SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Woodville56

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

Ten of Swords

Here is a flavour of the anti-ssm campaign

Manach

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest I also have my concerns that it mightn't pass. The conservative side will be very organised at getting their vote out. The key will be in getting as high a turnout as possible and possibly keeping the parties as far away from the campaign as possible.

It's going to be very interesting watching where the money funding the NO side is coming from too. I wouldn't be too surprised if American conservative lobby groups stick their oar in the way they do with Youth Defence et al. If I remember right the dollars were laid on good and heavy to buy advertising space, provide buses to transport pensioners to polling stations etc during the last abortion thingie.

Although I'm not sure how much even conservative Americans give a **** about SSM anymore.

comongethappy

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

Its a big government & the day is long.

There is plenty of time to address issues both big & small.

(Having equal rights with your fellow man is as big as it gets)

Annasopra

dxhound2005 wrote: »

So if political parties don't campaign what campaign will there be?

I presume groups like GLEN, TENI, Marriage Equality, ICCL, Belong To will all do some sort of campaign.

comongethappy

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

You do know that if the "Yes" prevails, marrying someone gay won't be compulsory & existing marriages are still valid?

PopePalpatine

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Plus they love to fight dirty, outrightly lie and paint themselves as the victims. That all seems to play in their favour in this country and they actually get a podium to spout their crap.

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, in spite of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

As sure as night follows day...

Muise...

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

I find it hard to be cynical about this one. I'm straight, so it doesn't affect me directly, but there are quite a lot of excellent and lovely people I care about, whom it will affect. There are several weddings I want to dance at, but can't yet.

It also affects me indirectly insofar as the Constitution is a document of the ideals and intentions of the people, and I am one of the people. It's flawed as hell, that old document, but I want it to at least say something good about love.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

It doesn't matter what the words used to express that opinion are, it's still stupid, so put away the thesaurus, it doesn't make a difference.

Woodville56

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Everyone I know has been pretty strongly for it. I presume this will fairly sail in - or at least I hope so in order to give the fundementalist loonies a public reminder as to the current discourse in Ireland.

So, is everyone who opposed SSM or who is (like myself) ambivalent to the whole idea a " looney fundamentalist " Foxhound ? The campaign hasn't even begun yet this is where the "discourse" is pitched already - bound to polarise opinion and won't bring many undecided to the SSM cause imo

Maximus Alexander

comongethappy wrote: »

You do know that if the "Yes" prevails, marrying someone gay won't be compulsory & existing marriages are still valid?

Way to rain on my parade. I was looking forward to being forced to get gay married after the referendum.

It would be a great way to get rid out of a relationship for us straight folks.

"I'm sorry love, you know I'd rather marry you, but they're not giving me a choice. You voted for this!"

GLaDOS

Looking forward to reading the ludicrous posters the no side come out with

major bill

I will be voting and it will be in favour of it.

I would be interested in knowing why anyone would vote no?

Foxhound38

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just another government whim imo - more pressing issues requiring government attention ! Is it an element of Kenny's new politics or a sop to the ailing Labour Party ?? Either way, of no great relevance to most of the electorate , low poll but expect fiery rhetoric from the opposing camps !!

Presumably the Government can pay attention to more than one thing at the same time?

Either way, there will always be reasons not to run it at this time or that time - let's just do it and join the 21st century on this issue sooner rather than later. Our backwards, arch-catholic attitude in law towards these things is enough of a source of embarassment for one century.

Foxhound38

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Here is a flavour of the anti-ssm campaign

Here's a better taste of it! :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wopoEJxFYQw

Maximus Alexander

Woodville56 wrote: »

So, is everyone who opposed SSM or who is (like myself) ambivalent to the whole idea a " looney fundamentalist " Foxhound ? The campaign hasn't even begun yet this is where the "discourse" is pitched already - bound to polarise opinion and won't bring many undecided to the SSM cause imo

I think it's hard, or even impossible, for people in favour of SSM to see the other side of it since nobody has been able to demonstrate any negative effects that would be put upon people who don't want to marry someone of the same sex.

It comes across as hate for it's own sake, though I'd love to hear a cogent argument against it. Not that it would change my opinion mind. It might at least allow me to stop viewing the opposition as nasty people.

