Way to go, Bob!

      • Fetuses are aborted for one reason at the moment, A mother cannot support the pregnancy to full term and the pregnancy is terminated.

        The vast majority of these abortions are spontaneous, this caused by many different factors ( if you are a christian then you would believe that your God aborts these children )

        Some pregnancies are terminated by medical profesionals because they believe a mother support the pregnancy to full term and so provide a medical termination.

        No medical professional I know takes this matter lightly, it is always done in consultation with other profesionals. Aborting a child because of it’s sex ( or sexual preference ) would remain illegal and both doctors and mothers could be prosecuted if this was proved.

        You seem to be of the belief that medically assisted abortions are a simple procedure and that they can be done for frivolous reasons, the truth is far from that.

        Perhaps if you educated yourself a bit more about abortions and the causes of homosexuality transgender and bisexual you may be better able to understand the degree of complexity involved.

      • Doug you are delusionally mistaken. Abortions do occur for gender-selection reasons and they are not illegal in Victoria. What is illegal is for a doctor to say no. That is why a doctor in Victoria faces the loss of his medical license right now.

      • Doug, are you serious? One of the most common reasons for abortion/termination
        is because of failed contraception. Women will often give the reason of financial difficulty but failed contraception is most probably more likely, and anyway its a lame excise to take the life of a child because your strapped for cash. Spontanious abortion also known as misscarriage is completely different, it happens for many different reasons from early abnormality in the early stages of pregnancy, eg lack of hormone increase prior to the placenta being established, or another eg icompetant cervix resulting in misscarriage of the baby, these are only two reasons there are many more and also reasons that often cannot be established. When misscarriage happens depending on the situation, the mother may need a D and C, dialation and curettage, to make sure nothing is left inside the uterus that could turn septic, this procedure is usually done after incomplete misscarriage with a ultrasound scan to make sure that a heart beat is not detected as the mother may be carrying another baby or twin. Ectopic Pregnancy is a tragic situation as the baby grows outside the uterus, the baby will not survive as the fallopian tube will burst, as it cannot stretch, causing the mother to go into shock with internal bleeding. it is necessary to operate to remove the baby in order to stop the fallopian tube from bursting, or if the tube has burst already, save the mothers life.
        As I said deliberate abortions are done mostly because of selfish reasons, or the mother talked into having an abortion by the boyfriend, or parent etc. Rape cases are very rare but do happen, also as a reason to abort, but really why do we kill the baby for the crime of their father? there are also women who have abortions without the father of the child knowing.
        There are surgeons who oppose what abortion doctors do, and often do not converse with each other if their paths cross in a hospital. Abortionists are actually not very well tolerated by alot of medical staff, and rightly so. And if it is a procedure that is not taken lightly by these so called abortion surgeons, then why do they perform so many? I am guessing they have replaced respect for life with dollar signs.

    • It’s interesting Troy, you say,”it’s the Commonwealth, opposing marriage equality, who has challenged the laws in the High Court. It’s the challenge to those laws that is costing taxpayers’ money.” So what you are saying is that a state can bring in laws that are unconstitutional or even illegal under the constitution and the commonwealth should just sit back and do nothing. Ilogical Troy. Under the constitution, the commonwealth has jurisdiction over marriage. As such, the ACT laws are invalid and the case has to go to the high court. You rightly point out the the commonwealth has the power to legislate same sex marriage but that requires a change in definition of marriage. Same sex marriage is not a right. It is only a right if the government passes it into law. You know what the legal definition of marriage is so same sex marriage cannot be passed into law. It is not discriminatory because any adult can marry, but it can only be a member of the opposite sex. In that respect there is no discrimination,no inequity. If anything, there should be a referendum. I think however that gay groups are afraid of that. We all should have a say if the constitution is to be changed to allow same sex marriage. It is too important to be put in the hands of a small group of judges or even in the hands of politicians. The people should have their say and in doing that should be made aware of what has happened in other parts of the world where these laws have been passed. Massachusetts and Canada come to mind. If everyone knew what the gay agenda really was, they would reject it. The gay lobby won’t tell you but if we have a national debate, we will all know the types of laws and situations that will follow. There is many things at stake here, Troy, it is not just about marriage, there is a hell of a lot to follow.

      Post a Reply
      • Mick, I agree it was a good thing the Commonwealth challenged the law, because we now have unambiguous confirmation that the federal Parliament can legislate for same-sex marriage and that “marriage” is not confined to its 1901 meaning. “Marriage” can include the marriage of same-sex couples. The High Court’s decision shows how silly the calls for a referendum have been: there is nothing in the Constitution to be amended; the constitutional power has always been there. And “marriage” has changed meanings throughout history, even before 1901 (as the High Court decision briefly mentions). All we need now is the political will to make same-sex marriage happen.

  7. This is a rather nasty and fallacious ad hominem argument. Surely Forster’s arguments should be judged on their own merits, Bernard, and not on your assessment of her character.

