And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Timberrrrrrrr

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Lots of talk about children and adoption etc here. If anyone was listening to Mat Cooper last night they had a guy from the Iona institute on making some of the same points as have been made here. But as was pointed out then the referendum isn't about adoption or children or parenthood etc, its about civil marriage. Trying to turn it into a debate that "dem gays can't raise kids" is not addressing the issue and is also a pretty disgusting tactic.

Would you expect anything less from that shower of *****?

SpaceTime

It'll most likely pass but prepare for some bumpy and ugly months as the 'no' side gets more aggressive and active.

The risk for the 'yes' side is debate fatigue, apathy and assuming it will pass.

An aggressive no campaign might paradoxically cause the middle ground 'yes' to turn out to vote in much larger numbers.

The dynamics of this could be fascinating for geeks, sociologists, communications experts and political scientists!

rozeboosje

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Lots of talk about children and adoption etc here. If anyone was listening to Mat Cooper last night they had a guy from the Iona institute on making some of the same points as have been made here. But as was pointed out then the referendum isn't about adoption or children or parenthood etc, its about civil marriage. Trying to turn it into a debate that "dem gays can't raise kids" is not addressing the issue and is also a pretty disgusting tactic.

Agreed, but you know that that card will end up getting played, so we may as well make sure we're prepared for it.

floggg

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Yes, but you shouldn't need a vagina to explain any of these things to kids.

I you used one as a prop for your sex ed talk, you were doing it wrong. And probably breaking the law....

SpaceTime

rozeboosje wrote: »

Agreed, but you know that that card will end up getting played, so we may as well make sure we're prepared for it.

The thing that won't work though is they'll just try to use American scare tactics on Irish voters. This isn't the US and I think social attitudes are very different to middle America.

The BAI also cuts both ways. You can't really get away with unbalanced ranting on current affairs programming here.

Akrasia

SpaceTime wrote: »

It'll most likely pass but prepare for some bumpy and ugly months as the 'no' side gets more aggressive and active.

The risk for the 'yes' side is debate fatigue, apathy and assuming it will pass.

An aggressive no campaign might paradoxically cause the middle ground 'yes' to turn out to vote in much larger numbers.

The dynamics of this could be fascinating for geeks, sociologists, communications experts and political scientists!

I think the biggest risk for the yes side is that we might get dragged down into the dirt with the no side.

The Yes side should not get into a shouting match with the religious fundamentalists because that will give the impression that this is a referendum on catholicism instead of a referendum on marriage equality. The vast majority of catholics should have no problem with supporting the yes side of this referendum, we don't need to alienate the ordinary people of Ireland because the fundamentalists provoked us into a shouting match.

floggg

Cienciano wrote: »

I'm not gay, but I'm going to have some gay sex purely to annoy the people who distributed this leaflet. Guys, who's with me?

PM me some pics first.

SpaceTime

Akrasia wrote: »

I think the biggest risk for the yes side is that we might get dragged down into the dirt with the no side.

The Yes side should not get into a shouting match with the religious fundamentalists because that will give the impression that this is a referendum on catholicism instead of a referendum on marriage equality. The vast majority of catholics should have no problem with supporting the yes side of this referendum, we don't need to alienate the ordinary people of Ireland because the fundamentalists provoked us into a shouting match.

I think there are elements of the no side quite capable of alienating even fairly conservative people.

Keep positive and give them enough rope ...

rozeboosje

SpaceTime wrote: »

An aggressive no campaign might paradoxically cause the middle ground 'yes' to turn out to vote in much larger numbers.

It definitely will, but ONLY if they keep showing themselves up as bigoted and reactionary, and the response remains calm and measured. If the "yes" camp starts "flinging poo" back at them everybody ends up looking like screaming chimps and the advantage is lost.

SpaceTime

The tactic I'm seeing a bit of though is some random people (many known to be raving homophobes) suggesting strongly that it should be a referendum on Irish Water.

That needs to be nipped in the bud but, I think the anti-austerity people are largely left wing and very pro same sex marriage so, it's unlikely to work either. It's just interesting to see it's being dropped in.
Smacks of desperation and clutching at straws to me.

