Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

KungPao

alaimacerc wrote: »

You will be? Have you by any chance overslept your alarm by a fortnight or so?

Oh no. And I've just read about it. Teh gays won ffs.

Humanity is DOOMED!

aloyisious

KungPao wrote: »

Oh no. And I've just read about it. Teh gays won ffs.

Humanity is DOOMED!

Even worse, we've assimilated the U.S. Christian churches

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucc.org%2Fnews-free-religion-lawsuit-04292014&ei=j8F2VeGGM8yhsAHIyYGoCA&usg=AFQjCNHU8Q419_XjInx0PpeZa6QBjkaTcw&sig2=cjB2XQxOA9Lctp01KH9AzA

kunst nugget

KungPao wrote: »

Oh no. And I've just read about it. Teh gays won ffs.

Humanity is DOOMED!

THE Irish citizens who voted ‘yes’ in the recent Marriage Equality referendum are today feeling pretty stupid as recent events such as gay people marrying their family members for tax purposes have proved that the no side were right all along.

The vote to allow same-sex marriage in Ireland took place the 22th of May and passed with a 62% majority, and that 62% of the electorate are now feeling the bitter sting of ‘I told you so’ from those who voted against the amendment.

Since the passing of the bill, thousands of gay men have held marriage ceremonies uniting them in matrimony with their fathers, brothers or uncles, just as predicted by campaigners for the no side.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/06/08/nation-feeling-tricked-as-gay-men-start-marrying-their-dads-by-the-thousand/

Vivisectus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'm looking to marry my horse(and it's a he....that I lurrrrrrvvvvvvve)...a cracker..I'll expect YOUR votes. EQUALITY FOR ALL!!!

Your ability to give informed consent is based on the presumption that you are intelligent enough to make a choice in the matter.

However, based on your remark, there does not seem to be a significant difference between your level of intelligence and that of your fiance.

Grayson

Vivisectus wrote: »

Your ability to give informed consent is based on the presumption that you are intelligent enough to make a choice in the matter.

However, based on your remark, there does not seem to be a significant difference between your level of intelligence and that of your fiance.

Don't insult the poor horse.

alaimacerc

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'm looking to marry my horse(and it's a he....that I lurrrrrrvvvvvvve)...a cracker..I'll expect YOUR votes. EQUALITY FOR ALL!!!

It could be worse. You could have "settled" for marrying a mare, and now feel your union was "disfavored and demeaned" by the gallop of blokes marrying stallions.

Blahblah2012

Vivisectus wrote: »

Your ability to give informed consent is based on the presumption that you are intelligent enough to make a choice in the matter.

So you need an iq test to get married? EQUALITY was a load of balls of an argument by the sound of you.

Vivisectus wrote: »

However, based on your remark, there does not seem to be a significant difference between your level of intelligence and that of your fiance.

We're just cohabiting at the moment. You got a problem with that?

Blahblah2012

alaimacerc wrote: »

It could be worse. You could have "settled" for marrying a mare, and now feel your union was "disfavored and demeaned" by the gallop of blokes marrying stallions.

Sure the registry offices will be inundated or would that be the vets?

aloyisious

In today's Irish Indo' page 20 (right-side column - 3rd story). Electrician who took petition case to High Court to set aside marriage referendum result is appealing the court ruling to the Courts of Appeal. I photo'd the story and reprinted it below.

Challenge to Yes Vote.

The Court of Appeal will hear an application tomorrow from a man seeking to challenge the Yes Vote in the same sex marriage referendum.

Gerry Walshe, an electrician from Lisdeen, Co Clare, want's to appeal last week's decision by the High Court refusing him permission to bring a petition challenging the May 22 referendum result.

He want's the appeal court to grant a stay on the issuing of a certificate verifying the result. The case is against Ireland and the Attorney General, the Referendum Returning Officer and the Referendum Commission.

Ash.J.Williams

I'd actually feel sorry for gerry the electrician at this stage....he must have awful issues

efb

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'd actually feel sorry for gerry the electrician at this stage....he must have awful issues

He doesn't strke me as the brightest spark...

HalloweenJack

He has to be a patsy for Iona or some other group.

Failed local politician looking to breathe life into a campaign for next year:

https://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2011&cons=42

Assuming, of course, it's the same electrician from Clare called Gerry Walshe.

