Thomas Murphy examines the historical satisfaction rating of Opposition Leaders, and concludes that Tony Abbott is doing pretty well!
Ever since Tony Abbott has been the leader of the opposition, the Labor party has been heavily referring to the polls and pointing out that apparently he has a high disatisfaction rating. Well, if the Labor party took the time to look at the facts (yes, it’s hard to put “the Labor party” and “facts” in the same sentence) they would see that relative to all opposition leaders since 1985, Abbott fairs pretty well.
Since 1985, average Newspoll figures for The Leader of the Opposition:
Average dissatisfied: 40%
Average satisfied: 42%
Average uncommitted: 18%
Latest Newspoll figures
Abbott’s dissatisfaction: 33%
Abbott’s satisfaction: 57%
Uncommitted: 10%
Clearly, on the facts provided above, Tony Abbott is a very liked opposition leader as compared to, let’s say, Kim Beazely in November 2006 when he had a dissatisfied rating of 58%, hardly popular.
On the polls, it’s clear that only Tony Abbott and the Coalition can provide hope, reward and oppurtunity for all Australians with a positive outlook bound to emerge from it.
Thomas Murphy is a 16 year old young Liberal member that has a passion for Politics, and is also an AFL Umpire.
Sorry Tom but you have the satisfaction and disatisfaction ratings around the wrong way.
Posted by: Richo | February 9, 2012 at 01:51 PM
The love child of bronwyn bishop and john Howard is too divisive to have that label Thomas.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 9, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Give Tom a break. Atleast he's put his name to a post which is a lot more than jellyback cowards like you.
Posted by: andy semple | February 9, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Yep, let's give Tom a break. He is only 16 and he is allowed to make few mistakes, e.g. joining the Libs.
At 16 dear Tom, you need to have fire in the belly and not join a conservative party intent on keeping the status-quo.
You need to explore more, learn more, travel more, experience more ... instead you have chosen to cocoon yourself with a party of the ancient past, stuck in old policies and whose only credit is to appeal to the uninformed and gullible populace.
You can change the World going back to the past ... we share the same number when it comes to years but I think I have more fire in my belly than you ever will if at sweet 16 you have already fallen victim of propaganda and populist politics, because that is what a 'satisfaction' rating is. Just remember that great leaders that made a positive difference were not always the most popular ... and very popular leaders (Hitler, Lennin, Marcos, Peron, Mussolini, Gaddafi ... etc etc) were sometime disastrous to the country they led. Don't fall for that old trick son!! Go and live life before nailing your pants to any flagpole.
Posted by: dante | February 10, 2012 at 01:05 PM
OOPs ... read "you cannot change the World going back to the past"... mea culpa
Posted by: dante | February 10, 2012 at 01:07 PM
"Go and live life before nailing your pants to any flagpole."
Sounds advice Dante. Perhaps you could advise your mates in the Labor party of this life lesson. Their "living life" involves working as a union hack, political errand boy/girl before getting the nod into a safe seat and living the rest of your life off the taxpayer.
What an adventurous life they lead.
Posted by: Richo | February 10, 2012 at 02:19 PM
[Thomas Murphy is a 16 year old young Liberal member that has a passion for Politics, and is also an AFL Umpire.]
Don't let the lefty stormtroopers get to you Thomas. Any 16 year old who is passionate about politics, and an AFL Umpire gets a thumbs up tick of approval from me. At least you are not some aimless kid getting into trouble and expanding his waistline stuffing burgers and sitting in front of mindless shoot em up games. Don't let Dante put you off either - you can be anything you want in life, and do it at YOUR pace. There are many years ahead for you to do the things that he suggests. I suggest you read a book on Ben Chiffley's life. The leader that Labor had when it actually stood for something. The Labor of old is not the Labor of today. When Gillard told the Australian people less than 12 months ago that Labor has lost it's way....well, it has more than lost it's way. It's lost the frigging plot!!
