Image for Tony Abbott "Threatened" By Gays

Tony Abbott "Threatened" ByGays

Federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has revealed that he feels “threatened” by homosexuality in an interview with current affairs program 60 Minutes.

During the story, which aired last night, journalist Liz Hayes tried to find out how Abbott’s conservative Catholic views affect his politics.

Of abortion, he said that he believed it should be safe, legal and rare. “And I underline ‘rare’,” he added. Abbott is in favour of IVF because it is about “creating life”, and he is somewhat open to the idea of the death penalty.

When Hayes asked, “Homosexuality? How do you feel about that?” he responded with, “I’d probably say I feel a bit threatened… as so many people.” When pressed, he elaborated, saying, “Again, Liz, look, it’s a fact of life and I try to treat people as people and not put them in pigeonholes.”

It’s a concerning opinion, given that Abbott could end up being the next Prime Minister of Australia.

Corey Irlam, spokesperson for Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE) will today write to Abbott, inviting him to meet with ordinary gays and lesbian people to help overcome his self-confessed sense of “threat” about homosexuality.

“We hope Mr Abbott will take up our invitation so he can overcome feeling threatened by homosexuality”, Mr Irlam said in a statement.

“Mr Abbott can pick any place he feels safe and we’ll invite ordinary members of the gay and lesbian community to come and talk with him to show him he has nothing to fear from us.”

Mr Irlam said statements like those of Mr Abbott highlight why Australia needs a national law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity.

“Unfortunately there are still some Australians who share Mr Abbott’s sense of threat, and who, in some cases, treat LGBTI Australians unfairly. The Opposition leader can show leadership on this issue by publicly committing the Coalition to support federal anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

During an appearance on ABC Television on Monday night, Abbott elaborated on his homophobic views, saying, “There is no doubt that challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things.”

The Federal Parliament has discussed the issue of legislation to protect Australians from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity on and off since 1997. Equivalent protections exist in all states and territories but the federal human rights framework has yet to include it.

Introduction of such legislative protections were included in recommendations from the National Human Rights Consultation report on same-sex entitlements released in 2009.

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
15178
coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 8th Mar, 2010

In the context of the transcript, it's not really explained very well, they use it as a segue. Poor journalism.

I wonder what exactly he finds threatening. Whether he sees it as a political weakness of his own given how he is perceived on that or it's just one of those "backs against the walls, guys" fear.

Well what this shows is that if Tony Abbott and the Liberal party valued our votes, then he or they would be publicly clarifying as to what he was meaning. So what does that really say about the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 8th Mar, 2010

It's no different than a Jewish person voting for the Nazi party in the 1930s
Those gays who vote for the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

I can understand where your coming from, but at the end of the day there's allways going to be people who are loyal to a particlar political party regardless. I fail to understand why some GLBT defend homophobes, but its a democracy and people are entilted to there views and reasoning. Face it some GLBT people are going to vote for the Liberals or even Family First, its pointless to claim that people should be ashamed of themselves as its only going to start an argument on here.

guru_g

guru_g said on the 8th Mar, 2010

It's no different than a Jewish person voting for the Nazi party in the 1930s
Those gays who vote for the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

God I wish I'd have said that!

eurolad

eurolad said on the 8th Mar, 2010



I have no sympathy for people who have no respect for themselves (by voting for those parties) and who put money above everything else. It just shows you that most people have learnt nothing from things such as the holocaust.

tricky28

tricky28 said on the 8th Mar, 2010

Maybe he's scared his wife will be enticed by a lesbian.


:confused:

Barrin

Barrin said on the 8th Mar, 2010

Basically it sounds like he's fence-sitting. At least he isn't taking the hard-line Catholic stance. But it's an uncomfortable fence he's put himself on. 'Threatened'? That's a very odd word to use. Just how is homosexuality a threat to an avowed heterosexual? Unless 'threatened' is code for 'tempted'. The interviewer should have pushed further.

gnosis

gnosis said on the 8th Mar, 2010

From Lateline last night:

LEIGH SALES: On the 60 Minutes program last night Liz Hayes asked you how you felt about homosexuality and you said you'd probably feel a bit threatened, as so many people do. What did you mean?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, it was a spontaneous answer, but the truth is I try to take people as I find them. I've always tried to be that way and I hope as I get older I become better at it.

LEIGH SALES: But, I just - I didn't understand when I was watching the program what the word "threatened" meant, though. Were you making a joke that you feel threatened that men hit onto you, or that you feel that traditional families are threatened? What was "threatened" referring to?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, there is no doubt that it challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things, but as I also said on the program, it happens, it's a fact of life and we have to treat people as we find them.

He has a strange way of wording things.

I'm happy to not be the notion of the right order of things.

gnosis

gnosis said on the 8th Mar, 2010

Meanwhile the comments on this are incredibly offensive and yet I can't stop reading them.

Bolt even used a photo of Brodes.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_does_abbott_fear_they_might_do_to_him/

eurolad

eurolad said on the 8th Mar, 2010

Meanwhile the comments on this are incredibly offensive and yet I can't stop reading them.

Bolt even used a photo of Brodes.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_does_abbott_fear_they_might_do_to_him/

I am surprised people haven't got used to this yet and think that things will
change by magic. One can only hope that the International community will condemn and boycott us, because they only thing that people get worked up about here is $$$$

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 8th Mar, 2010


When considering being offended, I take into account the amount of harm a person, situation or comment can cause or already has caused.
The way I see it, Tony Abbott can only cause harm if he's elected Prime Minister of Australia.:)

gnosis

gnosis said on the 8th Mar, 2010



Naturally. Does that mean you're endorsing the views of the people commenting on that site?

eg "I feel threatened by two men. Two women I like though".

