pelican nicely said.

Ngarmada, "to effectively scaremonger the public by potentially peddling a perception that indicates gays may be threats" as pelican has already pointed out there is a big difference between admitting to feeling threatened and scaremongering.

I saw the interview and saw little reason for anybody to see any implied threat from homosexuals in Abbott's words. It came across as an admission of a personal struggle in that area for Abbott. It can be tough to work through the fallout from a change in views. Been there done that and it's not always an easy transition.

Males and male political leaders are often chastised for not being more open about feelings, Tony Abbott appears to be someone who is quite open about his struggles and feelings. It could be an act but if it is I hope he keeps it up long enough to make it more acceptable for others to do the same.

I'm trying to work out if your "get out of the closet" comment to me was intended as a slur on your part. Normally the term is used to describe a gay person who keeps it hidden and used by homophobes to attack opponents. There are other possible meanings but in the context of this thread using that term for other meanings would be an odd choice. Is implying that someone is gay something you use as an insult?

R0bert

Congratulations Dennis/David, the infection has spread to another thread.

Pelican, your feigned posturing of upholding of integrity, is only dwarfed by your myopia. Like a selfish brat you cant get what you want on demand from the Rudd Govt, so you are either prepared to entertain negotiation with Abbott, or your political proclivity is toward his aberrant ideology.

To offer you a heads up perspective, within months he has double back flipped on his climate change policy, apparent as pursuing, if not manipulating, the support of his political colleagues for his original position. And on both occassions of his policy reversal, he claimed enlightenment and the associated integrity of transparency of his admissions.

Observing such prime indicator of his political intent, you suggest his admission of an inane fear of homosexuality, is witness and testament to his potential enlightenment on the issue, that will transcend his staunch fundamental catholic religious beliefs.

Well I have a reversal admission, that in fact your myopia is only dwarfed by your gullibility, that you may not only suggest your own belief in that naivety, you could expect others to oversight its incredulity.

‘Fessing up and submitting to public approval is currently a favoured political tactic for potential longer term political benefit, and there I agree, that it is consistent with ethical integrity, it is appropriate, if it is GENUINE. There’s the rub, with politicians its assessment will mostly be subjective.

In Abbotts’ case it just ‘out there’ as patently dubious.

blairbar, it is observed that you propagate your proclivity to latent colonial bigotry in yet another thread. Such venal and toxic malevolence towards reason and rational argument is what Ngarmada is concerned with, not your biased ideological fanaticism.

It is anticipated however that such criminality against both language and reason will inevitably be buried under a pile of pelican poop.

I advise you to have a hat or umbrella handy.

oops, pasted in the wrong link. The first link in my post above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10175#164954 should go to Nina Funnell's OLO article on the homosexual advance defence:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7863

It's interesting that Shane's article has prompted lots of discussion about the role of religious belief in public life, lots of specific comments about Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, but relatively little about the implications of what Abbott said.

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

Of course this is important, but with respect to the present article about Abbott's feeling threatened by homosexuals, it's not "the point" at all.

First, feeling "threatened" by homosexuals is ridiculously irrational, and Abbott is legitimising the irrationality.

Second, gender minorities are targets of violence and harrassment, generally by young men. A 2003 survey of inner-city Sydney gays and lesbians by the NSW Attorney General's Department found that "56% of the respondents reported having experienced one or more forms of homophobic abuse, harassment or violence in the past 12 months." http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/vwFiles/Hide2BSafeExec.pdf/$file/Hide2BSafeExec.pdf Paradoxically, at the same time as being a haven for same-sex-attracted people, inner-city Sydney is the place where they are most likely to be victims of anti-gay violence and harrassment.

When heterosexual men feel "threatened" by homosexuals, it invariably works out worse for the gays than the straights. With his irresponsible comments, Abbott gives legitimacy to those who bash, victimise and harrass gay people.

I acknowledge the goodwill that the participants in this discussion have shown towards homosexuals, but the uncomfortable fact that sexual minorities are targeted because of their sexuality shouldn't be buried by diverting the discourse towards something a little less disconcerting. Remarks like Abbott's do real damage, and rather than calling it a beat-up, Shane's article deserves to be commended for pointing this out.

Heterosexuality is 100% pure and natural! the way nature intended! end of story! And there's no pride to be found playing in the gutter! and the law is a poofter! It works but not properly! and all it dose is screw everyone up the you know what! How long before the law legalises beastyality or pedophilia! because that's the way these sickos where born! Homosexuality is a mental disorder! How sad! and that is my online opinion.