Off Topic Thread too point uh

Zzippy

thomond2006 wrote: »

Who bankrolls this Iona Institute crowd?

We all do to an extent - they are tax exempt as a registered charity AFAIK :rolleyes:

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

Who bankrolls this Iona Institute crowd?

Murica

thomond2006

Zzippy wrote: »

We all do to an extent - they are tax exempt as a registered charity AFAIK :rolleyes:

An interest group is a charity now?

Also what makes them an "institute"? It's a very odd term for a conservative Catholic lobby.

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

An interest group is a charity now?

Also what makes them an "institute"? It's a very odd term for a conservative Catholic lobby.

Ireland's laws don't protect the term 'institute', their trading name is Lolek Ltd.
http://atheist.ie/2015/04/iona-institute-sipo-u-turn/

and reading between the lines of the above makes it seem like they've been caught up to no good...

Long thread here, worth reading last two pages though.

molloyjh

Zzippy wrote: »

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!

Thank God I've gotten it out of the way so....er I mean already enjoyed the most wonderfulest day of my life.

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtgY1q0J_TQ

CatFromHue

While the yes side has alot of support, and there's still a good bit to go, they really need to up their game.

I didn't know there was a difference between a civil partnership and marriage until I looked it up (seemingly there's loads), nor did I know what the story was with adoption til I looked it up.

The posters I've seen put up so far don't shed any info on what we're actually voting for, they might as well have the tag line "vote yes for jobs".........

So unless they do up it I wouldn't be confident of a landslide victory, or maybe not even a victory!

I worked as a polling clerk once and the amount of people who don't vote is amazing, I think my office had only a 30% turnout.

Podge_irl

CatFromHue wrote: »

The posters I've seen put up so far don't shed any info on what we're actually voting for, they might as well have the tag line "vote yes for jobs".........

The same could generally be said for every referendum.

It does my nut in that there is seemingly no standards set for the posters. I remember during the Nice treaty there was bull**** about ending up in NATO on some No posters.

P_1

Podge_irl wrote: »

The same could generally be said for every referendum.

It does my nut in that there is seemingly no standards set for the posters. I remember during the Nice treaty there was bull**** about ending up in NATO on some No posters.

Frankly the fact that we even still need posters is a bit of an embarrassment once you consider the wealth of information that is out there.

Podge_irl

P_1 wrote: »

Frankly the fact that we even still need posters is a bit of an embarrassment once you consider the wealth of information that is out there.

True.

I think some of the catchier slogans on the posters really can have an impact in getting certain ideas into the mainstream consciousness - whether those ideas have anything to do with the referendum or not.

I'd like a limit put on them from a purely aesthetic viewpoint if nothing else.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

The same could generally be said for every referendum.

It does my nut in that there is seemingly no standards set for the posters. I remember during the Nice treaty there was bull**** about ending up in NATO on some No posters.

I saw this in the brazen head recently

molloyjh

Podge_irl wrote: »

The same could generally be said for every referendum.

It does my nut in that there is seemingly no standards set for the posters. I remember during the Nice treaty there was bull**** about ending up in NATO on some No posters.

Ah yes the EU Army one. Pure class. And what's worse people actually believed it.

The problem with posters is that you simply can't put across any kind of a real message. A one liner is not what people should be basing important political and social change on. But as long as there's a one liner there people won't make the effort to educate themselves.

Personally I think posters should be banned. They are a pretty useless media in this day and age. And they are also an eye-sore and end up in many cases just being litter. That said I also think people should have to pass a basic competency test to be allowed to vote. Prove they know what they are voting about before making a decision on it. If they are shown to have no clue on the matter then they should either be told they can't vote or their vote should be discarded. Too often ignorance has played a big role in peoples decisions. We shouldn't let it shape our country.

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

I saw this in the brazen head recently

Is that face a reaction to the absurdity of the poster?

Neil3030

For me it's not a vote on the technicalities of marriage, adoption etc., it's a vote on normalising homosexuality, and anything that does this (to borrow Mary McAleese's point) and consequently reduces marginalisation of gay people in Ireland, is the most appealing aspect of a yes vote for me.

My concern, however, is in quantifying the number of people who support the yes vote to the extent of actually getting off their arse and voting. Many people are simply after the praise to be garnered on social media. Once their profile picture amended to read 'yes for equality' gets enough likes, the result of the referendum is inconsequential to them. Further, I strongly question the strength of their motivation to essentially do something that will not directly benefit them personally. In fact, in a twisted way, these sort of people stand to gain more, long term, from the amendment being defeated, so they can get attention again for waxing lyrical about the travesty of the whole affair.

So for this very reason, I am strongly respecting the old adage, 'those most likely to vote X are least likely to vote', and we could see the result being far tighter than our perceptions of public opinion may predict. Paddy power offering 5/1 suggests the amendment only has a 16% chance of being rejected, but I suspect we will see it go right down to the wire.

