Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

tigger123

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

In fairness, that's not really a great argument.

wexie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You'd have to ask the "no" camp that.

Well no actually, I'm asking the YES side. From reading this thread it seems to be that a lot of people are much more concerned with the rights/protections/benefits that come with marriage as with the actual term 'marriage'.

While on the no side there seem to be quite a lot of people that seem to have little issue with affording our happy gay brethren (and sisters) the same legal protection / stability, but simply have an issue with the term 'marriage' being used to describe such an LGBT relationship commitment as they feel that 'marriage' traditionally has always been between a man and a woman with the aim to yada yaday yada.

So then surely having a 'civil partnership' that's only different to marriage in name then seems to be a valid solution and, not only that, but a way to remove many no votes in one go.

I've brought this up the other day and was given an answer along the lines of 'but it would imply a difference'. Well....yes...but there is a difference.

LGBT people are different to straight people, there's no denying it is there?
Should there be a value attached to those differences? Of course not, it's just different, not better, not worse, different.

But that different can 'be the same' seems to be a difficult concept for a lot of people (on both sides of the argument I might add) to grasp.

wexie

Jernal wrote: »

Only if married couples today were relabelled as civil partnerships. Otherwise, why should one group have authority what marriage is and who its exclusive to?

But why? Why would it be such a problem to have a different name for the same thing as long as you're afforded the same legal protection, tax breaks etc. etc.

Would you not rather appease a small part of the no voters in order to get the deal done rather than fail because you're arguing symantics?

Jikashi

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

If the vote was to decide if we'd change the side of the road we drive on and you didn't like it because you'd have to exchange your car, that would be a sound reason for voting against it, because it has a direct effect on your life.

Allowing same sex marriage changes absolutely nothing in your own life, hence not liking it yourself is not a good reason to deny something that in no way changes your own life for better or worse.

seenitall

wexie wrote: »

Well no actually, I'm asking the YES side. From reading this thread it seems to be that a lot of people are much more concerned with the rights/protections/benefits that come with marriage as with the actual term 'marriage'.

While on the no side there seem to be quite a lot of people that seem to have little issue with affording our happy gay brethren (and sisters) the same legal protection / stability, but simply have an issue with the term 'marriage' being used to describe such an LGBT relationship commitment as they feel that 'marriage' traditionally has always been between a man and a woman with the aim to yada yaday yada.

So then surely having a 'civil partnership' that's only different to marriage in name then seems to be a valid solution and, not only that, but a way to remove many no votes in one go.

I've brought this up the other day and was given an answer along the lines of 'but it would imply a difference'. Well....yes...but there is a difference.

LGBT people are different to straight people, there's no denying it is there?
Should there be a value attached to those differences? Of course not, it's just different, not better, not worse, different.

But that different can 'be the same' seems to be a difficult concept for a lot of people (on both sides of the argument I might add) to grasp.

No. There is no valid reason the "difference" should be acknowledged in the eyes of the law. The so-called difference is purely through the eyes of bigotry, "They are different". Well the paraplegics are different to us "normal" people as well, should we deny them marriage? How about any other minorities?

The so-called difference is arbitrary and discriminating. Don't appease that view. All the rights or no rights.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

wexie wrote: »

But why? Why would it be such a problem to have a different name for the same thing as long as you're afforded the same legal protection, tax breaks etc. etc.

Would you not rather appease a small part of the no voters in order to get the deal done rather than fail because you're arguing symantics?

Because separate but equal isn't equal.

wexie

Jikashi wrote: »

If the vote was to decide if we'd change the side of the road we drive on and you didn't like it because you'd have to exchange your car, that would be a sound reason for voting against it, because it has a direct effect on your life.

Allowing same sex marriage changes absolutely nothing in your own life, hence not liking it yourself is not a good reason to deny something that in no way changes your own life for better or worse.

Absolutely true, however, as Czarcasm has already pointed out the fact is that people will still have vote.

So by going around telling people their reasons are invalid/silly/homophobic etc. etc. you're not actually doing any good.

realgolfgeek

Jernal wrote: »

Your reason is pathetic.
You're denying people access to something that many consider a fundamental right. You need to justify that denial with something beyond the lines of it making you feel icky.

It's pathetic to you.

It's not pathetic to me.

Turtwig

wexie wrote: »

But why? Why would it be such a problem to have a different name for the same thing as long as you're afforded the same legal protection, tax breaks etc. etc.

Would you not rather appease a small part of the no voters in order to get the deal done rather than fail because you're arguing symantics?

