Gaying the Army

It’s embarrassing.

It’s divisive.

It’s a disgrace.

And it’s a complete waste of your tax dollars.

The Department of Defence has today shown exactly how hypocritical it is. On the one hand it’s complaining that it doesn’t get its hands on enough of the taxpayer dollar. And on the other, it’s producing rainbow-encrusted cuff-links for homosexual soldiers.

And they are issued free of charge, even though they are not part of any uniform (yet).

It’s all part of the process of gaying the Army, unleashed by the former Labor Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith.

In fact, the Army is so interested in homosexuality that its latest tri-annual journal was devoted to analysing the role of homosexual culture in Australia’s military. In contrast, over the last decade this periodical has featured well over 300 articles but just a single one has explored the influence of Islamic thought on the adversaries Aussie Diggers have faced in two wars.

And that, right there, highlights the fundamental problem within the Department of Defence: it is more interested in social change than waging war.

The dearth of Islamic discussion in the Army Journal might be little short of criminal oversight, especially as it was written in this journal way back in 2005 that Western post-modern education prefers to study Islam without the sword and that “Middle Eastern religious networks are not well understood in Western culture.”

But its recent focus on promoting homosexuality within the ranks is purely and simply nothing more than radical, socially-progressive military propaganda.

Defence has been hijacked by activists who are not interested in fighting and defeating an enemy. Instead, they are focused on using Defence to promote their grotesque social agenda. That’s why the Army can’t tell you who the enemy is in Afghanistan and places Islam above criticism. But it can tell you that it encourages homosexual political activism and uniformed support of those who mock Christianity in Australia.

The Army’s decision to issue gay cuff-links and lapel pins to homosexual soldiers is the latest manifestation of this. And it’s occurring even though Defence’s own policy documents state that inappropriate advocacy of a particular sexual orientation is sexual harassment.

If there is one thing that inappropriately advocates a particular sexual orientation, it’s issuing jewellery to promote homosexuality – a concept that makes normal Australians shudder.

Army Pride Lapel and Cufflinks

Army Pride Lapel and Cufflinks

Homosexual activism is rapidly becoming the raison d’etre for the military.

I’m not saying that most officers and soldiers promote or support homosexuality. They don’t. In fact, most soldiers hate what is happening. That’s why the Army would never allow them to be surveyed about changes to its policy. But this cannot mask what is clearly apparent.

A cadre of homosexuals within the ranks has gained control of Defence leadership, supported by radical politicians from the Left in the parliament. As a result, behaviour that would normally be condemned is free to flourish.

The highest ranked transgender officer remains protected by the senior hierarchy even though he was found to have breached Defence policy by calling a Catholic a ‘f*ckwit’ on a public forum, just days after he wrote a speech for the Chief of Army in which he said the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

The Defence Force Gay and Lesbian Information Service (DEFGLIS), which claims it is not a military unit in order to campaign politically against religious freedom, is given command of soldiers.

Defence Families of Australia promotes homosexual surrogacy, in which children are created in India and brought back to please the whims of homosexual sailors, who deprive them of any ability to know or love their biological mother.

Homosexual officers are awarded military commendations for their political activism.

Soldiers who desire a sex-change operation are provided with free (read taxpayer funded) surgery.

Homosexual are the only members of the military allowed to conduct political activity in uniform.

And homosexual officers have been given free rein to criticise Defence policy and any Defence member who crosses their path whenever they please, in uniform and via their supporters at the ABC.

Now gay soldiers are issued special bling by the Army that makes it clear that their sexual behaviour is valued above that of other soldiers.

Army Pride Lapel and Cufflinks

Army Pride Lapel and Cufflinks

The new Minister for Defence, Hon Senator David Johnston, is going to need courage to remove the freaks from the ranks. But if he is going to be remembered well for his role, he must get a grip on the Department soon, can the activism, and turn Defence away from its radical social agenda and refocus it on its primary mission: defence of Australia’s interests.

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

57 Comments

  1. Funny how the homosexual movement chose a symbol of destruction and judgement as their motif – also odd how they shorten the spectrum from a perfect 7 to 5 or 6 – i.e. they come up short. The army is rife with lesbians – my next door neighbours heterosexual daughter had such a difficult time when she signed on because of these deviates that she ended up giving away her dream. sad that these freaks hold such a sway in society

    Post a Reply
  2. sick now they have a Facebook like page next they will be want a freak day

    Post a Reply
    • Anna,
      I am pretty sure there has been a facebook page for a while. And really – given how much Mr Gaynor puts out onto social media via this blog, facebook, and twitter – is it not there right to have their say as well?

