More illogical gems from the gay marriage crowd

I wrote recently about the lack of logic possessed by those who support homosexual marriage and was accused of ranting. I was surprised at the response, but I should not have been.

Accusations of ‘ranting’ are no substitute for detailed debate, but they do substitute as arguments for those who are unable to articulately defend a position. And, as anyone who has dared stick their head above the parapet to defend marriage will know, the illogical and emotional arguments you encounter become increasingly personal.

Out of charity, I don’t normally print the responses I get from the illogical. But sometimes, it serves a greater good.

Steven Carter sent me this gem today. It is reproduced, word-for-word, in all its glory below.

Hi Bernard; what can l say. When religion comes into anything, your bound to have the blinkers on. God created, Adam and Eve; not Adam and Bruce. We should all live in a total heteroseual society, and all poofs who want to get married, should be flogged and stoned in a public place. Is that it. And you probably teach this to your children. What a shameful disgrace. I am glad that there are people like you around, because, it brings you to the surface. You seem to think that, all this strange evilness, will undermine the fabric of society. In the case of Cate McGregor; she is extremely respected, well educated, and a total professional, who is supported by her superiors. The only message you send out is negative, and to like minded people such as yourself. Its not clever. Its boring, and its very Fred Nile. You have no right to tell another person, what they should do in this regard. You have the right to an opinion, but be informed. Transgender people believe that they are a man trapped in a womans body, and vice versa. I dont fully undersatand it, but , l really dont think about it much either. Rules will always be made, by stoggy, old, Heterosexual men, who pass their thoughts on to, the next generation. Its tedious, and you should send a more, positive message to the community. And if your really worried about the gay, and transgerder people that much; you should perhaps, change your last name. GAYNOR. Maybe, STAIGHTNOR. Kind regards, Steve.

I’ll just make a couple of quick points about this.

  • Pro-homosexuals seem to think that they are open-minded. Yet they continually claim that Christianity should be excluded from debate. If they are so open minded, they would welcome it as part of any discussion. And, all due credit to Steve, he managed to get through his piece without using the ‘bigot’ word. Many others are not so rational. On the one hand they cry bigot, while on the other refusing to even accept that others are entitled to a religious belief or to hold any position that is not in 100 per cent conformity with their own views. This position is pretty much perfectly aligned to the definition of a bigot in the dictionary.
  • Pro-homosexuals like to pretend that they are nice people. But they constantly use words and terms that any nice person would refrain from.
  • Pro-homosexual people, like Steve, think that it is perfectly logical to tell me that I can’t tell another person what to do. I’ll point out that I don’t actually tell other people what to do. I’ve never said to another person that is not under my authority to ‘do this’, or ‘you can’t do that’. Pro-homosexuals give me such orders, direction and guidance. All the time. By the way, writing about Hell, or opposing homosexual marriage is not telling other people what to do. It is simply pointing out the consequences of a chosen course of action and standing up for my political rights and beliefs.
  • Pro-homosexuals like to make claims that those who do not support their activities hate them. I don’t. It is possible to disagree with someone without hating them. However, that concept is not well understood within the homosexual community. Steve thinks that I want them all flogged and stoned. Actually, I don’t want that either. Nor do I teach such silly ideas to my children. But, I do know some people that do. They follow a religion that starts with a big ‘I’ and ends in ‘slam’. But when I point out that those who follow Mohammad want homosexuals to die, or to be locked up, or to be tortured, it is the homosexuals who cry that I am racist. Logic is lacking, once again. And, by the way, just because I am so ready to point out such problems in Islam, it does not mean that I don’t think the religion should not be debated. On the contrary, a little more debate about Islam would be a good thing for this country.
  • Pro-homosexuals believe that they are positive people. But just because you are ‘for’ something, it does not mean that your position is positive. Just as pro-legalised drug advocates support a position that undermines society, so do pro-homosexual people. There is nothing good that can come from homosexual activity. Nothing. Even if it is just a private affair. Homosexuality produces nothing good at all. On the other hand, marriage is completely different. It produces children and is the best way to raise the next generation. That’s not bad at all, and that’s why I support it so strongly.
  • Pro-transgender people like to think that LTCOL McGregor is professional. He is not. No one who signs off on emails with the words ‘Cate McGregor AM – suck on that f**kwit’ is professional. He is also not a woman and anyone who claims otherwise is supporting a lie. It does not matter how good it makes you feel to believe that delusion, it is still not true. And as Steve so aptly pointed out, LTCOL McGregor is well-supported by his superiors. Considering that he has been found by Defence to have breached Defence policies, while all Defence investigations have cleared me, the situation is more than a little absurd. Such is life.
  • Pro-transgender people like to think that thinking something makes it true. But then, just like Steve, they highlight the fact that they don’t think much at all. If someone thinks that they are a woman and they actually have a male body, it would suggest that the problem is not in the flesh, but in the mind. And it’s not just me saying it – embarrassed medical ‘professionals’ are too.
  • Pro-homosexual people like to make fun of my last name. I’m glad it brings such mirth and merriment. However, once again I’ll point out that if the substance of an attack against you is a comment ridiculing your last name, it’s a good sign that you have won the debate.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight 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