So basically it has all the qualities of marriage but wouldn't be marriage? So it walks like a duck, talks like a duck but can never be duck! It should surely be obvious why this should never be accepted. Imagine if it was black people and you said to them "Look, why don't you accept civil partnerships and leave the word 'marriage' exclusively to white people".

Appeasing the 'no' side would be a cosmetic fix to equality. I want LGBT to enjoy the same equality I do; not a pseudo version of it.

wexie

seenitall wrote: »

No. There is no valid reason the "difference" should be acknowledged in the eyes of the law. The so-called difference is purely through the eyes of bigotry, "They are different". Well the paraplegics are different to us normal people as well, should we deny them marriage? How about any other minorities?

The so-called difference is arbitrary and discriminating. Don't appease that view. All the rights or no rights.

So hang on, I think we're treading on dangerous ground here.

Let's just clarify : you didn't actually just call me a bigot because I dared say that LGBT people are different than straight people did you? :mad:

And aside from being rather offensive you're completely missing my point. I'm actually arguing you should have ALL the rights, however what I'm saying is that by making a SMALL compromise (calling it a civil partnership rather than a marriage) in my opinion you'd have a much better chance.

Daith

wexie wrote: »

And aside from being rather offensive you're completely missing my point. I'm actually arguing you should have ALL the rights, however what I'm saying is that by making a SMALL compromise (calling it a civil partnership rather than a marriage) in my opinion you'd have a much better chance.

Why should we compromise? Marriage is a civil thing. Same sex marriage will come into Ireland. It may not be next year or two years but it will happen. I don't see any need to compromise.

Again if you said only white people can marry, black people should compromise and be happy with civil partnership would it be acceptable?

Absoluvely

wexie wrote: »

So hang on, I think we're treading on dangerous ground here.

Let's just clarify : you didn't actually just call me a bigot because I dared say that LGBT people are different than straight people did you? :mad:

And aside from being rather offensive you're completely missing my point. I'm actually arguing you should have ALL the rights, however what I'm saying is that by making a SMALL compromise (calling it a civil partnership rather than a marriage) in my opinion you'd have a much better chance.

If you could write the law, would you enable same-sex couples to marry? Or for same-sex couples to have something equivalent to marriage, but named something different?

I'm not sure if you're saying you're in favour of the differently-named concept or just suggesting that it might be a shortcut to equivalent rights.

Jikashi

wexie wrote: »

Absolutely true, however, as Czarcasm has already pointed out the fact is that people will still have vote.

So by going around telling people their reasons are invalid/silly/homophobic etc. etc. you're not actually doing any good.

I don't believe I used those terms. Apologies if you just responded to the wrong post.

Rebutting an argument with another is the basis of a debate.

seenitall

wexie wrote: »

So hang on, I think we're treading on dangerous ground here.

Let's just clarify : you didn't actually just call me a bigot because I dared say that LGBT people are different than straight people did you? :mad:

And aside from being rather offensive you're completely missing my point. I'm actually arguing you should have ALL the rights, however what I'm saying is that by making a SMALL compromise (calling it a civil partnership rather than a marriage) in my opinion you'd have a much better chance.

Calm down vexie, no-one's called you a bigot. :rolleyes:

I was just explaining the things the way I see them re: people who would be quite happy to "grant" them civil partnership, just not marriage. As that was your question.

I got your point just perfectly, too. The SMALL compromise is in the eye of the beholder. I would think it is a rather BIG concession to make to bigotry at this stage and I'd have no time for it, myself.

wexie

Daith wrote: »

Why should we compromise? Marriage is a civil thing. Same sex marriage will come into Ireland. It may not be next year or two years but it will happen. I don't see any need to compromise.

Again if you said only white people can marry, black people should compromise and be happy with civil partnership would it be acceptable?

Because compromise is what brings about change is why! At the moment you've got nothing, I don't see quite how making a little compromise would be such a big problem if it's a big step in the right direction.

Absoluvely wrote: »

If you could write the law, would you enable same-sex couples to marry? Or for same-sex couples to have something equivalent to marriage, but named something different?

Hahaha, I'd love to be writing the law and if I did I'd simply remove whatever little section of the law states that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. But the sad reality is that I don't, in fact, write the law.
And the people that will be voting on the law will likely be somewhat less openminded than I am.

Absoluvely wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're saying you're in favour of the differently-named concept or just suggesting that it might be a shortcut to equivalent rights.

