A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 08:48PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, actually

But have a think about modern Ireland, what way would the media push go? What demographics would be stirred to vote? I think you might be in for the surprise actually, at any rate negativity does nobody any good, Is féidir linn and all that jazz.

Tell me your joking! Demographics did Sean Gallagher no good at all when the professional mud slinging kicked off.
All that has to be done is the creation of doubt in the public's mind.
The majority are straight so why would they vote for this if they have even the smallest doubt about it.
You think the gay community are the only ones that can ham together "scientific" studies supporting their cause????
The "if in doubt, leave it out" vote would win the day

marienbad · 31-10-2011 09:00PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, actually

But have a think about modern Ireland, what way would the media push go? What demographics would be stirred to vote? I think you might be in for the surprise actually, at any rate negativity does nobody any good, Is féidir linn and all that jazz.

I hope you are correct but I fear not, people are essentially fairminded and even more so when it costs them nothing. But once this campaign starts all that will go out the window and people will become convinced they have something to lose after all or that they don't understand and so go for the safe option and vote no.

The battle ground will not be on the issue of marriage but on children,and every grotesque argument will be wheeled out . On top of that funds flowing in from all over on one side and no political party willing to nail its colours to the mast on the other. And if the arguments are expressed somewhat similarly to some on this thread it will be made all the easier to vote no.

No being in the right was never enough to change anything , sadly as recent history has shown it is not even necessary.

Plautus · 31-10-2011 09:07PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I don't agree that it is a good response at all. It reeks of the same tired demands. This part really sticks out for me:
"But let me clear about something – this is not Eamon Delaney’s Ireland. This is my Ireland. His time has passed, and if he wishes to avail of the freedoms that living in a truly open society has afforded him then it is time he understood that those freedoms extend to people beyond the quite literal Pale of straight white men."

His Ireland is one where the "demands" of the LGBT community require a constitutional amendment if the extra rights demanded are to be extended. I say this because the courts are simply not going to deliver fundamental changes in interpretation. They are playing it safe and only a referendum will decide it - I agree with that.
The real-politic of this issue will be decided in the court of public opinion. The freedoms that the blogger asserts for himself do not extend to gay marriage at present - that is his Ireland. Want to change it - start a mature politicial debate in the mainstream!

I agree that the courts are extremely reticent on this issue, and that the blogger is confusing aspiration with reality a tad, but the blogger's demands are hardly 'tired' - they're the kind of things I'd like to see happen in my life time and they're not half as boring as Delaney's re-heated talking points and 'what the bloke down the pub said.'

For that matter, it's a touch implausible that Delaney was watching a Frontline episode on gay marriage at full volume in a pub filled with auld' fellas on one night in May (when it was broadcast).

You can understand why these things generate an emotional response though, right? That's what is so cynical about the Sindo - they know that and dictate this type of opinion piece for that exact reason.

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:07PM

marienbad wrote: »

I hope you are correct but I fear not, people are essentially fairminded and even more so when it costs them nothing. But once this campaign starts all that will go out the window and people will become convinced they have someting to lose after all or that they don't understand and so go for the safe option and vote no.

The battle ground will not be on the issue marriage but on children,and every grotesque argument will be wheeled out . On top of that funds flowing in from all over on one side and no political party willing to nail its colours to the mast on the other. And if the arguments are expressed somewhat similarly to some on this thread it will be made all the easier to vote no.

No being in the right was never enough to change anything , sadly as recent history has shown it is not even necessary.

I am starting to think that your obvious political maturity is the exception rather than the rule. What a pity that other posters get so emotional on this issue and let their hearts overrule their brains

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 09:10PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

Tell me your joking! Demographics did Sean Gallagher no good at all when the professional mud slinging kicked off.
All that has to be done is the creation of doubt in the public's mind.
The majority are straight so why would they vote for this if they have even the smallest doubt about it.
You think the gay community are the only ones that can ham together "scientific" studies supporting their cause????
The "if in doubt, leave it out" vote would win the day

Sean Gallagher had a brief high based on nothing more than political spin, the issue of gay marriage is a highly debated topic of which bloody well everyone has a solid opinion, they are not comparable, what do "scientific" studies have to do with anything, the only people they will resonate with are those who would never vote yes anyway, now scientific study, as in the real deal, that is all on our side.