The problem with today's young is they think Labor and the Greens are cool, progressive and compassionate - It's only when you get older do you realize what a false house these people live in. The Howard years will go down in history as the most stable period since Menzies. They gave people incentives to better themselves. Howard's aspirational's drove Australia's economy to new levels of excellence, and prosperity - NOW, as a case study, I want you to watch how Gillard and her maniacs dismantle everything he achieved. We can start with the Asylum seeker issue....
Posted by: bluebell | February 10, 2012 at 08:54 PM
I wonder how Howard would have dealt with the gfc. Stimulus or unemployment?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 10, 2012 at 10:50 PM
[I wonder how Howard would have dealt with the gfc. Stimulus or unemployment?]
We probably would have used a measured and well targeted stimulus package that didn't involve giving cheques to dead people, and leaving a trail of bodies implementing the roof batts scheme.
That is the difference between inexperienced PANIC and mature PROFESSIONALISM.
Posted by: bluebell | February 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Howard got through the Asian crisis and dot com crash unscathed. He would probably still have some cash left over from the 2008 GFC to prepare for the coming one
Posted by: Peter | February 10, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Do those downturns compare?
I seem to recall Howard giving plenty of money to bogans to have kids.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM
I seem to recall Howard giving plenty of money to bogans to have kids.
I bet it doesn't match your Dear Leader's illegal immigrant cost blowouts...or all the other FAILED programs that the clueless misfits are RESPONSIBLE for.
Posted by: bluebell | February 11, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Tom….can't you get even your basic facts right….
Latest Newspoll had Abbott's DISSATISFACTION rating at: 57% & SATISFACTION rating at:33%
Clearly on the actual facts provided above Abbott is a very DISLIKED oppositionleader….
Posted by: Mark | February 11, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Abbott is mainly unpopular with young women - and only because he is against abortion, gay marriage ect. Surprise surprise, the man stands for something other than murder on demand, and a sick joke called 'gay marriage'.....what in the hell is that anyway?? This society is rapidly going down like a flushed turd. A decadent amoral cesspool that no child should be exposed to, let alone born into. Civilizations that don't support a moral code and the traditional family unit is a civilization that is doomed. Besides, the West is imploding in slow motion as we speak. Let's hope whatever supersedes us does a better job than we have......however, I have my doubts.
Posted by: bluebell | February 11, 2012 at 11:57 PM
The end of the world is nigh !
Pass me a glass of cool-aid please bluebell.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM
You're right, Abbott is unpopular with young women. Perhaps it's got something to do with the influence that a certain group of elderly virginal men , who wear robes and funny hats AND consider themselves infallible, have on him.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Bluebell: what you call a sick joke,'gay marriage' is siomething you take as a given for yourself. After 26 years of being in a faitfull & monogamous relationship unsanctioned by Church or State, I still am not approved to 'legalise' my relationship. You call this a sick joke. I call it a denial of my rights. You as an Australian have this right. I as an Australian do not have this right. Why? Does my true and tried love not count the same as your? Why? But I will not laugh at this sick joke. My relationship will taunt your 'morals' and call into question your values. What sort of values are they when they do not support equality before the law, but prefer discrimination? Can you answer this?
Posted by: Robert Roestenburg | February 12, 2012 at 12:08 PM
he already said he would have done something like suspend payroll tax.Reading further he wouldn't have stopped there but reduced taxes/burdens on companies as long as it took. Lowering taxes and burdens on business's has as good affect as throwing money around to create jobs-the difference is afterwards there is still money in the bank and you haven't got to borrow yourself out of trouble. Nice try BS but once again you don't have clue.