Vivisectus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

So you need an iq test to get married? EQUALITY was a load of balls of an argument by the sound of you.



We're just cohabiting at the moment. You got a problem with that?

Try to keep up: the untested assumption is that you are bright enough to give consent.

But otherwise your union seems uncontroversial and quite common: Asses and horses are frequently crossed. That is how we get mules.

Pac1Man

Gerry seems like a live one. I'm surprised he didn't remain neutral on the issue. The amount of resistance he has received should bring him back down to earth.



I'm sorry, I'll stop.

Links234

Pac1Man wrote: »

Gerry seems like a live one. I'm surprised he didn't remain neutral on the issue. The amount of resistance he has received should bring him back down to earth.



I'm sorry, I'll stop.

Please don't

Vivisectus

This just in: marriage equality STILL not about children! Children of gay couples STILL not particularly disadvantaged! We will keep you updated as events continue to fail to unfold.

While we are on the subject, however:

Interesting documentary coming out in Oz about children raised by same-sex couples:

http://themusic.com.au/interviews/all/2015/06/03/gayby-baby-maya-newell-sff-anthony-carew/

aloyisious

Pac1Man wrote: »

Gerry seems like a live one. I'm surprised he didn't remain neutral on the issue. The amount of resistance he has received should bring him back down to earth.



I'm sorry, I'll stop.

Ah go on go on, we don't mind people plugging an issue

Blahblah2012

Vivisectus wrote: »

Try to keep up: the untested assumption is that you are bright enough to give consent.

But otherwise your union seems uncontroversial and quite common: Asses and horses are frequently crossed. That is how we get mules.

Well at least it can produce something.;)

funny that you're not still whinging on about EQUALITY for all...that was truly a load of balls...pure mule

Not a NSA agent

Still about bestiality? Sorry Im late. What about people who are bisexual? They cant marry 2 people, where's their equality????

Jim with incest should be here for the night shift.

Vivisectus

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Well at least it can produce something.;)

funny that you're not still whinging on about EQUALITY for all...that was truly a load of balls...pure mule

Au contaire: I have already pointed out that we may indeed be mistaken in not considering you to be an equine's equal. But you will be glad to know that just like all unions between dumb animals, yours would be equally unprotected by any law or state recognition.

aloyisious

I'm reading from a googled page (typewritten on the 28th May) that anyone eligible to vote has seven (7) days after the Referendum Returning Officer publishes a provisional referendum certificate (done on 26th May) to challenge the result. Assuming the below is correct, the gardener and the electrician must have put in their High Court challenge papers someday between the 26th May and the 01st June.

The provisional referendum certificate was published on Tuesday (26th May). There follows a period of seven days in which anybody who was eligible to vote can lodge a challenge to its validity in the High Court. If that doesn't happen, the provisional referendum certificate becomes final and the returning officer forwards a copy of the certificate to the President and Taoiseach, and the President promulgates the Bill and it thus becomes law.

Link:https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web....

Does anyone know when the two challengers entered their papers to the Courts?

floggg

Pac1Man wrote: »

Gerry seems like a live one. I'm surprised he didn't remain neutral on the issue. The amount of resistance he has received should bring him back down to earth.



I'm sorry, I'll stop.

In fairness, that short post required far more brain power than poor Gerry's managed to display.

I'd almost feel sorry for him. Almost. I look forward to the State getting costs of him again - and hope they pursue for every penny.

aloyisious

From a queerid page:... https://vimeo.com/129143054

efb

Quelle surprize, the priests will still solemnise weddings....

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/0611/707315-solemnising-weddings/

traprunner

efb wrote: »

Quelle surprize, the priests will still solemnise weddings....

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/0611/707315-solemnising-weddings/

That is a real disappointment.

I do think that the government should remove it from them and create maybe around 1000 new jobs in the HSE as a result. It would be a great boost to the economy too.

Pac1Man

efb wrote: »

... priests will still solemnise weddings....

I read that completely wrong.

arayess

wondering why he didn't challenge the result on the basis of the home to vote brigade?

they can't all have been legit. I know they were on the register but living abroad for 18 month invalidates you. a lot of them must be in that category and were just never removed from the register.

anyway it is what it is.

traprunner

arayess wrote: »

wondering why he didn't challenge the result on the basis of the home to vote brigade?

they can't all have been legit. I know they were on the register but living abroad for 18 month invalidates you. a lot of them must be in that category and were just never removed from the register.

anyway it is what it is.