Phazz

Phazz said on the 8th Mar, 2010

It is an election year and the libs are too far behind in the polls to win. Add the fact that there hasn't been a single term government in this country for a long time. I suspect Tony Abbott will fade away into the background by mid 2011.

danny corvini

danny corvini said on the 9th Mar, 2010

I hope so. Can you seriously imagine this man representing Australia on the world stage? Visiting Washington or Beijing? Seriously, he's only a few switches of the knob away from being a male Pauline....

Imbeautifuldammit

Imbeautifuldammit said on the 9th Mar, 2010

People who feel threatened by other peoples sexuality are obviously insecure about their own sexuality. If you know who you are and what you like then why would you feel threatened? I cant stand these straight men who think that every gay man wants them as though all gay men will fuck anything that moves if its male. I mean why are they even thinking about this in the first place. Is it because they are struggling to repress their own bisexual thoughts and feelings?

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

In the context of the transcript, it's not really explained very well, they use it as a segue. Poor journalism.

I wonder what exactly he finds threatening. Whether he sees it as a political weakness of his own given how he is perceived on that or it's just one of those "backs against the walls, guys" fear.

this is quite funny. lately your really going for the throat for those who espoused poor jounalistic values

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

It's no different than a Jewish person voting for the Nazi party in the 1930s
Those gays who vote for the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.ridiculous comparison.
i vote liberal and im far from ashamed of myself. ive said it before and i'll say it again - anyone who things that the ALP is the party of choice for gays, is severly misguided. within both mainstream political parties, there are individual members of parliament for each side, who have negative views of gays, as there are MPs on both sides who endeavour to fully support gay constituents, as they would any other of their constituents.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

before the 2007 federal election, it had been 78 years since a sitting prime minister had lost his seat in an election. unless they are set by donald bradman - all reconds will eventually be broken

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 9th Mar, 2010


i vote liberal and im far from ashamed of myself.

...shit who would have guessed that one? Haha

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010



im not insecure about it. i dont hide the fact, nor will i, and yes. im ticking poolboys above assertations as my reasons

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010



yeah, spot on. there are aspects of some of my friends personalities that i dont like, but i still continue to be friends with them, because there are many other qualities of them that i do like

kaitaylor

kaitaylor said on the 9th Mar, 2010

a short one minute clip of Abbott explaining what he meant by "threatened":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm-BavfGsws

eurolad

eurolad said on the 9th Mar, 2010

ridiculous comparison.
i vote liberal and im far from ashamed of myself. ive said it before and i'll say it again - anyone who things that the ALP is the party of choice for gays, is severly misguided. within both mainstream political parties, there are individual members of parliament for each side, who have negative views of gays, as there are MPs on both sides who endeavour to fully support gay constituents, as they would any other of their constituents.

Oh really? and why don''t you enlighten us and provide evidence of when the Liberals ever supported gays? or even introduced legislations of their own to protect us? NEVER

The fact is that most of them would rather see you (as a homosexual person) dead.

gnosis

gnosis said on the 9th Mar, 2010



haha, twice. I'm just more aware of it lately, I guess.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Oh really? and why don''t you enlighten us and provide evidence of when the Liberals ever supported gays? or even introduced legislations of their own to protect us? NEVER

The fact is that most of them would rather see you (as a homosexual person) dead.yeah you know your right, the last BBQ i went to around at malcom turnbulls place, he was using gay corpses to heat the place up rather than turn up the reverse cycle air conditioning

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

"throw another one of them fags on the fire" his wife would yell, "im getting cold goddamit"

tricky28

tricky28 said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Oh really? and why don''t you enlighten us and provide evidence of when the Liberals ever supported gays? or even introduced legislations of their own to protect us? NEVER

The fact is that most of them would rather see you (as a homosexual person) dead.
Fair point - which i think you should answer Warming.

You rubbish the Labor Party for not giving a shit about gays and it's true they are not anything to be proud of in that area. But at least they brought in amendments in 2009 to change some discriminatory legislation in social security, health, superannuation, tax, and family law. I'm sure these changes make a big difference to a lot of gay people.
While the Howard Government actively and openly discriminated against us with the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004 to ban same-sex marriage. He sat on his hands in providing us any type of rights for 11 years. And i have not heard a peep out of the current opposition on whether they intend to do anything for us if they get into power again.

So who would you take a gamble on? And i may not have faith in either party to properly look after my rights and concerns as a gay person - but when faced with two evils i would surely pick the lesser.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

i dont rubbish the ALP about their treatment of gays. i say that their treatment of the gay community is no different to that of the other mainstream political party(liberal)
i take exception to the ALP being elevated as some sort of gay godsend from canberra, simply because they aint

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

as i stated in the other current thread on tony abbott in the chat and gossip forum, the howard government had already flagged those changes to superanuation, ect. that were discriminating against gays

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

in terms of "who you should take a gamble on", that depends on how much your gay politics dominate your political and governance spectrum

gnosis

gnosis said on the 9th Mar, 2010



I actually really miss Turnbull. He was too good for his party. I know he still has ambitions but if he ran in NSW politics, he'd romp in, even more than the Libs will next year anyway.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010


im not so sure about that. i think premier kennelly will do a good job of separating her governments from that of carr/iemma/rees, in terms of endeavouring to cut lose the legacy of those goverments and present a bit of a fresh start. also barry o'farrell need to come out of hiding and present policy alternatives, rather than just conducting doorstops where he just repeats "its another example of this governments incompetence". at present the shrill daily telegraph is doing more to get the libs elected in NSW come feb 2010, rather than the liberals getting themselves elected

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Actually back in 2004 when the Howard government amended the marriage act they then promised to remove the discrimination, but did they ? No. Only two half weeks before election day in 2007 they then committed to removing the discrimination. Yes the Rudd ALP is not perfect but at least they have removed the discrimination in most of the federal laws for us, more than what can be said for the Liberals. You can have Rudd who has removed the discrimination for us, or you can have Abbott who opposed most of the reforms to remove discrimination and on top us that he says he is "Threatened by us". In fact Howard even publicly stated on the radio that he would be ashamed if his child was gay. In my opinion Rudd is the better of the two evils.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

also, i think one of the main obstacles to turnbull enter into state politics would be the battering his ego would take "dropping down" like that. but yeah i agree he would blitz it if he did.
apparently bill heffernan tried to talk turnbull out of running against peter king for preselection in wentworth in 2004. heffernan thought turnbulls future was always in NSW politics.
i think state politic is a better fit for turnbulls autocratic style as well.

