‘H’ is for Totalitarian

Have you heard of Holly Throsby before now?

I hadn’t either.

Apparently she’s an artist. But I didn’t hear about Holly through her music. I heard about her because the Sydney Morning Herald gave her space to specifically criticise my children’s education in support of her perverted gay marriage agenda.

This is what she said:

“Around the time I was touring (Australia), former Katter party Senate candidate Bernard Gaynor said he wouldn’t let a gay person teach his children. There was uproar, as well as murmurs of agreement. You get a thick skin with so much homophobic content in the world, but reading that, I cried on the newspaper.”

So, according to Holly, I’m guilty of homophobia because my wife and I decide who teaches our children instead of her. And our choice brings tears to her eyes.

Well, I have a blunt message of my own for this lesbian. She can go and cry me a river. I don’t care what she thinks about my children’s education. She has absolutely no say in the matter. Zero. And I will do all that I can to make sure it stays that way.

But I do get rather wild at her suggestion that she does have a say. But more on that later.

First, though, I also have a question for the fearless editors of the Sydney Morning Herald. Given the fact that they have allowed space for a lesbian artist to express her opinion about my children’s education and its impact on gay ‘rights’, will they allow me to respond?

If I was a betting man, I’d say no. I’d bet that they are brave when it comes to providing column inches for childless, alternative musicians to critique the educational choices of other people, but they are not so brave when it comes to letting the actual parents have their say.

But I could be wrong. And I hope the Sydney Morning Herald has the guts to prove me wrong.

Back to Throsby.

She’s got really thick skin. I mean, like, really thick. Especially between the ears.

Because you would have to be really thick to think that you have a right to interfere in the educational choices other people make. ‘Thick’ is a great adjective to describe Holly and I will give her credit for getting that bit right in her column. It’s a pity that’s about the only thing she got right.

But I certainly don’t give any credence to her belief that she’s able to cop it sweet. Getting offended because other people make educational choices you don’t like is not copping it sweet. It’s playing the victim card.

If Holly really wants to see abuse, she should check out the rape and death threats I received from her sainted homosexual buddies for expressing my parental rights. But given the fact that she is actually over-sensitive, I doubt Holly would cope.

I also certainly don’t support her view that it’s ok to interfere with other people’s children. That’s why I have written previously that Holly’s gay mates should build their own schools where they can talk about two mums to their collective hearts’ content. I wish they would and leave other schools alone. But that’s just not their style.

People like Holly avoid things like the local Parents & Friends committee. So it’s unlikely she will ever understand what it takes to raise money to build a classroom, let alone get through the daily trudge of ironing uniforms, doing the school drop off or getting homework done.

It’s simply easier for Holly Throsby not to get her hands dirty doing anything constructive like that. It’s much more fun to stay out of an actual school and just write columns for a newspaper about other people’s children and their education.

So let’s look at her statement. Carefully. Because it was used to support her perverted gay marriage agenda.

And, more importantly, because it doesn’t just affect my family. It affects yours too.

If some second rate, childless and lesbian artist thinks that she has a say in the way I raise my children, it’s only because the entire LGBT mob think that they have a say in how kids are raised in every other family as well.

Throsby thinks that my choice not to let homosexuals teach my children is homophobic. But Throsby does not think that there is any discrimination at all in the fact that she believes she has the right to dictate to other people how they raise their children. On the contrary, Throsby has used her deliberate attack on other people’s rights to justify gay marriage.

At this point it is important to note a few things.

One: The children in question are not Throsby’s; they belong to someone else.

Two:  The teacher in question is not Throsby either; it is also someone else.

Three: Throsby is using her argument in support of gay marriage to justify her attack against parental choice.


That was the sound of the central plank of the LGBT community’s argument for gay marriage going up in flames.

Just so you know, that argument goes like this: the LGBT community is not interested in other people, it is only interested in itself, therefore, why do people like me care so much about gay marriage when it does not affect me?

Yeah right. Crumpets is my answer to that.

But I will thank Holly for making one thing crystal clear. Gay marriage is not about love. It is about imposing the totalitarian rainbow rule of the homosexual community over all aspects of society.

In the rainbow world, parents have no choice about who teaches their children. None whatsoever.

Even if you send your children to ‘Catholic’ schools there will be no escape. The anti-discrimination laws will see to that. No Catholic school will have the right to say no to gay teachers, nor will any parent.

The only ones with rights will have a little letter to describe them. And ‘H’ is for heterosexual is not one of them. ‘H’ is now for homosexual, but it also stands for queer, gay and just plain totalitarian.

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. Hooray, the High Court saw that the ACT same sex marriage laws are unconstitutional. Yes!!! Hooray!!! It was just an act by the ACT government, they knew the Federal laws would over ride their laws. It was about debate, not about getting their laws validated by the high court. Good to see the judges understand the constitution. That puts an end to NSW pursuing same sex marriage laws too.

    Post a Reply
  2. Arghhh, Bernard put an edit facility on the blog. So easy to miss a grammatical error before you post…. I just did.

    Post a Reply
  3. Here’s the rub, Bob. What is a homosexual? It’s a person who participates in homosexual behaviour, not a category of human being. So, in my world a person living a chaste life would not be a homosexual. Therefore, I would have no issue with a Christopher Pearson teaching my children but I’d have a big issue with a Bob Brown. I suspect Bernard’s position would be the same.

    Post a Reply
  4. How is this no-homosexual policy to be enforced? Gaynor striding into parent-teacher night and demanding each teacher declare their heterosexuality?! No wonder both Katter and the DLP won’t have him, it’s more cult values than Catholic values.