I thought the word 'intend' was key in them returning home. They may well have intended to come home in 18 months but we all know that intentions can change.

alaimacerc

efb wrote: »

Quelle surprize, the priests will still solemnise weddings....

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/0611/707315-solemnising-weddings/

Gas altogether. Shortly before the referendum, fly a kite that you'd got a tremendous amount of thinking to do about continuing to do (actual, legal) marriages. Almost immediately afterwards, announce you're done with this weighty and thoughtful process, and yes please, we'd still like our nice little cultural Catholic earners!

"Any change to the definition of marriage would create great difficulties and in the light of this, if there were two totally different definitions of marriage, the Church could no longer carry out the civil element."

They're denying this was a "threat", and I've used up my daily allowance of calling "mental reservation". So I'm going to have to say: great big steaming lie.

Not a NSA agent

Im just surprised they said anything. Was assuming they would just pretend it never happened.

K4t

alaimacerc wrote: »

They're denying this was a "threat", and I've used up my daily allowance of calling "mental reservation". So I'm going to have to say: great big steaming lie.

Mental retardation is the term I'd most associate with the leaders of the Catholic Church.

aloyisious

Update on Gerry the Spark's appeal case. The appeal court judge has put a stay on the provisional (referendum) certificate preventing it being activated until after tomorrow's hearing at the earliest. Until the cert is signed by Michael D, there's no legal equal marriage. If Gerry is getting legal advice, it's "unfortunate" that he's made an error causing further delay in getting the cert cleared for signing

An application for a stay aimed at restraining the issuing of a certificate verifying the result of the same sex marriage referendum has been adjourned to Friday’s sitting of the Court of Appeal.

Gerry Walshe, an electrician of Lisdeen, Co Clare, wants to appeal last week’s refusal by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, of permission to Mr Walshe to bring a petition challenging the May 22nd referendum result.

The matter came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly on Thursday. The Judge, after being informed at that an appeal had been lodged and served on the state, adjourned the matter to allow Mr Walshe, who is representing himself in the action, amend his notice of appeal.

The judge also said that he was placing a stay on the certificate verifying the result from being issued until the matter returned before the Court of Appeal on Friday morning.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjABahUKEwjaot_vwojGAhVEjSwKHWADACY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fmarriage-referendum-challenge-adjourned-until-friday-1.2245823&ei=N_V5VZqrJcSasgHghoCwAg&usg=AFQjCNGK4yr7cFBUahXR_CmNn_Dk-6YmCQ&sig2=pzGdCExeQFMWet1WrkegwQ

Ave Sodalis

Why are people so completely obsessed with other people that they feel they have to go to far measures to ensure they interfere with other people's lives? Seriously, the referendum passed, the High Court rejected the objection to the results... give over. It's done. There's no ground to stand on, therefore the only conclusion I can come to is that Mr Walshe is a very misinformed person who delights in making other people miserable. In a way, I pity him. In another, I have no time for people who insist on interfering with other people's lives and Mr Walshe seems insistent on doing so on a much larger scale, and therefore I have especially no time for him.

NorthStars

alaimacerc wrote: »

Gas altogether. Shortly before the referendum, fly a kite that you'd got a tremendous amount of thinking to do about continuing to do (actual, legal) marriages. Almost immediately afterwards, announce you're done with this weighty and thoughtful process, and yes please, we'd still like our nice little cultural Catholic earners!

"Any change to the definition of marriage would create great difficulties and in the light of this, if there were two totally different definitions of marriage, the Church could no longer carry out the civil element."

They're denying this was a "threat", and I've used up my daily allowance of calling "mental reservation". So I'm going to have to say: great big steaming lie.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

aloyisious

NorthStars wrote: »

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Excepting the obvious - that the only marriages the bishops would temporarily stymie by going ahead with the suggestion would have been those straight heterosexual couples married in their churches - and certainly not homosexual couples married outside their churches in accordance with church/faith beliefs.

