How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Bannasidhe

steamengine wrote: »

I wouldn't be spiting anybody by voting NO, as that would be my vote on principle. I might have abstained but why should I play ball, after the homophobic remarks ?

This reads as you saying you are voting no because the yes side made homophobic remarks. I don't think that is what you mean. I think you mean you are voting no because some people called other people homophobic.
Which is like saying you against women having the vote because some people called some other people misogynists.
Or that you support segregation because some people called other people racists.

Interestingly enough you seem to have no issue with some people calling other people disordered or abnormal...

Ohhhh...no equality for you because some people on your side said nasty things. No, it doesn't matter that some people on the other side said nasty things too - I'm going to punish you and you alone so take that!

Is everyone who intends to vote no homophobic? No.
Are some people who intend to vote no homophobic? Yes.

Or would you have us believe there are no homophobes?
Not one single one in all of Ireland???

Really????

steamengine

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Come on now. Those on the 'no' side have been less than pleasant in their social media interactions. If that were really your concern you would just abstain from voting.

All one has to say is that they're voting NO to be less than pleasant all over Boards AFAICS. Not good enough - sorry.

People need to grow up and realise in a referendum there are two choices YES and NO and voters can choose either for whatever their reasons are.

osarusan

haveringchick wrote: »

Sorry you felt ignored

Funny how, after your complaints about what you see as the unacceptable language of the Yes side, you are not actually going to give any answers to a perfectly civil and respectful question.

shruikan2553

steamengine wrote: »

All one has to say is that they're voting NO to be less than pleasant all over Boards AFAICS. Not good enough - sorry.

People need to grow up and realise in a referendum there are two choices YES and NO and voters can choose either for whatever their reasons are.

Yeah, they only say no sure...

Rickmansworth High Street wrote: »

The world is fuked up enough without letting these freaks have their way. A no for me.

Mod edit: poster banned. Don't reply to this.

You and haveringchick don't seem very bothered about this type of comment. Dont dare call him homophobic though.

haveringchick

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

D. Point out that you are talking nonsense.

It's a secret ballot. You can vote No and nobody will ever know, so no bad things can ever happen to you because you vote no. No bad thing can ever be said to you because you vote no.

Nobody will ever know that you are a secret homophobe.

So B and C then Zubh ? Well as.long as you feel happy is the main thing.

garra

hotmail.com wrote: »

What Yes side arguments are grating..what's the biggest one that particularly annoys you?

I meant the arguments posited by posters on boards as opposed to points being made in the media. Some Yes-supporting posters have gone full retard in response to veiled homophobic arguments from No-supporting posters.

This is pathetically being twisted and used as a valid reason to vote No by people who were always going to vote No anyway.

Let's just consider what we are being asked here and stop muddying the waters with emotive responses and veiled bigotry:

The Marriage Referendum: "This asks do you agree to putting a clause in the
Constitution which will allow two people to marry each other regardless of their sex."

pl4ichjgy17zwd

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a number of reasons why people could be irked by the mural:

1. Obvious homophobia and hatred of people who are LGBT.

2. It's aesthetically unpleasant for them (art can draw any number of positive and negative viewpoints).

3. PDA's and even such public depictions of PDA's, simply ain't everyone's cup of tea.

4. People feel uneasy with their personal lives being used for political purposes in such a public manner.


I'm going with 2, 3, and 4 myself as the most obvious reasons.

Considering it was used as a reasoning behind voting no, I have to completely and respectfully disagree that '2, 3 and 4' are the most obvious ones. (and none are a good enough basis for voting no either)

Why do you think yourself that someone would be irked by the murals?

This is why I asked the original poster...because any other answer is kind of moot rather than the one s/he gives in terms of their post/argument.

marienbad

steamengine wrote: »

All one has to say is that they're voting NO to be less than pleasant all over Boards AFAICS. Not good enough - sorry.

People need to grow up and realise in a referendum there are two choices YES and NO and voters can choose either for whatever their reasons are.

