Yeah, that's totally a thing that will happen.
If there's anything which really makes a reasoned argument about gay marriage complete, it's implied incest. Thanks for that, Mr Waters.
Yeah, the Irish Times, the newspaper where John Waters is a columnist, is pretty much no-go for opinions like John Waters'. Important opinions like the fantasy child-stealing scenario outlined here, and arrangements to be made.
I'm... not actually sure what this bit is supposed to be about. Is he implying that us gays have a poor sense of fashion, or something?
Twitter is full of cries that Waters should give back the money, and even people assuming that he will have to do so. And, yet, there likely is no legal reason that he must. It's not like there was a trial where it was declared that John Waters is not homophobic, and this new evidence will re-open the matter. RTE chose to settle. It's not even as if they didn't have access to parts of this interview; while the most spectacularly awful stuff is absent, well, you'd think that this would be quite damning enough.
|Please note that John Waters really likes the word 'satire'|
If Waters has any decency, he will give the money to a neutral charity, or return it, and apologise to RTE, to O'Neill, and to the general public. Of course, if he had any decency, he wouldn't have taken the money in the first place. It's highly unlikely that he has to, though.
We really should be considering, in the aftermath of this, if our defamation laws are actually doing the job that they're supposed to do.
Bonus important insight from Waters:
Oh, no, that UKIP guy was right! Gays cause floods!