Posted by: kraka | February 12, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Robert, I support your right to be gay free from discrimination. If you could guarantee me that once given the right to marry it would stop there I would support that as well. However we all know that would not be the then end of it. You would then ask for the right to adopt children and raise them with two parents of the same sex-I don't support that. You would then want family payments supported by taxpayers-what happens in a divorce-in the case of men there is no woman to favour as currently happens-who gets the kid? etc. The law of unintended consequences says that staus quo is the devil you know-and as the family law act and no fault divorce has shown-the unintended consequences are all bad.You have the right to be gay,you have a myriad of other rights pertaining to recognition of that fact and monetary regulations the same as the millenium long normal heterosexual relationships get-why can't you just be happy that you are allowed to be gay and no-one holds that against you-unless of course you are living in a muslim extremist country-then you have to hide it.If it takes marriage for you to be happy to be gay then perhaps you should consider changing.
Posted by: kraka | February 12, 2012 at 02:50 PM
With all these purported tax reductions (we already pay less tax than we did under howard) how will he achieve a surplus? Oh, that's right, sack thousands of public servants. I bet you're not a public servant kraka.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 12, 2012 at 03:02 PM
er, um kraka, sitting down ?
Gay people are already raising children.
And surely you're not suggesting we rescind the current divorce laws.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 12, 2012 at 03:07 PM
How the Gay Activists are taking away YOUR rights.
Coming to an Australian school near you..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHWBWSaW-4&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: bluebell | February 12, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Coming to Australian cities and towns near you, and also how the militant homosexual movement are using secular laws to force Churches to bend to their will.
Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.
Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense. What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can’t fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions — such as loss of tax benefits — being imposed on churches.
Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.
The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men’s Christian association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont. Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.
Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ”gravely immoral.”
Even here in San Diego, after the legalization of same-sex marriages, the San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith allowed clerks who had strong moral objections to same-sex marriages to remove themselves from processing the marriages.
That didn’t sit to well with San Francisco’s Mayor Newsome. He responded by saying:
"If you don’t want to provide a marriage certificate and you’ve got a job that does that, then you should think twice about why you got the job in the first place and maybe you should get a new job. Talk about a slippery slope, Mr. County Clerk down in San Diego.” –San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in a Reuters interview.
The San Diego employees were later reassigned other duties as no employee was allowed to perform only heterosexual marriages. (See LA Times: Clerk reassigns workers who object to gay marriage)
Times are changing as a result of gay marriages. Paranoia? Not in the least bit as Christians are not free to continue life as is – in many areas of their lives. And the list will continue to grow as gay marriages are made more acceptable.
Posted by: bluebell | February 12, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Gee whizz Don't mind a kid having a go. But to base his whole argument on erroneous figures makes any conclusions not just false but ludicrously so.
Even his figures for the latest Newspoll are incorrect. Yet he is claiming them as "facts"
Newspoll (the first of 2012) results were published on January 31:
TONY ABBOTT
Disatisfaction: 55%
Satisfaction: 32%
Perhaps Menzies House should vet submitted articles before publishing them to make sure there are no obvious untruths and, in this case especially, to make sure a young person who is interested in politics isn't seen to be a fool.
Perhaps Tom should post a correction as an update. Although he wouldn't possibly be able to sustain the same argument.
And, who knows, the next Newspoll (due tonight or tomorrow)may support his thesis.
As it stands, though, it is a BIG FAIL.
Posted by: Kerry | February 13, 2012 at 01:06 PM
they aren't allowed to adopt kids BS. And lets wait a generation to see the average state of those kids before we say it is a good thing shall we. Like I said-no fault divorce was considered a good idea and now we know it has been a disaster for the family unit-especially the kids.
Posted by: kraka | February 13, 2012 at 02:22 PM
So what type of divorce would you endorse?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 02:53 PM
A divorce where the kids come first, second and last would be nice. Kraka is right, no fault divorces have created more problems than they have solved, and the meat in the unholy sandwich are the innocent kids. Judges should focus on why the marriage has failed, and identify the culprit who was the worst offender in making it fail. Infidelity, drug/alcohol abuse/gambling and physical violence all play a part in marriage brake down. Keeping secrets is also another reason why marriages fall apart.