So you want to talk about the "If in doubt, leave it out" vote eh? Referendum on judges pay anyone? F all people who voted yes had a clue what that was about beyond "all dem judges get too much monies, dey should havta be like everyone else", Why is this? Because until the last week or so that was the issue in mainstream media, now I ask again, what will be the position of mainstream media on gay marriage? What was the overall mood with regard civil partnership?

The majority, without pressured influence, are for gay marriage, I believe given the information they are most likely to receive from our invariably liberal mainstream media, the % following of political parties who would call for a yes vote, and the impression given by various sources is that the more extreme social left outweighs its opposite, that insisting the people would say no to civil marriage for gay couples is needlessly pessimistic.

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:13PM

Plautus wrote: »

You can understand why these things generate an emotional response though, right? That's what is so cynical about the Sindo - they know that and dictate this type of opinion piece for that exact reason.

Yes I think you have hit the nail on the head. Sindo love stirring the poo on issues like this. I dont think that mature political debate will take place on teh Sindo. The frontline or Prime Time though would do a good job in my opinion

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 09:18PM

marienbad wrote: »

The battle ground will not be on the issue of marriage but on children,and every grotesque argument will be wheeled out . On top of that funds flowing in from all over on one side and no political party willing to nail its colours to the mast on the other. And if the arguments are expressed somewhat similarly to some on this thread it will be made all the easier to vote no.

On the children arguments, that all depends upon how those arguments are presented, not upon the arguments themselves, and I put to you that they will, more than likely, be presented as little more than crazy ramblings.

As for political parties getting behind it, firstly the government will regardless of the referendum as a no vote will be taken as a failure on the part of the government, secondly political parties already have.

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I am starting to think that your obvious political maturity is the exception rather than the rule. What a pity that other posters get so emotional on this issue and let their hearts overrule their brains

Clarify please, are you reading disagreement with your world view as immaturity?

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:18PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sean Gallagher had a brief high based on nothing more than political spin, the issue of gay marriage is a highly debated topic of which bloody well everyone has a solid opinion, they are not comparable, what do "scientific" studies have to do with anything, the only people they will resonate with are those who would never vote yes anyway, now scientific study, as in the real deal, that is all on our side.

So you want to talk about the "If in doubt, leave it out" vote eh? Referendum on judges pay anyone? F all people who voted yes had a clue what that was about beyond "all dem judges get too much monies, dey should havta be like everyone else", Why is this? Because until the last week or so that was the issue in mainstream media, now I ask again, what will be the position of mainstream media on gay marriage? What was the overall mood with regard civil partnership?

The majority, without pressured influence, are for gay marriage, I believe given the information they are most likely to receive from our invariably liberal mainstream media, the % following of political parties who would call for a yes vote, and the impression given by various sources is that the more extreme social left outweighs its opposite, that insisting the people would say no to civil marriage for gay couples is needlessly pessimistic.

I doubt any mainstream party would deliberately alienate the conservative electorate by openly advocating a yes vote!

The peole voted yes for judges pay because they wanted to "stick it" to a social elite in a time of austerity. It is wasy to rationalise a yes vote by thinking "this is saving me money". No such motivation or rationalisation on gay marriage!

I would welcome a referendum but doubt very much that a yes vote would prevail!

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:22PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Clarify please, are you reading disagreement with your world view as immaturity?

No

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:23PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

As for political parties getting behind it, firstly the government will regardless of the referendum as a no vote will be taken as a failure on the part of the government, secondly political parties already have.
?

Which parties?

Meesared · 31-10-2011 09:29PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

Which parties?

Labour and Sinn Fein AFAIK

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 09:30PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I doubt any mainstream party would deliberately alienate the conservative electorate by openly advocating a yes vote!

As I have already said the governmental party/parties will, sinn fein and the greens have supported full marriage equality since 07, labour do currently, as do the youth wings of pretty much all the parties I believe, again, you are being needlessly pessimistic.