The heterosexual couples would, presumably, have to put honeymoon and other plans on hold til after the civil registration in another location. T'wouldn't be right to have horizontal jogging sessions til that was done

lizzyman

K4t wrote: »

Mental retardation is the term I'd most associate with the leaders of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is the same as any huge, faceless and evil corporation. There's a Novena near me at the moment that was set up in the 1960s by a priest with 'contacts in the world of buisness' - I'm quoting that directly from his obituary. You would not believe the amount of stuff they sell, from prayerbooks, candles, Padre Pio crap etc. It's endless and the whole thing is all tax free.

The Catholic Church is like the pharma companies, Big Tobacco and Big Oil. Just with a considerably shíttier PR division.

aloyisious

Dear David's opinion piece in today's Indo' has a bash at the marriage referendum, the family, abortion, abortion rights supporters, the Govt, the economy, the ECHR and court rulings, the UN & the international agreements the state has signed up to and ignores or heed's, all under the banner "Don't be fooled by appearances, Ireland is no longer a sovereign nation" with a picture of Simon Coveney and Frances Fitzgerald below a F/G YES poster atop the article. It's not all "woe, woe" though, the Fiscal Council, the ESRI and Singapore's city-state get praised.

alaimacerc

NorthStars wrote: »

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Huh? No, I'd have been completely fine with them withdrawing entirely from the process. Continental model, yay. I have them no objection to them continuing as at present.

So, not damned if they do, and not damned if they don't.

What's deserving of ridicule is them raising this as an obviously idle threat, maintaining it with an affectedly straight face right up to the referendum... and then doing a complete volte face a couple of weeks later.

What new information has occasioned this change of heart? Beyond "oops, didn't work, our bluff's been called".

aloyisious

Belfast today... http://bit.ly/1B9uXrm

Raging I didn't hear about this earlier on our Island.

aloyisious

Sometimes those with sight refuse to see...............

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vincent-twomey-sentiment-trumped-reason-in-marriage-referendum-1.2249116

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes those with sight refuse to see...............

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vincent-twomey-sentiment-trumped-reason-in-marriage-referendum-1.2249116

Ah yes, Vincent '"It is a fact that atheism has produced the worst atrocities in history such as Nazism" -- and this will all be in the final exam, get ready to regurgitate it on command' Twomey.

I've never read such smug, disappearing-up-its-own-fundament nonsense in all my life. Let us presuppose that the scaremongering, deflectionary, whataboutery nonsense of the "No" campaign was in fact based on reason. Let us flatly assert that the odious berks fronting it "won the public debates". Obviously, then, it's the fault of the electorate for not being sufficiently doctrinaire Catholic. Or at least, for not slicing their hypocritical doublethink the way the likes of Twomey thinks they ought to have.

Can someone explain to me why it's incumbent on ex-presidents to remain "neutral" on such matters? When it's not on Tom Monaghan's US pizza empire money? To say nothing about the RCC itself, lavishly cross-subsidised from public funds as it is. He says that "contraception leads inexorably [...] to same-sex marriages"... so, what's he complaining about, then? That battle's long lost, and will never be re-fought. He contradicts any suggestion that the "no" side had a winning argument, even on his own fatuous terms.

He not only does he whinge on no evidence about "intimidation", he can't resist "rounding up" the no vote rather generously. <38% is suddenly "four in 10". Give yourself another 46,000 votes, Vinny, you obviously think you deserve them. Nay, are "entitled" to them -- and more besides, indeed.

He does get one thing right, though: "Reason and courage prevailed." Yes, it did. With a vote of 62.07%. In your cowardly and irrational emeritus face, Twomey.

looksee

That has to be one of the most totally irrational arguments i have ever read! How does he get to be a professor of anything with that level of reasoning ability?

alaimacerc

looksee wrote: »

That has to be one of the most totally irrational arguments i have ever read! How does he get to be a professor of anything with that level of reasoning ability?

Well, he's "emeritus", meaning "put out to pasture". And it's "moral theology", meaning "shizzle we make up on the spot, or made up sometime during the Middle Ages".

You don't advance in that field making rational arguments. You do so but making a particular type of irrational argument better than the next bloke. (Gendered language apt in this case.)

lizzyman

looksee wrote: »

That has to be one of the most totally irrational arguments i have ever read! How does he get to be a professor of anything with that level of reasoning ability?