I know of one such marriage where a lie utterly destroyed not only the marriage, but devastated the children as well. He was a community leader married for 25 years with 5 children.....then he announced he was gay and ran off with his lover. Nice, huh?
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Wee 1stly i wouldn't like to see any divorce but the world isn't perfect so I accept that divorce can and should be a last resort (except where proven violence is at stake)No matter the reasons in any divorce the kids come first. One of the main problems with your view of the world is that the blame always lays elsewhere-there is no responsibility to the individual-apparently government can and should fix all ails. Exept of course where idealology trumps everything else-like no fault divorce except in most cases there is fault and if the kids were to come first in both the eyes of both parents and the eyes of the family law court (which it demonstrably does not)then there would be less divorce and less youth problems. Its the unintended consequences of the left that cause the most problems.
As for your other post-damn straight I would slash the public service-especially the 50% of them who don't do anything. You only have to go into any government building full of public servants to see how many of them are doing Sweet FA. I would then use the money saved to offer them training to get a real job in the real world and help ease the employment problem in mining (can't get employees-too many public servants bludging off the taxpayers teat)or don't want to leave Geelong so ask other taxpayers to subsidize their jobs because they don't want to move to WA and QLD. The irony is these same bludging union sooks then want to whinge about "our" minerals-get over yourselves ya pansies-they are WA and QLD's minerals-read the ocnstitution-you wanna share in them-quit you taxpayer subsidized job and move there. I would also pretty well eliminate arts funding-what a waste of money-never has so much money been blown on so little talent.We could save billions upon billions by stopping funding to green idealology that not only costs jobs-won't stop any alledged warming, won't help the environment but it will make the banks and Tim Flannery richer-thanks to rubes like you. BS doesn't stand for budgie smuggler either.
Posted by: kraka | February 13, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Hmmm. Sounds like they fail because we're human.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 06:23 PM
Great response Kraka - and to further that we could save a bundle by making men cough up to support the babies they father. I would love to know the cost of the national single mothers welfare bill. In the town I live in their is a woman with 6 kids to 6 different fathers and WE are paying big time....including rental assistance. Sure, they are made to look for work once their youngest starts school...but there is a way around that, just have another baby!
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 06:24 PM
So no subsidies for any industry kraka?
An end to agrarian socialism?
Would the nats agree? Makes me wonder if the liberal party could go it alone?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Sounds like a life of luxury to me bluebell.
Seriously, now single mothers are coping a serve?
Do you do programming for "a current affair"?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 06:43 PM
Parents should be made responsible for the children they bear...after all countless millions do, what makes these people any different??? Men who father these babies should be made to support their offspring, not governments who rely on monies from their constituents to run the country.
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 06:49 PM
Btw BB - you can do very well as a single mother with multiple children. They get access to more than just a pension. They get the Health Care Card for starters, plus rent assistance, and many milk the charities very successfully as well. Grocery and electricity vouchers (but the charities are starting to wake up to the scams and make extra checks as to their validity) I hear of single mothers smoking, drinking and also playing pokies.....yeah, they are doing it real tough. The one thing they can always rely on, and that is dumb lefty sheets like you falling for a good sob story.
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Hmmm. Okay, how about no breeding allowed until one has a licence to breed.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 07:13 PM
That should read Btw BS - but never mind.
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 07:13 PM
You and I both know, bluebell, that bringing up children is bloody hard work (very rewarding too) even with enough money.
Any girl that thinks otherwise is naive.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 07:18 PM
[Hmmm. Okay, how about no breeding allowed until one has a licence to breed. ]
Not a bad idea given some of the feral parents out there - you only have to read some of the DOCS files to see how little protection these poor kids actually get from their moronic parents. There are some good points about adoption - many where taken my parents who gave them a good life. Obviously the state now thinks it is better to let them stay with feral parents who do them immense damage. If you got to read DOCS cases it would make you weep. That is why DOCS has such a high turnover rate....the staff cannot cope with the tragic cases that come across their desks.