      Post a Reply
  3. I find it very interesting that you immediately assume that crimes against sexual orientation are solely against same sex attracted people. What about the hate crimes they commit or are you going to deny their existence? Of course your side always has to be the victim. Here is an even more interesting statistic. In 2012 there were 7164 hate crimes in the U.S. according to your link and less than 20 per cent of those were against sexual orientation. Considering the US. has a population of 300 million crimes against sexual orientation would not appear to be a serious problem.

    Post a Reply
    • Gays commit hate crimes too. They include harrassment, especially against a person’s faith. In just one example from America New York Democrats Senator Reuben Diaz and his family received death threats for his refusal to support gay marriage. The percentage of gays who commit hate crimes is just as high as any other group in western society.

      Post a Reply
  4. PJ wrote: Sure, behaviours can change, but innate sexuality and characteristics are not so malleable. Let us say that your sexual preference for women is relatively young (20-30), blonde, nice eyes, thin, healthy and Caucasian. If sexuality is so flexible, I would challenge you never to have sexual relations with the type of women you are typically attracted to and instead have regular sexual interaction with the complete opposite (but still a women). So if your preference is as I listed above, let us reverse those characteristics – older (70-80), red hair, facial disfigurement, severe obesity, unhealthy and not of your racial preference. I think you could agree changing your behaviour sounds good on paper but in reality you have a sexuality and you have sexual attractions that are inherent in you as a person. You never chose to like blonde or thin women, you just found yourself attracted to them and it went from there. So unless you are prepared to support your theory on sexual malleability and behaviour modification with a long-term documented study of you personally drastically modifying your inherent sexual preferences, then I probably would not be so quick to make claims about the same being done with homosexuality.
    First of all who proves that homosexuality is innate as opposed to being a learned behaviour?
    Secondly, I don’t know any man who has so strong a preference for a woman of particular appearance that he would eliminate a woman of different looks as a potential mate. Most men, whether they prefer blondes or not, would probably not knock back a date with Miranda Kerr, for example. In any case your challenge is absurd and leaps away from the issue of sexual preference into the realm of aesthetics thereby proving nothing.

    Post a Reply
    • Phil (and Bernard), a question for you:

      If your fear of the future regarding homosexuality is based upon your perception that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, why do you not also:

      — Campaign just as strongly against blacks as they are statistically far more likely to commit acts of sexual assault?

      — Campaign just as strongly against heterosexual men, as heterosexual men are statistically far more likely to physically and/or sexually abuse their partner than a gay man of being a pedophile?

      One glaring omission with those that try to make this case is the obvious absence of any reference to young girls. Abuse of young boys by a small percentage of homosexuals gets raised regularly, but why do you never also mention all the young girls that are abused by heterosexuals? Are young girls not also worthy of your protection?

      Post a Reply
      • Firstly PJ I have never said that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles. I like to avoid the use of the term homosexual because I don’t believe in placing people into different categories, especially as homosexuality is a behaviour, not an identity. To answer your question about blacks I am not aware of any studies which show that black people have any kind of innate condition that leads them to commit sexual assaults so I would guess that the problem is social and able to be addressed, if in fact your claim is true. Your claim about heterosexual men and assault is a lie. The rate of offences committed by same sex attracted men is far higher than that of heterosexuals. While we’re throwing figures around consider this. Around 33 per cent of all sexual assault is against males. An insignificant percentage of those assaults are committed by women – the rest are by same sex attracted men. That means that 33 per cent of sexual assaults are committed by the 2 per cent of “homosexuals” in our midst while the 67 per cent against girls are mostly committed by the 98 per cent of heterosexual men. That gives “homosexuals” a far higher strike rate of assault. The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

      • Phil, you did not interpret the post correctly. The point was that heterosexual men are more likely to assault their partners sexually and/or physically statistically than a homosexual is of child abuse. That is a statistical fact, but you do not campaign against heterosexual men. The truth hurts, doesn’t it? At the end of the day we will obviously agree to disagree Phil, but as I said history is never the friend of bigots and I am entirely confident of letting history prove your fears entirely wrong. People often wonder how so many within terrible regimes of the last century could commit such terrible acts against minority groups, though now it is very easy to see how some people can be so ideologically invested in hatred (perhaps due to their own insecurity?) that they participate or turn a blind eye to such events. Thank heavens people are becoming more educated and less inclined to believe irrational fears such as the ones you subscribe. It must hurt to see less and less people buy into your bigoted ideology. Given that it is a waste of both of our time to continue this debate, I will not be checking back on this site, but as they say Phil… He who laughs last, laughs longest. And Phil, we will be laughing for a very long time.