Flaneur

Flaneur said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Well, no, they put together an inquiry and came up with 58 and had decided to not take immediate action. This was revised by the ALP who flagged over 100 and then actually did something about it. These same issues the government picked up on were, earlier in the decade, going to be redressed by the state governments (all labor) which Howard then blocked.

Additionally, queers have never actually experienced amendments furthering their rights under a liberal or liberal/nationals government. Every positive change has come about because of the left. The coalition gets no points here and in fact loses out because it was Howard who was responsible for the deportation of same sex partners, Howard who prevented same sex marriage and Howard who made pushes against same sex adoption and IVF use. It was also Howard who spoke on how 'homosexual liaisons' weren't equivalent to *real* relationships while his deputy was telling us to be thankful we weren't being put in jail.

The Howard government reacted to queer people the way the government did in the early 80s - we actually had more rights in 1985 than we did during the entire Howard regime! Given that, it's a bit difficult to claim the coalition and the ALP give us the same treatment.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

well i wonder what mr rudds reponse to that question would be - he's never been asked.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

atorney general mclleland, blocked the ACT civil union bill as did the coalition. where is the difference here?

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



He may also say he's "threatened by us", but at least he and his party have removed discrimination for us in federal law, Abbott has not.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Well, no, they put together an inquiry and came up with 58 and had decided to not take immediate action. This was revised by the ALP who flagged over 100 and then actually did something about it.

Additionally, queers have never actually experienced amendments furthering their rights under a liberal or liberal/nationals government. Every positive change has come about because of the left. The coalition gets no points here and in fact loses out because it was Howard who was responsible for the deportation of same sex partners, Howard who prevented same sex marriage and Howard who made pushes against same sex adoption and IVF use. It was also Howard who spoke on how 'homosexual liaisons' weren't equivalent to *real* relationships while his deputy was telling us to be thankful we weren't being put in jail.

The Howard government reacted to queer people the way the government did in the early 80s - we actually had more rights in 1985 than we did during the entire Howard regime! Given that, it's a bit difficult to claim the coalition and the ALP give us the same treatment.
look the reality is. all policy towards gays formed by the mainstream political parties in australia, is based on token pragmatism. not actaully wanting to grant the gay community real concessions, otherwise there wouldnt be continuing obstructions at goverment level

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



So did the Liberal party. Between 1996 and 2007, during John Howard's term as Prime Minister, many attempts were made to reduce recognition of same-sex couples in federal legislation, as well as to thwart attempts by individual states to recognise unions of same-sex couples. Since the beginning of his term as Prime Minister, Howard has made his position clear on the gay rights issue. In January 1997, Howard refused to offer a message of support to Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras and said on the TV program A Current Affair that he would be "disappointed" if one of his children were to tell him they were gay or lesbian. In August 2001 when asked in a Triple J (Australian radio station) interview where he placed himself on a scale of acceptance of homosexuality, one end being total acceptance and the other total rejection, Howard replied, "Oh I'd place myself somewhere in the middle. I certainly don't think you should give the same status to homosexual liaisons as you give to marriage, I don't." In July 1996 the Howard Government reduced the number of interdependency visas, making migration for same sex couples more difficult. The UN Human Rights Commission declared Australia’s Federal Government in violation of equality and privacy rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights in September 2003 after denying a man a de facto spouse veteran’s pension based on his 38 year same sex relationship. The request from the UN that Australia take steps to treat same sex couples equally was ignored. When directly questioned, Attorney General Philip Ruddock said that the government is not bound by the ruling. In March 2004, Howard condemned Australia's first laws which would allow gay couples to adopt children in the ACT as part of a new ACT Bill of Rights. Howard said, "I think the idea of the ACT having a bill of rights is ridiculous. I'm against gay adoption, just as I'm against gay marriage." The commonwealth, however, did not overturn the legislation. On May 27, 2004, approximately two months after the UK proposed its Civil Partnership Act 2004, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill to prevent any possible court rulings allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions. In August 2004, same-sex marriage was officially prohibited when the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act were amended in order to define marriage as a "union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". Amendments were also made to prevent the recognition in Australia of marriages conducted in other countries between a man and another man or a woman and another woman. In March 2006, after the ACT government announced plans to create civil unions within the territory, the federal government vowed to block it. Following the public outcry over Howard's move to kill the ACT bill, in April the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) began a six month inquiry to hear from Australians about the federal government's treatment of gays. The Howard Government banned its departments from making submissions to the inquiry into financial discrimination experienced by same-sex couples. In June, the ACT's civil union legislation was passed then disallowed by the Governor General. A second attempt to offer civil unions for same-sex couples in 2007 was again disallowed. The Governor General only disallowed the ACT legislation after being advised by the Executive Cabinet, although under the Constitution, the Governor Genral was not obliged to follow the advice of the Executive Cabinet. Plans were also made to introduce a federal bill preventing same-sex couples from adopting, but the idea was dropped after the 2007 elections.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



True, but he was in government, you cant seriously tell me he did not know about all the discrimination in federal law.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

yes coast boy, thats what im saying. the coalition and the ALP acted the same in blocking the ACTs civil union bill

Flaneur

Flaneur said on the 9th Mar, 2010


You mean queer rights is solely a marriage issue? That's hardly the important difference between the two.

