Off Topic Thread too point uh

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

Fair bit of footage/pictures floating around of Yes campaign tearing down No campaign posters. Idiots. I will go out on a limb and say the bulk of us are voting yes but doing this sort of thing undermines the campaign and makes hypocrites out of them.

There was a debate on the referendum in UCD recently where a load of the No campaign literature was torn down and binned. Silly stuff.

Yeah it's really stupid and honestly it can turn people against them as well.

P_1

Crap odds on either sides all the same

Regarding the idiotic argument those 'No' posters are hurting eyes with, this is a much more effective way of dealing with them than breaking the law...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/10641173_1599758006965184_5940699310338837231_n.jpg?oh=2748634d9ede0843cd72b1dbe795e31f&oe=55D30656&__gda__=1439953150_1c0ca83823986f9b955d013598f6561f

I dunno, maybe I'm too insulated by my circle of friends but everyone I know is in favour of equality to the point they are amazed it's even a discussion.

Like when the vaccination issue crops up on facebook, this sort of debate gives me a clear understanding of people and groups that I don't want to have anything to do with. Handy filter really.

dregin

Even my dad, who would be a fairly hardcore Catholic (Pioneer who won't gamble because it's un-christian) is voting yes.

I don't think I know anyone who isn't. Unfortunately, it may be this assumption that makes everyone think it's grand to just not bother voting because everyone else is voting yes anyway.

P_1

dregin wrote: »

Even my dad, who would be a fairly hardcore Catholic (Pioneer who won't gamble because it's un-christian) is voting yes.

I don't think I know anyone who isn't. Unfortunately, it may be this assumption that makes everyone think it's grand to just not bother voting because everyone else is voting yes anyway.

Yeah everyone in my circle (even a chap about to become a priest) are firmly in the yes camp. Stuff like PP giving odds of 1/10 isn't going to help the complacency side of things.

wp_rathead

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno, maybe I'm too insulated by my circle of friends but everyone I know is in favour of equality to the point they are amazed it's even a discussion.

Like when the vaccination issue crops up on facebook, this sort of debate gives me a clear understanding of people and groups that I don't want to have anything to do with. Handy filter really.

Only a discussion really because it is a change to constitution, meaning a referendum, meaning broadcasters have to show "balance"when discussing it- meaning they have to drag on rather bigoted people into our lives.. *sigh*

Zzippy

I'm voting no. I think it's too much of a change, what's wrong with the system as it is? Why do we have to keep changing to suit a minority? Ireland is a fine country as it is with proper values...

We also can't trust those people - they're clearly deluded, immature and deviant.

Give them this and they'll want more. What's next? Lowering the age to 18?

Bloody young 'uns!

mfceiling

dregin wrote: »

Even my dad, who would be a fairly hardcore Catholic (Pioneer who won't gamble because it's un-christian) is voting yes.

I don't think I know anyone who isn't. Unfortunately, it may be this assumption that makes everyone think it's grand to just not bother voting because everyone else is voting yes anyway.

Wife's mother - mass twice a day, rosary beads always on standby and bible in every room is voting yes.

Wife's father - businessman and fairly liberal outlook on life is voting no. Reason - "it's not normal"...ok you've now gone on to my ignore list.

P_1

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think it's too much of a change, what's wrong with the system as it is? Why do we have to keep changing to suit a minority? Ireland is a fine country as it is with proper values...

We also can't trust those people - they're clearly deluded, immature and deviant.

Give them this and they'll want more. What's next? Lowering the age to 18?

Bloody young 'uns!

dregin

More important than all this equality nonsense - I just found my local greasy spoon. The Farmhouse Cafe on the longmile road. Real meat in the breakfast instead of the Denny ****e that everywhere else serves. Get in! Also, went to Shearies in Crumlin for the Leinster match on Friday. It is now my local pub. Sound as a pound.

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno, maybe I'm too insulated by my circle of friends but everyone I know is in favour of equality to the point they are amazed it's even a discussion.

Like when the vaccination issue crops up on facebook, this sort of debate gives me a clear understanding of people and groups that I don't want to have anything to do with. Handy filter really.

I don't know, the demographics who will vote no aren't ones I'd normally mix in. I would say it will be a pretty overwhelming victory for the yes campaign but I think there is still a small but significant element who will vote yes.

