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

shruikan2553

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think there are very very few people who actually hold that view. And this vote isn't going to change their mind either way.

That's who is putting up the posters. You said to explain who they were and why they put them up to the children, it has nothing to do with convincing people, it's explaining to the children who the groups like iona are, why are against anything to do with gay people being treated as equals, who use prejudice rather than psychologists to claim gay people can't raise children, groups who think them and their children don't deserve to be treated the same as other families. How do you explain that?

"Dont worry dear, they are people who think we are lesser to them"

keeponhurling

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is not simply an issue where people have a different point of view. We are not voting on whether to paint the Dail chamber green or red.

This attitude however is counter productive.

You must recognize that it can be interpreted as arrogance, rather than simply strength of convictions.
Once you stop even acknowledging other viewpoints ( or in the case of a tiny minority) seeing themselves as above the law) it doesn't come across well to floating voters

Reality is that there is a referendum and people do need to select either yes or no to the proposed amendment.
Therefore it does come down to people's points of view

And of course there's a reason why we don't vote on stuff such as paint colour in the Dail

RollieFingers

Taking down posters representing the No campaign doesn't do any favours for the Yes campaign, people might not agree with their views but they are entitled to their opinions!

StewartGriffin

shruikan2553 wrote: »

That's who is putting up the posters. You said to explain who they were and why they put them up to the children, it has nothing to do with convincing people, it's explaining to the children who the groups like iona are, why are against anything to do with gay people being treated as equals, who use prejudice rather than psychologists to claim gay people can't raise children, groups who think them and their children don't deserve to be treated the same as other families. How do you explain that?

"Dont worry dear, they are people who think we are lesser to them"

I don't know, but unfortunately you are going to have to find the words to explain it at some point.

Bannasidhe

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think there are very very few people who actually hold that view. And this vote isn't going to change their mind either way.

I agree there are very few. However, those very few have access to a great deal of funding which is enabling them to place their hateful opinion on lampposts across the country including near schools.

They know what they are doing. They are lying about what this referendum is about and they are deliberately inciting anger hoping people will react and remove those offensive posters - there is no authority with the power to enforce truth in referendum campaigns so no one to complain to in any real sense - so these liars can then play the victim card.

There is a lamppost outside my house which is a regular spot for campaign posters. If one of these goes up there I will take it down. I will take it down so my grandchildren - aged 8 and 5 - do not read that their family consisting of separated unmarried parents who share custody, lesbian grannies and divorced granddad is not just good enough because it's not ideal.

If people want to condemn me for that - go ahead.

I will do EVERYTHING in my power to protect my grandchildren from hateful, hurtful, manipulative liars.

Bannasidhe

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I was talking more in terms of a parent taking them down, but yeah, I could understand a teenager taking them down, fair point.

I didn't have blue hair, or have any sex with women. Wasn't too bothered about the hair, but I really wanted the sex.

The blue hair was awful so I bleached it and ended up with nicotine stained pub ceiling coloured hair so I shaved my head and went to stay with a mate for a few weeks...

The sex was good.

kunst nugget

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Whats the child friendly way of saying "People hate us and don't think we're a family?"

Generally I think a lot of people just have misguided or irrational views that they cling on to because the help them to stay within a certain comfort zone in terms of their thinking and philosophy of life. A lot of times I don't think it's really coming from a place of hate but it's easily manipulated by the likes of Iona and their ilk appealing to notions of family and tradition. Another thing that has a bearing - people don't like change. A prime example of that is the recent Scottish Independence referendum - it started off with a healthy Yes vote that dwindled away as people worried more about what change might mean and it was very easy for the No side to play on those changes. Obviously, the Scottish referendum was a great deal more drastic in terms of societal change. I think people like to talk a lot about change but can be very slow to actually vote it in when it comes to it. Look at how long it took to get divorce to be voted in and how slimly it got in by. Can you imagine now trying to get it voted out again now that people can actually see the benefit of it and how Irish society managed to not fall apart with it's introduction?

I have seen true homophobia in action - you're never going to ever be able to appeal to the better nature of a person when that sh¡t clouds their brains. Like Stewie said, you're never going to change their minds about it.

shruikan2553

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I don't know, but unfortunately you are going to have to find the words to explain it at some point.

Oh I won't. If I ever end up adopting , surrogacy etc then all I'll have to say is it's not us they are aimed at. Only gays because they don't like them.

Hopefully by that time we will be at a point where people are more understanding of others.

smash

Some dickhead on the radio yesterday kept bringing it back to being about surrogacy, which it is not. Even going so far as to saying that it will give gay people the right to abuse women in third world countries who will become surrogate mothers to get a bit of money. The levels these people will go to is shocking.