Regardless, the ALP never introduced legislation against same sex marriage, as the Howard government did, though they did make an agreement which had been entered into their policy (and ALP members must vote with party lines). Even so, unlike the Howard government, the ALP ended up negotiating with the ACT to create an alternative.


And this somehow makes the coalition a party which treats us like the ALP? There's a world of difference between the two, despite the ALP's less than progressive attitudes of late. The coalition's views swing closer to Family First than the ALP much less any other party which has held even a modicum of power in the last decade.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Yes, but the Rudd ALP also removed federal discrimination which the Liberals could not do while they were in power for close to ten years. Like I said, the ALP is not perfect - but its the lesser of the two evils.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

mr flanuer. my point was and still is, the ALP is not the party of choice for gay advocation. clutch at as many straws as you like

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

they flagged those changes - getting into the re-runs now

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Can't believe I am doing this but....

Premier Rupert Hamer (VIC) decriminalised homosexuality in 1980. He was a Lib.

Premier Tony Rundle (TAS) decriminalised homosexuality in 1996, the last state to do it but he was also a Lib.

Flaneur

Flaneur said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Howard also blocked those changes in the early 2000s when the states tried to introduce them and then the inquiry introduced flagged 58 pieces of legislation which they neglected to do anything about. The ALP then flagged 102 pieces of legislation after their personal investigation and immediately did something about it.

So no, they didn't flag the changes the ALP made. An independent inquiry flagged some of them for the coalition.

Flaneur

Flaneur said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Can't believe I am doing this but....

Premier Rupert Hamer (VIC) decriminalised homosexuality in 1980. He was a Lib.

Premier Tony Rundle (TAS) decriminalised homosexuality in 1996, the last state to do it but he was also a Lib.

The Tas one was pushed by court order and the federal government

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



The Liberals in 2007 only committed to removing some discrimination in superanuation, after they has already promised us this back in 2005. Within 18 months of the Rudd ALP being elected nearly all federal discrimination was removed for us. Why could the Liberals not do this in there time in government ?

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010


hindsights wonderfull isnt it.
why did neville wrans government wait until 1984 to decriminalise homosexuality. SA did it in 72
we can play these games all night

naughtylion

naughtylion said on the 9th Mar, 2010

At least I know that under the Howard government the country was financially in brilliant shape, and fags weren't getting their Centrelink payments reduced.

I'm in deep water here. I know nothing about politics. Only those two things. And that's good enough for me.

Also, Kevin looks like he'd touch kids. Sick fuck.

naughtylion

naughtylion said on the 9th Mar, 2010



isn't that what politics is all about?

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010

At least I know that under the Howard government the country was financially in brilliant shape, and fags weren't getting their Centrelink payments reduced.

I'm in deep water here. I know nothing about politics. Only those two things. And that's good enough for me.

Also, Kevin looks like he'd touch kids. Sick fuck.

Sure, some same-sex couples had there benefits cut, However lots of same-sex couples also gained new benefits that they were previously not entilted to.

gnosis

gnosis said on the 9th Mar, 2010

At least I know that under the Howard government the country was financially in brilliant shape, and fags weren't getting their Centrelink payments reduced.

I'm in deep water here. I know nothing about politics. Only those two things. And that's good enough for me.

Also, Kevin looks like he'd touch kids. Sick fuck.

You could argue a lot of that had to do with the reforms Keating put in place back pre-1996.

That and the Howard Government basically ignored infrastructure for 10 years in the name of maintaining a surplus. Our internet is slow and expensive compared to the US/UK because of the combination of lack of new infrastructure and the weird way they (and to be fair, the Labor govt before them) sold off Telstra.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Can't believe I am doing this but....

Premier Rupert Hamer (VIC) decriminalised homosexuality in 1980. He was a Lib.

Premier Tony Rundle (TAS) decriminalised homosexuality in 1996, the last state to do it but he was also a Lib.

It wasn't until 1996 when the law in Tasmania prohibiting gay male sexual conduct was overturned by the High Court of Australia and then finally repealed on 1 May 1997, making Tasmania the last state to decriminalise gay male sexual conduct.

gnosis

gnosis said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Nah, I disagree. That transport plan reannouncement and the cancelling of the metro was enough to see her gone. So much money wasted in the process.

I'm not pleased about Barry O'Farrell either but so much the lesser of two evils right now (like Labor federally).

The TV news are in love with KK still, unfortunately.

naughtylion

naughtylion said on the 9th Mar, 2010



I know, but there's good and bad to both sides, you just need to pick the lesser of two evils. And there are ALWAYS going to be arguments, because people approve and disprove of certain aspects of the same related topics. It's insane! I know it's how things are done but ultimately the public only ever receive a vague remnant of what they propose anyway.

This is why I don't feel the need to vote. I have no respect for politics or politicians whatsoever. I don't have time.

Phazz

Phazz said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Eventually yes, but I would say more people dislike Abbott then they did Howard in the end. As much as I hate to admit it, Rudd is doing a lot better then I expected him to. Until the Liberal party sort out their internal unrest, they will stay out of office. Look at the NSW Government. The Liberal Party were handed the last two elections on a platter and they imploded.

The biggest problem with politics in this country is that both major parties aren't really that different from each other. There needs to be a decent alternative.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Abbott's use of the word "threatened" says there's something menacing, even predatory, about homosexuals. His phrase "the right order of things" echoes traditional religious and legal ideas about homosexuality as unnatural, sinful and "disordered".

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Nah, I disagree. That transport plan reannouncement and the cancelling of the metro was enough to see her gone. So much money wasted in the process.

I'm not pleased about Barry O'Farrell either but so much the lesser of two evils right now (like Labor federally).

