Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…99100102104105…325

Comments

  • #3032
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    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.

    It's not lying.


  • #3033
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    You have so much personally invested in this that I think you'll chase your losses forever if I let you.

    :confused:


  • #3034
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    just that it was damaging to the campaign. But when its you, its fine.

    Yes, it's damaging to the campaign.

    When what is me? Have I been going around flaming No voters or something?


  • #3035
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    It's not lying.

    Then what's wrong with the poster?


  • #3036
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Yes, it's damaging to the campaign.

    When what is me? Have I been going around flaming No voters or something?


    you've been flaming everyone. what of the swing voters you are so worried about?


  • Advertisement
  • #3037
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    :confused:

    That goes for all of you.

    There's no way in the world I would get 10-15 pages worth of responses out of my argument unless it actually had merit. If it didn't it would have been summarily dismissed. I think a lot of you have reached a point where you can't back down due to hurt feelings.

    A microcosm of the No side's attitude.


  • #3038
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    That goes for all of you.

    There's no way in the world I would get 10-15 pages worth of responses out of my argument unless it actually had merit. If it didn't it would have been summarily dismissed.

    It's been near enough the same thing over and over. That doesn't explain your post though.


  • #3039
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    you've been flaming everyone. what of the swing voters you are so worried about?

    What about them? My argument was about how best to appeal to them and understand their concerns. I don't think that would do anything to push them away.


  • #3040
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Then what's wrong with the poster?

    Since you're so fond of revising my comments why don't you go back to the very beginning and figure out for yourself. I don't have an obligation to repeat myself endlessly.


  • #3041
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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!

    Hey - Graham - MAN UP!
    Rory - put on some pants ffs man, you are scaring the straights!
    David - could you be a bit less flamboyantly academic queen please?

    Someone turn off that afternoon chat show - the host is a lesbian in a suit and she is dancing :eek:

    Ok everyone - look straight...ummm.. clean cut...average.. less queer gay!

    The Reading the News on RTE look is the way to win equality. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #3042
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Since you're so fond of revising my comments why don't you go back to the very beginning and figure out for yourself. I don't have an obligation to repeat myself endlessly.

    I'm apparently getting it all wrong. If it's not lying, then what's wrong with using the poster there now?


  • #3043
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I'm apparently getting it all wrong. If it's not lying, then what's wrong with using the poster there now?

    My contention was not that it was lying. It never was.

    Every question you've asked has already been answered before.


  • #3044
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    My contention was not that it was lying. It never was.

    Every question you've asked has already been answered before.

    I didn't say you said it was. I'm saying that by using a perfect looking couple for every public poster, you're lying to the public about what gay is. You said it's not lying. So what's wrong with the poster that's being used now?

    And you keep telling me I'm wrong in my interpretation. Thus far our conversation is as follows:
    Me "you said this and this what I think"
    You "I didn't say that"
    Me "Well what did you say?"
    You "Read my post"
    Me "I did, and this is what I got from it"
    You "That's not what I said, stop making stuff up"
    Me "Then what did you say?"
    You "Read my posts"

    Can you see why it's getting frustrating
    Also, can I have an explanation for that previous post please?


  • #3045
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I didn't say you said it was. I'm saying that by using a perfect looking couple for every public poster, you're lying to the public about what gay is. You said it's not lying. So what's wrong with the poster that's being used now?

    And you keep telling me I'm wrong in my interpretation. Thus far our conversation is as follows:
    Me "you said this and this what I think"
    You "I didn't say that"
    Me "Well what did you say?"
    You "Read my post"
    Me "I did, and this is what I got from it"
    You "That's not what I said, stop making stuff up"
    Me "Then what did you say?"
    You "Read my posts"

    Can you see why it's getting frustrating?

    Can gay people not be clean cut? Yes. They can. My argument is that it's best to represent them in a way that appeals to traditional notions of normality for the sake of securing the maximum possible number of votes and Yes voter turnout. If people see this as a referendum for people who aren't that much like them many won't turnout. If they see gay people as being generally the same as them they'll feel impelled to participate. Appearance is a huge factor. Even in general elections people have a tendency to vote for the people who most resemble them. Bosses have a tendency to favour employees who look similar to them. It's an inherent bias.