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

The peole voted yes for judges pay because they wanted to "stick it" to a social elite in a time of austerity. It is wasy to rationalise a yes vote by thinking "this is saving me money". No such motivation or rationalisation on gay marriage!

There is actually, "stick it to the church" in the wake of all the revelations, but we won't talk about that, not good for the aul "agenda"

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I would welcome a referendum but doubt very much that a yes vote would prevail!

Is féidir linn goddammit!

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:31PM

Meesared wrote: »

Labour and Sinn Fein AFAIK

Well if Labour are in favour then problem solved. They are in government and can get a referendum called. Looks like the public will get their say on this soon enough so!

marienbad · 31-10-2011 09:38PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sean Gallagher had a brief high based on nothing more than political spin, the issue of gay marriage is a highly debated topic of which bloody well everyone has a solid opinion, they are not comparable, what do "scientific" studies have to do with anything, the only people they will resonate with are those who would never vote yes anyway, now scientific study, as in the real deal, that is all on our side.

So you want to talk about the "If in doubt, leave it out" vote eh? Referendum on judges pay anyone? F all people who voted yes had a clue what that was about beyond "all dem judges get too much monies, dey should havta be like everyone else", Why is this? Because until the last week or so that was the issue in mainstream media, now I ask again, what will be the position of mainstream media on gay marriage? What was the overall mood with regard civil partnership?

The majority, without pressured influence, are for gay marriage, I believe given the information they are most likely to receive from our invariably liberal mainstream media, the % following of political parties who would call for a yes vote, and the impression given by various sources is that the more extreme social left outweighs its opposite, that insisting the people would say no to civil marriage for gay couples is needlessly pessimistic.

you are looking at the wrong referenda wonderfulname, sure giving the judges a black-eye was a no brainer. But it is the inquiries one that should interest us. Here was an issue -political corruption & croneyism- crying out for a speedy remedy - Dail inquires, and it failed and it did so in this political climate . Why ? The proponents did'nt fight for it and the opponents sowed the seeds of doubt. That is all that is required , the opponent did'nt even have to propose an alternative - just raise the spectre on the state intruding into everyones lives without any safeguard.

Now to a referendum on ''gay marriage'' ( an insulting term which has already framed the debate before we are even out of the blocks) already has an inbuilt default mechanism ( civil partnership) to allow people feel ok with voting no. And by the time the no side is finished the debate will have incorporated every accusation you can imagine.

And this referendum ( provided the wording can be agreed) will be launched and left there like an orphaned child to fend for itself and hoping the essential rightness of the case will shine through.

Of course it depends on your view of what makes us - the battles fought or the battles won. Personally I am tired of losing.

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 09:39PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

Well if Labour are in favour then problem solved. They are in government...

As a minority, they won't get it called, at least not soon.

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:43PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

As a minority, they won't get it called, at least not soon.

why not? if the majority of the public are in favour then why would they hold off. Is there some drawback to such a referendum?

marienbad · 31-10-2011 09:46PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

As a minority, they won't get it called, at least not soon.

I would say that those opposed would love a referendum and the sooner the better. Their biggest fear is the courts or Europe achieving it.

glic71rods46t0 · 31-10-2011 09:51PM

marienbad wrote: »

I would say that those opposed would love a referendum and the sooner the better. Their biggest fear is the courts or Europe achieving it.

The Irish courts are playing it safe and will let the electorate decide.
Europe has already made it clear that it wont impose something on a member state.
Referendum is the best way to go. The people should decide and their decision should be respected whateve it is. I know I will accept the will of the people whether I agree with the outcome or not.
I wonder will generalised accusations of bigotry and small mindedness win over the electorate? Or will people decide that CP goes far enough?

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 10:03PM

marienbad wrote: »

you are looking at the wrong referenda wonderfulname, sure giving the judges a black-eye was a no brainer. But it is the inquiries one that should interest us. Here was an issue -political corruption & croneyism- crying out for a speedy remedy - Dail inquires, and it failed and it did so in this political climate . Why ? The proponents did'nt fight for it and the opponents sowed the seeds of doubt. That is all that is required , the opponent did'nt even have to propose an alternative - just raise the spectre on the state intruding into everyones lives without any safeguard.