I wouldn't even call it a shortcut as much as a compromise, like I said above compromise is much more likely to succeed in matters quite so full of emotions such as this.

wexie

seenitall wrote: »

The SMALL compromise is in the eye of the beholder. I would think it is a rather BIG concession to make to bigotry at this stage and I'd have no time for it, myself.

Yes, and that's a fair point, however you need to see if from the other side as well.

There will be a lot of people voting on this that will think that a 'civil partnership' with all the same rights would be a BIG concession to make to the LGBT community.

So unless you think that the PRO voters will outnumber the AGAINST voters it's really something you could do with keeping in mind.

Daith

wexie wrote: »

Because compromise is what brings about change is why! At the moment you've got nothing, I don't see quite how making a little compromise would be such a big problem if it's a big step in the right direction.

Compromise is civil partnership. It's a step in the right direction to marriage.

wexie wrote: »

So unless you think that the LGBT voters will outnumber the straight and religious it's really something you could do with keeping in mind.

There's a mistake in assuming that only LGBT people will vote for same sex marriage.

Absoluvely

wexie wrote: »

Because compromise is what brings about change is why! At the moment you've got nothing, I don't see quite how making a little compromise would be such a big problem if it's a big step in the right direction.

At the moment there are civil unions which are inferior to marriage. What you're suggesting is civil union which is equal to marriage, except in name.

I don't think there's any point in aiming lower by going for civil union to be equal to marriage. Same-sex marriage will happen.

wexie

Absoluvely wrote: »

At the moment there are civil unions which are inferior to marriage. What you're suggesting is civil union which is equal to marriage, except in name.

I don't think there's any point in aiming lower by going for civil union to be equal to marriage. Same-sex marriage will happen.

Of course it will, I don't think many (right minded) people doubt that.

I just think that this, like anything in life is a process. So rather than bashing your head against the wall aiming for the full end goal there's no harm in taking little steps at a time by using a compromise every so often.

People in this thread seem to be quite fond of comparing racism against black people. To just extend this comparison I'd like to point out that black people back in the bad old days didn't just go from being second class citizens having to sit in the back of the bus to all of a sudden being able to run for president.

seenitall

wexie wrote: »

So unless you think that the LGBT voters and straight supporters of the same sex marriage will outnumber their straight opponents and religious it's really something you could do with keeping in mind.

Well, we can only hope for the best...

(Sorry, just FYP there as a shortcut. My dinner is getting cold!)

wexie

Jikashi wrote: »

I don't believe I used those terms. Apologies if you just responded to the wrong post.

Rebutting an argument with another is the basis of a debate.

I do believe I quoted the wrong post there, many apologies.

wexie

Jernal wrote: »

So basically it has all the qualities of marriage but wouldn't be marriage? So it walks like a duck, talks like a duck but can never be duck! It should surely be obvious why this should never be accepted.

Not even remotely obvious to me why this wouldn't be accepted. Many different kinds of duck, some tastier than others, but still all ducks.

Jernal wrote: »

Imagine if it was black people and you said to them "Look, why don't you accept civil partnerships and leave the word 'marriage' exclusively to white people".

How about leaving the word marriage exclusively to people who got married in Church then, would that be better?

Jernal wrote: »

Appeasing the 'no' side would be a cosmetic fix to equality. I want LGBT to enjoy the same equality I do; not a pseudo version of it.

How would it be a pseudo version?

Daith

wexie wrote: »

How about leaving the word marriage exclusively to people who got married in Church then, would that be better?

No because plenty of people don't get married in churches? What happens to them? Get a civil partnership instead now?

Absoluvely

wexie wrote: »

Of course it will, I don't think many (right minded) people doubt that.

I just think that this, like anything in life is a process. So rather than bashing your head against the wall aiming for the full end goal there's no harm in taking little steps at a time by using a compromise every so often.

People in this thread seem to be quite fond of comparing racism against black people. To just extend this comparison I'd like to point out that black people back in the bad old days didn't just go from being second class citizens having to sit in the back of the bus to all of a sudden being able to run for president.

I think that same-sex marriage is just a step on the road towards full gender-equality or gender-indifference.

I also think that if civil union gave the same rights as marriage, the national appetite to enable same-sex marriage would be reduced drastically. There are people who would think that the issue had been settled, or that LGBT people had "enough equality" at that stage.

So I think that aiming for full marriage equality is the right idea.

Sala

wexie wrote: »

Yes, and that's a fair point, however you need to see if from the other side as well.

