Great article.Really liked reading it. Enjoyed the last article this guy wrote as well.

I don't expect our PM to always be right; but I expect them to be rational. Unfortunately Rudd has shown himself far too committed to his 'moral crusade' to make sensible decisions on behalf of the people he is supposed to represent. Abbott seems to me to be more pragmatic; I have some hopes that if elected he may end up doing what will work rather than what his Sky Fairy tells him is the 'right' thing to do. But I could be totally wrong.

Anyway, I will vote for the first politician who pledges to run the country for the country's benefit according to evidence and common sense, and forget any stupid ideological commitments.

Suzie, a leopard never changes it's spots but human beings can and do.
I know my own views on a lot of topics have changed massively over time. I share the concern's about the degree of religious affiliation he has as he was reportedly getting regular advice from a catholic archbishop not so long ago.

Ngarmada, if it's not personal be a lot less free with terms like redneck. Perhaps if you have been less "busy looking over my shoulder for potential crazed rednecks" you might be more able to take an objective view of things. Rednecks do exist, but so do people with chips on their shoulders and a variety of skin tones not all of which are red.

R0bert

The issue is not whether one has feelings or beliefs, but the extent by which one allows ones personal beliefs to override one's duty to do the right thing and govern according to the norms and beliefs of the society.

“While not a Coalition supporter I do prefer the more honest style of Abbott than the contrived, bureaucratic insincerity of Rudd.” - Pelican

Well I would be interested to know how you would support that conclusion as a statement of fact. Unless of course integrity in debate for some reason does not apply to you, only others. That would be superiority would it not? As indicated by suzeonline, reason and rational argument is what this article is concerned with, not your biased ideological fanaticism.

RObert, while I appreciate your idealism of peace and love, I do tend to be a bit sceptical of politicians, that they demonstrate their practice as highly mercenary. e.g. whether you like him or hate him, Turnbull got shafted, like Nelson before him. If Abbott is elected the Liberals will resist response to climate change, and attempt to exploit global initiatives to remedy it, which is not rocket science to perceive from observation of these recent events.

If you observe the racist bigots who proliferate OLO, and take every opportunity to colonise threads on race or migrant issues with their venal and toxic malevolence, you may realise a balanced perspective on the subject to which this article addresses.

For doubtless there is a homophobic in your town, who shares the same malevolent bigotry and he’s coming your way. For a leading politician then, owing to his religious fundamentalist beliefs, to effectively scaremonger the public by potentially peddling a perception that indicates gays may be threats, I would suggest is a little irresponsible. Get out of the closet RObert, and into the real world.

"Well I would be interested to know how you would support that conclusion as a statement of fact. Unless of course integrity in debate for some reason does not apply to you, only others."

Are you for real?

It is a fact - I don't know how else to express it any other way. I prefer Abbott's style to Rudd's - simple fact. If I was lacking integrity I would lie and pretend I preferred Rudd's style just to appease you, but alas I cannot, even to assuage your ego.

Style preferences vary from one person to the next. Style preference is not the same as ideology.

I would rather Abbott articulate honestly his views than hide - that way we know what we are voting for (or not voting for in my case).

You are missing the point - despite Abbott's views on homosexuality what matters is how he represents the rights of others.

Abbott's admission that he feels threatened is not the same as homosexuals are threatening. Anyone in their right mind would know this is Abbott's issue - his own insecurity to deal with. It is not the same as a statement that homosexuals are out rampaging the streets and we should all be cowering under our beds.

Where is the homosexual rights to marry under the Rudd Government? I must have missed that one. There has been no new policy under Labor that legislates for gay marriage. That is a fact.

Many gay people I know were hoping that the a government would take a fresh and fairer look at this legislation.

Rudd has not come out on personal comments about gay marriage but he still has done nothing. See the similarity? Actions not words are what counts.

For someone who claims to despise hatred you are certainly filled with your own vitriole and self righteousness.

As for OLO, with only two exceptions I can think of, most posters have been highly supportive of homosexuality and the rights to marry so where your bigotry comments stem from seems more a liking for verbal combat than fact.