Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This is very well put. But I would not have been able to say this without the usual ridicule from some sections on this site. Personally out of the "telly gay fellas" I think the the likes of Donal Og Cusack there is a fella that talks sense and the general population would listen to.No histrionics.

May the ghost of Danny la Rue infest your closet. :mad:



:pac:

Gorm and Jack

Drag has been around for thousands of years and has always been a satirical and socially important art form as it holds a mirror up to society and takes the p*ss- every year millions of children are brought along to see men in drag (sadly the Principle Boy is no longer played by a woman) in a centuries old tradition called The Panto - good enough for family entertainment but not suitable to deliver a message about the difficulty of been seen to be different and the fear that some ***** will take it into their head to beat the living crap out of you for being different looking?

Personally I think it takes more balls for a man to wear a frock than a tracksuit. For a man to wear a full length evening dress with matching accessories in the middle of Dublin takes real courage.

but hey - dismiss the message because seeing a man in drag makes you uncomfortable.

Personally, as someone who has checked herself (S*it... do I look like a dyke... ahhhh.:eek: - of course I look like a fecking dyke. I am a dyke. Get over it!).. I thought the message was all the more powerful because Rory delivered it as Panti (which she did because she had to go straight from the Abbey to do her job) and considering the worldwide reaction so did millions of others.

floggg wrote: »

No - it won't.

Surrogacy will have to be legislated for separately - and whatever rules they develop will be of general application and not dependant on marital status.

The same issue will fall to be determined whether the people involved are single, married or civil partnered (if still around).

The same issues already present themselves in the context of heterosexual relationships - and the issue is to be resolved no matter how the referendum goes.

You are assuming a problem into being without clearly giving it any thought. The issue has zero relevance to the vote - as has been confirmed by the Law Society, the Ministers for Justice and Health and others.

The marriage equality debate is not really an appropriate occasion to start looking into surrogacy. After all - surrogacy arrangements are already here, and they involve both straight and gay couples as well as single people of all creeds, colors and orientations.

Even if you feel we need some serious legislation to govern it, then that should not just apply to gay people, nor should we stop a gay marriage proposal just because it might, conceivably, affect some sort of future surrogacy law. It is discrimination to just worry about surrogacy for gay people, pure and simple.

The honest thing to do, if you are worried about surrogacy, is to give gay people the right to marry, and then to set rules on surrogacy for everyone, gay or straight.

But I think that it is a sentiment that causes this "worry", not any sort of rational concern. The sentiment, the gut feeling, the instinct, that drives this concern is an unease about letting gay people raise children. A sort of low-grade aversion to homosexuality that especially older generations have great difficulty overcoming.

smash wrote: »

Got home to find my first bit of propoganda from Iona in my letter box... I needed more toilet paper though!

I throw everything in the bin, yes, no and by election literature.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to turn this thread into a personal pissing contest but I'll just say yes, yes I do. Every time I have to look someone in the eye, and well, let's just say that we don't see eye to eye when they have two and I only have the one, and I have to be conscious of the fact that they're trying to be polite and not look at the eye patch or the crutch.

Sometimes it's a pain in the arse, but I'd be reaching were I to use the word "oppressive". I understand too of course that your mileage, just like Rory's, may vary, depending upon your personal perspective.

My only original point was that I thought Rory, without all the make-up and all the rest of it, I'm able to take him seriously. In drag however - not so much. That was all.

No pissing contest necessary.

Just consider do you fear you will literally be physically attacked because you look different? For many gay people that fear is a constant. That is the checking yourself Panti was talking about. That moment when you worry the gay is showing too much - when you feel, just for a second or two, shame because that is how for many years you were taught to feel.

It may interest you to know Rory originally did not intend to deliver the speech as Panti but had a show to do straight afterwards and it takes a loooong time to look like a middle aged conservative woman so really had no choice.

traprunner wrote: »

surrogacy is not an issue relating to this referendum. It is a much bigger issue that affects both straight and gay couples. For those who forget what the implications of this referendum are here is what the independent Referendum Commission state.

I'm quite certain that a few here don't want to read this.

I was saying "OK that's grand" until the last paragraph about families. My reaction was "ah now that's a bit much"

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I was saying "OK that's grand" until the last paragraph about families. My reaction was "ah now that's a bit much"

But that is what's going to happen because that's what happens with straight couples. A married couple is recognised as family because the Constitution doesn't define Family.

smash wrote: »

No, it's worthless full stop, it means nothing. You can't be classified as husband and wife, no matter how much you push it.

So you are saying a same sex marriage is worthless if a couple marry here (presuming referendum is passed) and move abroad to a country that doesn't recognise it.
The couple can't say they are married?

RobertKK wrote: »

Wish the state would get out of personal lives...

It would be more beneficial if the Church did.