There will be a lot of people voting on this that will think that a 'civil partnership' with all the same rights would be a BIG concession to make to the LGBT community.

So unless you think that the LGBT voters will outnumber the straight and religious it's really something you could do with keeping in mind.

It's very narrow minded to think only LGBT people will vote in favour of marriage equality. I am straight and I fully intend to vote and rally support wherever I can. I look forward to the day we finally stop denying a basic human right to people who love each other and have full marriage equality

wexie

Sala wrote: »

It's very narrow minded to think only LGBT people will vote in favour of marriage equality. I am straight and I fully intend to vote and rally support wherever I can. I look forward to the day we finally stop denying a basic human right to people who love each other and have full marriage equality

really? out of all my posts that the best you have to contribute?

There, I've edited my post to more accuretely reflect sentiment and prevent more pedants coming along.

Turtwig

wexie wrote: »

How about leaving the word marriage exclusively to people who got married in Church then, would that be better?




How would it be a pseudo version?

Why should marriage be exclusively a Church thing? It's not and nor should it ever be. Do we step in and prosecute people who have pre-marital sex? Nope we don't, so the Church shouldn't have the legal entitlement of exclusivity to marriage. I'd actually say that's worse than restricting the word marriage from gay couples.

It's a pseudo version because it's not real. Equality is something society has to want. We can't just have a law that says that gays are equal and then everywhere on the streets attitudes say otherwise. In effect, marriage is a stupid law and concept anyway. Only reason people get married is for religious reasons or legal benefits. Legal benefits shouldn't exist and marriage isn't exclusively a religious thing. But if we're going to have a state definition of marriage it should be inclusive to all parties. Not exclusive to any. Especially not because it should appease people.

wexie

Jernal wrote: »

It's a pseudo version because it's not real.

I'd have thought that the 'reality' of a relationship would be defined by the 2 people (lets leave it at that for now ) in the relationship rather than whatever name the relationship has been given?

Jernal wrote: »

Equality is something society has to want. We can't just have a law that says that gays are equal and then everywhere on the streets attitudes say otherwise.

While I agree with the sentiment I think that in reality there's still a long way to go. If you follow your argument you could nearly say you're arguing against same sex marriages as the law is a lot easier to change than peoples attitudes.

Jernal wrote: »

In effect, marriage is a stupid law and concept anyway. Only reason people get married is for religious reasons or legal benefits.

I think that's a somewhat bleak and cynical outlook, I would prefer to think that people get married as a way of formalising their commitment and intent to stay together?

Jernal wrote: »

Legal benefits shouldn't exist and marriage isn't exclusively a religious thing. But if we're going to have a state definition of marriage it should be inclusive to all parties. Not exclusive to any. Especially not because it should appease people.

You're still missing my point, let me try to rephrase it :

Would you rather a referendum that passes which states that LGBT people can have 'civil partnership' which is the same as marriage in all but name.

Or would you rather a referendum that insists and 'marriage' but fails?

Jimoslimos

rubadub wrote: »

I would say no, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Get rid of the entitlements altogether, which are in effect a tax on single/unmarried people.

Agree, although I wouldn't vote against gay marriage in spite.

Gay marriage will eventually come to pass, but I wonder if those who campaign so vehemently in favour will be as vocal when questioning the inequalities suffered by singles, unmarried couples and those cohabiting but not in a sexual relationship (elderly siblings for example). Or will it be a case of once your on the right side of the fence these will be quickly forgotten about in favour of the next cause célèbre?

old hippy

realgolfgeek wrote: »

How about the reason, I simply don't like it ?

I don't like you but I still think you should be allowed post here, if only so people can point out your irrational leanings

old hippy

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

Would you prefer gay people to be unhappy? Would that make you feel better?

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes, if you're as intelligent as you think you are, and they're as ignorant as you think they are, it should be easy for you.





Facetiousness will get you everywhere, seems to work for Russell Brand, right?

I don't claim to be as intelligent as the likes of you, good sir. Otherwise I'd be able to sift through the patronising guff you're posting here and makes some sense of it all

Again please, do you want me to think like the enemy and engage with them in their own irrational hateful language or do you want stats and facts or do you want me to continue as I usually do i.e. without your blessing?

Dublinpato

Well i vote for legalizing Gay marijuana.

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

Again please, do you want me to think like the enemy and engage with them in their own irrational hateful language or do you want stats and facts or do you want me to continue as I usually do i.e. without your blessing?

