From: abc [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2013 12:33 AM
Subject: To Anthony Venn-Brown
It’s a terrible shame that too many heterosexuals have been duped by homosexual activism. Some of us actually know about Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen’s book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.” We know about their cunning six-point plan to change heterosexual’s views. A quote from the book: “We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types”. Their six-point plan proposed other tactics like using heterosexuals as homosexual protectors and homosexuals playing the “victim card”. Too many heterosexuals have jumped naively on the bandwagon of supporting homosexual rights without even bothering to find out about the roots of this whole movement.
Homosexual activists have been belligerent and relentless in taking action (e.g., law suits), especially in the USA, to further their cause. Even when sued, they have counter-sued – to that extent they are militant and uncompassionate. San Fransisco is a clear example of this militancy.
Homosexuals have complained for years about “homophobia” from heterosexuals. However, when one investigates deeper into the GLBT sphere, there are complex issues of prejudice and discrimination in that sphere, which homosexuals are not revealing to us. There is tremendous and undeniable hypocrisy on the part of homosexuals because they have carried out their own “biphobia” towards bisexuals and “transphobia” towards transgendered persons.
There is another hypocrisy of homosexuals. Although we are transitioning into neo-modernism, we effectively live in post-modern (anti-modern) times of subjectivism and relativism where supposedly all opinions are equally valid and each has a right to their own opinion. Homosexuals have used this characteristic of post-modernism to further their cause, but again in hypocrisy, they want to silence those who disagree with them! I am supposedly forbidden to disagree with homosexuality, homosexual marriage and so forth, but I am patted on the back an in a western nation and given lip service that I am allowed to hold my own opinion. Terrible hypocrisy! Please note that I am neither a supporter nor defender of post-modernism – I have much to disagree with about post-modernism. However, post-modernism is the environment we live in, and since that is the orientation of our western nation, it would be preferable if people like homosexuals would not manipulate its characteristics for their gain, yet show antagonism to others who live according to its characteristics.
Supposedly, homosexuals are interested in “marriage equality”. This platform is only really about pushing for gay marriage. Do you hear them pushing for marriage for polyamorists, practitioners of incest or others? If caucasian Australians accept Vietnamese, Fijians and Iranians only, and do not accept Indians, Africans, and South Americans, is this true “racial equality”? Of course it is not! Unless we permit marriage for all forms of sexual deviancy, it is never “marriage equality”. Please have a think about this.
With the acceptance of homosexuality, the occurrences of harassment of heterosexuals by homosexuals will rise. My wife has faced such harassment, twice from one lesbian couple in the same supermarket on different occasions and once each from two different lesbians in different shopping centres. On one occasion, one of the former couple rubbed themselves against my wife while she reached for a product on the shelves. My wife was made to feel uncomfortable in each case. She and I are offended and infuriated by such behaviour. Is it unacceptable when a male perpetrates such harassment, yet somehow condonable if a female does it because they are of the same gender? I have experienced similar harassment from two different males. Both had invaded my personal space, which we all fully know is socially inappropriate behaviour. This type of harassment was unheard of when homosexuals knew their orientation had to be kept hidden. How audacious of the above lesbians to conduct such harassment openly, believing my wife will respond positively or could be influenced to adopt such tendencies. Sexual harassment will now be worse because both males and females will be perpetrators unlike before when it was a male phenomenon.
Sadly, this experience with the above lesbian couple reveals two points that can potentially occur with homosexuals:
1. They can be so led by their urges that they can sexually harass others, and
2. Despite it being so obvious to us that they were “an item”, they are willing to violate expected monogamous behaviour by carrying out the above with my wife.
When I was studying at an Australian university in the early 90’s, the homosexual group was distributing flyers to those in the bar area. The flyer appeared as a form of propaganda to me. It made claims such as that heterosexuality was not normal because we as children naturally interact with those of the same gender and spurn such interactions with those of the opposite one. How watery is this argument? Well, this begs the question – how did the being of these homosexuals come about? Did homosexuals come into being via homosexuality? Homosexuals were displaying their activistic orientation back then.
We now have homosexuals voicing that they want to start families. It is illogical to think that they can start their own natural families – they still require heterosexuality to have children, and even then both homosexual partners cannot be parents of the same child. When did we commit intellectual suicide about this matter?
We now have homosexuals voicing that they find heterosexual acts repulsive! The ludicrousness of such a thought about natural behaviour! Again, was it not by such a supposedly “repulsive” heterosexual act that the homosexual’s own conception and being came about?!
The argument of the pro-homosexual view has been too highly emotionally-charged: “Why can’t homosexuals marry?”, “Why can’t homosexuals have children?”, “Does it matter (if someone is homosexual)?”, etc. One should be interested in the truth and fact, and much less in subjective opining.
From: Anthony Venn-Brown
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: To Anthony Venn-Brown
Dear letters and numbers
Firstly…..I have no idea who you are
Secondly ……I have no idea why you’ve spent so much time writing this lengthy email to me considering there is nothing new in the content or that I have not read many times before.
Thirdly……(communication tip) when a person expresses such strong opinions on a subject and assumes to speak so authoritatively …..and then doesn’t sign it off with their name…..everything said is immediately negated and of no value.
Just thought I’d let you know.
Founder and Director
Ambassadors & Bridge Builders International(ABBI)