It failed because it was incredibly poorly written with very questionable content which would be open to abuse, Judges Pay was not a no brainer, it was presented as one, it too is poorly worded and open to abuse. That is why I chose it as an example, there was a reason there for people to vote against it, media presentation ensured that the minority picked up on that.

marienbad wrote: »

Now to a referendum on ''gay marriage'' ( an insulting term which has already framed the debate before we are even out of the blocks)

You mean my wording, which I chose to use on an LGBT forum, not with the general public

marienbad wrote: »

already has an inbuilt default mechanism ( civil partnership) to allow people feel ok with voting no.

You mean an inbuilt defence system to make people wonder why they ever had a problem with same sex unions being endorsed by the state in the first place! (See, depends how it's framed, and I have definitely heard it framed like that by yer one on midweek, the media will be biased towards the yes side no doubt about it)

marienbad wrote: »

And by the time the no side is finished the debate will have incorporated every accusation you can imagine.

But how will they be presented? Dana incorporated every accusation you can imagine into her presidential campaign, and Mitchell attempted same, Did this benefit them do you think? Or did it just make the other choices look better by comparison?

marienbad wrote: »

Of course it depends on your view of what makes us - the battles fought or the battles won. Personally I am tired of losing.

Sad state to be in really, preferring not to try than to fail.

wonderfulname · 31-10-2011 10:07PM

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I wonder will generalised accusations of bigotry and small mindedness win over the electorate? Or will people decide that CP goes far enough?

I would say the no vote would be framed as bigoted and that that would go a long way towards upping the yes votes. I don't think people will see CP as going far enough, however I can see a large minority thinking one is too far and the other not far enough.

apache · 31-10-2011 10:22PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Sean Gallagher had a brief high based on nothing more than political spin, the issue of gay marriage is a highly debated topic of which bloody well everyone has a solid opinion, they are not comparable, what do "scientific" studies have to do with anything, the only people they will resonate with are those who would never vote yes anyway, now scientific study, as in the real deal, that is all on our side.

So you want to talk about the "If in doubt, leave it out" vote eh? Referendum on judges pay anyone? F all people who voted yes had a clue what that was about beyond "all dem judges get too much monies, dey should havta be like everyone else", Why is this? Because until the last week or so that was the issue in mainstream media, now I ask again, what will be the position of mainstream media on gay marriage? What was the overall mood with regard civil partnership?

you know what? you remind me of myself when i was in college with no reality of the real world. you seem to disregard peoples views at the drop of a hat. relying on scientific research etc. i've seen you quoting lots of "statistics" here. they mean nothing to me and don't represent me.

fyi re the judges pay (probably offtopic but you brought it up) you seem to not give people the benefit of the doubt. you bring up judges pay. i voted yes. i'm not ignorent. i see how you worded it with your poor broken dublin accent. i work with them every day. so just disregard peoples viewpoints because of course you are always right!

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 10:27PM

What people are failing to realise too is that this is our safe space, and you're invading it. While outside of here we may have more of a duty to put on a nicer face, when you have to put up with constant abusive or uneducated remarks with regards your sexuality it can be very difficult to keep your sanity. When people judge those of us who get impatient, they refuse to realise that they probably have no equivalent situation. When gay people post in their forum about an article that's quite blatantly attacking them and painting them as promiscuous and deviant, nobody is under obligation to be nice to you when you support or excuse it.

Even so - it's not our duty to educate other people. Just because we were born different doesn't necessarily mean we all make good activists. Some of us are just trying to get by and a lot of us are just depressed and what passes for an "argument" these days.

Plautus · 31-10-2011 10:33PM

you know what? you remind me of myself when i was in college with no reality of the real world. you seem to disregard peoples views at the drop of a hat. relying on scientific research etc. i've seen you quoting lots of "statistics" here. they mean nothing to me and don't represent me.

I don't know quite what you're getting at here. After you left college and entered the 'real world' you let statistics and science (or any other research methodology) take a back seat?

It's a bit unfortunate if 'maturity' means you stop relying on data to substantiate your opinions. I would call that a more genuine case of disengagement with reality. I may have misunderstood you, though.