      • @PJ
        Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
        Acceptance of Homosexuality, Prostitution, Adultery/infidelity, peadophilia and all sexually immoral practices have often signalled the fall of civilisation. Those who pride themselves on being educated and yet see no common sense or logic regarding morality are fools, Christianity has always prevailed throughout history and become stronger , even when it has been so persecuted it has seems to have become another minority as you say, I have no doubt this will happen again.

      • Your analogy is then a nonsense PJ. Did you never learn that is wrong to compare apples with pears? In reference to the terrible regimes of the last century I suggest you read the well researched and equally well written book, The Pink Swastika. It might educate you about the cruelty homosexual stormtroopers inflicted on Jewish people before Hitler turned on his own. Ernst Rohm, an out and pig was one of yours. As for he who laughs last, laughs longest….. we know that is your objective and that is why we are warning society. The GLBT is all about revenge and getting even. You’ll cause a lot of damage and grief but in the end the result will be the same as it has always been. Your kind will be suppressed and outlawed because you do nothing but cause social unrest, problems and grief. So it has ever been and so will it always be right up until the end of days.

      • And Phil 19% of hate crimes in the US were against sexual orientation….now don’t you think that is rather high considering homosexuals only make up 2% of the population.

      • Paul, it depends on how hate crime is defined in whatever study you are quoting.

      • Paul, don’t you find it alarming that around 30% of paedphilia is committed by gay men, considering that only 2% of the population is gay? Crimes against children are worse than crimes against gays. A gay man can defend himself. Kids can’t. Get your priorities right and stand up for the children who don’t have a voice.

  5. A few years ago I used to say, with tongue in cheek, ‘I’m glad I got out before they made it compulsory’. Doesn’t sound so much of a joke now though!! How absolutely bloody disgusting.

    Post a Reply
  6. If I stole something I would be a thief, PJ. But as I haven’t stolen anything my conscience is clear. I am no racist. I judge people by their actions, not by the colour of their skin. How dare you compare men who participate in perverted sexual behaviour with black people and Jewish people. That is appalling and disgraceful. Your verbose apologia for perverted behaviour is something to behold. Stop the grandstanding and let’s get down to tin tacks. Homosexual behaviour has a dreadful impact on society and it has proven so time and again. Your placement of homosexuals in the same category as persecuted Jews and black people is a travesty. Who is responsible for the sexual assault of post pubertal boys? Who are you going to point the finger at? Certainly not Jews and black people, I hope. They don’t pose a threat to my children. The GLBT does, though. Men who practice homosexual behaviour certainly do. Activists like you keep complaining about the citing of links between homosexual behaviour and paedophilia yet you continually refer to priests who assault teenage boys as paedophiles. Let’s look more closely at that. The Australian National Crime Authority acknowledges that clinically a paedophile is defined as someone with a sexual preference for biologically prepubescent children. The victims of those priests are overwhelmingly post-pubescent meaning that the offenders are men who participate in homosexual behaviour. They are homosexual offences, not paedophile offences. We have just recently had a Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into clerical homosexual assaults and we have a Federal Royal Commission into essentially the same topic going on now. Would you have the absolute gall to try and dissociate those inquiries from homosexual behaviour? You can bark at the same tree forever, PJ, and you won’t make it fall down. You cannot dissociate homosexual behaviour from major social problems and sexual assaults on young men. Hence my warning about the future.

    Post a Reply
    • Thanks for the reply Phil. As I said to Bernard, neither side is likely to convince the other to change their views, so history will be the ultimate judge. I am very, very comfortable with that prospect.

      You would think from your post that their are no heterosexual pedophiles, where the data is actually quite significant. So essentially both homosexuals and heterosexuals have been known to abuse children, it is exclusively homosexuality that should be maligned and condemned but that countless instances of heterosexual pedophilia should be glossed over? Rather than target the horrendous crime itself – pedophilia – you malign only one of the two groups that has committed those terrible acts.

      Post a Reply
      • There is indeed no shortage of both heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles. But paedophilia is not the issue I was discussing. I made the point that the majority of clerical offenders were pederasts, not paedophiles, based on the age and sexual development of their victims. However, the GLBT and the media have a habit of calling these offenders paedophiles in an attempt to dissociate them from pederastic homosexuality, a ploy that is transparently false and dishonest.

      • Yes and I presume you apply that same definition to heterosexuals that abuse girls within the same age range. They are doing that not because they like pre-pubescent children, but simply because they are heterosexual.

