Abbott: The homophobe
Let us call it how it is. Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a homophobe.
Homophobe, as defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
“A person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly”.
Let’s just analyse that definition in the context of Abbott’s behaviour, language and actions.
A person.
This may be debateable in the context of Tony Abbott, but on the understanding that a person is an individual human, Abbott will likely scrape through. Of course, he appears to lack a moral compass, empathy, honesty, or compassion, but these are not prerequisites for being classed as a person.
Hates or is afraid of homosexuals.
This one is easy. Abbott has admitted himself that he is threatened by homosexuals. He believes that anything gay should be, you know, kept private, and not spoken about. He prefers a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on same sex love. He believes that homosexuality threatens the ‘right order of things’. Because everyone knows that the ‘right order of things’ relates to exactly which sexual organ goes where, and that is all that matters when it comes to love and relationships.
Or does ‘the right order of things’ really relate to his belief that women should treat their virginity as a gift not to be given pre-marriage? Or that women should remain at home, doing the ironing, while their husbands are doing the man’s thing at work? Of course, Abbott tempers his further ‘right order’ views that a woman should not withhold sex from her husband, by clarifying that men should not demand sex.
Regardless, the whole ‘right order of things’ issue does seem to have a kind of ‘sexual focus’.
Naturally, Abbott has attempted to counter his clearly homophobic attitude with the traditional defence against any sort of socially unacceptable discrimination.
‘I have many friends who are gay’, Abbott says.
Just as the racist-in-denial declares they have many friends who are ‘black’. The admitted bigotry only extends to those who aren’t friends, although Abbott is clearly happy for his friends to be treated as second class citizens when it comes to marriage equality.
Abbott’s language also provides a clue as to the depth of his fear of the homosexual lifestyle. In 2010, he reportedly told Tony Windsor that he would do anything to be Prime Minister, except ‘sell his arse’. He will do anything. Anything at all. Except compromise the sanctity of his rear. Of course this is just a standard saying, one of those commonly heard phrases that no one should take personally – just like calling a person ‘gay’ as an insult. Oh. Right.
Treats them badly.
Abbott has been loud and clear on his personal fear of people of same sex orientation. But up until this point, his personal view has not been forced onto the rest of the nation.
But now it has.
Abbott, while declaring to the Coalition that marriage equality is a ‘deeply personal’ issue, has forced his own ideological beliefs onto the rest of his party by refusing a conscience vote on same sex marriage legislation. As a result he has almost certainly quashed the likelihood of same sex marriage being legalised any time soon.
And how did he do this? By tricky, slippery means, called out by Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, as something akin to ‘branch stacking’. When Pyne is the voice of honesty, transparency and fairness in Government, there is a serious problem.
Same sex couples already have the same legal rights as married couples. Legalising same sex marriage will simply have the effect of affording all couples acceptance in the community and place them on an equal standing with every other family. All mums and dads can be married. All children have the opportunity to grow up in a nationally recognised institution if their parents so wish. All couples can stand before family and friends and say ‘I love you’, with perhaps a ring that is the symbol of a legally binding relationship. Marriage.
But no. Abbott doesn’t want that for gay people.
And he has yet to provide even the remotest acceptable reason why. Why would he force his personal ideology on the rest of the nation? A nation that has majority support for marriage equality?
Abbott has been accused of misogyny, of being sexist, of having a ‘woman problem’. But perhaps Abbott is just obsessed with sexuality. He is a man who clearly struggles to keep sexuality and physical attractiveness out of politics.
He described a female Liberal Party candidate as having ‘sex appeal’.
‘I’m the guy with the not-bad looking daughters’, he told the nation.
‘A bit of full body contact never hurt anyone’, Abbott happily told a bunch of teenage netballers.
‘You’d be the most popular girl in the place, wouldn’t you’? he famously asked a female utility worker.
And who can forget that wink and smirk when confronted by the angry pensioner who worked on an adult sex line to make ends meet.
Abbott has a penchant for prancing around in the most revealing of sportswear. Skin tight lycra, nifty red speedos, and tight running pants. Does he see himself as so insanely attractive that if same sex marriage was legalised he would be inundated with proposals? No one is asking Tony to be gay. Or even to sell his arse.