    Post a Reply
    • I’d be more than happy to do that. But she doesn’t actually have any. Christine Forster could not speak truthfully or usefully about marriage without acknowledging that her current affair was a huge mistake.

      Post a Reply
      • Well, no, I don’t think that’s true. What she’s saying is that just as a heterosexual divorced person currently has the legal right to remarry to a person of the opposite sex, so should she have a right to remarry to a person of the same sex. It’s a fairly simple and straightforward proposition.

        I’m not a fan of divorce. I think it’s a tragedy when a loving marriage falls apart. But I do recognise that in modern Australia, sometimes one or both members of a couple choose to end their marriage. Neither you nor I know the true circumstances of Forster’s first marriage or why it broke down. That’s between her, her ex-husband, and their kids. I don’t think it’s fair or kind to pass judgement on her personal life and say that it negates her legitimacy or arguments as a public figure.

      • Come on, Tommy. Forster has publicly admitted that she ended her marriage because she fancied another woman. She abandoned her family. Isn’t that enough for you? She’s already admitted that her children have issues with her actions (devastated more likely.)

      • You’re making it sound as if she abandoned her children completely, and left their father to take care of them. That’s not true. It’s clear from the SMH article that at least one of her children now lives with her and her new partner. As I’ve said, I’m not a fan of divorce. But let’s not pretend that we know the full story of Forster’s first marriage based on reading a couple of paragraphs from a newspaper article. In any event, I’ve maintained throughout that this is a nasty and gratuitous personal attack because regardless of what she may or may not have done wrong in her personal life, it doesn’t affect the content of her argument for marriage equality. Kevin Rudd is very much a family man and makes the same arguments that Forster does. Or is the happily married Rudd also somehow disqualified from putting forward a public opinion on marriage?

      • Ha Krudd is an opportunist who tried to appeal to the public using fuzzy wuzzy feelings in support of “gay marriage” and rejecting logical reasoning,
        he lost the election.
        Krudd changed his policies like he changes underwear, and chucks tantys if he looses.
        And what makes people think that allowing “gay marriage’ because of heterosexual marriages are not as successful as they used to be is a reason to allow it? would it not be better to get rid of no fault divorce and pre nup agreements so marriage is strengthened and is once again seen as a commitment for life, in order to raise children that may come from the union in a stable environment? I can hear the sound of divorce lawyers pockets filling up with more dough if “gay marriage” is allowed as their relationships rarely last long at all, faithfulness within gay relationships is a myth. Gay “relationships” are all about self gratifying selfishness, and using the each other to obtain it.

      • Kat, I suppose it is a futile exercise trying to provide to you an example of a legitimate pro-marriage equality public figure, since you automatically dislike and deny the legitimacy of anybody who takes this stance. As for your calls to scrap no-fault divorce, I fear that this would condemn many couples to a life of misery, including many women who are abused, but since they cannot prove it to the authorities, are forced to stay with their abusive husbands or risk losing their house and possessions as well as access to their children. Your assertion that gay relationships are inherently selfish in a way that straight relationships are not is just that: a bare assertion with no supporting evidence. I hope one day you will realise how prejudiced and mean-spirited this attitude makes you look to people who personally know both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

      • Not a fan of no fault divorce for the following reasons.
        No fault divorce is promoted by modern feminists who do not want to be held accountable to the same standards of evidence as everyone else by having to prove their accusations of domestic abuse.
        No fault divorce reduces the freedom of the innocent spouse.
        No fault divorce helps women take custody of their children at the husbands’ expense in many cases where the man has done nothing wrong.
        No fault divorce encourages lack of commitment within marriage by encouraging no forgiveness when the marriage enters a bad patch, allowing the disgruntled party to use the excuse irreconcilable difference.
        As for not being able to prove abuse within relationships,

        Gay relationships are selfish and wrong on many different levels, sorry to hurt your feelings, but truth hurts.

      • *As for not being able to prove abuse within relationships, maybe the system would not be so focused on settling no fault divorce cases and allow the system to sort out real crime in particular domestic violence, Also there seems to be an increase in domestic violence and abuse not decrease, so much for no fault divorce sorting that one out. BTW Gay relationships have a high instance of domestic violence,

      • She abandoned her family, Tommy. Her children were devastated by her actions. What a selfish, miserable individual she is. I am a father and I say that when you have children you no longer live for yourself – you live for them. You live for your family. I have no time for such selfish, self absorbed individuals. Christine Forster in her interviews comes across as lacking an informed conscience. That seems to be a common problem with people like her. A good mother or father would give their lives to save their child but Forster sold hers out for another woman. She will live to regret it.

      • Well said Kat, no fault divorce should be abolished. How many tens of thousands of kids have suffered because of that law making it easy to break up a family? If you agree with no fault divorce, your agree with putting kids through unnecessary suffering. Tommy, even before no fault divorce, there was divorce. A woman who is abused, does need to stand up for herself and does not deserve abuse but she would need to prove it. In those days there was no video, she could set up a hidden camera to catch an abusive husband these days. There would be other things she could do to prove her case but she would have to take that action. Too many kids and innocent spouses have suffered from no fault divorce. Kat is right, it should be abolished, the family needs support, not given an easy way out for, in many cases, selfish parents.