      • The issue is not about paedophile assault. It is about homosexual assault that your lobby falsely tries to attribute to paedophiles. As they say you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

      • Hey PJ did you ever hear the story about the winning side writing the history books? Well, considering that homosexuals can’t have children, the history books will by written by those who do. Plus, homosexuality will not win. It will result in defeat – utter defeat. Taking on the rainbow – the symbol of God’s destruction, was probably the dumbest thing the LGBT crowd ever did. Good luck with explaining that one to Him in the next life.

      • Bernard my Father thinks the battle against homosexuality will be won when women turn on gays. It wouldn’t be right to say that gay men as a social grouping hate women but it is true to say that the terms they use to describe women show great disrespect. Their disgust for the female body will become more and more obvious as the gay agenda becomes better understood. When women turn on gays heterosexual men will too. History will show that women drove gay emancipation, or even that gays rode on the coat tails of the feminist juggernaut. They look like winning temporarily but eventually there will be a big falling out and I can see how it come about.

      • Do you think I’m not aware of lesbians, Bob? What’s that got to do with my point. I’m talking about normal women. When they turn on homosexuals the party will be over because their men will too and as we all know majority rules.

  7. Bernard you reply about calling homosexuals freaks on facebook was “And as for freaks, it simply means someone who is widely different from the norm”
    Would you call a young child born with a birth defect that is widely different to the norm a freak?

    Post a Reply
    • Are you now suggesting that homosexuality is a birth defect? That’s moving closer to the Catholic position isn’t it? Congratulations. While I can’t speak for Bernard, and inexperienced as I am having just completed my VCE, I think the term freak as used by him refers to the freakish behaviour often associated with homosexualism and put on public display at parades like the Mardi Gras and the mid summa festival.

      Post a Reply
      • Read my post again I never said homosexuality was a birth defect.
        And your kidding yourself if you think Bernard was referring to it as freakish behaviour as seen as Mardi Gras and mid summa festival because once again he said “And as for freaks, it simply means someone who is widely different from the norm”
        Where did he say anything about the behaviour

  8. Of course I’m concerned about the health and well being of gay people. Apart from anything else I don’t want to have to bear the ever growing costs associated with the health of men who practice homosexual behaviour. In contrast to your claim it is not in the slightest arrogant or haughty of me to warn that the social and political movement known as the GLBT does pose a frightening danger to society. Right now we have the battle over marriage. What do they have planned for an encore? It’s frightening. Within 20 years this subversive, despicable, foul grouping of creeps, crims, misfits and perverts will be championing pederasty as a form of mentoring boys. That is horrifying. By the way I never claimed you were groomed to be homosexual. I merely made the point that behaviours can change.

    Post a Reply
    • A few points here Phil.

      1) If you substitute LGBT with “Black” you would be saying many of the things that bigoted whites said during the last century. Of course history showed that there was no encore after being granted inter-racial marriage, voting enfranchisement and the right to be legally treated equally under the law. History has time and time again proved bigots wrong. The anti-black and anti-Semitic rhetoric of the past is now looked upon by reasonable minds with embarrassment. History also shows that it has not been groups demanding equality that have damaged society the most, but rather those that oppose equality and marginalise minority groups – can anyone say Hitler or Klu Klux Klan? If we want to talk about damage to society, feel free to discuss the bigotry and hatred that led to the most significant periods of social deterioration in the twentieth century.

      2) Many of the worlds most professional and well-regarded armies, navies and air forces have permitted homosexuals to openly serve for years (many for decades). The overwhelming response has been that there has been no degradation to combat capability. In reality the general consensus has ultimately been unremarkable. Once again history has proved those providing wild claims about a disintegration in troop morale, crippling effects on capability and squad coherence, or even mutiny, as being completely out of touch with reality.

      3) Even the more conservative and outspoken recent Pope (Benedict XVI) differentiated between homosexuality and pedophilia by saying “I do not wish to talk about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is a different thing.” I am unsure if you are a Catholic, though if Gods representative on earth (for Catholics) is able to recognise the difference, surely you can stop making claims of direct correlation.

