How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

I will paypal you 50 euro if you can give me a convincing argument against my position.

Ask me bollix.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

I stepped away from this thread because your attitude in your posts was extremely irritating.
However, the argument against your position is that there is zero reason for people to completely hide who they are and take the amount of bullcrap that will be thrown at them. Not enough people will be shocked into changing their vote at the sight of a gay couple that will make a difference. And nobody should have to put up with certain comments under any circumstances.
Yes, the yes side should be encouraging people to vote for them but not at the expense of mental health. There's a balance. I'm genuinely concerned about the no side's approach. What if there's some young teenager who is unsure whether to come out or not? All they're going to see is the slander and the names and the lies and see that there's nothing being done about it. Considering you said you know how people think, have you any idea what that would do to a person's mental health?
Repressing liberalism for the sake of liberalism, is not liberalism.

Okay, never once did I say anything about accepting slander and lies. not once in all of my comments did I even reference that.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

You are being hypocritical. You're ordering people how to approach winning votes whilst doing an awful job of getting people to see your point.

Plenty of people see my point. But more people still will never change their opinion because they're emotionally invested in it.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Okay, never once did I say anything about accepting slander and lies. not once in all of my comments did I even reference that.

Actually, that's exactly what you implied. I even asked you about it and you said yeah. In fact, it's one of the first things you were talking about before the poster showed up

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ask me bollix.

Offer rescinded. You had you chance now off you go.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Neither can you.

point missed. you just called Z a twat for something they didn't do. Kinda like calling marienbad stupid yesterday.


Does it strike you as odd that while you preach your viewpoint about being pleasant to the populace in order that the Yes side win, you are lambasting people left right and centre?

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

Actually, that's exactly what you implied. I even asked you about it and you said yeah. In fact, it's one of the first things you were talking about before the poster showed up

Nope.

Proof?

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Plenty of people see my point. But more people still will never change their opinion because they're emotionally invested in it.

I can see your point too, but I disagree strongly with it and nothing you've said has convinced me you're right.
Exactly. People are emotionally invested in it. It's not just a political campaign when this could actually cause severe damage to people (and no, I'm not talking about the people who may have to witness a gay couple).

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

point missed. you just called Z a twat for something they didn't do. Kinda like calling marienbad stupid yesterday.


Does it strike you as odd that while you preach your viewpoint about being pleasant to the populace in order that the Yes side win, you are lambasting people left right and centre?

It doesn't strike me as one bit odd, because this is boards, not exactly a national newspaper.

I called Z a twat for being disingenuous and quoting one sentence without quoting the other which specifically addresses the counter point he tried to make.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

I can see your point too, but I disagree strongly with it and nothing you've said has convinced me you're right.
Exactly. People are emotionally invested in it. It's not just a political campaign when this could actually cause severe damage to people (and no, I'm not talking about the people who may have to witness a gay couple).

Eh, I don't think publishing a photo of two clean cut men instead of two bohemian hipsters would be damaging to anyone's mental health.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

It doesn't strike me as one bit odd, because this is boards, not exactly a national newspaper.

I called Z a twat for being disingenuous and quoting one sentence without quoting the other which specifically addresses the counter point he tried to make.

So, it isn't a big deal if people aren't minding their Ps and Qs on boards for the good of the yes side. Good to know.

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

You had you chance now off you go.

Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

So, it isn't a big deal if people aren't minding their Ps and Qs on boards for the good of the yes side. Good to know.

Not really no. Besides the relatively low readership people on discussion forums are notoriously rigid in their views.

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

Not since I was in my mother's womb.

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not since I was in my mother's womb.

Ah, fetal alcohol syndrome - sorry, man.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Nope.

Proof?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94292273&postcount=2911

Expressing a political, moral or religious belief is not bullying

They don't want to be outsiders in their own society.

^Here you're even justifying the actions of homophobes (and again, so we're absolutely clear, they do exist)

bb1234567

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Excuse me?