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 10:33PM

apache wrote: »

are you actually for real with that response to my post?
i am an ally to who? i have my own set of ideas and opinions. i'm not a sheep! i am not selling out!

your post is all about what is wrong with this debate.
and chicken i am far from privileged! i guarantee you i have experienced more homophobia than you and come from a working class background.
oh god well done you have actually proved my point. i agreed with the author because of this reponse. that is what i agree with.

sure you thought i was straight a few posts back!

i am also coming from a journalistic point of view. opinion pieces are important. i used to be one. the day when we have to censor our point of opinions will be a sad one.

Have you read anything I said? Poor people will regularly vote against their interest because those of privilege spread an ideology that allows them to defend it. This is why right wing libertarianism is currently so popular as those of privilege feel under threat.

Even if you are working class, there are still privileges you have over others. If you are a working class homosexual, you are still more privileged in many ways than the average transsexuals.

Again you can't play "snap" with privilege like this. It's not a 1D scale either. People should just realise that if they are privileged in a way others are not, they need to show sensitivity in this area. One of the big problem with those arguing against LGBT issues in this thread and most threads like this, is that they do not. And that is when their privilege becomes grating, or even sickening in some cases.

apache · 31-10-2011 10:38PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

What people are failing to realise too is that this is our safe space, and you're invading it. While outside of here we may have more of a duty to put on a nicer face, when you have to put up with constant abusive or uneducated remarks with regards your sexuality it can be very difficult to keep your sanity. When people judge those of us who get impatient, they refuse to realise that they probably have no equivalent situation. When gay people post in their forum about an article that's quite blatantly attacking them and painting them as promiscuous and deviant, nobody is under obligation to be nice to you when you support or excuse it.

Even so - it's not our duty to educate other people. Just because we were born different doesn't necessarily mean we all make good activists. Some of us are just trying to get by and a lot of us are just depressed and what passes for an "argument" these days.

our safe space? i know not of a safe space! i for one am glad that there were a few straight peoples responses here and a few gay people with an open mind. its not about invading our space. if you feel that way best bury your head in the sand.
these are the questions you will be asked on a daily basis (for the chosen few). no point in having a hissy fit or getting depressed. deal with it. that is the reality. unless you live in a bubble :eek:

apache · 31-10-2011 10:42PM

Plautus wrote: »

I don't know quite what you're getting at here. After you left college and entered the 'real world' you let statistics and science (or any other research methodology) take a back seat?

It's a bit unfortunate if 'maturity' means you stop relying on data to substantiate your opinions. I would call that a more genuine case of disengagement with reality. I may have misunderstood you, though.

oh trust me i'm more in touch with reality than i ever was in college. i have my own opinion rather than singing hymns to a blanket statement just because i should.

Plautus · 31-10-2011 10:43PM

What questions are you referring to apache that we are confronted with everyday? If Eamon Delaney's opinion was something people confronted me with on a daily basis, I'd really despair. It's a baiting article that comes from the Sindo. For that reason I suss it as disingenuous and, apart from that, it's an ignorant article.

oh trust me i'm more in touch with reality than i ever was in college. i have my own opinion rather than singing hymns to a blanket statement just because i should.

Well, you just criticised someone for relying on scientific studies. Are you more in touch with 'gut feeling' nowadays?

CrystalLettuce · 31-10-2011 10:44PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Oh dear lord, you respect people according to how knowledgeable they are on one viewpoint of one issue of mediocre importance? Lets say privilege can be measured in %, with the straight son of a fortune 500 CEO at 100%, you are at 99.9%, there are people you could place in single digits, there are people worse off than Irish livestock, you are "desperately" nothing.

Privilege cannot be measured in %. Way to miss the point so hard foggy_lad liked your post.

Whatever the bit in bold is, I'm pretty sure it's not me... boy you guys must be pretty privileged to be able to make checklists...

This is a really stupid remark. Oh no, we have computers and pens and papers, that means we are more privileged than anyone else.

Straight people have privilege against gay people, white people have privilege against black people. This is the way it works. It is not a sliding scale or a competition. It is about some people being unable to accept that the views they have only arose because they did not have to deal with the issues the group of people they're directed at have.