All Australians want is equality.
If anything is to come from this, at least we know this is a rare occasion when Tony is actually being honest. Even if it does ensure Australia’s same sex couples are continued to be treated as second class citizens.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
31 comments
Login here Register here-
roaminruin -
kerri -
Kaye Lee -
kathysutherland2013 -
paul walter -
Jollyjumbuck -
kathysutherland2013 -
Lee -
mars08 -
Roscoe -
Michael -
Aortic -
Bronte ALLAN -
joni -
Michael Taylor -
joni -
Michael Taylor -
Carol Taylor -
Karma is coming -
Carol Taylor -
Eva -
Peter F -
harshmind -
keerti -
eli nes -
Itsazoosue -
Rosemary (@RosemaryJ36) -
corvus boreus -
Maureen Walton (@maureen_walton) -
jimhaz -
Cecil
Return to home pageAbbott needs to be reminded, on a regular basis, that he is the servant of the citizens, he is not the authoritarian dictator he’d like to be.
I’m looking forward to my participation in reminding the bat-shit crazy low altitude flyer of that at the next polling day. If Malcolm or Morrison haven’t done him over before then.
(What’s the future hold for Abbott once he’s been discarded as a political aberration? What’s his value to anybody? I suspect that if he tried any of the jobs the rest of us do he’d never get past the 3 month trial period. Seriously, who’d hire such a deluded, incompetent serial failure?)
Eva have you read David Marr’s tome on Abbott?
He sums it up brilliantly when he describes Abbott’s failure in the priesthood.
To paraphrase he wouldn’t survive without the sex!
When he was at the seminary, Tony was asked to see a psychologist who concluded that “he had developed an inability to be really intimate and that without the warmth and trust of real intimacy he would find life in the celibate priesthood too frustrating and lacking in peace”. Rather than interpreting this to mean fellowship with his brothers and empathy for humanity, as it was intended, Tony’s mind turned to sex.
“Lack of sensual intimacy is something that priests have always had to handle. In my case, this had become a heavy burden because I was not naturally drawn to the life of the priesthood and because the modern Church — by minimising its mystique and spiritual elan — had eroded any other basis for its undertaking.”
But Tony didn’t want an analysis of his difficulties and especially not an analysis couched in the terms of psychology, saying “it was really the seminary staff who needed psychological investigation”.
I feel for his sister.
Abbott is only the tip of the iceberg. The whole rightist mindset is reactive.
This is exactly what I mean. For those who are leaving comments here believe that we should all agree and accept SSM and if you don’t then you are branded being a homophobic. Well not all people who have had a Christian upbringing believe this should be legalised as probably the same believe it should. All our beliefs should be accepted without name calling. Also remember SSM is not all there is to dumping this PM. There are many far more important reasons why he needs to be dumped. To Kay Lee, you are just one of those people who will not accept anyone else’s opinion on homosexuality if it doesn’t agree with your point of view. Especially assuming you know exactly what was going on when Abbott was in the seminary. This is just filth in my book and totally uncalled for speculation. We all have to live with the choices we make in life!
@ Jollyjumbuck, I don’t think anyone here is denying Tony Abbott, or others, the right to have their own opinions on this issue. What irks me is that he is trying to impose his view on everyone else. We are all aware that lots of people don’t agree with same sex marriage. The answer is easy – don’t marry someone of tne same sex. But DO NOT tell everyone else what they should or should not do in their personal lives.
“We all have to live with the choices we make in life!”
Yep, and Abbott’s choice is to be homophobic. My choice is to call him on it.
“…We all have to live with the choices we make in life!
First…. being gay is NOT a choice!
Second…. that so-called “choice” means being treated as a second class citizen for no good reason.
Human rights are for everyone!
I think he doth protest too much, could it run in the family and that is why he denies?
Jail them all.
Abbott first
Will no one rid us off this meddlesome priest?
Even though his sister is Gay, he acts like this? SACK TONY ABSCESS!!!
As a second-class citizen (not allowed to marry), I am ashamed that Australia is so far behind on Marriage Equality. I live in Europe at the moment, and most people are stunned when I tell them that we cannot marry in Australia.
So sad that the federal government is run by a homophobe.