24 Comments

  1. Dude i support you on homosexual as disbenneficial (if thats even the right word) for humanity cause if every living being on earth is homosexual then humanity will cease to exaist within the century. However when u mention islam it stings me quite a lot. Yes islam will punish those who deem homosexual as right but only if they are islam themselve. I bealive that almost every religion deems homosexual wrong (ps i only know chistiany, islam, budha, hindu and kong hucu and maybe i spelled some of them wrong). But pointing out islam stings quite a bit. Islam tells lota of story that involves homksexual and all of them enda with the homosexual people dying horribly by the hands of God. Theres even a story where an entire city got flipped by the flap of a dew angels wing. The firat flap lift the city the sexond one flup it then the angels just dropped it. Thats probably the reason why islam is told to either convince people to be heterosexual again or to kill him or her. Because theres a mercifull death (painless death) and theres horrible deatg (horibly painfull death), thats probably why islam people kills homosexual people in hopes they do not have to suffer when it is their time to go to the aftrr life. In conclussion i agree with your oppinion good sir, but please be co siderent about the things u said because at some point every religion or bealives have suffered. (If im not wrong christians time was before the renaicense while islam is before the dark ages and now). Ps i know i made a lot of missplelling so u have my appologies.

    Post a Reply
  2. I am a gay man. I’m not going to start attacking your beliefs, or try insulting you. All I can do is try to reason with you. I grew up a Catholic, and am still a Catholic that regularly attends church. I am openly gay among my congregation, and they accept me because they look past what man says is “the laws of nature,” and what the Bible says is “fundamentally evil.” They see me as a human being. They’ve been a huge part of my growing up.

    When I was a young boy, my sexuality scared the hell out of me. I was attracted to a boy my age, and had never felt the same way about women (not to this day, and I highly doubt I ever will). Through my high school years, I was immensely bullied for being an unnatural ‘pig’, as they would call me. Trust me, if I could have chosen to become straight, I would have. It’s a much more desirable life, to have children, a wife, and less victimisation. If I were to do that, I would be lying to my wife, my family, myself, and the world. That is why I, like many in the LGBT community, have learned to accept and love ourselves for who we are.

    Your articles disturb me a little, because there is venom in many of the sentences you write about people like myself. I do not know you, and you do not know me, so I feel we have no right to judge each other. One thing is certain: no matter how many theories, surveys, “scientific” evidence, or sacred texts tell you otherwise, the love I share with the man I love is no less sacred than the love you share with your wife. Our aim isn’t to ‘defile’ the sanctity of marriage, but to express our love in a way that is universally recognised as eternal and sacred.

    If the only thing that marriage requires is: man, woman, vocation, sex, children… then the rules are already being broken. Many women can’t have children, older couples cannot reproduce, and ‘man and woman’ have very high rates of divorce as it is. I have a longstanding career in childcare, and my partner is a teacher. ‘Vocation’ is not a problem in our family. Hopefully you can see that I very much love my partner. Our future marriage, and future family, will be met by two men with a strong faith and a pure heart.

    If my Parish Priest can accept and love me as a person, can’t you look past labels of sexuality and judge us as people?

    Thank-you for your time, and have a good one.

    – Ben

    Post a Reply
    • If you are attending Mass in a Catholic Church I suggest you refrain from receiving Communion, as you are living and active homosexual lifestyle and engage in Mortal Sin, and when one receives Communion in a state of Mortal sin you commit the sin of Sacrilege. If you Priest knows you are openly Gay and living that lifestyle and failed to tell you this, he is committing a grave injustice and abuse of his Priesthood if he allows you to receive Communion. I am guessing you are from a liberal modernist Parish, who the Priest often rejects Church teaching and does his own thing, he may as well start his own Church and take a way the Catholic label, and that is if you actually are Catholic. The “love” you share with your gay lover, does not and will never equate the that of a husband a wife, and if you need a Bible reference to see that God does not condone homosexual activity then have a read of Romans chapter 1:18 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.

      Post a Reply
  3. I don’t believe in fairies. But you obviously believe in the spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) of life from non-living matter. That’s simplistic? Omne vivum ex vivo.