      4) There are various studies that have made quite different conclusions, but all reasonable studies (even the ones that do infer a disproportionately high number of pedophiles are homosexual) also clearly acknowledge that the percentage of homosexuals that commit acts of pedophilia is extremely low. So it is like saying “blacks commit more crime” or “poor people are more inclined to thieve or burgle” or “men are more likely to rape or murder.” All of these statements may have some degree of truth to them, but what they do not consider is the number of those groups of people that commit those acts is still statistically very low. It also does not allow for the question – are these people wired to commit these acts or are considerations like quality of upbringing, abuse as a child, socio-economic conditions, social rejection etc etc factors as to why these groups are over-represented in those categories. It is certainly not an excuse for those people, though there is reasonable evidence to suggest a correlation between social acceptance of homosexuality and declining cases of pedophilia. In any case the main point is, do you associate with blacks or aborigines despite an over-representation in criminal statistics or do you feel the need to vilify all blacks or aborigines because of the very small percentage of them that commit said acts? Are you in constant fear of men because statistically men have a much higher instance of committing murder and rape compared to females? Do you not associate with those that are in a lower socio-economic category because statistically they are more likely to steal your car? Most reasonable minded folks realise that the overwhelming majority of people in any category – race, religion, sexuality, male, female, poorer or wealthier – are decent, moral and trustworthy. To continually propagate such a strong association between homosexuality and pedophilia is like suggesting every pub-goer is going to throw a punch at you, every poor man will steal your car, every male will shoot you, or every black guy will mug you for your wallet. The reality is that these scenarios are possible but laughably unlikely.

      5) Sure, behaviours can change, but innate sexuality and characteristics are not so malleable. Let us say that your sexual preference for women is relatively young (20-30), blonde, nice eyes, thin, healthy and Caucasian. If sexuality is so flexible, I would challenge you never to have sexual relations with the type of women you are typically attracted to and instead have regular sexual interaction with the complete opposite (but still a women). So if your preference is as I listed above, let us reverse those characteristics – older (70-80), red hair, facial disfigurement, severe obesity, unhealthy and not of your racial preference. I think you could agree changing your behaviour sounds good on paper but in reality you have a sexuality and you have sexual attractions that are inherent in you as a person. You never chose to like blonde or thin women, you just found yourself attracted to them and it went from there. So unless you are prepared to support your theory on sexual malleability and behaviour modification with a long-term documented study of you personally drastically modifying your inherent sexual preferences, then I probably would not be so quick to make claims about the same being done with homosexuality.

      Post a Reply
      • PJ – a couple of point. 1. Phil did not use the word black so it is irrelevant. Black skin is not the same as a conscious choice to engage in a behaviour. And sodomy is a behaviour. But you do raise a good point about the worst aspects of the 20th century – they came when Christianity was attacked. Thanks for highlighting this. 2. Western armies have been more accepting of homosexuals. But they have not been able to win wars lately. That’s because despite massive technological advances they have lost the moral will to win. The lack of logic has destroyed capability to win. That’s pretty damaging. 3. Please show me one thing I have written that says all homosexuals are paedophiles and I will apologise and take it down. I can recognise the difference. You cannot recognise the fact that boys (and mostly pubescent boys) are abused at a far greater rate than the homosexual rate in the population. Nor are you prepared to question why that is, which means you actually do not want to help them, protect them, or identify the real cause of this problem. 4. As you even recognise that studies show that a disproportionate number of homosexuals are paedophiles, you yourself recognise this is a problem. 5. Anyone who advocates that a married man should have sex with another woman has no moral decency. That’s you.

      • Bernard,

        1) It is not irrelevant. It highlights that many of the similar irrational arguments were raised against minority groups in the past are being made by you now. They were proved false, as will these. I think that even though you are so invested in your anti-gay beliefs, somewhere deep down you hold a lingering doubt that history will prove you wrong in hindsight. As neither side will convince the other to change their views, history will have to be the ultimate judge of who was right and wrong on this issue and I feel very, very comfortable with that being the case.

        2) I am glad you acknowledge that bigotry against certain groups – Jews, Christians, Homosexuals, Disabled etc – led to some of the worst social degradation the world has seen. The Klu Klux Klan was largely considered an organisation with Christian basis and affiliation. Of course, we all know about the effects of the Crusades also, where it was Christianity doing the attacking.

        3) I am also glad you mention the growing acceptance of western armed forces to serving homosexuals. It is laughable to infer that recent conflicts have not been convincingly won because of more gay friendly policies and therefore a lack of “moral to win.” I think you will find that the west were ultimately unsuccessful in both Korea and Vietnam and during that time the armed forces of the participating countries were strictly anti-gay. Additionally the US armed forces also did not allow gay men and women to serve during the vast majority of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. So of the four most significant conflicts since WWII that the US has been largely unsuccessful, they have allows gays to serve in a total of zero of them. Your claim does not require any further rebuttal because it is clearly absurd and not factual in any way.