Zzippy

Neil3030 wrote: »

For me it's not a vote on the technicalities of marriage, adoption etc., it's a vote on normalising homosexuality, and anything that does this (to borrow Mary McAleese's point) and consequently reduces marginalisation of gay people in Ireland, is the most appealing aspect of a yes vote for me.

My concern, however, is in quantifying the number of people who support the yes vote to the extent of actually getting off their arse and voting. Many people are simply after the praise to be garnered on social media. Once their profile picture amended to read 'yes for equality' gets enough likes, the result of the referendum is inconsequential to them. Further, I strongly question the strength of their motivation to essentially do something that will not directly benefit them personally. In fact, in a twisted way, these sort of people stand to gain more, long term, from the amendment being defeated, so they can get attention again for waxing lyrical about the travesty of the whole affair.

So for this very reason, I am strongly respecting the old adage, 'those most likely to vote X are least likely to vote', and we could see the result being far tighter than our perceptions of public opinion may predict. Paddy power offering 5/1 suggests the amendment only has a 16% chance of being rejected, but I suspect we will see it go right down to the wire.

I really hope it's not that close, as I fear voter apathy and low turnout will favour the bigots. As someone with a gay sibling I will be making sure to vote on the day and encouraging as many people as I can to do the same. I think the real message the Yes lobby should be getting out there, especially on social media, is not to vote yes, it's to make sure to vote, full stop.

thomond2006

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah yes the EU Army one. Pure class. And what's worse people actually believed it.

The problem with posters is that you simply can't put across any kind of a real message. A one liner is not what people should be basing important political and social change on. But as long as there's a one liner there people won't make the effort to educate themselves.

Personally I think posters should be banned. They are a pretty useless media in this day and age. And they are also an eye-sore and end up in many cases just being litter. That said I also think people should have to pass a basic competency test to be allowed to vote. Prove they know what they are voting about before making a decision on it. If they are shown to have no clue on the matter then they should either be told they can't vote or their vote should be discarded. Too often ignorance has played a big role in peoples decisions. We shouldn't let it shape our country.

Your last paragraph is related to my wish to not see voting go online. If voting is available online then voting will become as significant to some as a poll on journal.ie. I think having to "make an effort" to go to a polling station encourages those who do vote to make a considered choice.

Posters should go alright. Except for Paddy Power ones.

CatFromHue

Zzippy wrote: »

I really hope it's not that close, as I fear voter apathy and low turnout will favour the bigots. As someone with a gay sibling I will be making sure to vote on the day and encouraging as many people as I can to do the same. I think the real message the Yes lobby should be getting out there, especially on social media, is not to vote yes, it's to make sure to vote, full stop.

The Yes side should be out there explaining why people should vote yes.

If the Yes side resorts to calling to calling No voters bigots, even with doing the above, they're done. I can't see it passing.

I'm sure there are some bigots in the No side but I'd say there's alot more people who don't fully understand what's going on.

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

The Yes side should be out there explaining why people should vote yes.

If the Yes side resorts to calling to calling No voters bigots, even with doing the above, they're done. I can't see it passing.

I'm sure there are some bigots in the No side but I'd say there's alot more people who don't fully understand what's going on.

The yes side is a myriad of organisations though, straight up for equality is doing a lot of campaining giving reasons to vote yes but it's not like they're a political party with a massive structure in place. The political parties are only begining their campaigns now but they are generally lax about referendums compared to elections.

matthew8

I think there'll definitely be a good turnout from people inclined to vote yes. For them (us I suppose, I'm one of them) it's a civil rights issue so you'd imagine it will be more important to them than a vague European treaty they don't know much about. Most yes voters will also know someone who's gay/lesbian which will make it more important for them. People also know what they're getting with this referendum and will have made their mind up early so I don't really see a big swing happening late on, which is often what defeats referendums.

Tox56

CatFromHue wrote: »

The Yes side should be out there explaining why people should vote yes.

If the Yes side resorts to calling to calling No voters bigots, even with doing the above, they're done. I can't see it passing.

I'm sure there are some bigots in the No side but I'd say there's alot more people who don't fully understand what's going on.

I don't think he was suggesting the Yes side call the No side bigots in the course of their campaign, that would be suicide.

The vote isn't for a month, there's a lot of time left yet. The Yes side really do hold all the cards if they get the information out there, it would be a travesty if they fcuk this up

CatFromHue

Officially they won't call them bigots but the unofficial supporters on the internet can do a lot of damage to their own cause if that words starts to pop up.

Swiwi.