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Kraka suggests it's an acronym for something other than budgie smuggler. Hmmm. Any ideas ?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 07:22 PM
[You and I both know, bluebell, that bringing up children is bloody hard work (very rewarding too) even with enough money.
Any girl that thinks otherwise is naive]
Unfortunately a lot do - and that is why so many deliberately get pregnant. Newstart is nigh on impossible to live on, that is why so many young girls fall pregnant. They see it as a way of getting more money and allowances. Sad but true. The Bogan boyfriends couldn't give a rats....they know the chances of them being made to fork out are pretty slim. If you don't believe me, look at the rates for recovering monies from these prats.
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 07:26 PM
I'm not blind bluebell. I do see what you're talking about. It's a hard one. More early education on the subject perhaps?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | February 13, 2012 at 07:31 PM
There used to be a parenting course during my time at school called Mothercraft. A course run in the 1960/70's. It was a 10 week course teaching girls how to look after a baby up until toddler stage. The course was run by nurse educators. The course was brilliant because it taught everything from feeding, bathing, clothing, sleep problems, and potential health issues. So when a girl did eventually have a baby she was prepared and confident when it arrived. This valuable course was disbanded by government - not sure which one did it. This is just another case of being short sighted and bloody minded over cost cutting.
While this course was being run, the boys were hauled off to learn about responsible fatherhood....at least they were in my school. These courses need to be bought back so that young adults leaving the High School system know the skills/responsibilities required for future parenting. There are too many kids leaving school with an appalling attitude to sex and relationships. It's time the government INVESTED in quality programs in all our schools. The benefits would save governments a lot of money down the track. Spend a penny to save the pounds.....but that would require an intelligent government, and at present we don't have one.
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 08:12 PM
This has been extracted from a 1936 newspaper
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11027952
MOTHERCRAFT IN
SCHOOLS
TO THE EDITOR
Sir,-The report presented to the City Council by Dr. Helen Kincaid concerning the malnutrition of so many Infants makes sad reading, and her suggestion that residential creches should be established to admit the worst cases is worthy of the council's consideration. Desirable as this undoubtedly is, it does not get to the root of the trouble. This society has many tragic cases of neglect brought to its notice. Poverty and un-employment may be unavoidable, but many troubles in the family are too often caused by the crass ignorance and inefficiency of the mothers. Babies are born into dreadful homes, and how they survive is a miracle. One cannot blame their mothers entirely. Some of them come from homes probably equally filthy, and from mothers equally inefficient. At the age of 14 they go to work In a factory, which they leave only to get married, and so the vicious circle goes on, and will go on until mothercraft and domestic science are made compulsory in our schools. Teach the girls of Australia the use of soap and water, how to cook a meal, and attend to a baby. We would then find fewer men deserting their families and fewer children dependent upon the State. -
Yours, Sec., MIMA ANDREW,
President, Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children.
I came across this lovely site where a lady is asking the same question I am........where are the Mothercraft lessons for the young ladies in our schools today????
http://atrayofbliss.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/thoughts-for-tuesdaywhatever-happened.html
Posted by: bluebell | February 13, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Bluebell, BS is a troll-he has no relevant ideas about the future and has been reduced to baiting due to his side of politics being such useless twats-ignore him.
Posted by: kraka | February 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Dear Kraka. Thank you for your support. I do question why you condescent to me instead of facing me on a level playing field. Don't you have a right to adopt and raise children? As a tax payer why should I not apply for payments that I pay for in my taxes the same as you would? In divorce cases the court should judge what is in the best interest of the child, irrespective of gender. Thank you for allowing me to be gay. Similarly you should be gratefull that I allow you to be straight. I am pondering what you mean by considering changing? Changing into what? You don't still believe that being gay or straight is a choice? How old were you when you chose to be straight. Think more deeply!
