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

Ctrl Alt Delete

S.O wrote: »

More yes campaigners taking down no campaign posters,( see attachments ) I can,t recall people taking it upon themselves to take down posters in other referendums or elections.

Nor have I but it is just a real world apparition of the attitudes on this thread.

Voting Yes = Thats great thanks
Voting No = We'll shout you down and suppress you right to express an opinion as much as possible

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

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 ?????

Some people believe that all votes should be used no matter the referendum. Some people believe you should never vote. I don't think it's to do with this referendum specifically.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Voting No = We'll shout you down and suppress you right to express an opinion as much as possible

Nope, you'll be asked why and given a chance to give a valid reason first.

ohnonotgmail

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nor have I but it is just a real world apparition of the attitudes on this thread.

Voting Yes = Thats great thanks
Voting No = We'll shout you down and suppress you right to express an opinion as much as possible

you are misrepresenting that is happening on this thread. No voters are entitled their opinion. as is everybody. The problem comes when they are asked why they are voting no and they respond with either misdirection (think of the children etc) or just plain bigotry. Just as they are entitled to voice their opinion, others are entitled to say that that opinion is either rubbish or just plain lies.

Its not the drink thats the problem in this country

Ctrl Alt Delete

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Voting No = We'll shout you down and suppress you right to express an opinion as much as possible

As usual when people start moaning "I am entitled to my opinion" they are doing so because someone else had the gall to express theirs - and it was different.

More often than not they are not actually protesting their right to an opinion - but using that protest as a way to bypass - ignore - or silence counter opinion. They are not actually saying "I am entitled to my opinion" so much as they are saying "I want to be able to express my opinion without having anyone express a counter opinion".

kunst nugget

BrownFinger wrote: »

Its not the drink thats the problem in this country

It's all the gays?

AtomicHorror

RollieFingers wrote: »

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!

A poster about surrogacy in Ireland does not represent the No campaign because it has nothing to do with the redefinition of marriage. And the posters are worded very carefully so that no such claim of a connection is explicitly made.

They might as well have a poster about sandwiches. You have a right to eat sandwiches. Vote No.

These two statements aren't connected so you can't say we're being misleading!

Kittens are fluffy and deserve love. Vote no!

Links234

I should print up some posters that says "Like puppies? Vote yes!"

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's all the gays?

bigpink

Is be disappointed. If the yes side got nasty
We still have to let the no side there side

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Counteract 'No' posters by sharing Yes posters or donate to help Yes Equality put up posters. They've had great support, but the bigger the campaign the better.

BoardsMember

Not sure its the best forum to seek an answer to my confusion on the surrogacy and other things being linked to the No campaign.

Does it essentially boil down to the situation that currently for surrogacy/adoption etc it is possible to construct laws to favour those married above those not married, and therefore by removing the obstruction to same sex marriage, we remove the ability to, in the future, legislate in favour of/against those married/not married.

There always seems to be a nuance to what the No campaigners are saying that I haven't heard explained. I dont understand the No campaign properly I suppose.

ohnonotgmail

bigpink wrote: »

Is be disappointed. If the yes side got nasty
We still have to let the no side there side

huh?

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

Not sure its the best forum to seek an answer to my confusion on the surrogacy and other things being linked to the No campaign.

Does it essentially boil down to the situation that currently for surrogacy/adoption etc it is possible to construct laws to favour those married above those not married, and therefore by removing the obstruction to same sex marriage, we remove the ability to, in the future, legislate in favour of/against those married/not married.

There always seems to be a nuance to what the No campaigners are saying that I haven't heard explained. I dont understand the No campaign properly I suppose.

this referendum has nothing to do with surrogacy or adoption. that has already been legislated for. Anybody that tells you otherwise is lying. it is as simple as that. A no vote in the referendum will not prevent gay couples adopting or having surrogate babies.

Ave Sodalis

BoardsMember wrote: »

Not sure its the best forum to seek an answer to my confusion on the surrogacy and other things being linked to the No campaign.

Does it essentially boil down to the situation that currently for surrogacy/adoption etc it is possible to construct laws to favour those married above those not married, and therefore by removing the obstruction to same sex marriage, we remove the ability to, in the future, legislate in favour of/against those married/not married.

There always seems to be a nuance to what the No campaigners are saying that I haven't heard explained. I dont understand the No campaign properly I suppose.

This is to do with the Children and Family Relationship Bill, more so than the referendum. The referendum is simply whether a gay couple should get married or not. The No side don't have many reasons why they shouldn't get married so they've started trying to make it look like it's about the children in hopes that those who haven't heard of the C&FR Bill believe them.