No people need to grow up and vote on the merits of the issue and not on their like/dislike of the campaigners .

haveringchick

osarusan wrote: »

Funny how, after your complaints about what you see as the unacceptable language of the Yes side, you are not actually going to give any answers to a perfectly civil and respectful question.

I have answered you above about 2 posts back. This part of yhe post seems to have broke away on its own.

steamengine

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Yeah, they only say no sure...



You and haveringchick don't seem very bothered about this type of comment. Dont dare call him homophobic though.

So I'm obliquely responsible for this...........oh dear.

Tell you what, you defend yourself against that crap, in the same way as I try to defend myself against the jibes thrown at me.

haveringchick

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Yeah, they only say no sure...



You and haveringchick don't seem very bothered about this type of comment. Dont dare call him homophobic though.

Im not bothered by trolls at all. I don't understand why you let them bother you.

hotmail.com

garra wrote: »

I meant the arguments posited by posters on boards as opposed to points being made in the media. Some Yes-supporting posters have gone full retard in response to veiled homophobic arguments from No-supporting posters.

This is pathetically being twisted and used as a valid reason to vote No by people who were always going to vote No anyway.

Let's just consider what we are being asked here and stop muddying the waters with emotive responses and veiled bigotry:

The Marriage Referendum: "This asks do you agree to putting a clause in the
Constitution which will allow two people to marry each other regardless of their sex."

And what way are you going to vote?

Some of the Yes side get justifiably angry when they read or hear arguments against equal rights for same sex couples. What else do you expect.

Bannasidhe

haveringchick wrote: »

Boards posters who jumped from thread to thread insulting belittling and scoffing at the undecided and the misguided, and who helped to ruin reasonable argument by feeding the trolls, have persuaded me to sympathize with the No lobby and vote against the referendum.
.

haveringchick wrote: »

Im not bothered by trolls at all. I don't understand why you let them bother you.

Is it that you are bothered by those who feed the trolls but not the actual trolls?

Kiwi in IE

steamengine wrote: »

So I'm obliquely responsible for this...........oh dear.

Tell you what, you defend yourself against that crap, in the same way as I try to defend myself against the jibes thrown at me.

You are responsible for that as much as all LGBT people are responsible for whatever comments you didn't like!

steamengine

marienbad wrote: »

No people need to grow up and vote on the merits of the issue and not on their like/dislike of the campaigners .

That's not necessarily the way politics work, one has to sell, be nice, persuade and I have'nt seen any of that yet, unfortunately :rolleyes:

haveringchick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is it that you are bothered by those who feed the trolls but not the actual trolls?

Yes.Feeding trolls derails threads sometimes for hours. Pointless.

One eyed Jack

garra wrote: »

I meant the arguments posited by posters on boards as opposed to points being made in the media. Some Yes-supporting posters have gone full retard in response to veiled homophobic arguments from No-supporting posters.

This is pathetically being twisted and used as a valid reason to vote No by people who were always going to vote No anyway.

Let's just consider what we are being asked here and stop muddying the waters with emotive responses and veiled bigotry:

The Marriage Referendum: "This asks do you agree to putting a clause in the
Constitution which will allow two people to marry each other regardless of their sex."

No veiling your bigotry though, is there?

Absolutely detest that word.

Bannasidhe

steamengine wrote: »

That's not necessarily the way politics work, one has to sell, be nice, persuade and I have'nt seen any of that yet, unfortunately :rolleyes:

Oh dear... you think whether or not all Irish citizens are treated equally by the State is just politics...

hotmail.com

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get your point. You're clearly still missing mine that the no side are going to say what they like, and the yes campaign instead of focusing on the positive aspects of what this referendum will mean to people, instead of working on solidifying support, are allowing themselves to become distracted by a tiny handful of people that most people have never bloody heard of! Every retweet, every criticism, every time the yes campaign "call them out" on their lies, you're doing their work for them.

You're focused on what you see as the "wholescale" opposition, but you're ignoring the wholescale potential support you could have.