(joni waves to all at AIMN)
Waving back at you, joni.
Fairly ashamed at a number of things about our country at the moment, and funnily, all of them have been brought on by Coalition governments.
So true Michael. They are a “stop, hinder, follow” government. Not leading the country at all.
It’s the international embarrassment that’s hard to make excuses for. We are becoming a laughing stock. Seriously.
But it’s all OK, apparently. Uncle Rupert keeps tweeting what a wonderful job the Abbott government is doing.
Me too joni. 🙂
Kaye Lee, what Abbott said about himself reveals quite a lot, that he looked down on the church because it had minimised “its mystique and spiritual elan” and had thereby “eroded any other basis for its undertaking”. So without a basis of spiritual superiority over others, the church lost its meaning for Tones..and so he thought about sex. 😯 Where presumably he could have a feeling of superiority. Hence his non-support for marriage equality, it would add a level of equality to others, over whom Abbott can currently feel superior (or is that frightened given his description of feeling “threatened”).
Do I care if 2 homosexuals want to get married? – No!
Will their marriage negaitvely effect my live/world/etc.? – No!
Do I have homosexual friends? – yes some I know are homosexual and probably some I have no idea about
Do I care if they are homosexual? – no not all all, they are my friends
Am I afraid that I will become contaninated or tainted in some way? – what a foolish notion!
This manufactured fear about equal marriage is a delaying tactic from Tony and his RWNJ. Oh and marriage was NOT invented by the Christian Church they were in all probability drawn from contracts between familes and many societies prior to Christanity had some form of marriage/joining and not exclusivley between a man and a woman. So lets get over this nonsence and concentrate on issues that really impact our society, country and its economy.
Indeed Karma is coming, hence the reason that the term is “a contract of marriage”, it’s all to do with contract law hence the reason why we have clauses such as capacity to enter into this contract. The one that particularly amuses me is people such as Cori Bernardi stating that marriage equality will lead to people wanting to marry their labrador. I suppose so..that is if he/she is over the age of 18yrs and is able to provide consent. Under that age, one of course would have to obtain parental consent. Somehow I feel that this might be difficult to obtain.
@Kerri; I haven’t read it but have seen references to it in the past. Abbott’s attitude to the seminary says a lot about him!
We must understand that the ONLY reason Abbott wants a plebiscite or referendum is that HE can CONTROL the question to ensure the outcome he seeks. For him to suggest that WE will get to decide is gross hypocrisy. IF he does NOT get the result he wishes he will ignore the result. There is no way that he will give in on this matter. Bill Shorten is correct you can have Abbott or SSM, you can’t have both.
@Jollyjumbuck:
It’s interesting you have an opinion on homosexuality. Do you have opinions on fruit bats or platypus too? If so, I’d venture you don’t believe that they should not exist, being somehow different or unnatural. The marriage debate is about finally having the grace and maturity to accept that diversity in our world is a very natural phenomenon and just because some mammals fly or lay eggs does not mean all mammals should, or that fruit bats and platypus somehow diminish behaviours we are more comfortable with.
Abbott is just a clown, nostalgic for the last decade he actually understood. There was a Hill’s hoist in the yard and Mum was inside doing the ironing.
And just a pity that the hills hoist wasn’t used effectively at that time!
my wife’s twin was a complete man of the 60s, racist, sexist and homophobic. So bad that I dreaded xmas evening when we were always at his place. Gradually some tolerance has crept into his life. He accepts that gay men have a physiological problem but there are no gay women just ugly ones who cannot get a root?
He has also developed some tolerance of slopes and nignogs but is definitely a boltian for Aborigines and Afro-americans.
His wife and children believe as he does and everyone is happy with their beliefs.
Although the continued talk about gay marriage is worrying for the family because of the examples of old men absolutely happy in their long term partnership with any ‘pillowbiting’ porn in sight. There is no comparable female examples that are obvious in the media. Wonder why???
“Abbott is just a clown, nostalgic for the last decade he actually understood.” That is gold. Hilarious and true, harshmind.
I had a presbyterian/Anglican Christian upbringing but am now an agnostic. I was taught Scripture – meaning study of the Old Testament then of the New – as an academic subject for 5 years in secondary school followed by 2 years studying comparative religion.
