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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Am I allowed address this now seeing as, y'know, it's a couple of hours later and all (when I work on your time, then you'll have every right to complain about the expediency, or indeed the effort or length of my posts, but until then... well...).

First off - no, I don't like the alter-ego, Panti Bliss, but thanks for your permission. You're right, I wasn't moved, nor inspired, nor anything else, by someone bleating about how their insecurity with themselves was turned into oppression as though everyone else were actively engaged in passing judgement upon them. I get where she was coming from. Fine. I just don't particularly care, I don't see what was so great about it, but if other people can identify with it and it makes them feel better about themselves - good for them.

Second - I didn't bang on about it for a couple of hours. I made a single comment, that when he spoke as Rory O' Neill, I was able to take him seriously, because he didn't look so ridiculous. Other people chose to read far too much into my comment as though I had some issues with drag entertainers or whatever. I don't, never have, never will. I chose to correct them because I don't like when people read too much into what I say and try and extrapolate an entirely different meaning. I wasn't banging on about anything, and in just the same way as it gets tiresome for someone who is homosexual to constantly feel they have to justify themselves, well, quelle surprise - they're no different than anyone else. I get tired of having to justify myself too when other people make assumptions about me or try to put words in my mouth, or judge me based on their own prejudices.

Thirdly - If you had read my posts, you wouldn't have to speculate about whether it's because she's in drag or not. It IS because she's in drag. It's because to me she looks ridiculous - trying to get across a serious message while painted up like a hot mess in a conservative outfit. If you're gonna do drag, do it. Don't make a half-assed job of it and expect people should take you seriously.

Fourthly - as much as you'd like to make out I was irritated by a speech calling for acceptance and inclusion, maybe we weren't listening to the same person. All I heard was someone given a captive audience having a good old whine. There was nothing inspirational about bemoaning feeling like society is oppressing you. That's the same society that you want to be a part of. Forget this idea of calling for 'acceptance', and instead focus on 'participation' in that society. The world doesn't stop because you have issues. Everyone in society has issues. That's who a society is made up of. That's what diversity actually is. If you want acceptance in society, there's no better way to gain acceptance in society than to be seen to be participating in that society.

To be calling for acceptance from society, while at the same time you want to exclude yourself from society - that's what's actually unhealthy!


Now, having said all that - I let it go about the "doorstep canvassing challenge" because I said to myself the further I got into it with you, the more you were gonna twist my words and try and make out I was this, that and the other, and that's not fine. But I graciously stepped out and let it go, and I'm gonna do it again now after this, so please, as you said floggg - let's both of us not bang on about this one for another day. I have neither the time, nor the patience for it any more tbh, and I'd just as soon get this thread back to discussing what actually matters, which is the upcoming referendum on civil marriage equality.

Tenz wrote: »

Generally true I think. But I would add one thing. Almost all of the older generation I've spoken to say something along the lines of ...

"I don't care what two consenting adults do. Let them marry if they want. Nothing to do with me. But will they be allowed to adopt children? I think a child is better off with a mother and a father"

They're not homophobic, irrational, overly religious, or insane. They just have concerns about a child being raised by two daddies or two mammies. And I think its genuinely amusing how many people dismiss these concerns out of hand, while simultaneously shouting 'breast is best!!', and 'too posh to push!'. How you could feel the minutae of a child's medical delivery, and first method of feeding are matters of weighty concern, but the gender of a child's primary caregivers is totally inconsequential, baffles me.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

"Keyboard Campaigners"

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

While, I would love to agree with you 100%, there are some differences which the Civil Partnership Act has not provided for. But, I fail to see why this can't be amended. (ie property rights) One poster is getting pissy about reference to "family home" and only being referred to as "shared home" (but more or less same protections )

Ask I already pointed out, after going through that coloured chart about the so called 160 differences, earlier, some of them are either artificial or simply would not in any way concern them, ever,


There are one or two issues about children and the rights of the gay non biological parent. But, those issues maybe be dealt with more clearly with the few family law legislation which will be more gay friendly (on a practical level))

seamus wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is "Play dirty to win".

Unfortunately that's exactly what David Quinn, Breda O'Brien, John Waters and the rest of them are already doing. They've no issue inventing and repeating lies, attempting to discredit individuals, and accusing the Yes side of variously being immoral, bullies, vicious, perverts, and a whole host of other things.