        4) The post was not directed at you. You may have failed to entirely read the post, though I did question a range of reasons why many groups – including homosexuals – may be over-represented in some criminal statistics. They include upbringing, abuse, socio-economic status etc. I did not draw any conclusions on the statistical data of homosexuals and pedophiles other than to say that a variety of studies have made wildly differing findings. If it were in fact the case that there was an over-representation, I merely made the case that a whole range of groups are over-represented in certain criminal statistics – males, blacks, youths etc – but that the proportion that commit those acts is still incredibly low. The essential point being, do we constantly malign those groups of people en masse or do we hold individuals to account for their actions and not the group as a whole? It is frequently revealed that Christian teachers/fathers/pastors are involved in child abuse or pedophilia rings – of both female and male children – should I then reach for a big brush and make wild generalisations that malign all Christian teachers/fathers/pastors as child pornography subscribers? If we wish to go down the path of isolating what you deem “problems” based on a relatively small number of cases within a much larger group, then I presume you are also in favour of a very comprehensive and independent investigation into the churches and their senior members. All issues of child abuse are very serious and individuals should be strongly held to account for their actions, not the group they are within.

        5) Did he say in his post that he was married? You conveniently avoided the question and the analogy remains. Let us do an independent long term study of (single) heterosexual men significantly and exclusively altering their sexual desires. Seeing as you are convinced sexuality is so malleable, I imagine you wildly support this idea.

      • PJ, before you get too carried away comparing Bernard and I to slave drivers, the Ku Klux Klan and the evil regimes of the 20th century you should take a look at this:

        http://brazil.indymedia.org/content/2007/06/385484.shtml

        Frankly, your accusations against us are absurd. Firstly they require placing people like you in the same category as black people and Jews of a past era and that is extremely offensive because it seriously belittles their sufferings.

        People who practice homosexual behaviour are not persecuted and neither Bernard nor I have proposed that they should be. We have stated facts and are only interested in sparing society the excesses and problems that spring from homosexual behaviour.

        As minority groups go yours is quite possibly the most powerful in history, networked as it is with the socialist and green movements.

        Whilst you continue to harp about history proving us wrong you fail to recognise that history is a repetitive process. For example, one war ends and we await the next one. That it will come is as certain as the fact that night will follow day.

        That being so when exactly will history make the judgment you say it will? You’re an expert at making stupidity sound plausible for those who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

        And tell me about The Crusades, PJ? What were the effects you speak of? And Christianity was doing the attacking you say. So what? The Allies did the attacking on D Day. Did that put them in the wrong?

        If you had any knowledge of the history you are so fond of referring to you would know that the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, just like the reconquista in Spain.

        Before Moslems poured out of Arabia to conquer the middle-east there was a thriving Christian civilisation there. It was the home of great Christian saints and philosophers like Augustine of Hippo. Moreover, many descendants of those Christians still live in the region and are possibly the most persecuted people in the world. And you want people to cry tears for you because you fool around with other men and demand that everyone agrees that you’re normal? Please!

        Now to your claim that it is “frequently revealed that Christian teachers/fathers are involved in child abuse or paedophilia rings.” Here we see the disingenuous maneouvering of the gay movement and its supporters. The child abuse and paedophilia referred to is defined in a socio-legal and not clinical sense. What that means is that the victims while minors (i.e below the age of consent) are not necessarily pre-pubertal and that the offenders are not paedophiles in a clinical sense but rather homosexual pederasts. So the issue isn’t one of Christian teachers/fathers committing offences but rather one of homosexual offenders who choose to become Christian ministers of one kind or another committing assaults on minors. Finally, the fact that a man is married does not mean he is free of the demon of homosexual behaviour. Remember Oscar Wilde? Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation and it is absolutely wrong to claim that it is. It is merely a behaviour that in many cases can be destructively obsessive.

      • I forgot to add, PJ, that your proposed independent long term study of single and heterosexual men significantly and exclusively altering their sexual desires (to a same sex preference) is totally flawed. That would require the participating men to develop a disorder. It is one thing for an individual suffering from a disorder to seek healing, it is quite another for a normal person to seek to become abnormal. How ethical would that be for a start? Tsk tsk PJ, you are no expert on ethics. It also ignores the fact that while there is motivation for the disordered individual to become normal, it doesn’t work in reverse. So, are you done with the crap yet or do we have to endure yet more of it?

