Gay Marriage

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2013 21:14:57 GMT maolsheachlann said:

To be fair, I don't really hear Catholics or Christians (at least in Ireland) ever using anti-homosexual rhetoric or even expressing hostility to gays-- but it's a good thing to bear in mind anyway.

You can be absolutely sure that if the pro traditional marriage side are not well prepared and well versed, those are exactly the only type of pro traditional marriage people that will be given any media time.

The pro traditional marriage side in Ireland need to start studying NOW very carefully the debates held in other countries and learn from them how to defend traditional marriage without coming across as homophobic. A lot of people will actually be sitting on the fence undecided. Like it or not, secular type arguments for traditional marriage need to be to the fore, and going down the rabbit hole of claiming children will better raised with a father and mother , rather than two parents of the same sex is also doomed to fail.

The 2015 date gives all sides time to prepare. It also means that approx. 120,000 older voters will have passed away and 120,000 younger voters will have taken their place. This is not an insignificant statistic in a what might be a close referendum.

Instead of preaching to the converted, the youth vote, the floating vote, and the middle aged will be absolutely crucial and that's what the pro traditional marriage side needs to concentrate on above all else.

[Deleted]

There has been a lot of talk on the radio today about the attempt of homosexuals to legalise marriage for themselves next year. I'm guessing as soon as January arrives, they'll be moving into full force. I thought I would bring this thread up again as I imagine it will be quite active soon.

[hibernicus]

The IRISH TIMES has had several pieces by one of their columnists who has just published an oral history of the campaign for "marriage equality" complaining that the requirement for balance in broadcasting constitutes "censorship" since several radio stations won't have her on air unless an opponent is included on the panel.
Rory O'Neill alias PantiBliss is being lionised up and down the media.
I'd say the campaigners are at full force already.

[Young Ireland]

Dec 16, 2014 21:54:22 GMT hibernicus said:

The IRISH TIMES has had several pieces by one of their columnists who has just published an oral history of the campaign for "marriage equality" complaining that the requirement for balance in broadcasting constitutes "censorship" since several radio stations won't have her on air unless an opponent is included on the panel.
Rory O'Neill alias PantiBliss is being lionised up and down the media.
I'd say the campaigners are at full force already.

The arrogance of those campaigning for pseudo-marraige has to be seen to be believed. One hopes that this will eventually cause a backlash at the ballot box (which has happened before in the last two referenda).

[hibernicus]

What they are doing is quite simple - they are maintaining that opposition to their proposals is the moral equivalent of racism, and it is unacceptable for any decent person to vote No, and advocacy of a No vote puts you in the same moral bracket as Nazis and the KKK.
Meanwhile, the British eggheads' magazine PROSPECT, in its January 2015 issue, has a feature on "The Big Ideas of 2015" including one on "Transgender Rights" including the idea that you can change your gender as often as you like just by saying so and everyone else should be obliged to take you at your word. ONe campaigner quoted in the piece states that they have been encouraged to be more assertive by the rapid acceptance of gay marriage, which they cite as reflecting the fluidity of previously-accepted boundaries in such matters.

[pugio]

Indeed, the notion that supporting the traditional understanding of marriage is tantamount to bigotry will be an enormous obstacle. The whole language of 'rights' and 'equality' and 'discrimination' has become so dominant in public discourse that few people ever pause to critically consider what any of these words even mean. It does not occur to people that justice and equality are not the same thing and in many cases are flatly incompatible. It does not occur to people that you discriminate every time you floss your teeth. In this intellectual climate, it is hard to be optimistic about the prospects for a sane outcome.

I would only add that for many people support for same-sex marriage also involves a certain degree of liberal posturing. I say this based on personal experience. On several occasions I have pointed out to people that there have been quite a few human societies (most famously ancient Greek ones) in which homosexuality was not only accepted but lauded - and to some degree even institutionalised - but in which there was no such thing as same-sex 'marriage' because that is not what marriage was or is. It has a different function entirely. People generally stop in their tracks and think for a moment before conceding the point. And then within five minutes they will be calling someone a bigot again for disagreeing with them. There are many people who are more interested in proving that they are not 'one of those people' (conservatives - boooh! hiss!) than in being reasonable. It is more important to be trendy.

[Deleted]

Self-assurance and arrogance is the key weapon of many groups such as LGBT. You only have to fight fire with fire to make the whole structure burn down. Not that we should be arrogant, but we should state our facts as facts, and stop worrying about who's feelings will be hurt. The emotional appeal is getting stale fast.

[hibernicus]

The problem is that the opinion formers will let them get away with such tactics, but not us. Look at how pro-choicers, now they have the upper hand, are using all the tactics (personal vilification, accusations of being murderers etc) of which they accused pro-lifers bathe day.