The people who disagree with you aren't your "enemy", they're human beings, just like you are. They just don't happen to share your point of view. You should look at your own irrational hateful language you're using to describe those who disagree with you. You can continue of course to be dismissive of people who disagree with you, but what will that achieve? Nothing. It only breeds more irrational hatred from both sides of the argument.

What has been the main reason people who support marriage equality have put forward as their reason to support marriage equality?

When two people love each other, they should have a right to formalise that union in the same manner as heterosexual couples.

See? They don't particularly care for facts and figures either, the same way opponents of marriage equality don't particularly care for facts and statistics. They're thinking about it on a personal level.

What you're doing is only thinking of yourself, and it's pretty obvious from the language you use that you have no interest in the opinion of anyone else, whether they support marriage equality or not. You could continue in this fashion and get nowhere, or you could realise that being condescending gets you nowhere and people just tune out.

Up to yourself really - keep up the back and forth condescension between you and those you see as your "enemy", or get down off your high horse and find a way to move the discussion forward.

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

The people who disagree with you aren't your "enemy", they're human beings, just like you are. They just don't happen to share your point of view. You should look at your own irrational hateful language you're using to describe those who disagree with you. You can continue of course to be dismissive of people who disagree with you, but what will that achieve? Nothing. It only breeds more irrational hatred from both sides of the argument.

What has been the main reason people who support marriage equality have put forward as their reason to support marriage equality?

When two people love each other, they should have a right to formalise that union in the same manner as heterosexual couples.

See? They don't particularly care for facts and figures either, the same way opponents of marriage equality don't particularly care for facts and statistics. They're thinking about it on a personal level.

What you're doing is only thinking of yourself, and it's pretty obvious from the language you use that you have no interest in the opinion of anyone else, whether they support marriage equality or not. You could continue in this fashion and get nowhere, or you could realise that being condescending gets you nowhere and people just tune out.

Up to yourself really - keep up the back and forth condescension between you and those you see as your "enemy", or get down off your high horse and find a way to move the discussion forward.

I think the discussion will do just fine without your condescending pep talks to those of us who don't follow your brand of campaigning. I've posted at length over the years being a patient and wishy washy liberal that I am and guess what? Nothing. Not a sausage. The discrimination still exists, people still get abused and likened to child molesters for wanting to marry and adopt. The hate is still out there.

You stick to your broad church of loveliness for all and I'll combat the haters in mine own fashion. That's probably the best solution.

OldNotWIse

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Agree, although I wouldn't vote against gay marriage in spite.

Gay marriage will eventually come to pass, but I wonder if those who campaign so vehemently in favour will be as vocal when questioning the inequalities suffered by singles, unmarried couples and those cohabiting but not in a sexual relationship (elderly siblings for example). Or will it be a case of once your on the right side of the fence these will be quickly forgotten about in favour of the next cause célèbre?

You could wonder the same about straight people's concern for such groups. I dont really see the relevance of your post tbh

OldNotWIse

old hippy wrote: »

I think the discussion will do just fine without your condescending pep talks to those of us who don't follow your brand of campaigning. I've posted at length over the years being a patient and wishy washy liberal that I am and guess what? Nothing. Not a sausage. The discrimination still exists, people still get abused and likened to child molesters for wanting to marry and adopt. The hate is still out there.

You stick to your broad church of loveliness for all and I'll combat the haters in mine own fashion. That's probably the best solution.

You're so.......angry :eek:

There's hate for everyone if we look hard enough. Don't let it get to you so much.

old hippy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You're so.......angry :eek:

There's hate for everyone if we look hard enough. Don't let it get to you so much.

You're goddam right I'm angry. My mother won't acknowledge I happen to be bi and somebody important to me was spat at yesterday and called a monkey - so forgive me if I bridle at Czarcasm's suggestion to go softly softly.

I like you, ONWI, so I'm not going to tussle with you but for me, the whimpering meek bleeding heart sit on the fence time is over. Militant and proud now :mad:

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

I think the discussion will do just fine without your condescending pep talks to those of us who don't follow your brand of campaigning. I've posted at length over the years being a patient and wishy washy liberal that I am and guess what? Nothing. Not a sausage.

Your particular brand of campaigning (since you choose to call it that) isn't working, hasn't worked, and will never work. I would consider myself the complete opposite to you - I'm an impatient, reality based conservative, and perhaps that's why my approach actually works, and gets results, whereas yours, well, even by your own admission- clearly doesn't.

The difference in methodologies success rates is down to one simple thing - our differing attitudes to people who disagree with us - you seek to dismiss people who disagree with your opinion, whereas I seek to engage with people who disagree with my opinion and find out where they're coming from, then work with that.