No they don't, and you are clearly misrepresenting what I am saying, I'm saying harping on about how you are underprivileged is as scummy as a D4 teen harping on about how impoverished they are because daddy won't buy them a new car, sure, compared to that fortune 500 CEO they are, but in real world terms it's appallingly tasteless to b1tch about it.
I do actually know what your position is here I just find it repulsive and ironic in the extreme.

You are completely clueless as to the why privilege is even brought into these discussions.

I am going to make it clear - if you try to pull the "Oppression Olympics" or use the "Children in Africa" - you lose all my respect. They are intellectually lazy arguments in the extreme and deeply insulting as they insist that because some people haven't harder, we should not pay attention to the lack of privilege marginalised groups. Some people are murdered or kill themselves because of their sexuality or race - when that happens, your appeal to emotion goes out the window regardless; it's game over. People aren't more deserving of being saved just because they come from a poorer country, and we cannot hope to sort out the issues of more damaged cultures if we cannot sort out our own.

It is not much use to the family of a suicidal transsexual that there are children dying in africa, therefore they are privileged.

This is a common position for advocates and activists to take - you are not repulsed by me, you are repulsed by a general position assumed by adovcates of marginalised groups. Please get that much correct.

No, no you're not, calling yourself "desperately underprivileged" is by your own definition privileged, just not with regard your particular interest group. Your "oppression olympics" guff is again, irrelevant, and a desperate and pathetic argument, also a logical fallacy by the way, actually several I believe but anyway, you're keen on those I gather?

Please don't talk to me about logical fallacies when you're using an utterly shameful appeal to emotion yourself. And that fallacy only applies when you are the one pushing the oppressive olympics(which you are).

Please - if you're not educated on something, read up on it. Don't try to pretend to know what you're talking about. I've given you links, and they overwhelmingly support my position.

I would argue that LGBT people from the british isles are actually particularly knowledgeable about privilege, and hence don't like referring to themselves as "under-privileged", when they are in fact the opposite.

yes, because Britain & Ireland are shining examples of progressivism and intellectual argument compared to more developed european countries. Oh wait, they aren't.

Read the articles I provided with you, and understand what is meant by privilege here. Privilege is not simply well off you are compared to a starving somalian and nothing sickens me more than seeing people in such a dire situation abused to make someone else's situation seem smaller. People who suffer are not your weapons in an argument against someone you should be supporting anyway. I am not trying to use people's suffering purely to invalidate the homophobes argument - I am pointing out that such thinking can only arise from those of privilege, those who do not get themselves dirtied by abuse directed at them for their sexuality. This is where this thinking originates from, even if some people not in that situation internalise it. Failing to recognise the concept of privilege when it plays an important part in the social theory aspect here because of CHILDREN IN AFRICA is little more than rampant anti-intellectualism when it comes down to it. We should not disregard a serious issue and explanation for why people make the kind of comments they do.

Why give a toss about gay rights in the first place when we have it so much better than starving africans? Please. This is the logical extension of your argument - I'm sure you THINK you mean something different, but you don't. You don't get to talk about logical fallacies when using that kind of argument.

apache · 31-10-2011 10:46PM

Plautus wrote: »

What questions are you referring to apache? If Eamon Delaney's opinion was something people confronted me with on a daily basis, I'd really despair.

i get them on a daily basis. i used to despair. i do not now. its either sink or swim. it depends on the environment you are in.
education is the key to success. what does not break you makes you stonger

Plautus · 31-10-2011 10:54PM

I genuinely can say I never come across opinions as ignorant as Delaney's on anywhere like even a monthly basis.

And if I did, I'd chalk it up as an argument not worth wasting energy on. A person who becomes 'offended', as he says he is, about something he has no demonstrable experience of isn't going to have their mind changed by me. It really is a piece written off the top of his head.

A useful follow-up would be for Eamon to shadow some LGBT organisations for a week, see if they are getting just so big for their boots. I wonder if he's really willing to do that though, and that this wasn't disposable aggravation-generating 'journalism'.

In general, of course, all we can do is put out information about how we aren't, to a man, sex-crazed interior designers and hope for the best

A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Comments