    This is the last time I'm going over this, I'm not sure I can be any more clear without producing a dissertation.


  • #3046
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    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.
    .
    Some interesting points. Thank you. I guess my point is that I still don't view you any differently under the law as a human being, even if the law does right now. And I guess walshy93's view is that people don't really have any interest in your culture or want to know about it, and that shoving it in their faces might hurt your campaign in a country like Ireland, where beneath the surface there are several sinister layers. This is of course about gay rights, but imo, the campaign would strengthen even more if people saw gays as simply themselves, and understood that this is a vote for equal rights, it is a vote for everyone's rights. And the only vote to guarantee that is YES.

    This referendum is about the right of Gay people not to have to check ourselves
    That is a part of it, sure, but to say it is solely about that is to do the gay community and the people of Ireland a disservice. And imo that kind of attitude will not strengthen your campaign. Making it a solely gay issue could if anything encourage YES voters to stay at home, to leave it to the gays, or unfortunately to be put off by actively going out of their way to support what they see simply as gay rights, and not equal rights.


  • #3047
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Can gay people not be clean cut? Yes. They can. My argument is that it's best to represent them in a way that appeals to traditional notions of normality for the sake of securing the maximum possible number of votes and Yes voter turnout. If people see this as a referendum for people who aren't that much like them many won't turnout. If they see gay people as being generally the same as them they'll feel impelled to participate. Appearance is a huge factor. Even in general elections people have a tendency to vote for the people who most resemble them. Bosses have a tendency to favour employees who look similar to them. It's an inherent bias.

    This is the last time I'm going over this, I'm not sure I can be any more clear without producing a dissertation.

    Yes, they can but not all of them. What about if there's other posters? Should the same couple be used to promote a positive image? Or would it not be better to use a multitude of images depicting various couples instead of all the perfect couples?


  • #3048
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Yes, they can but not all of them. What about if there's other posters? Should the same couple be used to promote a positive image? Or would it not be better to use a multitude of images depicting various couples instead of all the perfect couples?

    I think you understand the logic of my argument already. It doesn't matter what I say beyond this point. You either agree with me or you don't. Nothing I can say will change your mind or anyone else's. I don't see the point in answering increasingly remote and hypothetical questions.


  • #3049
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I think you understand the logic of my argument already. It doesn't matter what I say beyond this point. You either agree with me or you don't. Nothing I can say will change your mind or anyone else's. I don't see the point in answering increasingly remote and hypothetical questions.

    Of course something you say will make me change my mind!! I'm trying to understand your point, which I have told you already, multiple times!
    Also hypothetical? Putting a picture out of a perfect couple is hypothetical. Why's it only a problem when I do it?


  • #3050
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Of course something you say will make me change my mind!! I'm trying to understand your point, which I have told you already, multiple times!
    Also hypothetical? Putting a picture out of a perfect couple is hypothetical. Why's it only a problem when I do it?

    One question leads to another questions leads to another question, before you know it I've contradicted myself by accident and AHA!

    My argument is strong enough as it stands as far as I'm concerned.


  • #3051
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Can gay people not be clean cut? Yes. They can. My argument is that it's best to represent them in a way that appeals to traditional notions of normality for the sake of securing the maximum possible number of votes and Yes voter turnout. If people see this as a referendum for people who aren't that much like them many won't turnout. If they see gay people as being generally the same as them they'll feel impelled to participate. Appearance is a huge factor. Even in general elections people have a tendency to vote for the people who most resemble them. Bosses have a tendency to favour employees who look similar to them. It's an inherent bias.

    This is the last time I'm going over this, I'm not sure I can be any more clear without producing a dissertation.

    And I am saying we will not conform to placate nor should we be expected to.

    After all, if we really didn't want to upset all of these people who might be put off by a gay couple who don't look like they just stepped off the set of The Stepford Wives we would have stayed nice and quiet in the closet.