    Post a Reply
  4. p.s. Unless you’re going to engage with what I said and point out where I am wrong, don’t bother commenting me back.

    Post a Reply
  5. I always know that an interlocutor is a novice when they refer to the is/ought problem. The discussion here revolves around realities and consequences for people’s lives. It is a little more serious than a silly little discourse of the thoughts of David Hume. Hail To The Nihilist reminds me of a would-be dressage queen who knows the terminology backwards but she hasn’t yet learned to ride the horse.

    Post a Reply
    • How ’bout you provide a but of substance, Phil, rather than clever little taunts?

      Post a Reply
      • I provide substance where it’s required which is better than that which you provide. I call bs when I see it and mate, you’re full of it. As I said the discussion here revolves around realities and consequences. Bernard’s post wasn’t written as an excuse for you to show off your amateur philosophical ramblings.

      • I’m certainly not going to give it more of my time than is required. Plus, it seems I am playing to a pretty simplistic audience here. I’m not the one that believes in fairies after all.

    • Thanks Matt and thanks for commenting and your support.

      Post a Reply
  6. Appeals to ‘logic’ in the blogosphere are, more often than not, a refuge of the scoundrel.

    Most people who bandy the word about have no idea what it means, and Bernard’s various rants about gay people being classic examples.

    By all means claim to know what god wants, Bernard, but leave logic alone!

    Post a Reply
    • What you fail to understand Jimbo is that God possesses true, pure logic. I’ll put it another way for you, Gods ways are not necessarily mans ways. Gods wisdom is not the same as mans wisdom. Mans wisdom is subject to whims and actions without full knowledge of the consequences. God is all knowing and knows what consequence will result from a certain action. His logic, if we truly understood it, we would see the incredible wisdom and marvel at it. It is true that logic varies from person to person and is judged differently from person to person. We know however that God’s wisdom and understanding is perfect whether we agree with it or not but that is why faith is important. Honestly, I do not understand everything about why some things happen in this world or why God allows them to happen. But what I have faith in is that there is another side to the situations I see and while I may not like things that happen, I would be able to accept it.

      Post a Reply
      • Does the word ‘logic’ appear anywhere in the bible?

      • Sorry, but this begs the question. I’m not going to take what you say with any merit unless you can convince me that god exists. Until then, it is just another argument – one that is built in a tremendously shaky premise (i.e. that it is true).

      • If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.
        G. K. Chesterton

      • Interesting notion Kat, however since the definition of and atheist is someone is “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”, and all it takes to believe in something or not is for it to be an idea existing within societal consciousness such as vampires and fairies. The difference is we don’t have a word for people who don’t believe in such ideas because they’re not bound to a code of living for humanity and so nobody really cares either way.

  7. Right again Bernard! Logic is lacking in the claims of the proponents of homosexuality. To me, the homosexual lobby is attempting to usurp marriage. It is trying to include itself in the good and great institution of marriage, while having none of the fundamental characteristics of marriage e.g. man, woman, vocation, sex, children. I think that regardless of what the homosexual lobby wants people to believe, and perhaps even what an arrogant or foolish government may want people to believe, human nature dictates that men will always know that two men and homosexual activity does not equate to a man, a woman, vocation, sex, and children. And even if the left manage to throw us in jail for stating this truth, the truth will not be changed.

    Post a Reply
    • Truth, David? You’ve fallen for the ‘is ought problem’. You state what is, “… human nature dictates that men will always know that two men and homosexual activity does not equate to a man, a woman, vocation, sex, and children” and then hastily conclude that because of this fact, marriage equality cannot possibly be. Marriage is a social institution.

      Post a Reply
      • Well, thanks HTTN, but I know what I said. Anyway, I’ll say it again. Marriage is a term that describes the historical and current vocation of a man and a woman, includes sex, and normally assists in the creation of babies and the formation of families. Homosexual relationships do not include these fundamental characteristics of marriage. For two men who act in a manner that cannot be publicly described, and then claim that this qualifies them for marriage, is wrong. This claim can only be described as an attempted usurpation of marriage. In the regrettable event that the state accepts the claim of the proponents of homosexuality, dissenters will then be in breach of anti discrimination laws. These dissenters will be liable to prosecution and all the coercive power of the state, including good behavior bonds, fines, suspended sentences, and jail. This is an example of the hypocrisy of the proponents of homosexuality. They can currently freely and vociferously dissent from marriage involving only one man and one woman, but if the state changes the definition of marriage, any dissenters can be legally prosecuted.

      • David your comment offers great insight. You sum up very neatly why ‘gay marriage’ does affect all of us. Militant homosexuals wish to impose totalitarian standards on us that they (and we for that matter) do not believe should be imposed on them.