The TV news are in love with KK still, unfortunately.i dunno. i think the average shmo in the street takes the cancelling of the metro and the transport plan reannouncement as:"well at least she's trying to do something, not that that barry whats-his-name"

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

are we done here then?
can i go for my run and then go to bed when i shower and get back?

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010

are we done here then?
can i go for my run and then go to bed when i shower and get back?

Yep, lets agree to disagree.

tricky28

tricky28 said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Hahaha. Sure, it might help you clear your head. :p ;)

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

i dont agree to that.
and you'll pay for that purple monkey dishwasher remark
(how do i express jest? i cant bring myself to use a smilly face)

local_warming

local_warming said on the 9th Mar, 2010

actually apparently running increases your brain cell regeneration
only 5000kms more me to go then

Spooky

Spooky said on the 9th Mar, 2010



“One has to wonder if our homosexuality is causing cracks in his religious ideological thinking” I love your perception coast_boy_21
as it does look that way. The Christian far right will have to give in, in the (not to distant future) end, they and their God (St Paul) are not going to win this battle.

jackie87

jackie87 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Recently saw her at a community meeting in Redfern (which is in her electorate), That hair doesn't even move, she had 10 layers of foundation on. She come with a pre prepared answer to everything and pretends to be good at listening then answering the rest of your question with something completely irrelevant to what I had asked. Never heard so much pollie speak mumbo jumbo in all my life, Rees was right, the woman is a puppet...or a robot. Everything had been cut and dried by the end of the meeting where it had already been obviou sthe project we had wanted her to allocate government money, we weren't gonna get a penny but she still dsay yes or no.

The woman was nowhere to be seen during Mardi Gras either, the most I've ever seen her do is attend Fair Day once, dragged along by a few other state Labor MPs and her electorate has to be one of the gayest in all of the country. It was fine for her to be World Youth Day spokeswoman so the government could raise her profile and make people aware of her good looks but the woman is no different to all the spin dominated and no substance Carr/Iemma/Rees lot we have had over the last 15 or so years.

I think if the Libs get in and at least get started on building the missing transport links we had been promised and revoked so many times over the history of this government they might at least be seen like they have got their ass into gear. But judging from typical Liberal governments who sit back and watch the money come in and do nothing. They're both rubbish, the only 2 libs who have any profile are Barry O'Farrell who always gets his 2 cents worth and that screeching Transport spokeswoman Gladys Whatshername. Guess who I'm going to be voting for? :greens:

pioneer_to_the_falls

pioneer_to_the_falls said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Tuesday 9 March 2010
Mr Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

RE: Invitation to meet LGBTI community / Federal anti-discrimination laws

Dear Mr Abbott

I write today on behalf of the Australian Coalition for Equality in regards to your recent comments on 60 Minutes and Lateline regarding your feelings towards homosexuality.

We are deeply concerned that the alternative Prime Minister of Australia says he feels threatened by and that this feeling is shared by "so many people". Further, we are dismayed that when provided an opportunity to clarify your remarks, your explanation was to suggest that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people Australians challenge "orthodox notions of the right order of things".

In response to your specific statements, we would like to take the opportunity to refer you to research conducted by Roy Morgan's National Consumer Poll that shows in 2008 only 29% of Australians believe "homosexuality is immoral". This is hardly a basis for your statement that "so many people" feel threatened, as stated on the 60 Minutes program. Indeed Roy Morgan CEO Michele Levine was quoted in September 2009 as saying "What we've noticed over the last 10 years is that Australians are becoming more open-minded in their views about a lot of things, including homosexuality."

We note your further statements that you "try to treat people as people and not put them in Pigeonholes". While this is an admiral quality to possess, we are deeply concerned that your statements appear to imply that the majority of LGBTI Australians are somehow inferior or abnormal as they challenge the "orthodox notions of the right order of things", yet may be removed from this classification in some individual cases, based on treating the person as you find them.

In addition to being inconsistent with the view of a majority of Australians, we are deeply concerned that your comments have the potential to inflict unintended harm to a minority group within Australia.

We note that in the same Lateline interview in relation to comments on your new parental leave policy you stated "But I think that where circumstances change and your understanding deepens, the mature thing to do is to adjust your position, and that's what I've done". You noted that part of the basis of your change in parental leave policy was from discussions with "a number of people who I think are insightful in this area".

We thus write to you today to invite you to meet with members of the LGBTI community and discuss with them your views on the issues of homosexuality and more broadly bisexuality and sex and gender diversity. We hope that such a meeting could be conducted in the spirit of deeper understanding of each others perspectives. We would be prepared to work around your schedule to convened this meeting at a time and location of your choice, to ensure that you feel safe and unthreatened in the environment chosen.

We draw your attention to the 2005 paper Mapping Homophobia in Australia where the researchers comment:

"While not everyone who is homophobic engages in discriminatory behaviour towards gay men and lesbians they are more likely to contribute to a general attitude of intolerance. Thus derogatory and insulting remarks about gay men and lesbians by, for example, prominent radio personalities reinforce intolerance and appear to sanction discriminatory behaviour."

We believe that your recent comments have the potential to be interpreted by some within Australia as sanctioning discriminatory behaviour and while we do not believe your views have resulted in such discrimination occur, unfortunately there are still some Australians who share your sense of threat, and who, in some cases, treat LGBTI Australians unfairly.

In recent years the Opposition has shown bi-partisan approach to the removal of discrimination faced by same-sex couples. Indeed we note that the authoritative report that led to these historic reforms, Same Sex: Same Entitlements by the Australian Human Rights Commission was commissioned by the Howard Government. We again note our congratulations and thanks for the Oppositions enlightened approach to such matters.

Given that your comments were made in your capacity as the leader of the opposition we are alarmed that such comments may signal the end of this bi-partisan approach to key policy issues involving sexuality, sex and gender diversity. As such we respectfully request an opportunity for the Australian Coalition for Equality to engage in further dialogue with you about key policy issues remaining for the LGBTI community. There are a range of policy issues, but perhaps one of the key legislative issues is that of Federal anti-discrimination laws.