Daith

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Lots of talk about children and adoption etc here. If anyone was listening to Mat Cooper last night they had a guy from the Iona institute on making some of the same points as have been made here. But as was pointed out then the referendum isn't about adoption or children or parenthood etc, its about civil marriage. Trying to turn it into a debate that "dem gays can't raise kids" is not addressing the issue and is also a pretty disgusting tactic.

It's also faintly ridiculous that Iona keep talking about how marriage will be redefined yet they keep defining marriage as a man and woman and children.

The fact that gay people can adopt, are raising children and will continue to raise children regardless of the outcome of the referendum needs to be repeated.

Iona and the like will win on "If you don't know, vote no" and it's up to the Yes side to counter their wafer thin arguments.

SpaceTime

Daith wrote: »

It's also faintly ridiculous that Iona keep talking about how marriage will be redefined yet they keep defining marriage as a man and woman and children.

The fact that gay people can adopt, are raising children and will continue to raise children regardless of the outcome of the referendum needs to be repeated.

Iona and the like will win on "If you don't know, vote no" and it's up to the Yes side to counter their wafer thin arguments.

We all know what a good job Catholic and Protestant fundamentalism did on child rearing...

Hundreds of thousands of childhoods wrecked by "care" homes and religiously inspired social policy that ripped children away from single parents, denied access to contraception leaving families with 16+ kids they couldn't afford to raise, locking pregnant mothers in slave labour camps and trafficking their children and so on... etc etc.

The days of "oh someone please think of the children" being bleated by religious fundamentalists and expecting to be accepted ad the benchmark for childcare are long over.

Being religiously pious or very conservative ≠ valid opinion on child rearing!

eviltwin

Daith wrote: »

It's also faintly ridiculous that Iona keep talking about how marriage will be redefined yet they keep defining marriage as a man and woman and children.

The fact that gay people can adopt, are raising children and will continue to raise children regardless of the outcome of the referendum needs to be repeated.

Iona and the like will win on "If you don't know, vote no" and it's up to the Yes side to counter their wafer thin arguments.

Tbh I don't know why they are even booked for these shows when all they do is derail it. You can be sure if anyone else did that they wouldn't get any airtime at all.

Daith

eviltwin wrote: »

Tbh I don't know why they are even booked for these shows when all they do is derail it. You can be sure if anyone else did that they wouldn't get any airtime at all.

You need "balance". It's better for them to speak and for their arguments to be torn apart than for them crying about not being able to voice their opinion.

smash

Iona can say what they want and priests can say what they want but if they were true followers of their beliefs then they'd take a tip from their leader Pope Francis who says that he doesn't have an issue with gay marriage. The church has very deep roots of segregation and sexism but if the Pope himself doesn't have an issue then why should the rest. It's just another example of people picking and choosing what they want to from the teachings of the bible and the church and disregarding the rest.

Grayson

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Contraception doesn't need a vagina if you have two cocks (On two people. Not on one person)

StudentDad

Daith wrote: »

You need "balance". It's better for them to speak and for their arguments to be torn apart than for them crying about not being able to voice their opinion.

Unfortunately such arguments are a bit like characters in a video game ... respawn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 and off we go again! Arguing against a belief is a bit like arguing with the wind. It just makes you hoarse.

SD

Daith

StudentDad wrote: »

Unfortunately such arguments are a bit like characters in a video game ... respawn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 and off we go again! Arguing against a belief is a bit like arguing with the wind. It just makes you hoarse.

SD

If it persuades even one person to vote yes by seeing the No "arguments" dismantled Im happy to go hoarse.

It's when it gets to "Well it's my opinion and I don't have to give you a reason why I'm voting No" that I'll stop.

Grayson

SpaceTime wrote: »

The tactic I'm seeing a bit of though is some random people (many known to be raving homophobes) suggesting strongly that it should be a referendum on Irish Water.

That needs to be nipped in the bud but, I think the anti-austerity people are largely left wing and very pro same sex marriage so, it's unlikely to work either. It's just interesting to see it's being dropped in.
Smacks of desperation and clutching at straws to me.

One of the founders of youth defence is a nutjob right wing loon. Hates emigrants, gay people, the government etc... You'll find these guys at the fringe of any right wing group.

PopePalpatine

LorMal wrote: »

I agree - I don't think this leaflet is from the Catholic Church or any other mainstream religious organisation. The wording sounds more like one of the more fundamental evangelical Christian groups.
I do not like the inflammatory and divisive language it uses. I do not have a problem with any organisation setting out their point of view prior to a referendum though (as long as it does not incite hate).
I do not think this represents the current thinking of the Catholic Church so some of the comments on here may be misplaced.