20Cent

Every election/referendum has posters pulled down, names called and mean things said. Just this one it is being played up as a huge issue. No campaigners use their media time to complain about this instead of making their arguments. This is because they don't actually have arguments.

kunst nugget

20Cent wrote: »

Every election/referendum has posters pulled down, names called and mean things said. Just this one it is being played up as a huge issue. No campaigners use their media time to complain about this instead of making their arguments. This is because they don't actually have arguments.

It's a handy one for them to be able to play the victim card.

galljga1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Or another analogy is to say we are voting to change Christmas to the "holidays".

In a large nameless American international company, you are discouraged from saying Merry Christmas. Happy holidays is the preferred option.
What a steaming pile of horse....

Ave Sodalis

smash wrote: »

Some dickhead on the radio yesterday kept bringing it back to being about surrogacy, which it is not. Even going so far as to saying that it will give gay people the right to abuse women in third world countries who will become surrogate mothers to get a bit of money. The levels these people will go to is shocking.

And the worst of it is, if you argue against this, you're labelled as the one who's the bully and repressing freedom of speech...

Bannasidhe

sup_dude wrote: »

And the worst of it is, if you argue against this, you're labelled as the one who's the bully and repressing freedom of speech...

For me the worst of it is these people claim to care about the welfare of children.

WheatenBriar

I will be voting yes ,for several reasons including the most important one,the fact it is the right thing to do in a secular democracy if you get me?

There is a high chance the marriage equality referendum will fail though because people in favour won't bother to vote and religious as well as older people will come out in droves to vote no.

keeponhurling

WheatenBriar wrote: »

There is a high chance the marriage equality referendum will fail though because people in favour won't bother to vote and religious as well as older people will come out in droves to vote no.

the bookies say otherwise, and you rarely see a poor bookie.....:)

(if you genuinely think it could be a No, there's decent odds out there for you)

henryporter

galljga1 wrote: »

In a large nameless American international company, you are discouraged from saying Merry Christmas. Happy holidays is the preferred option.
What a steaming pile of horse....

Given that the country isn't full of faux catholics (like here that is), it's not actually...

Steppenwolfe

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe some posters here can clear this up for me but how does taking down posters compare to some of the things the No side are coming out with. Even on this thread alone. I mean, is the things the likes of Fran and Reprise were saying really on the same level as taking down a poster? How many people from the No side were banned due to the stuff they were saying and ignoring mod warnings to stop? Why is taking down posters as bad if not worse than that? There even has to be a mod warning on the first page to tell people to stop calling homosexual paedophiles. I'm really stuggling to see how the dehumanisation techniques the No side is using are more acceptable...

It's about democracy. Boards is privately owned and the mods/owners are under no obligation to give a platform to views they don't agree with. They can ban as many no posters as they wish. It's their site and they can run it as they like. It's a totally different situation in a democratic country like our own. Atempting to silence an opposing view in a referendum campaign is not acceptable in any democracy. I can see how some people may be offended by certain campaign posters. Tearing them down is not the answer.

Valetta

keeponhurling wrote: »

the bookies say otherwise, and you rarely see a poor bookie.....:)

(if you genuinely think it could be a No, there's decent odds out there for you)

Ladbrokes have just gone into receivership in Ireland.....

Ivan Yates went bankrupt as a result of his chain of bookies going bust.

They're not always right.

Voting yes btw.

galljga1

keeponhurling wrote: »

the bookies say otherwise, and you rarely see a poor bookie.....:)

(if you genuinely think it could be a No, there's decent odds out there for you)

Don't tell the no crowd. This could be deemed a valid reason for voting no.

The_Kew_Tour

Bookies have Yes vote at 1\10 and No and 5\1.

Basically the Yes vote is going to win in their eyes.

Think it will be ready win for Yes side too. Least 70% Yes for me

Ave Sodalis

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

It's about democracy. Boards is privately owned and the mods/owners are under no obligation to give a platform to views they don't agree with. They can ban as many no posters as they wish. It's their site and they can run it as they like. It's a totally different situation in a democratic country like our own. Atempting to silence an opposing view in a referendum campaign is not acceptable in any democracy. I can see how some people may be offended by certain campaign posters. Tearing them down is not the answer.

That's not really what I meant though. I agree that tearing them down isn't the answer, but I also believe that the majority of them shouldn't be up in the first place. Not because I want the No side silenced, but because they're just purposely misleading and untruthful.

As for what I meant, I'm asking those who believe tearing down posters is so awful that they're now going to vote no or not vote, why are they looking mostly at the Yes side reaction more than what the No side put on the posters in the first place. The reason I brought up the banning is because of the content of the posts that caused the ban. I'm confused as to why stuff like that is considered the same or better than taking down a poster. Why is there a focus on the removal of the posters, but a blind eye turned to the content? Earlier in the thread even, there were posters who declared they were now voting no because people were "bullying" the poster who compared homosexuals to paedophiles. Why is someone who claims something like that okay, but those who have just been accused of being paedophiles are to blaim for calling the person out? Same with the person who claimed homosexuals were lesser citizens....

Basically, why is tearing down a poster considered far worse than throwing about insulting, incorrect statements?

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The blue hair was awful so I bleached it and ended up with nicotine stained pub ceiling coloured hair so I shaved my head and went to stay with a mate for a few weeks...

The sex was good.

You were having good sex when you were 19?

I definitely picked the wrong sexual orientation

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

You were having good sex when you were 19?

I definitely picked the wrong sexual orientation

Age of consent is 17

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Age of consent is 17

Oh, I know that. My issue is with the good part. 19 year old boys who are good in bed were rarer than hen's teeth in my day. Hells, I'm in my 30s now and I'm still not tripping over them.

One eyed Jack

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Bookies have Yes vote at 1\10 and No and 5\1.

Basically the Yes vote is going to win in their eyes.

Think it will be ready win for Yes side too. Least 70% Yes for me

I find the whole idea of monetary profiting off the result of a referendum a bit crass tbh. I know people are going to do it and I know bookies will offer odds on the colour of Michael D's underpants if they thought there was any money in it, but honestly, you'd still want to be a fairly miserable cnut to be betting on the outcome of this referendum IMO.

Speaking of miserable cnuts (now actually I do love my mother in spite of the fact that she is indeed, well, yeah...), but just off the phone to her there now and she had no qualms about telling me she is voting no in the referendum, almost took great delight in letting me know, but then all my life I've known her to be a professional wind-up merchant, and I know I'd only have been wasting my time engaging with her about it.

She did say though, and I have to agree with her, that whether we acknowledge it or not, whether we think it's pitiful or not, people voting no are for the most part keeping their mouths shut, because they feel intimidated by the yes campaign. IMO they know they're being discriminatory, they know they're going to hurt people, but the fact is that they're not thinking of anyone else really but themselves and the way they view the world, and they don't want that to change. They want their own little bubble to stay exactly the way it's always been for them. That's why the no campaign are so successfully scaremongering people, because they're playing on what people are used to already, and though the yes campaign have been campaigning for this for a long time, IMO they never really met any real resistance so they took it for granted that everyone was hunky dory with the idea. They're not, not by a long shot.

Ave Sodalis

kylith wrote: »

Oh, I know that. My issue is with the good part. 19 year old boys who are good in bed were rarer than hen's teeth in my day. Hells, I'm in my 30s now and I'm still not tripping over them.

I guess I was lucky with my catch so

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Oh, I know that. My issue is with the good part. 19 year old boys who are good in bed were rarer than hen's teeth in my day. Hells, I'm in my 30s now and I'm still not tripping over them.

Couldn't possibly comment on that.

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find the whole idea of monetary profiting off the result of a referendum a bit crass tbh. I know people are going to do it and I know bookies will offer odds on the colour of Michael D's underpants if they thought there was any money in it, but honestly, you'd still want to be a fairly miserable cnut to be betting on the outcome of this referendum IMO.

Speaking of miserable cnuts (now actually I do love my mother in spite of the fact that she is indeed, well, yeah...), but just off the phone to her there now and she had no qualms about telling me she is voting no in the referendum, almost took great delight in letting me know, but then all my life I've known her to be a professional wind-up merchant, and I know I'd only have been wasting my time engaging with her about it.

She did say though, and I have to agree with her, that whether we acknowledge it or not, whether we think it's pitiful or not, people voting no are for the most part keeping their mouths shut, because they feel intimidated by the yes campaign. IMO they know they're being discriminatory, they know they're going to hurt people, but the fact is that they're not thinking of anyone else really but themselves and the way they view the world, and they don't want that to change. They want their own little bubble to stay exactly the way it's always been for them. That's why the no campaign are so successfully scaremongering people, because they're playing on what people are used to already, and though the yes campaign have been campaigning for this for a long time, IMO they never really met any real resistance so they took it for granted that everyone was hunky dory with the idea. They're not, not by a long shot.

Which is why it's so important for Yes voters to actually go out and vote. As was already said, it's going to be "ah sure it's grand, there will be loads of support, it won't matter if I don't bother" that's going to be the downfall of this referendum, as opposed to the majority of people not wanting it.

Ctrl Alt Delete

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Better to spoil the vote than just not use it. On divisive referendums like this, vote early and often can come into play. Use the vote. Even in a Yes / No there is always a third option. That's why spoiled votes are counted too.

Failing to do so just tells me you're too lazy to matter.

He is spoling his vote by not voting or to put it another way "abstaining"

Abstaining a vote is a core part of democracies and democratic parliaments around the world but on this issue its not acceptable ?????