As you may be aware the Australian Parliament has discussed the issue of Federal Anti- Discrimination legislation since 1995, including a committee inquiry into a private members bill tabled in 1997. The recent National Human Rights Consultation report recommended that priority be given to anti-discrimination legislation and noted in its discussion that the absence of federal antidiscrimination legislation was of particular concern.

Federal laws prohibit discrimination on a more limited range of grounds than the state laws. There was a particular concern that discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people is not prohibited at the federal level.

Indeed the Australian Liberal Party national platform supports creating opportunities for Australians by committing itself to "oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria". In previous versions of the platform, where specific criteria were specifically included I understand the criteria of sexuality was mentioned.

In June 2009 the Australian Coalition for Equality commissioned national research as part of the Galaxy omnibus on the issue of Australian support for the introduction of federal antidiscrimination legislation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The research found that 85% of Australians support such legislation being introduced, including 83% of coalition voters.

Mr Abbott, we hope this unfortunate recent incident provides an opportunity for meaningful and productive dialogue with yourself (and your office) on issues facing the LGBTI community. I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the matters raised in this letter and specifically your response to below key questions:

1) Will you meet with members of Australia's LGBTI community and their families to discuss your fears and feelings? We would welcome the opportunity to provide our community with an opportunity to convince you that we do not challenge orthodox notions of the right order of things or are a community that people should feel threatened by?

2) Will you publicly commit the Opposition to supporting the introduction of federal anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure that all members of the LGBTI community do not face unwarranted discrimination ?

Please feel free for yourself or a member of your office to contact me on the details listed below should require anything further

Yours sincerely
Corey Irlam

Australian Coalition for Equality

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2841008.htm

gnosis

gnosis said on the 9th Mar, 2010

Recently saw her at a community meeting in Redfern (which is in her electorate), That hair doesn't even move, she had 10 layers of foundation on. She come with a pre prepared answer to everything and pretends to be good at listening then answering the rest of your question with something completely irrelevant to what I had asked. Never heard so much pollie speak mumbo jumbo in all my life, Rees was right, the woman is a puppet...or a robot. Everything had been cut and dried by the end of the meeting where it had already been obviou sthe project we had wanted her to allocate government money, we weren't gonna get a penny but she still dsay yes or no.

The woman was nowhere to be seen during Mardi Gras either, the most I've ever seen her do is attend Fair Day once, dragged along by a few other state Labor MPs and her electorate has to be one of the gayest in all of the country. It was fine for her to be World Youth Day spokeswoman so the government could raise her profile and make people aware of her good looks but the woman is no different to all the spin dominated and no substance Carr/Iemma/Rees lot we have had over the last 15 or so years.

I think if the Libs get in and at least get started on building the missing transport links we had been promised and revoked so many times over the history of this government they might at least be seen like they have got their ass into gear. But judging from typical Liberal governments who sit back and watch the money come in and do nothing. They're both rubbish, the only 2 libs who have any profile are Barry O'Farrell who always gets his 2 cents worth and that screeching Transport spokeswoman Gladys Whatshername. Guess who I'm going to be voting for? :greens:

Yeah her no-show at all Mardi Gras-related events was really noticable. She's always quick to jump on any sort of tourism event in NSW. But as the Minister for World Youth Day, so I guess her priorities are elsewhere.

She's my local member but I can't see her surviving the next election. The Greens would have a real shot here.

I didn't mind Carr/Iemma and Rees was doing okay until he was toppled by the right wing of his party.

danny corvini

danny corvini said on the 10th Mar, 2010



No I'm afraid in this context he is saying that he is fearful that the increasing visibility of homosexuals in society poses some sort of threat to the very conservative religious foundations that he presumes that it is built on. He is afraid that we are changing people's thinking, which indeed we are - for the better.

You have to remember that the man is a religious nut. He would be incredibly immature if his response was to do with him being afraid of being hit on.

musheh

musheh said on the 10th Mar, 2010

Whilst i'm not the biggest fan of Tony Abbott (or, more specifically, not a fan at all), I can't help but think people are (as well as the other few i've seen floating around regarding his 60 Minutes interview) taking unnecessary stabs at the guy. This is the first article i've seen which actually cites him saying he wants to treat people as people, so kudos to you for that. But why is it there is so much outrage about it? I mean, has every queer who’se heard about this only heard the “threatened” part, and gotten upset? I initially did too, until I actually viewed the televised footage myself and realised it wasn’t all that bad.
Of course he feels threatened by homos. Most people who aren't queer do feel threatened by us. I have friends who are fine with my homosexuality, who still feel a little uncomfortable when amongst a crowd of queers. But that uncomfortability doesnt reduce their capacity to rationalise and express their values of equality. Which is exactly as Abbott as done, yes, he's threatened, but he aims to treat us as people. So to the outraged people out there – Give him a break! This isn’t something he deserves to be attacked on. Just wait until he does something else ridiculously stupid and then take your blows at him.
Oh, and yes, we do challenge what is orthodox. Abbot is stating fact. Homosexuality is unorthodox! We are breaking traditional values by making ourselves public! Again, why the outrage? It's truth!

akkaz

akkaz said on the 10th Mar, 2010

I am threatened by Tony Abbot & bigoted, narrow-minded idiots like him & their out-dated, hate-filled ideology. For someone whom allegedly worships an all-loving, all-forgiving God & a religion which preaches tolerance & acceptance, I find alot of Christians (not all) to be very unforgiving & unaccepting of those whom differ from them or their beliefs.