Posted by: Robert Roestenburg | February 14, 2012 at 02:13 PM
I agree with you that homosexuality is not a chosen thing in the vast majority, but in some cases it is deliberately chosen as a lifestyle, especially with the young today. They see it as attractive (something the gay activists deliberately promote)and something to explore and experiment with. They are in fact encouraged to do this by gay groups on university campus's and even high schools. My daughters Orientation day bag at University was filled with gay literature, contact groups and services, ect. The literature was filled with information about having different sexual 'experiences'. Nothing wrong with being gay, promoting it as quite normal.
And you wonder why you have hostile parents like me denigrating gay rights....when you start impinging on my rights as a parent you deserve everything you get.
Posted by: bluebell | February 14, 2012 at 03:39 PM
There is nothing wrong with being gay, and it is quite normal. Since when do parents have a "right" to control the material their university-age children are exposed to?
Posted by: liberal elitist | February 14, 2012 at 03:53 PM
WTF???? Your reply is a rant. I do have the right to adopt children though I don't need to because I am in a relationship that allows me to have my own-the way nature intended. I know in most cases you are born gay-my cousin was and we knew it when he was about 6. He does not however try to ram it down our throats. You don't allow me to be straight no more than I allow you to be gay- i said I support your right to be gay-big difference and if you weren't so blinded by idealology you would have read the difference.As for divorces you ask me to think more deeply-well I'll ask you to think deeply-in the case that you are allowed to adopt kids and there is a divorce-are you the male or female parent???? Irrespective of gender you say-how is a judge to choose between two men or two women????whether you want to admit it or not (and you won't)-any kids raised by two idealogical gays will be pariahs among other kids and teased far more than other kids from normal two parent families-thats what kids do-you'd know that if you thought as deeply about kids rights as you do about your own.
And finally-as you have admitted-this is not about being able to say you are married,it won't end there and it will never be enough. It's about time you realized that being gay means you are different-you are so proud to be gay but you don't want to accept the limitations that being gay brings-IE you cant procreate kids via natural means and you can never offer kids the mother/father bond limited to heterosexual couples. Deal with it-you obviously have more problems with your own sexualtity than I have.
Posted by: kraka | February 14, 2012 at 03:57 PM
While I was paying her fees, living expenses, books and clothing I have every right.....especially when she wasn't even 18, and the same goes for High School. What right do gay activists have in enforcing their views through the education system. Targeting kindergarten kids with gay literature is pure EVIL.
Oh and btw - homosexuality is not normal. Normal is what the majority do. Homosexuality is outside the norm. Deal with it.
Posted by: bluebell | February 14, 2012 at 04:16 PM
You are joking aren't you? Parents should "rightly" be able to expect that their university aged children can attended publicly funded taxpayer institutions without having some minority cause de jour being rammed down their throats. As gays will tell you, they are born that way because of an abnormality. Being born gay is not normal-if fact it is not the norm. I think you should just call yourself elitist
Posted by: kraka | February 14, 2012 at 04:16 PM
in the case that you are allowed to adopt kids and there is a divorce-are you the male or female parent???? Irrespective of gender you say-how is a judge to choose between two men or two women????
Same-sex couples are already allowed to adopt kids. Judges already follow a gender-neutral process for making parenting orders in the child's best interest; here's an example.
any kids raised by two idealogical gays will be pariahs among other kids and teased far more than other kids from normal two parent families-thats what kids do
I went to school with kids who were raised by same-sex couples. Nobody cared. Have you noticed that young people are much more likely to favour same-sex marriage than older generations?
What right do gay activists have in enforcing their views through the education system
The same rights that any other political group has — and there are generally a variety campaigning on university campuses.
Normal is what the majority do. Homosexuality is outside the norm.
If that's the case, I suppose homosexuality falls into the same category as deviant activities like going to church, commenting on political blogs, riding a bicycle, playing the guitar...
Posted by: liberal elitist | February 14, 2012 at 06:04 PM