Hopefully it will be a complete landslide but anything as high as 30% for the no side wouldn't surprise me.

Paddy power are setting the line @ 38.5% No/Abstain.

Whats the difference between a civill partnership and marriage?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats the difference between a civill partnership and marriage?

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

We’ve identified over 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage.

List is here

Here's some important ones

...Civil Partnership:

• does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.
  
• does not recognise same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.
  
• defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.

errlloyd

To be fair, I think we have fewer now. Not that there should be any.

"separate but equal" was the reasoning behind segregation in America.

I have three friends who are voting no. They think a child deserves the chance to have a mother and a father.

Stheno

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have three friends who are voting no. They think a child deserves the chance to have a mother and a father.

Is that not seperate though and wasn't legislation in relation to that introduced/passed recently which effectively allowed gay couples hve equal rights as straight couples in relation to adoption etc?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I have three friends who are voting no. They think a child deserves the chance to have a mother and a father.

Please let them know that gay people are already legally permitted to adopt, and this referendum doesn't change that.

Separately, it might be useful to know that all known studies show that Same Sex parents are at least as good as raising children as "traditional" families. And also consider that there are plenty of absolutely successful single parent families where the above 'ideal' doesn't bear out.

wp_rathead

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have three friends who are voting no. They think a child deserves the chance to have a mother and a father.

I don't get that argument, an individual who is gay can still adopt regardless of outcome of this referendum.

Buer

I suspect a lot of people who vote no may use the excuse of a child not having a mother and father to vote against gay marriages simply because they don't want gay marriages.

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

Paddy power are setting the line @ 38.5% No/Abstain.

Feck the unders on that may be worth a punt, I'd say it'll be a 57/43 Yes at the end of the day

P_1

P_1 wrote: »

Feck the unders on that may be worth a punt, I'd say it'll be a 57/43 Yes at the end of the day

The original line was 68.5 Yes. I am quite invested in the unders at 5/6 there.

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

The original line was 68.5 Yes. I am quite invested in the unders at 5/6 there.

Have to say that's a wise investment

TheGoldenAges

I just think it's hilarious that people will bet on anything, in saying that I recently bet on the Glastonbury headliner :pac:

Pudsy33

TheGoldenAges wrote: »

I just think it's hilarious that people will bet on anything, in saying that I recently bet on the Glastonbury headliner :pac:

Who's your money on?

TheGoldenAges

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Who's your money on?

Considering it's being announced on the first of June it's someone who has a solo show that's not selling well or they're at another festival and want to sell tickets for that before announcing so they will delay the announcement for as long as possible. Bet on Blur and still think it's them (although they're playing Isle of Wight so not as likely) or Taylor Swift.

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

I suspect a lot of people who vote no may use the excuse of a child not having a mother and father to vote against gay marriages simply because they don't want gay marriages.

This. I've yet to hear that "child deserves a mother and a father" comment explained in a way that makes any sense at all. You could poke holes in it with some rolled up toilet paper. It also blatantly ignores, as emmet says, that this referendum makes no changes to the ability for same sex couples to adopt.

It's like Lisbon all over again. Fire out some BS lines that will stir up the target audience regardless of how totally untrue they are.

I've found most of them very funny, but the one that really gets me is the "children deserve to have their mother for life, not just 9 months". Take that to it's logical conclusion and it should mean the banning of adoption. So what happens to opposite sex couples who can't conceive themselves? Should they not have children because neither are the childs biological mother?

It's all pretty horrible and hateful nonsense. Not on the surface obviously, but beneath it all it very much is. Lie and cheat and fabricate BS in an attempt to prevent same sex marriage. How is it anything else?

stephen_n

The problem being that most no voters are over 40, most people who actually bother to voter are over 40, complacency may well be a big issue here in the end. My parents who I would consider generally fairly liberal in most things are voting no, much to my annoyance but I can't change their minds as their argument isn't based on any logic, just the view it will somehow devalue their marriage, end of the day they're homophobic no matter how much they deny it. At this stage I think(hope) it will carry but not by more than 10%.

Zzippy

There's only one reason to vote no - more feckin weddings to go to! And you know de gays, they'll have fabulous weddings and raise the bar so high the women bridezillas will want feckin' unicorns pulling a carriage and Boyzone doing the music before they'll say yes!

thomond2006

Who bankrolls this Iona Institute crowd?