BoardsMember

I understand the referendum has nothing to do with surrogacy or adoption, BUT I would like to hear why the NO side thinks that it does. I'd like to fully understand their position. It's not that I am going to agree with it, I'd just like to hear what spurious connection they are trying to make.

There was a fella on the radio the other morning for one of the NO groups, and the key thing of what he seemed to be saying was that voting no might constrain what can be ligislated for in the future.

ohnonotgmail

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Counteract 'No' posters by sharing Yes posters or donate to help Yes Equality put up posters. They've had great support, but the bigger the campaign the better.

just put my money where my mouth is. who else?

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

I understand the referendum has nothing to do with surrogacy or adoption, BUT I would like to hear why the NO side thinks that it does. I'd like to fully understand their position. It's not that I am going to agree with it, I'd just like to hear what spurious connection they are trying to make.

There was a fella on the radio the other morning for one of the NO groups, and the key thing of what he seemed to be saying was that voting no might constrain what can be ligislated for in the future.

because they are lying to try and confuse what the referendum is all about.

BoardsMember

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because they are lying to try and confuse what the referendum is all about.

I believe that's likely, but I also believe that there are lots of people in their campaign who can articulate exactly what perils lie ahead if we vote no, however I have yet to hear them.

I'm scrolling through this now http://mothersandfathersmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/7-Great-Reasons-to-keep-Marriage-as-is.pdf

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

I believe that's likely, but I also believe that there are lots of people in their campaign who can articulate exactly what perils lie ahead if we vote no, however I have yet to hear them.

I'm scrolling through this now http://mothersandfathersmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/7-Great-Reasons-to-keep-Marriage-as-is.pdf

because those perils do not exist. why do you believe there are lots of people in the No campaign that can articulate those claims? surely if they could they would have done so by now?

Ave Sodalis

BoardsMember wrote: »

I believe that's likely, but I also believe that there are lots of people in their campaign who can articulate exactly what perils lie ahead if we vote no, however I have yet to hear them.

I'm scrolling through this now http://mothersandfathersmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/7-Great-Reasons-to-keep-Marriage-as-is.pdf

To be honest, I'd love to know the answer too, but to get it is like pulling teeth. Questions about why they hold a certain position tend to be ignored and avoided by the No side. Thus far, anyway.

ohnonotgmail

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Counteract 'No' posters by sharing Yes posters or donate to help Yes Equality put up posters. They've had great support, but the bigger the campaign the better.

a tenner for a poster though? I suppose glitter doesnt come cheap. (i kid, i kid)

BoardsMember

See this is what annoys me:

"your decision will have far-reaching consequences for children, education, employment law, equality legislation, freedom of speech and religious liberty".

With so much on the line (I say this tongue in cheek), surely they can substantiate a load of significant consequences in each category above?? Cant they? No? My bad.

Delirium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because they are lying to try and confuse what the referendum is all about.

Kevin Mills back in Jan this year..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDQ7ZdFWAAATbWu.jpg

Ave Sodalis

BoardsMember wrote: »

See this is what annoys me:

"your decision will have far-reaching consequences for children, education, employment law, equality legislation, freedom of speech and religious liberty".

With so much on the line (I say this tongue in cheek), surely they can substantiate a load of significant consequences in each category above?? Cant they? No? My bad.

Whether they can or not, they haven't and are refusing to. I'd like to believe they can justify what they say but it's not looking likely at this stage.

AtomicHorror

Links234 wrote: »

I should print up some posters that says "Like puppies? Vote yes!"

If we want to follow the No campaign's pattern, it needs to be more like:

Puppies shouldn't be killed with a shovel. Vote yes.

A clear and self-evident moral statement followed by the unrelated statement asking people to vote your way. Let the physical proximity of the statements somehow connect them without having to make it explicit.

ohnonotgmail

SW wrote: »

Kevin Mills back in Jan this year..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDQ7ZdFWAAATbWu.jpg

whats your point? that somebody on the No side was honest about this once?

ohnonotgmail

BoardsMember wrote: »

See this is what annoys me:

"your decision will have far-reaching consequences for children, education, employment law, equality legislation, freedom of speech and religious liberty".

With so much on the line (I say this tongue in cheek), surely they can substantiate a load of significant consequences in each category above?? Cant they? No? My bad.

if they can i would love to hear it.

BoardsMember

sup_dude wrote: »

Whether they can or not, they haven't and are refusing to. I'd like to believe they can justify what they say but it's not looking likely at this stage.

That's kind of what I suspected alright.

I have to say, given a perfect situation, I would prefer that marriage didn't exist outside of the religious sphere, i.e. that neither the constitution nor legislature referred to it.

If constitution & legislature were confined to referring to Civil Union, it would make things much more "normal" and straightforward.

For me, it's hard to get beyond the idea of marriage being a religious thing, something a man and a woman enter into.