    We have spent our lives coming up against 'inherent bias' and refused to bow down and lookie here - the country is about to vote on SSM and the highly popular face of the campaign is a HIV positive middle aged drag queen from Mayo.

    On behave of 'them' - we have been fighting this battle since before you were born and pretending we are all 'just like you' is not acceptable.

    There is a word for telling gay people to be less gay if they want acceptance...


  • Advertisement
  • #3052
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    One question leads to another questions leads to another question, before you know it I've contradicted myself by accident and AHA!

    My argument is strong enough as it stands as far as I'm concerned.


    You haven't answered any questions though. You just keep telling me to read you posts and this aforementioned scenario happens:
    sup_dude wrote: »
    Me "you said this and this what I think"
    You "I didn't say that"
    Me "Well what did you say?"
    You "Read my post"
    Me "I did, and this is what I got from it"
    You "That's not what I said, stop making stuff up"
    Me "Then what did you say?"
    You "Read my posts"
    In fact, the only bit of an explanation I got, you then said was wrong!
    Your argument is weak as far as I'm concerned and although I've presented plenty of opportunities to explain it, you refuse so it remains weak in my eyes.


  • #3053
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    You haven't answered any questions though. You just keep telling me to read you posts and this aforementioned scenario happens:

    In fact, the only bit of an explanation I got, you then said was wrong!
    Your argument is weak as far as I'm concerned and although I've presented plenty of opportunities to explain it, you refuse so it remains weak in my eyes.

    Post 3097.


  • #3054
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Post 3097.

    Post 3099.


  • #3055
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And I am saying we will not conform to placate nor should we be expected to.

    After all, if we really didn't want to upset all of these people who might be put off by a gay couple who don't look like they just stepped off the set of The Stepford Wives we would have stayed nice and quiet in the closet.

    We have spent our lives coming up against 'inherent bias' and refused to bow down and lookie here - the country is about to vote on SSM and the highly popular face of the campaign is a HIV positive middle aged drag queen from Mayo.

    On behave of 'them' - we have been fighting this battle since before you were born and pretending we are all 'just like you' is not acceptable.

    There is a word for telling gay people to be less gay if they want acceptance...

    rrraaaaawwwwwwrrrrrrrr


  • #3056
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Post 3099.

    You said I haven't explained it. I have.


  • #3057
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Hey - Graham - MAN UP!
    Rory - put on some pants ffs man, you are scaring the straights!
    David - could you be a bit less flamboyantly academic queen please?

    Someone turn off that afternoon chat show - the host is a lesbian in a suit and she is dancing :eek:

    Ok everyone - look straight...ummm.. clean cut...average.. less queer gay!

    The Reading the News on RTE look is the way to win equality. :rolleyes:

    LGBT people come in all different shapes and sizes, really the only thing we all have in common is that we are not straight.

    Straight people also come in all different shapes and sizes. Conformity and general societal rules affect all of us. Telling Graham to man up is a problem for all men not just Graham.

    Gay or straight there are always people that live out side of conformity, and there is nothing wrong with that, and absolutely they should make no apologies about that.

    However (and maybe i'm wrong here) from your past posts I feel like you are saying that besides our sexuality that gay people in general are different from the rest of people in society and I don't agree. Obviously there is a gay culture and there are many gay people that live outside societal norms. But that's not me. I don't consider myself part of any gay culture. Other than my sexuality, i don't feel its made me any different from the people around me. I don't feel like im trying to conform or actively denying a part of myself.

    That doesn't mean to say that there isn't a problem within larger society. People often try to treat me differently or make assumptions about who i am when they find out i'm gay. And I still don't feel comfortable being affectionate with my boyfriend in public. These things I hope change some day (though I don't think it will happen in my lifetime)

    Again sorry if I was picking you up wrong.


  • #3058
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    You said I haven't explained it. I have.


    And I found a fault in it.


  • #3059
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    rrraaaaawwwwwwrrrrrrrr

    Hypocrite.


  • #3060
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Hypocrite.

    RRRAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRR


  • Advertisement
  • #3061
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    RRRAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRR

    Yeah, can't imagine why your concerns about acceptable gayness don't hold a lot of weight with me.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement