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

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right Bannasidhe and I read back on it and it wasn't meant to come across as being harsh, but surely people here must understand insecurity, or passing judgment on someone else who for whatever trait or reason that person or their lifestyle doesn't meet their standards?

Hate fills people's hearts because they feel a need to humiliate people. How they choose to humiliate other people too can range from the less obvious simply keeping their thoughts to themselves and keeping them hidden (I'm lucky in that other case I mentioned that couple let me know they were atheist before I said anything about me having to get up for mass in the morning :pac: So I just kept it to myself, just like I should have known to keep my same sex tonsil tennis tales to myself - you live and learn ), to outright attacking the person verbally and physically in order to humiliate them and hurt them and let them know their place so to speak.

Some people, and thankfully it's only a minority in this case, are only interested in themselves, and they're not interested in the welfare of others, they think they have rights because that's the way it's "always been" for them, and anything which upsets that world view, the more it throws them off balance, the more they're going to hate it.

Oh, I 'understand' the various factors but I honestly cannot get my head around why anyone would want the live their lives with the canker of hate nestled inside. jeeze... life can be hard enough without getting your knickers in a twist about other people being darker skinned or not sharing exactly the same beliefs.

Now, I am no paragon. I hate fascists (not quite the same thing as fascists are fascist by choice but they are the closest thing to a 'group' that I hate...) I really do. I will do everything I can to prevent such people spreading their vile influence. But, I also understand the lure of fascism and can see things from that perspective even as I profoundly disagree.

However, my life is not consumed by my hatred of fascists. When I encounter fascism I counter-act - the rest of the time I don't think about them at all. So, I suppose I'm (badly) saying that I don't care if an individual holds fascist beliefs as long as they do not seek to impose them on others.

Some will say the Yes campaign is seeking to impose - and this is true - but so is the No campaign. One side wises to impose a concept of equality, the other wishes to impose a concept of special privileges being reserved for the majority.

For me that is what this Referendum is about. It is about whether or not we have a country that genuinely tries to treat all citizens equally under the law or a country that clearly states that one group is more deserving of special treatment than another based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity etc etc.

Either the same 'rules' apply to us all or don't claim we are a democratic, pluralist, modern, western society that values all citizens equally.

osarusan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For me that is what this Referendum is about. It is about whether or not we have a country that genuinely tries to treat all citizens equally under the law or a country that clearly states that one group is more deserving of special treatment than another based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity etc etc.
.

Exactly what I think.

And this is the message I think the Yes side needs to be spreading.

There have been some posters on here who have been apathetic about the referendum, from the perspective of 'why should I even have a vote about this - it is nothing to do with me.' I think this is something for the Yes side to be careful about - making arguments that distance the issue from people who are not homosexual (not that I think too many are making that kind of argument), and perhaps making them less likely to vote.

Get people out to vote by telling them that that this absolutely involves them - this referendum is an opportunity for them to share in shaping the country in the way they want it to be regarding equal marriage rights for people who are gay. Tell them that the Yes side wants to treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation, and their vote will be a valuable part of that fight.

I think that is the best message to send.

Pherekydes

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Actually I thought Zub's post (the boot bit) was a bit harsh too. So I have decided to vote against equal marriage now and punish the entire country because Zub said that.

Well, whatever way you vote, I'm voting the opposite. Just because...

endacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, whatever way you vote, I'm voting the opposite. Just because...

Lightweight. I'm not voting at all now. Because people have positions and opinions and stuff. See what y'all did with yer positions and opinions?!? And stuff?

Nodin

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, whatever way you vote, I'm voting the opposite. Just because...

I'm voting "maybe" and setting meself on fire in the booth - that'll show the lot of yez.

Bannasidhe

I'm voting yes but no but yes but no.

Kiwi in IE

Originally I was only going to vote yes because people on the no side said things I didn't like, nothing to do with equality, but now my attention has been drawn to the fact that sometimes people on the yes side say things that aren't very nice too! Now I am really conflicted. Maybe I should just abstain or wait to see whether yes or no voters are nicer to me during personal interactions between now and May 22?

Then what on earth will I do when the general election comes up? I think I will base that on which door knocking politician is wearing the nicest shoes. I like shoes.

endacl

clever user name

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's hardly rocket science though, is it? They simply don't have any time for people who don't jig with their world view, and the more they go against that person's prejudices, the more that person is going to do their utmost to keep them invisible if not eliminate them entirely.

Seriously, people can't be that naive surely? If you're not even aware of how some people are so utterly judgemental of people who don't meet their standards, then you've either been incredibly lucky, or you just haven't met enough people yet, or you have met people, and there's just a group think among you like the outside world doesn't exist.

That made me laugh! Just because I don't agree with people's decision to vote no, doesn't mean I don't know why people will vote no. I'm well aware that there will always be people that go against what the vast majority of the population believe is right/just.

