poirot: (Hey, Loudmouth, this sarcasm stuff is fun!)

Ahh... Ya learn'. Quote, "Laughter is the best medicine." If'n ya take life too seriously y'll die of a heart attack.

That's a false dichotomy, Poirot. Firstly, there is no assunmption about Mathieson's sexuality on my part, merely an interest in the PM's faux offence, which seems out of place and which lead me to my chain of reasoning a page or two back. Secondly, homosexuality is the preferred orientation of about 10% of males and many of those men have traditionally chosen to do work which is traditionally regarded as a female creative endeavour. While it would be foolish to assume that all male hairdressers are gay, it would be even more foolish to assume that gay men are not overrepresented in that population.

Thirdly, homosexuality is a well-accepted choice or inherited predisposition, depending on your preferred construction. there is no inherent perjorative in being perceived as homosexual, or at least, not for those of us for whom childhood is to be remembered rather than enjoyed. On the other hand, paedophilia is one of the grossest crimes on the books and is regarded as abhorrent by almost everybody. On top of that, while there is no doubt that paedophiles are overreprsented within some parts of the community, including the priesthood, they are a tiny portion of the whole population, far smaller in total numbers than gay men.

So it's not "just as ridiculous" to assume all priests are paedophiles, it's much more ridiculaous and it's also perjorative, as well as denigrating the priests who are neither paedophiles or in any way supportive of protecting those who are.

All that is still begging the question of Gillard's trustworthiness on the subject of her relationship and by implication, more generally.

Anti,

"...merely an interest in the PM's faux offence...."

How many Prime Ministers have been asked if their partners are gay?

Is it standard procedure during Prime Ministerial interviews to inquire as to the sexual preferences of their partners?

I think you'll find that no other Australian Prime Minister has been subject to a question of that nature.

Would the question have been asked if they were legally hitched - as in "married"?

Should we assume that any woman who's partner is a male hairdresser, and who are not "married" is in reality conducting a sham?

If it was male Prime Minister who was living either defacto or married to an female ex-truck driver, would we assume that his partner is gay and that the relationship is a sham? (However, unlikely the scenario)...should the media inquire as to her sexual preferences because she was once a truck driver?

Signed

The Effin' Old Sourpuss ......(That's for Jayb:)

The apologists for Juliar are trying to claim that Juliar's personal life is not for public consumption. This incredibly hypocritical, nitpicking through every detail of TA's life for decades, and then howling in protest when the same standards are applied to their flawed leader.

While I agree that her sex life has nothing to do with her politics or ability to lead, neither does Shane Warne's sex life have anything to do with his cricket. Juliar's non traditional relationship is of interest precisely because she is in the spotlight, and she and the left wing haters just need to such it up.

SM,

"...the left wing haters..."

Ho, ho, ho....taking your direction from runner now, are we?

(And this is coming from someone who doesn't have much time for Gillard)

'Ho, ho, ho....taking your direction from runner now, are we? '

no he just needs to observe you Poirot. You are hard to top.