Homosexuality breeds contempt

Shannon Power works for the homosexual webpage, Star Observer. She says she has been a member of the LGBTI community for over 15 years.

And a few days ago she wrote this:

…this sort of stuff happens all the time to girls (and I’m sure guys) in gay clubs.

I have been groped, touched and accosted so many times over the years, that I almost expect it to happen every time I go out.

What a lot of guys say to me after they’ve groped me is: “It’s OK babe, I’m gay!”.

Shannon’s story was about her experience at the Star Observer’s Christmas party, held a a gay club in Oxford Street. It generated an admission from others that this type of behaviour is extremely common:

And the reaction she received as a result of her article prompted her to write a second one, stating:

I knew my column would create discussion, but I did not expect the onslaught of attacks that would come my way. To no one’s surprise many comments were sexist, aggressive, victim blaming and completely missed the point.

I don’t think anyone can be surprised by this at all. After all, she is part of a community that believes its purpose is to break all sexual boundaries. What it actually results in is contempt. An institutionalised culture of sexual abuse.

And it’s a common story across the entire homosexual community. Even DEFGLIS, the political/military homosexual lobby group, has a webpage devoted to addressing this issue of sexual violence. It even advises DEFGLIS members to use a ‘red card‘ system to ward off unwanted predatory behaviour.

The rainbow and the hearts are a deceitful facade. Underneath it lies a very dark and troubled community.

And this community is demanding that we change our laws on marriage as a sign of respect and to accommodate its perverse view of the world.

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

5 Comments

  1. It is not that Libtards can not grasp basic semantics.

    If two men are in a committed relationship of sodomy and we call this ‘marriage’ – then we have abolished the concept of marriage for the heterosexuals.

    Marriage and procreation are inextricably linked in the traditional concept and understood at law and in society (any society actually except for a subverted society). Marriage is different from heterosexual (or anysexual ) hooking up, picking up, sexting, flings, affairs, ‘a thing going on’ etc. It is distinguished from any other legally recognised partnership – eg a discretionary trust, a provision of service contract etc.

    If people of any one of 60 (and counting) gender categories want to have a committed, civilly recognized relationship with another person of their gender category – nothing prevents them for petitioning Nanny Oz for this in terms they create. Let us say for the sake of discussion two (or three…) people who designate themselves ‘gender queer’ with the pronoun it / they (and the rest of us better get that right) desire legal recognition for their committed relationship – nothing prevents them from petitioning and obtaining recognition from Nanny Oz in a civil category of their choosing. They didn’t have any trouble creating a gender classification for themselves; why should it be difficult to create their type of relationship, name it and organise for civil recognition? Nothing in a democracy prevents this.

    Because this LBGTQI revolution is against heterosexuals, however, it is guaranteed that this path will not be pursued.

    ‘Marriage’ then becomes useless as a designation in language and law for a wedded man and woman and the family they will generate / adopt / extend through their commitment.

    Post a Reply
  2. I think it was something like only about 12% of Gays want Gay Marriage, so that’s what we are looking at of the people who want something of a solid type of commitment.

    So much for all the ranting’s of the belligerent federal ALP leader on this issue, one would think it a truly serious mater and it’s not truly even in under the umbrella of the Gay community at all.

    I am sure our Nation can work to create a union of such a commitment for such Gays, call it what you will, but don’t work to slander or undermine the true comprehension of Marriage, because it’s an insult not to mention truly a blight on the dignity of men and women and if a person can’t comprehend this they are blighted fools.

    Only fools support a free for all concepts, but hey the ALP look to the lowest common denominator for it’s ideals, sadly nowadays they lookdown on freedom of anyone’s views that does not fall into line with there Political Correct megalomaniac Nazi like hogwash being dribbled down your neck, you must this ! you must that
    ! all the while we are losing our rights for just a load of total crap, as a lot of the so called Gays are truly just low life filthy grubs, not all mind but a lot are nothing to be looked up to from what I have seen and come across.

    Post a Reply
    • I know from experience who they are, go to any beach, public park with a toilet, having them fowl them up,with condoms and tissue paper, so much that you can’t take your kids to these places without fear their safety. Having worked on the Adelaide council cleaning up after these degenerates. Then see them on the media as peelers of social to be looked up too. Invite a couple to a BBQ only to see them pash in front of your kids or have sex in your bathroom. These creatures demand the rights to extort money from society on the bases of their behavior.

      Post a Reply
  3. This is a great take, Bernard.

    The unhyphenated Australians (the target group of all Change revolutions)need some respite from the constant ‘homophobe’, ‘hater’, ‘intolerant’ rhetoric and behaviour levelled at us from LBGTIQ community (I am being generous here)and its MSM extensions on the J-screen big and small.

    Even the term ‘hater’ is being attached to the Liberal promise of the plebiscite in the new year. The yada yada, the prolefeed and the news scripts, in fact all the news muppets have to get in that word association : plebiscite / hate on our regularly scheduled programming (pick a channel).

    The reply and comment could just flip the script and raise concern for how our LBGTIQ community oppresses its own members with behaviour that is censored and opposed in the mainstream. I think, for example of the recent QAS campaign against sexual aggressions and domestic violence – no excuses.

    We have to buy time to get Australia to the plebiscite on this. Unless the political elite outright rig the ballot box (wouldn’t put it past them) I am confident Australia will choose the traditional understanding of marriage: a man and a woman. It will see the idea of a gay marriage as a nonsense.

    This does not rule out in social settings acknowledgement and respect of partners both heterosexual and homosexual. I am sure a lot of parents identify with this – the adult son or daughter might ‘be with’ someone for years before they split or get married. Often they get married for the sake of the children. The second child and the wedding usually come along together.

    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

Share This

Share this post with your friends!