PopePalpatine

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Looking forward to reading the ludicrous posters the no side come out with

I won't. I find such wilful ignorance peddled by the anti-LGBT shitlords as just frustrating. It's frustrating to see people take such glee in denying equality to other human beings, it's frustrating to see people peddle such hatred.

P_1

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

It's going to be very interesting watching where the money funding the NO side is coming from too. I wouldn't be too surprised if American conservative lobby groups stick their oar in the way they do with Youth Defence et al. If I remember right the dollars were laid on good and heavy to buy advertising space, provide buses to transport pensioners to polling stations etc during the last abortion thingie.

Although I'm not sure how much even conservative Americans give a **** about SSM anymore.

I actually think that could be a veryuseful tactic for the Yes side to employ.

Basically play the 'people from outside out society are trying to influence us' card.

Only worry is that chances are the No side will try to ape it

Doctor Strange

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

Bite. Me.

There is NO reason two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married. You can carry your delusions of "traditional" marriage all you want, but guess what? Your life won't change because people who love each other can now get married. Frankly, I find it abhorrent and slightly creepy that people wish to stick their unwanted opinion into the relationship of two consenting, loving adults. Will society change fundamentally if I can marry a man? Or if Links can marry a woman? No. So leave your opinion in the 17th century where it belongs.

dxhound2005

People entering into these marriages might need to consider their position if they are travelling abroad. No recognition is given to same sex marriage in many countries and in some they could face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Looking forward to reading the ludicrous posters the no side come out with

I'd be looking forward to it a lot more if I had more confidence it'd pass, but yeah, I kinda am looking forward to it.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

It's funny, isn't it? When the X Case judgement was handed down, your comrades on the religious right kicked and screamed. When referenda to overrule the X Case was up for a vote, the anti-X Case side threw their toys out of the pram when they lost, and it was the same when the ban on divorce was taken out of the Constitution by a referendum, too.

It seems when you über-conservatives lose a vote, you scream at the judiciary to overturn a democratic result. And yet, when the judiciary rules against your side, you demand a referendum to overrule them. :rolleyes:

Your crowd are the most miserable bastards I've ever had the misfortune to come across.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

P_1 wrote: »

I actually think that could be a veryuseful tactic for the Yes side to employ.

Basically play the 'people from outside out society are trying to influence us' card.

Only worry is that chances are the No side will try to ape it

Oh I'd say they will. Blaming the Global Gay Agenda of the Feminist-Socialist complex or whatever they do be on about.

Muise...

dxhound2005 wrote: »

People entering into these marriages might need to consider their position if they are travelling abroad. No recognition is given to same sex marriage in many countries and in some they could face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

I daresay every gay couple is well aware of hostile places and I doubt any of them think an Irish marriage certificate will change their chances on a foolhardy trip to Uganda...

Fr_Dougal

Will be an interesting one, can see the no side winning. Not because the majority of people are against SSM, but because the older more conservative voters(the people that actually visit the polling stations) won't vote in favour.

_Redzer_

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

I hope to god you're out every single solid day fighting to overturn the divorce referendum result, purely out of coherency, if nothing else.

Foxhound38

Woodville56 wrote: »

So, is everyone who opposed SSM or who is (like myself) ambivalent to the whole idea a " looney fundamentalist " Foxhound?

Opposing equal rights and a little happiness for your fellow person at the cost of nothing to yourself on arbitrary religious/anti-government sentiment/ewww grounds is just a looney view to take in my opinion.

I'm sorry - but I'm absolutely convinced in a way that I am on very few other issues that there are absolutely no non-stupid reasons to oppose this. If you have one, then I'm all ears - but even to someone not directly effected like myself, so far this thing is and has been as open/shut a case as the debate around legalizing interracial marriage many moons ago.

Zed Bank

Can anyone see it going like this:

SSM is passed marginally (as it should)

Catholic loonies throw a fit and start the mother of all **** storms.

Government give in. Lisbon treaty referenda all over again.

dxhound2005

Muise... wrote: »

I daresay every gay couple is well aware of hostile places and I doubt any of them think an Irish marriage certificate will change their chances on a foolhardy trip to Uganda...

Much of the world is a "hostile place" Illegal in China and not welcome in Russia, illegal all over the Muslim world with imprisonment or death. South Africa is the only African country where it is legal.