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.