I believe in leading by example for people to see the benefits for themselves, you believe in making an example of people by way of telling them they're wrong, and here are the statistics and facts to prove how wrong they are.

The discrimination still exists, people still get abused and likened to child molesters for wanting to marry and adopt. The hate is still out there.

Of course it is, and it always will be as long as you continue to meet hate with hate. You describe yourself as a patient, wishy washy liberal, yet you instantly jump down the throat of anyone who disagrees with you and meet their opinion with condescension. That doesn't seem like a very patient, liberal outlook to me?

You stick to your broad church of loveliness for all and I'll combat the haters in mine own fashion. That's probably the best solution.

I see, so you condescendingly refer to my opinion as a "broad church of loveliness for all", while using hate to overcome those who disagree with the concept of equality for all people regardless of whom they love...


The irony of your approach seems truly lost on your closed mind.

realgolfgeek

old hippy wrote: »

I don't like you but I still think you should be allowed post here, if only so people can point out your irrational leanings

you don't like me ? How old are you, 12 ?

Absoluvely

realgolfgeek wrote: »

you don't like me ? How old are you, 12 ?

You don't like same-sex marriage? How old are you? :rolleyes:

realgolfgeek

old hippy wrote: »

Would you prefer gay people to be unhappy? Would that make you feel better?

I'd be indifferent,
I don't like the idea of gay couples, and don't like the idea of married gay couples. That's just how I feel.

realgolfgeek

Absoluvely wrote: »

You don't like same-sex marriage? How old are you? :rolleyes:

Correct, 46.

NTMK

realgolfgeek wrote: »

I'd be indifferent,
I don't like the idea of gay couples, and don't like the idea of married gay couples. That's just how I feel.

why considering it in no way affects you?

old hippy

realgolfgeek wrote: »

I'd be indifferent,
I don't like the idea of gay couples, and don't like the idea of married gay couples. That's just how I feel.

So, not only marriage but the idea of two people in a relationship?

Do you prefer single, celibate gays?

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

You're goddam right I'm angry. My mother won't acknowledge I happen to be bi and somebody important to me was spat at yesterday and called a monkey - so forgive me if I bridle at Czarcasm's suggestion to go softly softly.

I'm not suggesting softly softly at all, I'm suggesting you lead by example. Get angry about it of course, but channel your anger into positive action, not negative begrudgery and spite. That's not going to solve anything. You'll only end up alienating people, which is exactly the attitude you're hoping to change!

I like you, ONWI, so I'm not going to tussle with you but for me, the whimpering meek bleeding heart sit on the fence time is over. Militant and proud now :mad:

Seeing as you're in the militant minority, you might as well be bringing a pea shooter to a gunfight tbh, not even a gunfight actually, but what will feel like a full on arsenal pointed squarely in your direction with every intention of crushing you.

The best negotiators don't carry weapons.

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Your particular brand of campaigning (since you choose to call it that) isn't working, hasn't worked, and will never work. I would consider myself the complete opposite to you - I'm an impatient, reality based conservative, and perhaps that's why my approach actually works, and gets results, whereas yours, well, even by your own admission- clearly doesn't.

The difference in methodologies success rates is down to one simple thing - our differing attitudes to people who disagree with us - you seek to dismiss people who disagree with your opinion, whereas I seek to engage with people who disagree with my opinion and find out where they're coming from, then work with that.

I believe in leading by example for people to see the benefits for themselves, you believe in making an example of people by way of telling them they're wrong, and here are the statistics and facts to prove how wrong they are.





Of course it is, and it always will be as long as you continue to meet hate with hate. You describe yourself as a patient, wishy washy liberal, yet you instantly jump down the throat of anyone who disagrees with you and meet their opinion with condescension. That doesn't seem like a very patient, liberal outlook to me?





I see, so you condescendingly refer to my opinion as a "broad church of loveliness for all", while using hate to overcome those who disagree with the concept of equality for all people regardless of whom they love...


The irony of your approach seems truly lost on your closed mind.

Keep up the good work, Colonel.

haydar

Looks like there will be no referendum until 2016

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

The best negotiators don't carry weapons.

Who said there's going to be any negotiations? I remember trying to negotiate with somebody, just before he put his boot in my head. Nah, old hippy is dead and buried, along with his pacifism.

Javan

Yellow121 wrote: »

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Interestingly I know a woman called Adam. She should be allowed to marry Eve if they want to.