  9. What is “grooming” Jimbo? It is essentially the creation of an emotional bond which can be exploited to encourage a particular behaviour. Pederasts have known that for as long as they have existed. Behaviour can and does change. I’m not against you as an individual. I don’t even know you. But, I am against the political and social homosexual movement which is a formidable danger to our society. If you’re a part of it then I am opposed to you on that basis. Be aware that I don’t hate men who are burdened by homosexuality because they carry that burden. There is no reason that I should. In fact I am concerned for them – for their health and wellbeing. If two men believe they “love” each other and even live together but in a chaste relationship who I am to judge? I would not. On the other hand if they lived together but not in a chaste relationship which they made public knowledge then I would judge but I wouldn’t deem it my business. But if those two men started to claim that their relationship should be on an equal footing with a procreative marriage between a man and a woman I would have to draw a line. Once they demanded the right to redefine a heterosexual institution like marriage, once they demanded access to children, when they sponsored reproductive technologies that would create children genetically related to both of them I would be obliged to oppose them due to both my faith and my humanity. Why? Because those two men do not have a right to do that. That is not a right afforded to human beings by either God, evolution or natural selection. Tragically it is, however, where we have arrived technologically and the consequential ethical dilemmas we face are harrowing. This is a perilous time for the human race and there is vastly more at stake than your right, or the right of any other man, to engage in the sexual behaviour of his choice.

    Post a Reply
    • On what basis do you claim sexuality is a choice? I was never groomed by anyone to behave in a certain way. And please don’t insult both of us by claiming you’re concerned about the health and well being of gay people. You only use it as a veneer to hide behind while you throw about your fictitious nonsense as if it matters. “But, I am against the political and social homosexual movement which is a formidable danger to our society.” Statements like that are pure hubris, Philip. By all accounts, the majority of society has moved on. For your own sanity I suggest you try and do the same.

      Post a Reply
  10. Right, I’ve taken a few deep breaths. Let’s look at this more closely. The Australian Defence Force has never before celebrated sexuality. There is no need for it to start now. These cuff links and lapel pins are not seriously aimed at a celebration of homosexuality – they are a deliberate and very considered insult to Australians and the instigators are out to test the waters because they want to know how far they have actually progressed and how much they can get away with. Now, is the time for all true Australians to make a stand. Are we going to allow a collective of freaks, who are more interested in sexual games with members of the same sex than they are in defending the country, insult the memory of those who have fought and those who have died in its defence? Do those heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice not deserve better than this? Before I go on let me qualify what I’m saying. I am not taking aim at every person who experiences same sex attraction or even every person who practices homosexual behaviour. I know that many of those people would be ashamed, appalled and even dismayed by this outrage.
    I am aiming directly at those freaks who are using homosexuality as a weapon for radical social change. Our society is in a crisis that few have yet recognised but we will soon discover that homosexuality is as big as threat to our society as Islam, if not bigger. But there is no organised defence against it. What good is an army that purports to defend the nation but can’t even defend its traditions, heritage, culture and family life? What good is a defence force that assents to the exploitation of children by some of its members? We Australians who still believe in the things that made our country great have to get over our fear of being labelled homophobic, right wing radical or whatever other lies or insults that may come our way and fight this before we lose everything. For myself, I am throwing caution to the wind. I don’t care what homosexual/feminist/green activists and their totalitarian masters think of me. It’s what I think of them that counts. They are my opponents and I will fight them with every ounce of energy I have.

    Post a Reply
    • “Our society is in a crisis that few have yet recognised but we will soon discover that homosexuality is as big as threat to our society as Islam, if not bigger.”

      That’s a big statement. The reason so few have recognised this ‘threat’ is because it’s a fiction dreamt up by the likes of you and Bernard. If Bernard says as much in his defence when the Burns case comes before a judge he’ll be laughed out of the courtroom, and rightly so.

      Post a Reply
      • You think I made a big statement about Islam? Homosexuality is a bigger threat. It is always the enemy within that wreaks the most damage. I don’t see Moslems demanding the abolition of marriage. I don’t see Moslems trying to bring about the downfall of the traditional family. I don’t see Moslem pederasts trying to get their hands on teenaged boys and demanding a lowering of the age of consent. And what’s this about the Burns case against Bernard coming before a judge? It will go before a pathetic little tribunal presided over by politically correct imbeciles equally as stupid as you. Do you think that scares real men with real morals and real concerns for the future of this society? Do you think the world is going to stop so that some morons can go and use their personal equipment for purposes that defy the imaginations of normal people? You need to enter the real world you immature nitwit, grow up and act like a man. No real Catholic is afraid of anything a pathetic whining activist like Burns or even you might throw at us. Get out of here.

