But it ends up looking like sour grapes.
On a day when so many Australians are celebrating, The Daily Telegraph not only looks like it is boycotting the celebration but also makes a cynical statement about marriage in general.
A lot of people bagging them today.
No. I think you’re being a tad offensive by throwing out the “H” word because somebody disagrees with you and used a common sarcastic expression to make a point.
You have this blinkered, black and white view on the topic and you won’t be persuaded to accept another point of view. That’s fine. I never expected to change your mind, I just hoped that you would have some respect for the other side.
It makes it a bit hard to have an intelligent debate about it when you believe the reasons against SSM are rooted in prejudice and hatred. It is possible to believe in legal rights and protections for same sex couples without destroying a deep rooted social construct.
You can put your pitchfork down now. The “yes” case, for better or worse, has won and the people who argued against SSM are going to have to accept it.
with no sense of humour.
It’s a joke.
A very dated comedy reference to a show from the 80s. It is really funny. 
Sales of the Daily Telegraph FAR exceed that of the Sydney Morning Herald so I assume they know what they are doing.
And as for your “very dated” issue, sorry that you don’t get cultural references from the 80s. The world didn’t begin around the year 2000.
to be fair most of the people who still buy the actual paper would be well of that era 
I get the attempt at humour but it still reeks of being a sore loser and at the same time it degrades the traditional marriage that they’d have been so determined to protect. It’s like “why would you want this, anyway?”
I get the reference to Married With Children but I agree that it just reeks of The Daily Telegraph being a sore loser and if anything, degrades traditional marriage. Then again, hasn’t one of their previous infamous front pages been a dodgy reference to Hogan’s Heroes? That should give you a decent idea of who the target demographic is for this newspaper.
Unfortunately (?) I don’t have access to the station at this time but I wonder if the reaction on 2GB over the past 24 hours has been the ridiculous “Australia has voted yes. Yes for Political Correctness!” narrative I’d expect from many of their presenters and callers?
Some people finding it funny
Calling us “the pollyannas” is homophobic. It doesn’t matter if it’s sarcastic. It doesn’t matter if you mean well. It is purposefully portraying us as drama-queens. It is condescending, especially in the post you made which mentioned “mopping up the tears” of yes voters and tried to insult younger voters for participating in a survey many didn’t want.
The history of oppression is where this comes from. By deciding to “stick it to us gays” who don’t accept your views, you’re just perpetrating attitudes which were designed from a place of pure disdain for us.
It doesn’t matter if you believe you’re doing it for the right reasons. If you perpetuate negative stereotypes with the intent to insult or rile others up, that’s homophobic.
Using this ridiculous insult that I’m apparently unintelligent or undeserving of being treated with respect in this debate we’re having, simply because I don’t tolerate having others colour my lifestyle, I think reflects more on you.
True.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Where did I say, I don’t “get” the reference? If anything, this is aimed at my demographic.
However, I work in a very diverse office with people of all ages and backgrounds so I know that many people don’t “get” a lot of the pop culture references that I do.
This was obvious again today when the cover was discussed and apart from the middle aged men, this pop cultural reference was lost on the majority.
Either way, nobody found it particularly funny or clever.
I’d think a typical reaction would be "Is that Jay from Modern Family? "
I think who cares what the media says! The vote is YES, SSM should be law before Christmas. GLBTQI people who have been discriminated against for decades (and in some instances murdered) can feel proud today, I do.
Matlock, if you were around in the late 1980s/early 1990s you’d know what real homophobia was and what the real meaning of acceptance is. Please don’t lecture me on oppression. I’ve been on the receiving end of a bashing for looking at a guy the wrong way. You certainly haven’t been “oppressed” because same sex marriage hasn’t been legal.
It seems to be the way to shut down a discussion these days- shout “homophobe” or “racist” repeatedly and it shuts everyone up. I’d rather have differing views aired in the community than have them fester and become a problem.
Pol·ly·an·na (pŏl′ē-ăn′ə)
n.
A person regarded as being foolishly or blindly optimistic.
Um, no, it hasn’t, actually. Unlike the left (and I don’t mean LGBT people per se) which would have hardly accepted a “No” vote, 2GB accepted it with good grace yesterday.
BTW FYI Ben Fordham, Ben Davis at 4BC, Alan Jones among others were YES voters.
Marriage is a significant part of our society and lives. As such it may not be a right.
And yet, it defines how you’ve chosen to be bound to another - to help and be helped - but more importantly sets legal rights for the people you are closest to. Marriage makes you next of kin in medical decisions. In death it is recognised and enables a partner to take responsibility for many things. So there are those rights that it provides.
Plus just generally, to be able to do the same things as others is a right.
So you lecture me on black and white, but refuse to acknowledge that homophobia can be different shades of severity? Sorry man, but the whole notion that just because things aren’t as bad now as they were in the 90s, that suddenly means that you should be allowed to say inflammatory things is off base and bizarre.
What is that supposed to mean? Clearly I have less rights than a heterosexual.
So I take issue with your tone and how you seem to be shitting on our moment of victory, accompanied by loaded language and condescension, and your reaction is that we’re silencing you? Get off your high horse mate. Say inflammatory things and be prepared to have people confront you about it. Don’t moan and complain.
The implicit meaning of pollyanna in the context you provided, alongside your portrayal of crying millenials - yeah not stereotyping or being condescending at all. Sorry I’m not buying.
I take great offence to being labelled homophobic. I have not "shit " on your moment of victory. My only issue has been with the definition of marriage. This victory changes a fundamental social institution rooted in religion. To question such a monumental change is not an attack on the LGBTQI community. There are plenty of notable people on the yes side, that I respect and admire, who acknowledge and have the maturity to recognise that their views may not align with others.
If you’re that sensitive to a common turn of phrase and you’re going to twist words to wedge me into the hole you think I fit into, then I probably shouldn’t engage with you. Disappointingly, you demonstrated your lack of maturity and lack of respect for others with that disgusting post that referenced Tony Abbott at the time the outcome was announced.
This thread is now being closed, as it relates to media coverage of the postal vote outcome.
Discussion on the postal survey can be made here: Australian Postal Survey on Marriage Law