      • “Neither you nor I know the true circumstances of Forster’s first marriage or why it broke down” ——————————- Her marriage failed because she was lying to herself and her husband about her sexuality.

  8. Sir, save your breath, in our so called democracy only minorities have rights, the rest of us do not count. Governments govern simply to hold power, not what is good for the people of Australia.

    Post a Reply
    • I think there are 2 main things that give power to the minority. The first is the most obvious, the minority are a lot louder than the majority. The second is the laissez-faire attitude many take toward politics. I don’t imagine most people give a hoot who’s in power as long as they’re not being disadvantaged.

      Post a Reply
  9. Because we all know that all heterosexual marriages last happily ever after. We also know that the sanctity of marriage is held ever so dearly only by the heterosexual community where there exists no such thing as a second or third marriage (or was it 8 times for Elizabeth Taylor?). One member of the LGBT community has a failed heterosexual marriage so that’s reason enough to stop them all from having a same sex marriage. The choice of whether or not to become gay or even ungay being used an argument against same sex marriage is preposterous. Why hide behind poorly argued reasons for preventing gay marriage and simply come out and say “poofters and lesos have no rights”. Saves people having to read through repeated text and see what is clearly written between the lines.

    Post a Reply
    • I agree that you have a point – it’s not a good one, but it’s still a point. The reason gay marriage is even on the agenda is because our society has generally abused marriage. Liz Taylor’s weddings are a perfect example. If more bishops had stood up and condemned this in the past, then the rainbow warriors would not be in the High Court today. But it’s interesting that you use these examples of failures to justify gay marriage – that’s because you can’t actually give a good reason for it. You need to find a failure and then argue fallaciously that gays should be able to partake in the failure as well.

      Post a Reply
    • Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. How could it be? I have never heard of an oxymoron being a matter of equal rights. To create what you call gay marriage it is necessary to abolish real marriage. Real marriage is complementary, it is a relationship intended to create an environment for the nurturing of children. Sure, there are exceptions as in elderly couples and the infertile but in every case complementarity exists. If marriage was merely what you want to make it I’d say “go ahead – anyone should be able to get married.” But that is not what it is and you don’t have the right to define it, let alone redefine it. When you seek to redefine marriage you assume a right you do not have and not because society has refused to give it to you but because it does not exist. If a right to marry a person of the same sex existed there would be no need to redefine marriage. I know you have difficulty with logic but this is not hard to understand. Why hide behind illogical irrational arguments for redefining an age old institution? Why not simply come and say “hetersosexuals have no rights because spoilt brats like us will have our way and we will throw tantrum after tantrum until we get it.”

      Post a Reply
    • “One member of the LGBT community has a failed heterosexual marriage so that’s reason enough to stop them all from having a same sex marriage.” —————————— You think this is the first time a homosexual has hurt a straight person by marrying them and running away when they decided they were “gay”?

      Post a Reply
  10. Maybe she was always gay?

    Post a Reply
    • Maybe so but she showed she could live in a heterosexual relationship, have kids and all. Marriage is a commitment, not an agreement that can easily be broken on whims. She must have dwelt on the subject of lesbianism for a long time but maybe instead of dwelling on that she could have thought more about her family that she destroyed. You probably disagree but it was selfish of her to do that to the ones who loved her. She had a choice. She chose the voice of the world instead of the voice of God. She has paid a big price but so have her innocent family. They suffer for a selfish decision on her part. Part of Christianity is mastery of self. That means putting the things of God above your own desires. It means putting the needs of your family above your own. It doesn’t mean you should completely deny yourself of your needs but you need to know the balance. The bottom line is that if she followed God her family would still be together and not suffering. Incidentally Jimbo, gays can change, there are many who have. Do the LBGTI activists tell you about that? No, in fact they hate them and try to shut them up. As I said, choose the world or choose God, she chose the world.

      Post a Reply
  11. I can’t claim to know how the process of discovery happens in each person who comes out as gay, but it seems to me that most who discover they’re gay probably had some sense of wrongness or some hint early on about their orientation. One could argue that for someone like that to enter into a marriage is foolish and irresponsible. In some cases, it can be cowardice as well. That is, they fear what might happen if they were exposed as homosexual, so enter into a heterosexual relationship, and sometimes marriage, in order to hide their homosexuality and appear “normal”. It takes courage to admit something about yourself that you think those closest to you won’t accept. It also takes strength to fight against something that can be such an integral part of who you are.

    Post a Reply
    • As someone who was involved in homosexual relations between the age of 15 and 18, I can tell you from personal experience that being gay is a choice. Prior to this time I did not want to have sex with men and after I ended up getting married with no desire for sex with men. I have 6 children and a fantastic marriage to a beautiful woman. The thought of having sex with men makes me shudder. Don’t tell me that it’s not a choice because I’ve been there and done that.

      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