One eyed Jack

clever user name wrote: »

That made me laugh! Just because I don't agree with people's decision to vote no, doesn't mean I don't know why people will vote no. I'm well aware that there will always be people that go against what the vast majority of the population believe is right/just.

Aye, apologies for that clever user name, I tend to read things literally so nuances can sometimes lead to me misreading something or misunderstanding and taking the person or post up wrong or not expressing myself properly. I'm somewhat relieved at least it made you laugh because I didn't mean it to come across as harsh as it read like that

clever user name

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aye, apologies for that clever user name, I tend to read things literally so nuances can sometimes lead to me misreading something or misunderstanding and taking the person or post up wrong or not expressing myself properly. I'm somewhat relieved at least it made you laugh because I didn't mean it to come across as harsh as it read like that

Don't worry about it

aloyisious

Response by Michael McDowell to a request by Bruce Arnold for support (of his private study of the effects of Marriage Equality). It's the sixth (6th) item on the page, just below the "We Need You" poster of the 5th item.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FIrish-Nurses-and-Midwives-for-Marriage-Equality%2F445677402295607&ei=-iU1VdyMF9GO7Qa_5IHAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFqTqZmsCkNo6ihJbvnNqSp0CtMlQ

Ta to Michael McDowell, the Irish Nurses and Midwives for Marriage Equality, the Sunday Business Post, Simon Blanckensee, and lastly, Bruce Arnold for giving MM cause to put pen and thoughts to paper for publication.

S.O

Don,t you just how yes campaigners are so confident in their arguments that need to resort to tearing down no campaign posters, spotted this from twitter .

https://twitter.com/i_am_ammo/status/590268610741952512

Does anyone know if its an offence to vandalise or tear down posters during a referendum campaign ?

Bannasidhe

S.O wrote: »

Don,t you just how yes campaigners are so confident in their arguments that need to resort to tearing down no campaign posters, spotted this from twitter .

https://twitter.com/i_am_ammo/status/590268610741952512

Does anyone know if its an offence to vandalise or tear down posters during a referendum campaign ?

If it is I'm sure Mrs Burke of Castlebar will be on to Joe Duffy tomorrow to complain.
Followed shortly by Mr E Burke of also of Castlebar (allegedly no relation).

S.O

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If it is I'm sure Mrs Burke of Castlebar will be on to Joe Duffy tomorrow to complain.
Followed shortly by Mr E Burke of also of Castlebar (allegedly no relation).

What do the burke family have to do with opposition to same sex marraige posters being torn down ? you do know that they don,t run the no campaign as a whole ? by yes campaigners tearing down posters they don,t agree with goes to prove that they want the electorate to only hear 1 side of an argument.

Bannasidhe

S.O wrote: »

What do the burke family have to do with opposition to same sex marraige posters being torn down ? you do know that they don,t run the no campaign as a whole ? by yes campaigners tearing down posters they don,t agree with goes to prove that they want the electorate to only hear 1 side of an argument.

Well - the Burke family want a mural that contains no text whatsoever painted over as they claim it is advocating a Yes vote so same meat different gravy to what you are complaining about really. I would hope for the sake of the No vote they do not run the campaign seeing as the whole country heard them lie about being related... that's bad PR that is.

Does the No campaign only have the funds for the one poster - as that is all you have shown being torn down... that's sad.. poor lonely poster and now it's dead. Shame there isn't any one on the No side with access to the media - maybe your lot could arrange to get a few articles published in say the Independent or the Irish Times - perhaps a few seconds on radio...

endacl

S.O wrote: »

by yes campaigners tearing down posters they don,t agree with goes to prove that they want the electorate to only hear 1 side of an argument.

No it doesn't. While I don't agree with tearing down posters, per se, the act 'proves' nothing. It does demonstrate the lack of respect for the non-arguments, anti-facts, smokescrenery, and general bullcrap peddled by the no campaign. In the absence of a single rational, salient, and accurate argument as to why anybody should vote no.

S.O

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well - the Burke family want a mural that contains no text whatsoever painted over as they claim it is advocating a Yes vote so same meat different gravy to what you are complaining about really. I would hope for the sake of the No vote they do not run the campaign seeing as the whole country heard them lie about being related... that's bad PR that is.

Does the No campaign only have the funds for the one poster - as that is all you have shown being torn down... that's sad.. poor lonely poster and now it's dead. Shame there isn't any one on the No side with access to the media - maybe your lot could arrange to get a few articles published in say the Independent or the Irish Times - perhaps a few seconds on radio...

Im aware that they want it painted over, but they don,t represent me or all no voters, I think the mural + all campaign posters should be left alone till the referendum is over.

shruikan2553

S.O wrote: »

Im aware that they want it painted over, but they don,t represent me or all no voters, I think the mural + all campaign posters should be left alone till the referendum is over.

And yet you make a comment about one person representing all yes voters.

Are you the only one allowed to make generalisations?