I am well aware that all the works included in the Bible were written hundreds of years ago when scientific knowledge was in its infancy.
This is also true of the Q’ran together with Jewish and Indian religious writings.
I have grave doubts about the analytical abilities of anyone who believes it is right to live without question by rules laid down hundreds of years ago which have no validity in terms of today’s knowledge.
Some people are born with or acquire brain damage which means that they have no ability to empathise and can develop into psychopaths or sociopaths. Such people are dangerous because they are unable to understand that they are doing harm. They are incapable of thinking “How would I feel if that happened to me?”
I am reasonably certain that sexuality is determined, sometimes imperfectly, before birth and while a majority may be regarded as definitely male or definitely female, nevertheless this is not true for all nor do members of that majority necessarily have opposite gender preference and quite a few are bisexual. The minority demonstrate a bewildering array of individuals, some in the wrong body, others attracted to their own sex and even some with ambiguous genitalia.
Just as so-called Siamese twins are an accident occurring when two eggs develop while being attached to each other so are the varieties of sexual identities determned in utero.
An examination of history would indicate that marriage was developed so that a man could be certain that the children he was expected to support and to whom his estate would pass were in fact his. He, of course, could make any other woman pregnant and take no responsibility for the resulting child.
In the broader animal kingdom there are some species which bond for life but not uncommonly in other species an alpha male taking over from the previous leader will slaughter the existing young of the females in the pack with all of whom he is then free to mate.
Further examination would reveal that most major Christian festivals coincide with pre-existing pagan festivals linked with the seasons. Additionally that the patriarchal structure of most religious organisations developed to ensure that a few men could have power and control over their community.
Do not forget – we are also an animal species, distinguished by the capacity of our brains which, sadly, are not always used to best advantage.
If you have ever seen the interview with Stephen Fry when he explains why he does not believe there is a God then you have a fair description of how an atheist feels. The only difference between the atheist and the agnostic is that the atheist says ‘there is no god’ while the agnostic says ‘I have yet to find proof that a god exist’.
I believe in doing as you would be done by and that means that I expect everybody to live their lives as they choose as long as they do not do damage to others. If in fact they can positively help other people that is a desirable bonus. If there is any ‘right’ way to live I believe that sums it up.
Rosemary,
An alternative view of Agnosticism is “I cannot ascertain or prove the existence or non-existence of god/s so I leave the question open”.
As an aside, over the years I have encountered a disturbing number of people who harbour serious misapprehensions about the definitions of Atheism (‘disbelief-ism’) and Agnosticism (‘dunno-ism’). I have, on numerous separate occasions, run across the persistent belief that Agnosticism is the outright denial of god and that Atheism is the worship of satan.
My own Agnosticism allows the possibility of divine underpinnings to the cosmos, but I think that it is delusional hubris to think that this (theoretical theological) metaphysical glue is anthropomorphic with external genitalia.
All that exists within eternity and infinity is under the singular oversight of a human-god with a penis? I do not believe that it is so.
What man except Abbott would use his sister to help him get where he is today by lying to her and Australia. Then when it suits him chuck her out and Embarass her by going against what some of us knew He would do never allow Equal Marriage Abbott is one of the Most Dishonest men ever in Australia. Just look at his greatest Mentors Pell and Santamaria goes with out saying…
SMH headline – Brandis slaps down Morrison
“The way you test public opinion on vexed social issues or important social issues is by plebiscite.”
The Parliamentary Education Office says:
“In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has sufficient support from the people to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.
Australia has held two national plebiscites, in 1916 and 1917, relating to the introduction of conscription during the First World War; both were defeated. No specific rules exist about the running of a plebiscite. In the event that another plebiscite was conducted, it may be that the Parliament will decide on the rules of operation’
So in 100 years no government has need to test whether there was sufficient support for any issue that does not affect the constitution.
Brandis is playing the role of a false devil’s advocate in order to reinforce the decision to delay by using the plebiscite option.
The piece is itself seething with hatred. Much more so – infinitely more so – that Abbott’s comments when he said he was threatened. If you look at the article – he is thinking it through, on his feet, – there is a kind of sincerity there, a thought in motion.
I want to move away from the left when it sounds like this – and it does a lot these days.