Then again, that rag "Nearly Dead! Alive!" which uses inflammatory language similar to that used in this leaflet hasn't been disowned by the RCC yet.

suicide_circus

The leaflet comes across as parody and is ludicrous in the extreme. It can only serve to bolster the the yes vote. Come to think of it, with my tinfoil hat on, this could well have been published by a group who are pro ssm!

Balmed Out

Daith wrote: »

It's also faintly ridiculous that Iona keep talking about how marriage will be redefined yet they keep defining marriage as a man and woman and children.

I've noticed that too I wonder do they recognize a marriage where the participants are unable or don't want children.

StudentDad

Daith wrote: »

If it persuades even one person to vote yes by seeing the No "arguments" dismantled Im happy to go hoarse.

It's when it gets to "Well it's my opinion and I don't have to give you a reason why I'm voting No" that I'll stop.

I've yet to see any sort of coherent reason put forward that indicates marriage equality is bad for society. Beyond the usual, 'I/we don't like it and we think god agrees with us too.'

This isn't a religious matter. It is a civil rights matter. In the same vein as everyone registered to vote may do so once reaching 18 etc. In the same vein as racism is illegal. In the same vein as discrimination on the grounds of gender or religious preference is illegal.

The bit that makes me laugh is that those who enjoy freedom of expression and the freedom to live their lives as they see fit (freedoms granted by law), then seek to prevent another group of society from the protection and recognition of law, just because they don't like it.

Just a bit hypocritical.

SD

Harry Palmr

suicide_circus wrote: »

The leaflet comes across as parody and is ludicrous in the extreme. It can only serve to bolster the the yes vote. Come to think of it, with my tinfoil hat on, this could well have been published by a group who are pro ssm!

Zealots are famed for their self-awareness!

Daith

Balmed Out wrote: »

I've noticed that too I wonder do they recognize a marriage where the participants are unable or don't want children.

They tend to just dismiss it or shift into "If marriage isn't about children why should the state get involved at all".

Which is basically the only argument against equal civil marriage is an argument against marriage itself.

But if we take children out of the equation, and if we decide for some strange reason that the sexual and emotional unions of men and women are not different in any socially significant way from any other kind of union, then we have to ask why should the State give special recognition to marriage at all and least of all to Brian’s very adult-centred vision of it?

http://d2539.cp.irishdomains.com/index.php?id=3774

Akrasia

Balmed Out wrote: »

I've noticed that too I wonder do they recognize a marriage where the participants are unable or don't want children.

Shhh, don't be letting reality get in the way of their 'philosophical' position

If the IONA institute's definition of marriage were to be adopted, then no woman who is no longer capable of bearing children should be allowed to get married. Marriages should be forbidden for anyone who has had a hysterectomy or who has passed menopause, and any man who is infertile or has had a vasectomy would also be prevented from marrying.

Daith

Akrasia wrote: »

Shhh, don't be letting reality get in the way of their 'philosophical' position

If the IONA institute's definition of marriage were to be adopted, then no woman who is no longer capable of bearing children should be allowed to get married. Marriages should be forbidden for anyone who has had a hysterectomy or who has passed menopause, and any man who is infertile or has had a vasectomy would also be prevented from marrying.

Yep, they view it as "child centric" as opposed to the union of two adults. Which one is redefining marriage?

floggg

Grayson wrote: »

One of the founders of youth defence is a nutjob right wing loon. Hates emigrants, gay people, the government etc... You'll find these guys at the fringe of any right wing group.

Only one of them? That's a pleasant surprise.

smash

Anyone want to throw in a few quid and we'll print a load of flyers about how god doesn't exist and how the bible is b0llox and about how religion destroys lives and we'll post a few rounds of them to every church and religious organisation in the country?

To see how they like getting letters forcing beliefs down peoples throats...

everlast75

smash wrote: »

Anyone want to throw in a few quid and we'll print a load of flyers about how god doesn't exist and how the bible is b0llox and about how religion destroys lives and we'll post a few rounds of them to every church and religious organisation in the country?

To see how they like getting letters forcing beliefs down peoples throats...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=54l4x8x&#.VKvVbiusX88