I loved this quote in particular: "Acceptance of contraception leads inexorably in time to the acceptance of same-sex acts and artificial reproduction – and so to same-sex marriages – because it deliberately separates sex from procreation."

To follow his line of reasoning, we have gays because condoms.

He has a PhD in moral theology - a branch of Christian theology that defines concepts of right (virtuous) and wrong (sinful) behavior from a Christian perspective

I'd have more faith in Saul Goodman's degree from the University of American Samoa than this clown.

alaimacerc

lizzyman wrote: »

To follow his line of reasoning, we have gays because condoms.

I suspect he'd concede we'd have gays in any event. It's tolerated, and what's worse, married gays he's upset about.

... despite arguing that it's inevitable from a place Ireland got to in 1980. Doesn't time fly when you're pining for the '70s? Likely the 1570s. Ah, those heady days of the Counter-Reformation!

BizzyC

"Rev Dr D Vincent Twomey SVD is a professor emeritus of moral theology"

so he's actually not qualified at anything except being very religious....

JaseBelleVie

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes those with sight refuse to see...............

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vincent-twomey-sentiment-trumped-reason-in-marriage-referendum-1.2249116

What a magical pile of Navajo horse-sh*t.

The late-starting, underfunded No campaign that transcended denominational barriers fought respectfully, bravely, and nobly

All utter bollocks. The No campaign started late not out of any accident, but out of pure cute-hoorism; more people make up their mind how they're going to vote in the final 3 weeks before polling day than any other time. So the No campaign deliberately held back before blitzing the media and the airwaves. They hoped to sway the undecideds with their deliberately late-starting campaign by only starting to properly find their voice in the final month or so. Thankfully, they failed. Miserably.

Underfunded? Me hole. Domino's Pizza, various rich-right-wing Americans and many others donated huge sums of money to the No side. The No side had posters absolutely everywhere, while the Yes side largely restricted their posters to urban areas and population centres. The Yes side simply did not have the money to have huge amounts of advertising. However, what the Yes side had that the No side did not was a huge amount of footsoldiers who went out and canvassed and campaigned in person. In my opinion, this kind of campaigning is far more effective than money and posters. And it worked.

Respectfully? Not a chance. Comparing gay people (mostly gay men, it must be said) to paedophiles, insinuating that children would not be safe by being raised by gay couples (again, singling out gay male couples), wanting to deny fundamental human rights to gay people, denigrating and insulting countless single parents with their "Children Deserve A Mother And Father" posters, insulting basically every family unit other than the "ideal" nuclear family they put forward, insulting the very institution of marriage by turning it from a loving relationship between two consenting adults into simply and nothing more than a means to procreate, etc. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, respectful came from that insidious, awful No campaign. Nothing.

Brave and noble? Having "people"* like Ronán Mullen, David Quinn, Paddy Manning, Breda O'Brien and all of their ilk out in front and airing their outdated and insulting views was neither brave nor noble. It was stupid and ignorant. None of these "people" were brave or noble. They were bigoted, ignorant, deluded and prejudiced piles of accumulated filth. They spouted hatred and apartheid and tried to use every dirty trick in the book to scare people into voting No. They were not brave or noble. The bravest people were those who went out and canvassed for the Yes side. The noble people in this campaign were the likes of Colm O'Gorman, David Norris, Mary McAleese, PantiBliss, Pat Carey, Katherine Zappone, Brian Sheehan, Andrew Hyland, Leo Varadkar, John Lyons, and so on. Even other politicians such as Enda Kenny, Joan Burton, Stephen Donnelly, Mícheal Martin, Gerry Adams, Simon Harris, Mick Wallace, Paul Murphy, Dara Calleary, Mark Daly, Alex White, Eamon Gilmore, Eamon Ryan, etc. all went up in my estimation for their unwavering support for the referendum.

The spokespersons of the No campaign won the public debates. They had reason on their side, the bedrock of society.