Mark Tapley

S.O wrote: »

Don,t you just how yes campaigners are so confident in their arguments that need to resort to tearing down no campaign posters, spotted this from twitter .

https://twitter.com/i_am_ammo/status/590268610741952512

Does anyone know if its an offence to vandalise or tear down posters during a referendum campaign ?

Through the bottom of the barrel and half way to Oz.

haveringchick

Nodin wrote: »

I'm voting "maybe" and setting meself on fire in the booth - that'll show the lot of yez.

How fickle am I! I've changed my mind again! It's yes for me! I mean, I'd hate to be considered uncool by all the terribly clever witty learned well read superior anonymous cool kids on a chat room! Please let me into your gang!

Bridge93

How are we so sure it's Yes Campaigners who tore it down? Is there evidence of it? It could just be locals sympathetic to the Yes side who don't want those posters up in their area and for right or for wrong took it down. Not everything done against the No side is through official Yes campaigners.

folamh

I hear those suffragettes were a militant bunch in the early 20th century. Did they have to be so indignant and arrogant? If only women had been denied equal rights to show them wot4.

Shrap

haveringchick wrote: »

How fickle am I! I've changed my mind again! It's yes for me! I mean, I'd hate to be considered uncool by all the terribly clever witty learned well read superior anonymous cool kids on a chat room! Please let me into your gang!

Look, I haven't paid much heed before to your posts about how the yes side are an arrogant bunch with a superiority complex because it was pretty clear to me that you were going to continue to think that, no matter how measured and reasoned the discussion that tried to involve you. But I'll give it a go now.

In answer to your "How fickle am I!" exclamation, if you are genuinely swayed towards a no vote because of some randomers on the internet, then I'd have to say you're pretty fickle. Perhaps there are a lot of folk like you out there, basing their judgement of the issues on what people say about them, but personally I like to form my opinions on my own by weighing up the facts.

These facts are out there in the open for all to judge according to their beliefs, and these facts don't change when people argue them or discuss them. You seem to be an intelligent and eloquent person and so that's why I'm finding it extraordinary that your vote is so shaky and your opinion on the facts is so flexible that what the yes side in particular is saying online is having such an effect on you and your beliefs about what is the right way to vote.

I'm not appealing to you, I'm not berating you and I'm certainly not telling you which way to vote, but I will recommend that you sh1t or get off the pot. Your posts are becoming a bit farcical at this stage.

StewartGriffin

folamh wrote: »

I hear those suffragettes were a militant bunch in the early 20th century. Did they have to be so indignant and arrogant? If only women had been denied equal rights to show them wot4.

The vote is about allowing people of the same sex to have full Marriage, rather than the Civil Partnership that is already in place.

Its not setting free the slaves, pulling down the Berlin Wall, taking Jesus off the cross or stitching Mel Gibson's guts back in at the end of Braveheart.

When it passes, which I hope and expect it will, there will be a few parties and such, but it's not near as dramatic an event as some would like it to be.

But don't be too downhearted, The Eurovision isn't far away.

OldNotWIse

haveringchick wrote: »

How fickle am I! I've changed my mind again! It's yes for me! I mean, I'd hate to be considered uncool by all the terribly clever witty learned well read superior anonymous cool kids on a chat room! Please let me into your gang!

I wouldn't worry about it...you sound like you're too young to vote anyway

haveringchick

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it...you sound like you're too young to vote anyway

How very kind of you to flatter a silly old woman.

jaja321

When are we having this vote on surrogacy anyway?!

LookingFor

Bridge93 wrote: »

How are we so sure it's Yes Campaigners who tore it down? Is there evidence of it? It could just be locals sympathetic to the Yes side who don't want those posters up in their area and for right or for wrong took it down. Not everything done against the No side is through official Yes campaigners.

Yes posters I use to see on my way home from work have somehow disappeared. Via twitter I've seen artwork and murals defaced. Windows on which Yes posters were placed broken. Grafitti calling us to make Ireland a 'gay free country'. I think these are a small minority of people within those who will be voting No - I wouldn't lay that at the feet of every No campaigner.

But if we were to broaden things out a bit, I'd say the general harassment of lgbt visibility in this country has been far more pointed historically than any of this stuff, and I don't think we can wash our hands of the effect of what we're campaigning for on that general culture, and the possibility to improve that situation through state led equality.

folamh

StewartGriffin wrote: »

The vote is about allowing people of the same sex to have full Marriage, rather than the Civil Partnership that is already in place.

Its not setting free the slaves, pulling down the Berlin Wall, taking Jesus off the cross or stitching Mel Gibson's guts back in at the end of Braveheart.

When it passes, which I hope and expect it will, there will be a few parties and such, but it's not near as dramatic an event as some would like it to be.

But don't be too downhearted, The Eurovision isn't far away.

There are 160 statutory differences between marriage and civil partnership. Civil partnership does not confer the same financial and social protections as marriage. This vote is for equal rights.