    Post a Reply
    • Bob, this is only a issue because folk you have made it an issue. I would not want my children taught by anyone who defines him/herself by sexual preference. There is so much more to life than sex so tell me, please, why are gays so hung up about it that they have to publicly celebrate their perversion at public parades across the nation? I would be horrified if I saw on a news report one of my children’s teacher’s parading around at the Gay Mardi Gras. The moment I saw it he would have taught my children their last class and the most valuable lesson they would have learned was to never be like him. On the other side of the coin there are same sex attracted people who have control of their sexuality and recognise the negative force it can exert on their lives and the lives of those around them. I would have no trouble allowing them to teach my children. It’s simply not a matter of blind prejudice against people, Bob. It is concern over a behaviour that proves incredibly destructive for almost everyone who surrenders to it.

      Post a Reply
      • @louise, Gaynor has made clear – no homosexual in the classroom, regardless of celibacy or non-attendance at Mardi Gras. So the examples of “okay homosexuals” that you and Phil quote are not acceptable to Gaynor, it’s unambiguous heterosexuals only, or they get sacked. He’s had ample time to clarify or qualify his position, and chosen not to do so.

      • I haven’t mentioned any okay homosexuals, Bob. A homosexual is a person who engages in homosexual behaviour, not a person who is unfortunately attracted to the same sex but declines to act on the attraction. There’s a huge difference. I wouldn’t let the first one near my kids. By the way, Bob, celibacy means not getting married. It doesn’t necessarily infer a chaste life although it should.

  5. Poor Holly, it must be difficult being so gullible. She says: “I prefer to read recent studies that found children of same-sex relationships are doing as well, or better than, the rest of the population in terms of health, family cohesion and wellbeing.” What she doesn’t say is that those same studies are all based on what the same sex parents say about those categories. In other words they are completely worthless. I have no doubt that same sex parents Mark. J. Newton and Peter Truong would have said provided the same information when the truth was diametrically opposite. Right now the Australian citizen Newton is serving 40 years in a California prison for horrific child abuse and Truong is still on trial. It must be hard being “gay” and feeling so superior to the rest of the community. What this attitude really shows is a disconnection with reality, a lack of insight and a deep narcissistic streak that is common to people who suffer from same sex attraction. They are quick to scream homophobia but just as quick to proclaim their claimed superiority over the rest of us. They are tiresome, a drain on society and a threat to the welfare of children, if not through sexual dysfunction then through exploitation and the denial of the right to a parent of each sex. Holly Throsby should meditate on this.

    Post a Reply
  6. Isn’t school about teaching the syllabus? Why would Gaynor demand the maths teacher declare their sexuality?

    Post a Reply
    • The answer, Bob, is “Yes” – PROVIDED the atheists established a school for atheists and a Christian music teacher tried to use their employment at the school to promote Christianity. Do you understand that, Bob? Or should I type it out a bit more slowly? And, as a Christian, I don’t have a problem with that – just like I don’t have a problem with a Catholic school sacking a homosexual teacher when that teacher abuses his position by promoting homosexuality to Catholic students.

      Post a Reply
      • Jim, read Gaynor’s article. He makes clear that a teacher need only be homosexual for him to demand their removal. So, in part, you too disagree with Gaynor when you state “the sexuality of any teacher only becomes an issue if and when that teacher starts to promote their sexuality”. Gaynor goes much further than that, he demands to know what the sexuality of teachers are and to sack them for it.

      • Bob – you’re the one suggesting it’s only about syllabus. Do you really believe that? Yes or no?

      • Catholic schools are already exempt from the anti discrimination act – but Gaynor goes further, denying even celibate homosexuals a place in the a classroom.

      • A celibate homosexual could still indoctrinate children into homosexuality.

      • @Brian…worse, those we don’t convert, we eat.

    • School is NOT just about syllabus. If Catholics decide to build and run a Catholic school, then Catholicism will be taught in addition to the syllabus. The sexuality of any teacher within that school only becomes an issue if and when that teacher starts to promote their sexuality as good, proper, praiseworthy and meritorious – when it is in complete opposition to the beliefs and values of the school. And to the values of the parents of the school students. As you would know, Bob – seeing as how you are a well-educated and well-versed young homosexual-about-town – that particular right (the right of parents to have their children educated in accordance with the religious beliefs of the parents) is GUARANTEED by the UN. You do know that, don’t you, Bob?

      Post a Reply
  7. “Have you heard of Holly Throsby before now?” No – I haven’t …… “I heard about her because the Sydney Morning Herald gave her space…” Well that says it all about Fairfax Media Ltd. The SMH and AFR were once great newspapers, but SMH’s experiment into the left wing, pro LGBT arena has been Fairfax’s demise. Their shareholders echo that demise. From a high of $1.80 in April 2010 to its abysmal current $0.68 listing (about -62% decline), Fairfax is largely irrelevant. The journalism is 3rd rate, the opinion pieces are largely irrelevant. Holly Throsby’s opinions are irrelevant. There is nothing attractive about Fairfax at the moment, because it largely deals in editorial subjectiveness. There is a high probability that Fairfax will cease to exist in 2 years – if it continues on its current course.

    Post a Reply
    • Following Gaynor’s lead, will atheists be able demand the removal of a Christian music teacher?

      Post a Reply
      • The answer, Bob, is “Yes” – PROVIDED the atheists established a school for atheists and a Christian music teacher tried to use their employment at the school to promote Christianity. Do you understand that, Bob? Or should I type it out a bit more slowly? And, as a Christian, I don’t have a problem with that – just like I don’t have a problem with a Catholic school sacking a homosexual teacher when that teacher abuses his position by promoting homosexuality to Catholic students.

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