May the Gods help us from those whom *think* they are doing God's work!!

tricky28

tricky28 said on the 10th Mar, 2010

Whilst i'm not the biggest fan of Tony Abbott (or, more specifically, not a fan at all), I can't help but think people are (as well as the other few i've seen floating around regarding his 60 Minutes interview) taking unnecessary stabs at the guy. This is the first article i've seen which actually cites him saying he wants to treat people as people, so kudos to you for that. But why is it there is so much outrage about it? I mean, has every queer who’se heard about this only heard the “threatened” part, and gotten upset? I initially did too, until I actually viewed the televised footage myself and realised it wasn’t all that bad.
Of course he feels threatened by homos. Most people who aren't queer do feel threatened by us. I have friends who are fine with my homosexuality, who still feel a little uncomfortable when amongst a crowd of queers. But that uncomfortability doesnt reduce their capacity to rationalise and express their values of equality. Which is exactly as Abbott as done, yes, he's threatened, but he aims to treat us as people. So to the outraged people out there – Give him a break! This isn’t something he deserves to be attacked on. Just wait until he does something else ridiculously stupid and then take your blows at him.
Oh, and yes, we do challenge what is orthodox. Abbot is stating fact. Homosexuality is unorthodox! We are breaking traditional values by making ourselves public! Again, why the outrage? It's truth!
This is not some random opinion plucked off the street - this is a person running for leader of this nation. A Rhodes scholar in fact. He knows very well he is making a moral judgment when he says he's "threatened" by homosexuals because it "challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things". To say that it challenges the orthodoxy is completely true - that is not the issue - but to be personally threatened by this sends a message (exemplified when holding high office) that there is something wrong with those people. It may be ambiguously stated, and purposefully of course - but anyone knowledgeable of Abbott's background can decipher the meaning.

I would not give a politician any slack when it comes to language and word play - they know exactly what they're doing. And straight talker Tony knows it is an a election year and this is the time to give out the subtle hints to bigots and racists that Liberal still is the party for them. They won't be giving the homos and refugees any free rides when they get in office.

chad_74

chad_74 said on the 10th Mar, 2010

It's no different than a Jewish person voting for the Nazi party in the 1930s
Those gays who vote for the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.


wheres the likeness?

poolboy jackson

poolboy jackson said on the 10th Mar, 2010

I know we should be examining the issues and not get distracted by the crazy quirkiness of the people but this embarrassing excerpt is from last Monday night's QnA where Prof. Dawkins was bored and embarrassed by our dopey yokels from Canberra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jKKnO9NE0&feature=player_embedded

ammonite

ammonite said on the 11th Mar, 2010



I don't know of many Christians who really believe that. And I don't see how anyone who has ever read the Bible could possibly believe that the Christian God is 'all-loving and all-forgiving'.

As far as I know none of the Abrahamaic Gods are.

Light-Bearer

Light-Bearer said on the 11th Mar, 2010

The god of the old testament refers to himself as an "angry and jealous" god- not a "progressive and cheery bitch"

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 11th Mar, 2010

Whilst i'm not the biggest fan of Tony Abbott (or, more specifically, not a fan at all), I can't help but think people are (as well as the other few i've seen floating around regarding his 60 Minutes interview) taking unnecessary stabs at the guy. This is the first article i've seen which actually cites him saying he wants to treat people as people, so kudos to you for that. But why is it there is so much outrage about it? I mean, has every queer who’se heard about this only heard the “threatened” part, and gotten upset? I initially did too, until I actually viewed the televised footage myself and realised it wasn’t all that bad.
Of course he feels threatened by homos. Most people who aren't queer do feel threatened by us. I have friends who are fine with my homosexuality, who still feel a little uncomfortable when amongst a crowd of queers. But that uncomfortability doesnt reduce their capacity to rationalise and express their values of equality. Which is exactly as Abbott as done, yes, he's threatened, but he aims to treat us as people. So to the outraged people out there – Give him a break! This isn’t something he deserves to be attacked on. Just wait until he does something else ridiculously stupid and then take your blows at him.
Oh, and yes, we do challenge what is orthodox. Abbot is stating fact. Homosexuality is unorthodox! We are breaking traditional values by making ourselves public! Again, why the outrage? It's truth!

I guess its because consertives who support him, don't want him to state the obvious. I feel its partly because it makes it harder for them now to publicly state they support him after he made those comments. Its like with Pauline Hanson, nobody really wanted to say they supported her after her comments she made, however come election time she recieved thousands of votes. Consertives want to be able to say they support a party without feeling guilty, notice how it was mostly the consertive media who drumed up the most outrage EG channel nine and the Herald Sun newspaper.

Hessy

Hessy said on the 11th Mar, 2010

Isn't it only God's place to judge and our duty, as christians to act in a manner that is kind and tolerant? And anyway i don't believe that that should be an issue here-to many, christianity is just a religion not a way of life. Why should a religion have such a hold on people...
and exactly how reliable is 60 minutes anyway?

rawrbie

rawrbie said on the 11th Mar, 2010

I would love to be among those that he's been invited to chat to.
I think perhaps a queer high school student such as myself may have a real wake-up-call for Mr. Abbott. He's got quite a few things he needs to fix up.
Does anyone know how on earth I'd get into that little group of lovely people?

