Why I will be voting Yes in the Marriage Equality Referendum

by Rua Sat May 23, 2015 09:22

Yes i agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly,this referendum is a welcome distraction,and whats with having a referendum on the age of presidency???? It makes useless blood sucking,money sucking politicians seem more relevant,it makes these sellout politicians look like they are actually doing something.When in reality all they are doing is providing a piece of theatre,a welcome distraction,all the while we are being robbed left right and centre of our rights and what little money we have at the end of each week...

I remember listening in on a lecture years ago,this businesseman came along and told us there are three types of people in life; Plums,Oranges,and Lemons!

The plums were the juicy rich guys,you looked after and gathered up your plums,the oranges were the middle class who you would sqeeze,and the lemons,you would SQUEEZE,SQUEEZE,SQUEEZE,every last drop you could out of the lemons.

I thought this guy was a psychopath,or a sociopath at the very lest,how can you view people like that??

by gaybanker Wed May 13, 2015 16:28

nobody wants overpaid CEOs but while we are busy trying to change the system
which begets them, all should meanwhile be equally free to become one to bask in our collective hatred and the money.

Perhaps if we concentrated on keeping sociopaths (black or white) out of such positions it might be more relevant.

Referendum is a weapon of mass distraction, nothing more. Some simple legislation for legal parity of same sex couples would have sufficed. That could have easily been guillotined and pushed through by FG with their majority. Job done.

The government's contempt for the public knows no bounds and is clearly demonstrated in what largely irrelevant issues they choose to "let us have our say" on.

"Next up, more guff about abortion to keep you all busy while we continue to sell you all out and privatise everything, while enjoying the eye watering salaries and pensions that you are paying us, you idiots."

by Mike Novack Wed May 13, 2015 13:56

It shows the depth of the prejudice.

We ordinarily do NOT feel we need to defend an institution in order to protest prejudicial exclusion of some from the benefits of that institution. So why in this case do some of us feel the need? Let's take an example.

I assume that many of us are strongly opposed to the existence of CEO's who receive hundreds or thousands of times the pay of their workers. OK now, raise your hands, how many of you would say "I favor a law that says "Black people can't be CEO's" because I don't think anybody should be a CEO and so that's progress".

Now try "I favor a law that says "LGBT people can't be married" because I don't think anybody should be married and so that's progress"

If you found something different about those two cases (so you could keep your hands down in one but raise them in the other) would you care to try to explain what that difference is? If you expect somebody who is opposing those laws to explain "why are you willing to support CEO's?" or "why are you willing to support the institution of marriage? maybe YOU need to try to explain why you feel that necessary.