I'm saying that we as part of the yes campaign, campaigning for equality in society, need to hold ourselves to a higher standard and maintain our dignity in the face of opposition, because anything less and we let ourselves down, and then we risk losing the campaign to a small band of hate-mongering liars.

Is that really what you want?

You're adding to the negativity by writing about the minority of people on the Yes side that make the odd mean remark. You are helping the No side.

marienbad

steamengine wrote: »

That's not necessarily the way politics work, one has to sell, be nice, persuade and I have'nt seen any of that yet, unfortunately :rolleyes:

No they don't . That only works for the undecided - you never had any intention of voting yes .

And if you can't do the right thing because it is the right thing then what more needs to be said ?

And just out of curiosity what selling point from the no campaign did you find so persuasive ?

Bannasidhe

haveringchick wrote: »

Yes.Feeding trolls derails threads sometimes for hours. Pointless.

I shan't ask you any more questions so.

garra

hotmail.com wrote: »

And what way are you going to vote?

Some of the Yes side get justifiably angry when they read or hear arguments against equal rights for same sex couples. What else do you expect.

I'm going to vote Yes because I believe in Equality and want to see our state respect all it's people equally, belatedly enough as it is. Never go full retard in response to people who don't value Equality, it just gives those bigots and attention seekers an opportunity to score points - this is true for any debate.

One eyed Jack

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Considering it was used as a reasoning behind voting no, I have to completely and respectfully disagree that '2, 3 and 4' are the most obvious ones. (and none are a good enough basis for voting no either)



This is why I asked the original poster...because any other answer is kind of moot rather than the one s/he gives in terms of their post/argument.

I understand the context in which you asked, but though they aren't good enough answers for you personally, and though you suggest that any other answer is kind of moot, it's like I said to hotmail earlier - people are fickle like that, and while I find their flip-flop attitude frustrating, the fact is a simple thing like that can mean the difference between a person voting yes or no. I don't like it, and I know you don't like it, but that is the reality unfortunately.

hotmail.com

garra wrote: »

I'm going to vote Yes because I believe in Equality and want to see our state respect all it's people equally, belatedly enough as it is. Never go full retard in response to people who don't value Equality, it just gives those bigots and attention seekers an opportunity to score points - this is true for any debate.

I agree with you. But I also feel that it's done by a small minority and that the No side deliberately exaggerate the extent of the supposed abuse they are getting. So I just feel that Yes campaigners mentioning this are falling into the No side trap. The No side wants to get the Yes side to talk about the supposed abuse being thrown at them, rather than debating the issues.

Don't fall into the trap. Keep on message and ignore the minority that engage in tit for tat stuff and name calling on all sides.

SpaceSasqwatch

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely detest that word.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/full-retard

steamengine

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Because said no voters have, over the course of deck knows how many pages at this stage have yet to produce a single reason for doing so that stands up to even the slightest scrutiny. They are of course absolutely entitled to do so, but others are equally entitled to call out their posts as illogical nonsense. The language gets a bit extreme a

When YES is your only acceptable answer, that does cause limitations alright - I tried yesterday and I got back - deluded, homophobic etc.,

steamengine

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If anyone ever wonders why we end up with idiots in power in this country I'm referring them to this post. Voting based on whichever side is nicest. Bonkers.

A real smart assed post - well done

marienbad

steamengine wrote: »

When YES is your only acceptable answer, that does cause limitations alright - I tried yesterday and I got back - deluded, homophobic etc.,

So what are your reasons for voting no then ?

Bridge93

steamengine wrote: »

When YES is your only acceptable answer, that does cause limitations alright - I tried yesterday and I got back - deluded, homophobic etc.,

I find it hard to believe that you got those responses while supposedly being on the fence until they pushed you one way. If you can show me them fair enough. There are hotheads on both sides who are not representative of everyone. Some get frustrated when they don't get proper answers or reasons.

garra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No veiling your bigotry though, is there?

Absolutely detest that word.

Apologies for using a word you don't like. Back on topic:

The Marriage Referendum: This asks do you agree to putting a clause in the
Constitution which will allow two people to marry each other regardless of their sex.