Peteinoz

Peteinoz said on the 11th Mar, 2010

He now has something to feel even more threatened by. No votes from 10% of the population (and possibly more). Well done, Tony.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 11th Mar, 2010


The G-d of the Torah (Christians call the Torah *Old Testament*) is without form & is infinite. The G-d of the Torah is not 'angry & jealous' - just ask Rabbi - a JEW who would know more about the Torah than a non-Jew.

http://www.aish.com/atr/

kaitaylor

kaitaylor said on the 11th Mar, 2010



Unfortunately this is unlikely to be true for two reasons, the first being there are still gays that will continue to vote Liberal (just read this thread for examples) and his homophobia will resonate with the many homophobes. Polarising the electorate against a minority is a pretty safe move.

kaitaylor

kaitaylor said on the 11th Mar, 2010



Well said LB. The progressive God is a cultural invention forged by the continual hammer blows of modernity. Of course Old Testy God is a cultural invention by Iron Age goat herders.

poolboy jackson

poolboy jackson said on the 11th Mar, 2010


Kai, I'm an atheist but would you repeat that comment about Mohammed and the Koori 'Dreamtime stories'?
:)

chad_74

chad_74 said on the 11th Mar, 2010


Lets see our choices
a mad monk
a boring baptist
or a greeny that would have us living in caves
which is the lesser evil?
on a serious note
If labor was for genuine equality for gays why have they not done it or even attempted to and why block state civil recognitions?
they have majority in the lower house and would probably get it passed in the upper house.Gay rights is so an issue of the past why allow it to continue to be election propaganda but then when you get loud "tunnel visioned" supporters on mass it comes in handy.

kaitaylor

kaitaylor said on the 11th Mar, 2010

Kai, I'm an atheist but would you repeat that comment about Mohammed and the Koori 'Dreamtime stories'?
:)

Of course, all religions are cultural inventions. Every religious person thinks the OTHER guy's religion is just mythology, whereas THEIR religion is the real deal.

poolboy jackson

poolboy jackson said on the 11th Mar, 2010

Kai, I was trying to draw you out to say something Non-PC.
:)

kaitaylor

kaitaylor said on the 11th Mar, 2010

Kai, I was trying to draw you out to say something Non-PC.
:)

I know :)

ammonite

ammonite said on the 12th Mar, 2010

The G-d of the Torah (Christians call the Torah *Old Testament*) is without form & is infinite. The G-d of the Torah is not 'angry & jealous' - just ask Rabbi - a JEW who would know more about the Torah than a non-Jew.

http://www.aish.com/atr/

Ash I honestly really admire your faith in God.

As for me, while there is wonderful stuff in there, God scares the sh*t out of me.

I will try and explain why with a couple quotes from some books the Torah and the Bible share. (I know the translations and interpretations are always slightly different, and I can't read Hebrew.)

numbers 25
While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab. 2These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel. 4The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the Lord, in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you shall kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”

6Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7When Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand, 8he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel. 9Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand. 10The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 11“Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites. 12Therefore say, ‘I hereby grant him my covenant of peace. 13It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.’” 14The name of the slain Israelite man, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, head of an ancestral house belonging to the Simeonites. 15The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur, who was the head of a clan, an ancestral house in Midian.


Leviticus 26

14But if you will not obey me, and do not observe all these commandments, 15if you spurn my statutes, and abhor my ordinances, so that you will not observe all my commandments, and you break my covenant, 16I in turn will do this to you: I will bring terror on you; consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down by your enemies; your foes shall rule over you, and you shall flee though no one pursues you. 18And if in spite of this you will not obey me, I will continue to punish you sevenfold for your sins. 19I will break your proud glory, and I will make your sky like iron and your earth like copper. 20Your strength shall be spent to no purpose: your land shall not yield its produce, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit. 21If you continue hostile to me, and will not obey me, I will continue to plague you sevenfold for your sins. 22I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock; they shall make you few in number, and your roads shall be deserted. 23If in spite of these punishments you have not turned back to me, but continue hostile to me, 24then I too will continue hostile to you: I myself will strike you sevenfold for your sins. 25I will bring the sword against you, executing vengeance for the covenant; and if you withdraw within your cities, I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into enemy hands. 26When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven, and they shall dole out your bread by weight; and though you eat, you shall not be satisfied.27But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, 28I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins. 29You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars; I will heap your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. I will abhor you. 31I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. 32 I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it. 33And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste. 34Then the land shall enjoy its sabbath years as long as it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its sabbath years. 35As long as it lies desolate, it shall have the rest it did not have on your sabbaths when you were living on it. 36And as for those of you who survive, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword, and they shall fall though no one pursues. 37They shall stumble over one another, as if to escape a sword, though no one pursues; and you shall have no power to stand against your enemies. 38You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall devour you. 39And those of you who survive shall languish in the land of your enemies because of their iniquities; also they shall languish because of the iniquities of their ancestors.

guru_g

guru_g said on the 12th Mar, 2010

Oooh you got him there!

ammonite

ammonite said on the 12th Mar, 2010

i didn't want to 'get him' just explain why i feel the way i feel

guru_g

guru_g said on the 12th Mar, 2010



Yeah, but you still got him! :D ;)

guru_g

guru_g said on the 12th Mar, 2010

Wasn't there something called "The Good News Bible"? Whatever happened to that?

Spooky

Spooky said on the 13th Mar, 2010

But some of her friends are Pagan.

chad_74

chad_74 said on the 30th Mar, 2010

did anybody see on sbs the other night
I think it was the empire Constantine that allocated to his offsider to put together the bible from a vast array of stories.
It was just a way of controlling the citizens of the roman empire and it was by their choice what was put into it. Nothing at all really to do with god or Jesus

idahosydney

idahosydney said on the 1st Apr, 2010

PoolBoy... time to get your eyes checked darl :-)

Sapphic Secrets

Sapphic Secrets said on the 3rd Dec, 2011

The funny thing is.. is that i have met Tony Abbott and he didnt run away screaming feeling threatened by me. He wouldnt have even known im gay.

Last year when i was in year 12, Tony Abbott came to our school. I was selected to show him around etc, I spend a good half an hour walking and talking with the guy. Easy person to talk to and nice guy.. but well.. dont all politicians seem to be =P

I just find it amusing that he now says he is "threatened" by me, and wouldn't allow me to get married. when, if he didnt see me kissing a girl, he wouldnt even know i was a lesbian.

There are 26 more comments. View them all