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

Well, I'm a rampant homophobe so naturally I was going to vote no. I really don't want to extend equal rights to gays but I really dislike some of the campaigning by the No side like the Iona Institute and bleeding foreigners like Butch Paugh so now I'm putting all of my personal beliefs aside to vote Yes.

I wasn't sure of this tactic at all until joining AH a couple of weeks ago where it seems to be a common way of deciding your vote in a referendum.

bb1234567 wrote: »

I can't tell if you're being serious or not..?

I'm a very serious character. And a rampant homophobe.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

For some, rightly or wrongly, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If that "definition" is changed, then the term "marriage" can no longer apply to it.

In that case, it's not a question of human rights, it's a question of a (perhaps flawed) definition of marriage.

Therefore when they vote No, they are not doing it to discriminate, but because the definition of marriage cannot be changed in their opinion.

Note that I'm not talking about a dictionary definition here, I'm talking specifically of their own personal definition, i.e. what marriage means to them.

This, in my opinion, is an example of how SSM can be opposed without discrimination.

For a moment, I thought you were arguing against same-sex civil marriage. Re your laying-out how some people see marriage, the definition of marriage won't change at all, just because it's no longer "solely" between an opposite sex couple alone. As you've explained, recognition of marriage is a matter of perception.

It's more that they desire to maintain the links traditionally seen as part and parcel of it, Eg: man and woman marry, they have sexual congress, children are born as a result, a family unit of more than two people comes into existence. Some opponents claim that marriage is part of God's plan for families and that to change it's definition is against God's plan.

They refuse to accept that the state can change the definition of civil marriage in it's laws to be different from that of church/religious laws. That's an imposition of their "definition" of marriage as a religious rite linked to their God on all other citizens and civil law here.

To that extent, opponents to the proposed change to our civil marriage laws are discriminating against persons not let marry under civil law, while they still have access to both versions of marriage themselves.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

There are a few people who are in the I can't believe its not marriage crowd.

You can be effectively married, you just can't use the word marriage because in the English language words can't possibly change their meaning.

I presume the people who think this are wondering why there's such a fuss over allowing jolly people to marry.

LDN_Irish wrote: »

How dare you?! I don't hate anyone. I just don't want them having equal rights because of dictionaries and tradition and that kind of thing.

You don't want them to have equal rights? So you see yourself as better or somehow more deserving than gay people based entirely on your sexual preference? Disgraceful!

Nodin wrote: »

Their gayness, I'd imagine. If you don't wrap your testes in tinfoil you can catch it offof them via gaydiation.

"Gaydiation" is a word that needs to be in the next dictionary.

It's a shame that dictionaries are apparently like Qurans and never change since edition 1.

LDN_Irish wrote: »

The social wouldn't make provisions for me with a "back to bigotry enterprise scheme" cos of the gay agenda.

I hear bad stories about the BigotBridge scheme - they are totally taking advantage of people who just want to put in a fair days discrimination.

bb1234567 wrote: »

And what does this hatred towards gay people stem from?

The Late Late show.

I remember my own father screaming at the TV about how wrong Gay was every Friday night.

It's hard for a kid not to absorb that sort of sentiment sometimes.

How do you catch de ghey from gay wimmins?

LDN_Irish wrote: »

How dare you?! I don't hate anyone. I just don't want them having equal rights because of dictionaries and tradition and that kind of thing.

Thanks for the tip Nodin! I might try the aul misogyny later. Did I mention that it's my deeply held belief that children should be raised by 2 biologists? Or something like that.

Now that last belief is just not fashionable!

lazygal wrote: »

How do you catch de ghey from gay wimmins?

Rest assured I'm working on a paper on the subject. I've put in many many (man :-) ) hours trying to catch the ghey from the 2 lesbians I share my bed with . It's all very scientific I can assure you and they are paid handsomely for their time and energy they put in to this scientific endeavour.


I also have a separate, unrelated study where I introduce as many gay women as possible to De Cock. I have a seperate Kock for the dutch women too.


It's a social experiment and both Johans are very friendly. http://www.johandecock.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_de_Kock

bb1234567 wrote: »

I can't tell if you're being serious or not..?

With some of the comments you see on here I don't blame you for questioning whether he is being serious or not :pac:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We recruit.

For every recruit we get a stamp and we save them in a book and swap them for items in a catalogue - So far I got a cutlass, a flintlock pistol, bow and full quiver of arrows and I'm saving up for a chainsaw.

Once recruited you can recruit too - AND you get a free toaster oven.

Weird, I exclusively recruit using my vagina.