      • Now, now, Philip. With a tirade of personal abuse like that anyone would think you’re losing the argument. I won’t be going anywhere, thanks very much. As long as people like you & Bernard keep pushing the homos around, denying our very existence and equating us with pederasts and child molesters, we will always push back.

      • It’s a personal tirade because I called you an immature nitwit? So much for the truth! Sonny Jimbo a man who initiates sexual activity with teenage boys is engaging in homosexual conduct. As I have told you before the labels are not descriptive of a category or class of human being but rather of a behaviour. Pederasty is a form of homosexual behaviour. Anyway, you’ve already lost the argument. It’s a bit hard to see how Bernard and I could equate you and your fellow “behaviourists” with anything at all when according to you we deny your very existence.

      • “I have told you before the labels are not descriptive of a category or class of human being but rather of a behaviour.” What do you base that on? It’s an innate, hard-wired behaviour, I totally agree. I guess the point we differ on is that you think it’s a conscious choice gay people make at some point in their lives, while I would argue otherwise. I’m yet to meet a fellow gay man who has chosen to be gay, much in the same way I’m yet to meet a straight person who has made a conscious decision to be straight. I don’t see why you find that such a challenge to understand, or a well-reasoned argument as to why it’s bad.

    • @phil, you will “fight homosexuality” alongside Putin and Robert Mugabe. Follow the lead of the new Pope, he’s urging energies be put elsewhere. Oh and check the news, one of Robert Mugabes son’s came out…

      Post a Reply
      • You’re a sick puppy, Bob. You may as well try and make love to a tree. In fact that would be healthier. As for Jorge Bergoglio – happily Benedict XV1 is still alive and I much prefer his teaching on the subject and I’m sure God does too.

      • @phil “make love to a tree”? As in a good root?

      • As I said Bob, you’re a sick puppy.

      • Having a gay relative does not oblige you to support the promotion of homosexuality.

    • Phil says it all in two lines:
      “The Australian Defence Force has never before celebrated sexuality. There is no need for it to start now.”
      To attempt to do so is not a crime, not a conspiracy, not grooming, and not the end of civilization. It is simply irelevant and a mistake. It is a mistake because it is divisive and a Defence Force so divided could not function.
      I recall the media asking the late Bruce Ruxton about the treatment of gays when he was in the Army. Bruce replied in his usual forthright manner: “There were no P’s in the Second World War!” He was wrong of course but the journo had created division and hence a story. If anybody asks you about your or anybody else’s sex life, it is perhaps best to adopt the policy of the Advertising Standards Council: If nobody is ringing in to complain it must be alright!

      Post a Reply
      • Bill,
        Please explain why promoting diversity and inclusion is divisive?
        And unless you are in the militray, and a member of a group that is subject to inherent cultural prejudice – whether that be based on gender, race, sexuality or religion – I doubt you have the ability to comment on what negative behavior is or isn’t being experienced and complained about.

      • Well Marie, the symbolism of overlaying the military badge with colours denoting homosexuality, is not the symbolism of diversity and inclusion. It is the symbolism of exclusion of the service of hetrosexuals – the military badge and service become singularly the property of homosexuality. That the military badge without the overlay remains, is beside the point – it remains, inclusively, the emblem of all who serve irespective of their sexuality. I am not aware of any “overlay” that would denote hetrosexuality, and if there were that would create the very division that is to be avoided. As to my ability to comment on what negative behaviour is being experienced, I can only inform you that:
        I served in the Army for 4years 28days (5 hrs and 10mins).
        As a result of a gunshot wound to the face suffered in action in the Vietnam war, I have experienced the negative attitude toward dissabled/disfigured people for 45 years, and
        as a practising barrister and solicitor for 30 of those 45 years, I became aware of most forms of negative behavior experienced and complained about by people from all walks of life.

  11. Finished my VCE and I was probably going to ADFA. No way, now. I thought my friends were playing games when they warned me about the Army but not anymore. What a disappointment. Thanks for the link, Tim.

    Post a Reply
    • Zach, you are not going into the military because their are gays and lesbians? Anti discrimination legislation applies to all workplaces, so it’s best you work for a Church organisation, because they are all heterosexual.

      Post a Reply
      • THERE are Gays and Lesbians in the ADF and they have THEIR own agenda!

  12. Why don’t you lose yourself, Paul? And change your name while you’re about it. You’re an insult to a great saint. Come back when you’ve recovered from your problem, or when you’re seeking some help in getting over it.

    Post a Reply
  13. What a sick and disgraceful travesty. Is Morrison a queer himself? I never thought I’d see a day like this. How sad for my country.

    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