Erase is exactly what it does.
It says silence the queer and conform to hetero-normative conventions so one doesn't scare some ill defined section of society.

Do you know what this dyke says to that? - F OFF!

I am a short haired, tattooed, big boot wearing dyke. I have been a short haired, tattooed, big boot wearing, dyke since the early 1980s. It is who I am as much as make-up wearing, blond highlights, high heeled shoes is part of who my straight sister is and if anyone expects me to change who I am or stay in the background they can uck right off!

I am not like my sister - but I am equal to her and should be treated as such by the State.


You want the queers to pretend to be the 'same' - we are not the 'same' but we are equal and we will not be silenced because our queerness makes some people uncomfortable.

Too many of us died or lived miserable existences trying to be square pegs in society's round hole.

I will not be quiet. I will not conform to make someone else feel more comfortable. Some narrow minded fools whose lives run in circles so small they think they have seen it all never have and never will dictate how I choose to present myself to the world.

I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses or apologies.

I posted this response on tumblr because i love it so much

humanji

MOD: Stop the bickering. If you can't post politely, then don't post at all.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Eh, I don't think publishing a photo of two clean cut men instead of two bohemian hipsters would be damaging to anyone's mental health.

Implying that gay couples are only perfect is damaging. And it would be lying. Surely, if people didn't know what gay looked like then the next time they see a couple who may be bikers and tattooed men like in the poster, it would revert? Normalisation through exposure and that doesn't mean lying to people.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94292273&postcount=2911




^Here you're even justifying the actions of homophobes (and again, so we're absolutely clear, they do exist)

I said "yep pretty much". I was tired of arguing minute points while you distorted my argument so I gave you some slack to let the debate progress.

I also didn't notice that you asked me if gay people should sit apart and pretend they aren't a couple at the time. But that's just another example of distortion since I never said anything about people pretending not to be gay.

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing the other side's POV. The fact that you think there is is pretty dire altogether.

Bannasidhe

K4t wrote: »

Haha sorry if I came across as condescending towards you personally. I was directing my post more at society and those potential swing voters and won't voters who are hard of thinking. And I don't care if that appears condescending. This is god damned Catholic Conservative Ireland, not a Trinity college Dublin social studies class vote. And Walshy93 is acknowledging that too. It does under the law though. And that is what this referendum is about; changing the law. Then you can express anything you like to your heart's content, knowing you are equal under the law.

As a heterosexual man, I am voting mostly for one person in May, and that person is ME. Because I never want there to be a day where I may be unequal under the law, and others might not understand it as so many fail to understand this referendum. So my primary motive for voting YES is myself; my vested interest is in equal rights, my own! And of course I am also voting YES for the people of Ireland and their equal rights, the entire population, gays, straights, YES voters and NO voters.

However, and I am not saying you personally are advocating this position, there is a trend emerging which seeks to homogenise us as if in order to be equal we must be the same - or as alike as makes no difference.

I am not heterosexual. There are aspects of the heterosexual world that are a complete mystery to me. I have zero interest in participating in them or even pretending to be interested.

There is a heterosexual culture but most people are unaware of it because it is the dominant culture - it is not my culture though it surrounds me and at times I have to participate in it, willingly or not.

There is also a 'Queer' world in which I have spent most of my life. Sometimes straight people participate but they are not of it.

It is a rich world of drag, art, fashion, music. It has it's own language. It's has it's own culture.
It sometimes goes mainstream - Freddy Mercury, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Bronski Beat, Scissor Sisters, Rock Hudson, Ellen DeGeneres, Orange is the New Black etc etc etc - but all of these have their genesis in that queer world and are just the tip of the iceberg.

I have the right to live in that world just as much as those who, for example, are immersed in G.A.A are living in their world - their culture.

No one would dare say to those in the G.A.A. world (and it is a whole culture and lifestyle) could you be a bit less.. well.. culchi..because your bogtrotter accents are putting off urban voters and for the love of God leave off the welly boots in the photos.