    • Thanks for commenting David and for your support.

      Post a Reply
  8. In your piece you force a dichotomy. One of you being logical and the people you are arguing against being illogical. Throughout your piece you refer to the ‘pro-homosexuals’ and ‘pro-transgenders’. The way in which you use these terms could be interpreted as absolute – as broadly encompassing. For example: if someone espouses pro-homosexual views they are, by the very definition you insist upon them, culpable of all the critical things you state.

    By the fact that you have generalised in such a way you have committed a rookie mistake. You have committed the logical fallacies of hasty and faulty generalisation. Most illogical, Bernard. What exactly is your definition of logic
    ?
    To address your points I shan’t commit the same mistake that you made, and shall speak only subjectively and state my own position.

    Pro-homosexuals seem to think that they are open-minded. Yet they continually claim that Christianity should be excluded from debate.

    I think I am fairly open-minded but don’t let any old stuff in. My logic and reason filter has filtered out the authority of the bible. It doesn’t hold for me. Perhaps I have too high an expectation for evidence? Perhaps not? Perhaps I am right. What I do attribute, though, to my ‘open-mindedness’ is a level of tolerance. I tolerate people. Actually, I don’t like the word tolerate. I respect people for being people. Sure, some people may think things that I don’t agree with, but all the luck to them. Provided, of course, that thinking isn’t detrimental to others. Unjustified murder. I think it’s wrong and will speak strongly against it. Why? Because not all interests are considered. Interests have been breached. Speaking strongly against homosexuality. I think it’s wrong and will speak strongly against it. Why? Because it is a human condition – nobodies fault. Because there is good evidence to show that intolerance of it can have a serious effect on people’s lives.

    Pro-homosexuals like to pretend that they are nice people. But they constantly use words and terms that any nice person would refrain from.

    I think you’re confusing unpleasantness or rudeness with frustration. A likely reason ‘pro-homosexuals’ are up in your grill is because of your writing and the sentiment it breeds interferes with their life. Perhaps your should interfere less?

    Pro-homosexual people, like Steve, think that it is perfectly logical to tell me that I can’t tell another person what to do.

    You may not tell people what to do, but you suggest that they do is wrong and punishable in some extreme way. This has a huge carry on effect. If I knew that my disagreement with the bible lead to people damage religious people’s property, violence or suicide, I’d be more careful in how I conducted myself.

    Pro-homosexuals like to make claims that those who do not support their activities hate them. I don’t. On the contrary, a little more debate about Islam would be a good thing for this country.

    Glad to hear it. Just be wary about the end what you say may lead to in others. And, sure. Why not? Let’s debate everything and see if we can come to some fair conclusion.

    Pro-homosexuals believe that they are positive people. But just because you are ‘for’ something, it does not mean that your position is positive. Just as pro-legalised drug advocates support a position that undermines society, so do pro-homosexual people. There is nothing good that can come from homosexual activity. Nothing. Even if it is just a private affair. Homosexuality produces nothing good at all. On the other hand, marriage is completely different. It produces children and is the best way to raise the next generation. That’s not bad at all, and that’s why I support it so strongly.

    Hmm. This is a loaded claim, Bernard. You generalise, again… (To generalise is to be illogical, don’t forget.) You argue, ergo, children are what is good. Perhaps your friends in the Catholic church took this assertion a little far. (A little joke there.) Many won’t agree with you on this. Many will claim that there are other good things such as pleasure and love and the universe and sunny days and rainbows and tomato and basil (killer combination!) Can you not see why people would be upset by you claiming that their private relationship is “nothing good”? And, what’s more, as a former aspiring politician, you sought a position where you could influence public policy… not just some bloke’s personal views?

    Pro-transgender people like to think that LTCOL McGregor is professional. He is not. No one who signs off on emails with the words ‘Cate McGregor AM – suck on that f**kwit’ is professional. He is also not a woman and anyone who claims otherwise is supporting a lie.

    Yeah, calling you a bad name isn’t cool. But again, probably frustration with a dusting of alienation.

    The medical fraternity will disagree with you over her definition. But you can believe what you wish in that area – it doesn’t really affect you or I.

    Pro-transgender people like to think that thinking something makes it true.

    This is true of everybody. Hence, we need a rigorous method through which to verify claims. Such as science and logic and reason. Do you have an alternative?

    Pro-homosexual people like to make fun of my last name. I’m glad it brings such mirth and merriment. However, once again I’ll point out that if the substance of an attack against you is a comment ridiculing your last name, it’s a good sign that you have won the debate.

    It’s a bit infantile, isn’t it? And it doesn’t give credibility to their argument. But hey, we all have our moments. Titmouse, hehehehhe.

    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

Shares