The thing that annoys me in general about referenda is that the side that seems to have the weight of popular public opinion behind it (in this instance the yes campaign) feels that that fact alone justifies pulling down the other side's posters etc. The problem with this is that it attacks the fabric of democracy. "Sure, it's only the no campaign, who cares?". But suddenly it might be the soccer lads pulling down the rugby posters in a referendum on which sport should be free to air. "Sure, it's only that minority sport rugby, who cares?". OK, I'm being silly, but I really don't think the yes campaign has to use underhand tactics to win this. Just present the arguments, let people make up their own minds. I am very much in favour of letting everyone have the right & opportunity to present their views, provided it's done in a respectful manner, even if I personally feel their views are completely opposed to my own.

P_1

Swiwi. wrote: »

The thing that annoys me in general about referenda is that the side that seems to have the weight of popular public opinion behind it (in this instance the yes campaign) feels that that fact alone justifies pulling down the other side's posters etc. The problem with this is that it attacks the fabric of democracy. "Sure, it's only the no campaign, who cares?". But suddenly it might be the soccer lads pulling down the rugby posters in a referendum on which sport should be free to air. "Sure, it's only that minority sport rugby, who cares?". OK, I'm being silly, but I really don't think the yes campaign has to use underhand tactics to win this. Just present the arguments, let people make up their own minds. I am very much in favour of letting everyone have the right & opportunity to present their views, provided it's done in a respectful manner, even if I personally feel their views are completely opposed to my own.

It's not the 'Yes' campaign that's tearing down posters mind. I believe there's been general condemnation from all sides on those few who have done so

thomond2006

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

Zzippy

CatFromHue wrote: »

Officially they won't call them bigots but the unofficial supporters on the internet can do a lot of damage to their own cause if that words starts to pop up.

OK, by bigots I was referring to those few at the heart of the No campaign who are clearly homophobic but using the issue of children to mask their prejudice and muddy the water for undecided voters. These people know full well what they're doing and know full well that they are being disingenuous in their arguments. IMO the majority of those promoting a no vote are underlying homophobic - there is no logical argument for denying a minority a right that affects no one else.

awec

Season three of game of thrones is game of thrones in name only. Three episodes in and it's miles from the books.

molloyjh

Swiwi. wrote: »

The thing that annoys me in general about referenda is that the side that seems to have the weight of popular public opinion behind it (in this instance the yes campaign) feels that that fact alone justifies pulling down the other side's posters etc. The problem with this is that it attacks the fabric of democracy. "Sure, it's only the no campaign, who cares?". But suddenly it might be the soccer lads pulling down the rugby posters in a referendum on which sport should be free to air. "Sure, it's only that minority sport rugby, who cares?". OK, I'm being silly, but I really don't think the yes campaign has to use underhand tactics to win this. Just present the arguments, let people make up their own minds. I am very much in favour of letting everyone have the right & opportunity to present their views, provided it's done in a respectful manner, even if I personally feel their views are completely opposed to my own.

Well in this case it isn't the yes side pulling down posters, but individuals doing it in the name of the yes side. It's certainly not something to be proud of but then I'm sure we could find cases of the same happening on the other side of the fence.

I too fully support the idea that people should be allowed express opposing views. Unfortunately we've seen in Ireland in the last decade cases where groups with agendas knowingly disseminate lies and misinformation in an attempt to fool people into voting the way they want. And sadly a lot of people eat that up rather than educate themselves properly. Opposing views is perfectly ok. Total and utter ignorance is another thing entirely. Especially in an age where information is so readily available.

Neil3030

thomond2006 wrote: »

Who bankrolls this Iona Institute crowd?

FYI they are heavily backed by an Irish-American business man who made his money as the founder of Dominos Pizza.

He has since sold all of his stock in the company, about 10 or so years ago.

Wang King

Firstly I hope the No campaigners keep up their sterling work with these wonderful posters.... The wording and theme make the Yes campaigns job that much easier.
Secondly, the very fact we need a referendum to allow 2 consenting adults to get married in this country kinda sickens me

errlloyd

I'd be interested to know what the feeling is outside Dublin. I've heard some amazing stories over the last few weeks in Dublin and the commuter area. A priest in Kildare called for a no vote in his sermon, and when he visited an I'll 80 year old pensioner that afternoon to give him communion, he was left on the doorstep.

A taxi driver carrying a gay canvasser was reduced to tears when he initially said he was voting no, but the canvasser said how much pain that would cause. A friend of mine canvassed a man one day who claimed it was the first time he'd ever talked to a gay man, he was undecided but by the end he said he might vote yes, three days later he was canvassing a young woman, who said her dad had even been turned to a yes vote by good canvassing, same guy.

I'm quite political, although I'm not party aligned I am in some youth party fb groups. There is tension in some of them, and their canvassing is inefficient because of that, but the power here in Dublin is the non political canvassers. Yes equality in DL and Monkstown yesterday for example.

The great thing about the no posters is they're motivating people. The day they went up I was in blackbird in rathmines and if you were quiet for a second you could hear people everywhere talking about it, they were angry. They're motivated. They're absolutely all going to vote.

My fear is I live in bubble. I go from home to ucd and honestly not very far further. So I'd be worried about the rest of the state.