I do not know what debates Mr. Twomey was watching, but they certainly weren't the debates I was watching. The Yes side had intelligent, reasoned and articulate people such as Colm O'Gorman (a true statesman and hero), Alex White, Katherine Zappone and so on on their side. The No side treated us to the visual delight of watching Ronan Mullen, David Quinn and various other screeching acolytes committing hara-kiri on national television. Reason? What reason? Other than dragging totally irrelevant sh*te into the debate (adoption, surrogacy, "won't someone please think of the children?!"), the No side had nothing to offer. All fur coat and no knickers. And, thankfully, the intelligent and informed Irish electorate saw through the smoke and mirrors of the No side and voted with their head, heart and intelligence and voted Yes. The No side had no reason. They won no debates. And they lost the referendum. Comprehensively.

The entire Yes campaign – but especially the endorsement of all the political parties and trade unions, the involvement of elements within the Garda Síochána, the muscle of big business, the failure of an ex-president to remain neutral, the irresponsible musings of Mr Justice Cross and above all the media’s partisanship – was intimidating. How many of the 40 per cent of those registered to vote (more than 1.2 million!) failed to vote because they were intimidated?

Bullsh*t. The secrecy of the ballot booth negates this stupid argument. Nobody who wanted to vote No would have been prevented from doing so and they could have voted No in total privacy and secrecy. They may have felt uncomfortable voicing such an opinion, but their vote was secret and their failure to vote is nothing to do with anything other than them being too lazy to get up off their arse and going to vote.

Mr. Justice Cross spoke neutrally and he spoke the truth. He did nothing irresponsible and he could have lost his job had he done so! What nonsense.

Mary McAleese may have broken protocol, but she was a beacon for Ireland while she was President, and she continues to be. She is a lady, a class act and a wonderful person who is the exact kind of ambassador that Ireland needed. She is also a mother. And one of her sons is gay. Fair enough, maybe she should not have gotten involved. But she was, in my opinion, totally within her right to speak out on behalf of her own child. She is no longer President and as such should not be so constrained. Mary McAleese has more integrity and intelligence in her little finger than Mr. Twomey has in his entire being.

God love the poor ickle wuzzums on the No side. Intimidation? Tell that to the LGBT community who have suffered intimidation and prejudice for f*cking years and who have never been treated as anything more than 2nd class citizens. But no, the real victims are the No side. Yeah. They're the real victims here.

Then Twomey starts rabbiting about sex and morals and all that. Yeah. That's right. Keep it up.

There can be no doubt that the right side of history prevailed. But some of the bitter elements of the No side cannot just sit down, shut up and accept that their views are not shared by most of this country. They failed. And failed miserably. They couldn't even galvanise a respectable "silent No" vote. They failed at every major hurdle of this campaign and they are now wailing and whining about it. You lost. You lost hard. Move on and leave this issue alone, because you have nothing worth saying about it; you never did anyway.

Reason did win on May 22nd. "Cothrom féine" and "Tabhair dom do labh" also won and what a victory it was.


*I wanted to use other words to describe these "people", but I feared a ban if I did say what I thought of these "people".

alaimacerc

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

Then Twomey starts rabbiting about sex and morals and all that. Yeah. That's right. Keep it up.

Maybe that's what he's so bent out of shape about. The 'no' side tried to keep the blatant homophobia down to a dull roar. Twomey, in contrast, not merely wants to rail against any sort of "acceptance of same-sex acts" (no homophobia there, then!), he wants to relitigate contraception. But he dutifully kept his trap shut during the campaign, presumably in the hopes of getting out the the 'moderate', scaremongered 'no' vote (gays are OK, just not married gays, surrogating and adopting and such as if they were normal people!).

But all in vain. He might as well have gone all fire-and-brimstone after all! It would have been a far more glorious defeat! Like the Spartans at Thermopylae! ... only much straighter, or at least more celibate, obviously.

JaseBelleVie

I remember a friend of mine going bananas because a young lad who worked with her said he was voting No. This guy was 19, and when asked, he simply said "I don't like gay people and I think two guys going at it is disgusting".

Now, while I may find his views repugnant, I at least admired him for his honesty! He aired his views and was honest about it. He didn't drag adoption, surrogacy or Jesus into it. He kept it concise and to the point. He just disliked gay people. Simple as.

This was a problem I had with the No side. They tried to tart it up in every way possible to avoid saying what they really felt (ie. "I don't like gay people"). And it made them look dishonest, disingenuous and more crooked than a $3 bill.

I think that no matter what, the No side was going to lose. But the least they could have done was be bloody honest about it!