R0bert

<< I wonder how much having spent time in institutional single sex living arrangements has to do with it. I went to boarding school as a teenager and I think that played a significant role in where I was at on the issue (along with previously held religious views on the issue). In the case of the boarding school shower blocks were communal, there were no private spaces to get changed etc. I recall cadet camp's where the toilets were in a large shared room rather than cubicles. >>

I think you would've been in a state of permanent terror, back then. But clearly not now. Therefore, are you trying to excuse Abbott here, because he hasn't achieved your level of maturity?

Also I did not claim that Abbott's homophobia would lead to an increase in gay-bashing. No bow drawn there.

But now that you mention it - homophobia ain't going away with the likes of Abbott claiming they are threatened. He could, instead (like your good self) discuss the bullying kind of behaviour he may have experienced at boys' boarding schools - behaviour that was often perpetrated by males who grew up to be heterosexual.

Severin sorry I should have clarified that the latter parts of that post were a response to earlier comments by others.

R0bert

>> I know when I first started on OLO there was a
>> poster named David who had a significant impact
>> on my understanding of male homosexuals.

That was possibly David Skidmore http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=2043 , whose first article on OLO was referring to the homosexual advance defence report that I mentioned above (his term is gay panic defence).

>> On the issue of Abbott's comments being used
>> by homophobes to justify attacks on homosexuals,
>> possibly but I think that's a long bow.

As far as I know, a direct causal connection between politicians' anti-gay speech and homophobic violence has never been established, so Robert, there are some grounds for arguing that it is drawing a long bow. There's some less direct evidence, though. US researcher Gregory Herek's work has established the psychological consequences for lesbian and gay individuals of anti-gay politics:
http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2008/11/25/anti-gay-ballot-campaigns-cause-psychological-harm/ I can only find anecdotal evidence for a link between political speech and homophobic harrassment, not least my own:

>> For most of the last five years we have been the
>> object of anti-gay harassment from a former
>> neighbour. [snip]
>>
>> I’m not so naïve as to confuse coincidence with
>> cause, but it was notable that our former neighbour’s
>> worst behaviour took place while our Federal
>> Parliament was discussing and enacting the
>> amendments to the Marriage Act in 2004.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4796&page=0

I'm not alone in this: others have related similar experiences to me. With evidence that politicians' anti-gay speech does psychological damage, and the lived experience of many gays and lesbians that homophobic attacks occur when political leaders are expressing anti-gay views, I believe it's not drawing a long bow at all to say that Abbott's "I feel threatened" utterance legitimises homophobic attitudes.

Essentially the problem is that when politicians single us out for any sort of negative attention, we cop it from the homophobes. We don't deserve to be regarded as a threat, and we certainly don't deserve the negative attitudes that singling us out legitimises.

woulfe if Abbott had been making a speech or had tried to blame gay's for a variety of social ill's I'd be with you on that.

He answered a question during what seemed to be an informal and candid interview. I assume that he is bright enough to have expected the question at some point and that the answer was not entirely off the cuff so the answer was not out of the blue. It would be very unfair to compare what Abbott said to what I imagine would have been said during a period of heated debate and rallying of the troops on changes to the marriage act.

I did not see any attempts to blame gays for his feeling threatened in what he said. Trying to make the comments into something bigger than they were or insisting that they not be made because some extremists might take them to a whole other level will do more to inflame anti-gay phobia's than any thing Abbott said in that interview.

I'm reminded of the level of support Pauline Hanson got which went way beyond what she deserved, in my view much of it was because the tactics of those trying to silence her (including Abbott) were so extreme that they legitimized a lot of peoples concerns. If the gay lobby is seen to be trying to silence those who express any personal reservations it reinforces negative perceptions. It prompts people who feel similar reservations to assume that they are considered the enemy as well. If tolerance is sought it much also be given.

Public acceptance is homosexuality is a journey of social change and we did not all start at the same place and we are not all at the same place now. Commend those who are willing to change rather than condemning them because they are not as far along as you would like.

R0bert

I understand your point Robert, but this article is not about philosophy or psychology, it is about politics. The interview was political, the program is known for its reporting of current issues of the day, including political issues. Abbott was interviewed as he is the relatively newly installed leader of the Federal Opposition, in the year of a pending election. ABC Four Corners profiled him on Monday.

As I understand, woulfe attempted to explain considerately and articulately, by introducing hard data, the political potential from his comment for fuelling adverse attitudes, is real, and reasonably assessed. Nowhere is it demonstrated by the qualification brought to bear, its purpose is for mounting a counter fear campaign for the purpose of denigrating him, as may be indicated from your comment.

In fact, that as both a political leader and a long serving MP, Abbott would be aware of the potential consequences of his comment. Add to that his previously reported religious based views on the subject, reliably reported [ABC] record of his current and recent political conduct as I have demonstrated in recently previous posts, and you may reason the author of the article as retaining fair and balanced perspective.

Unless of course one is inclined to place more weight upon the flimsy indication of a report that amounts to ‘hearsay‘, supporting contentions of his potential benign perspective by some posters, and supposition based upon what may only be observed ‘wishful thinking.’ Your perspective also, appears based on your personal assessment of depth of human understanding, and predicated upon the ‘sound bites’ of one TV interview.

Therefore, the case for potential denial of this article could hardly be observed found upon credible critical analysis, could it

I forgot to add RObert, you need not stalk me to other threads, I am confident to debate you anywhere.

And I should have covered your miraculous transmutation into Abbotts' de facto PR rep in your last post, and as a strategist on this issue, I may only observe your capacity that of a non entity