Those who advocate putting forward 'nice' lesbians and gaymen who look...well...'normal' are asking us to check ourselves to win votes.

Do people not get it? We are sick of checking ourselves.

Vote how your conscience dictates but understand that some of us were queer when it was illegal, queer when Thatcher's England with it's Clause 28 was still safer and more welcoming than our own country, queer when there was hysteria about the 'gay plague' and we are not for conforming to other people's ideas of how we should look, speak, dress now in order to cajole people into doing what is just.

This referendum is about the right of Gay people not to have to check ourselves.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

Implying that gay couples are only perfect is damaging. And it would be lying. Surely, if people didn't know what gay looked like then the next time they see a couple who may be bikers and tattooed men like in the poster, it would revert? Normalisation through exposure and that doesn't mean lying to people.

So you're saying that an image of two clean cut gay men is damaging to the mental health of gay teens? Someone phone Aongus MacGrianna and tell him to pierce that lip or get off the air, the damn traitor!

boobar

I will vote yes, as many others have said I can't see a good reason for voting no.

walshyn93

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This referendum is about the right of Gay people not to have to check ourselves.

No its not. It's about legalising SSM. You can't accuse the No side of distorting the debate when this is the ****e you come out with.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not really no. Besides the relatively low readership people on discussion forums are notoriously rigid in their views.

So if myself and or Bannasidhe choose to express our displeasure at the idea of presenting the acceptable face of gay, what is the problem?

or do these things only apply to us?

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

I said "yep pretty much". I was tired of arguing minute points while you distorted my argument so I gave you some slack to let the debate progress.

I also didn't notice that you asked me if gay people should sit apart and pretend they aren't a couple at the time. But that's just another example of distortion since I never said anything about people pretending not to be gay.

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing the other side's POV. The fact that you think there is is pretty dire altogether.

Like I said at the time, and I'm saying again now, I'm not trying to distort your argument. Please stop accusing me of doing so.
Another example of distortion? That was a post I wrote asking you if this is what you meant because that's how it came across. How on earth is that distortion? You were the one who said yeah.
I never said there was something wrong with seeing the other side?! Where are you getting that from? In fact, if you read the thread, I repeatedly say that I want to hear the other side, in case there is an argument that's well thought out and justified. Repeatedly.
I think I'm gonna go again because I've tried and you're extremely unwilling to help any of us understand you. So much so, that last post was just making stuff up and it's very frustrating.

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

So if myself and or Bannasidhe choose to express our displeasure at the idea of presenting the acceptable face of gay, what is the problem?

or do these things only apply to us?

No. I have never once told you you didn't have a right to express your displeasure.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

So you're saying that an image of two clean cut gay men is damaging to the mental health of gay teens? Someone phone Aongus MacGrianna and tell him to pierce that lip or get off the air, the damn traitor!

I'm saying lying and telling people that two perfect men are what a gay couple looks like is damaging. It's like saying Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are what a straight couple looks like. They aren't what a straight couple looks like. Straight couples come in all shapes and forms, so do gay couples. Pretending they don't is damaging.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

Like I said at the time, and I'm saying again now, I'm not trying to distort your argument. Please stop accusing me of doing so.
Another example of distortion? That was a post I wrote asking you if this is what you meant because that's how it came across. How on earth is that distortion? You were the one who said yeah.
I never said there was something wrong with seeing the other side?! Where are you getting that from? In fact, if you read the thread, I repeatedly say that I want to hear the other side, in case there is an argument that's well thought out and justified. Repeatedly.
I think I'm gonna go again because I've tried and you're extremely unwilling to help any of us understand you. So much so, that last post was just making stuff up and it's very frustrating.

You have so much personally invested in this that I think you'll chase your losses forever if I let you.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

No. I have never once told you you didn't have a right to express your displeasure.

just that it was damaging to the campaign. But when its you, its fine.