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

Lollipops23

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Video proves my point perfectly when she says "cleaning up the city from homophobia" and she admits she knows its anti democratic.

Anyone who dares to say they are voting no are labelled with the homophobe tag immediatly. The hypocricy I pointed out earlier in this thread is as evident as ever there in that video.

I don't agree with sabotaging the No campaign and think stunts like removing posters is losing us the moral highground.

I have yet to hear a No argument that wasn't homophobic.

Madame_Diem

Lollipops23 wrote: »

You do realise that this will happen regardless of the referendum? Couples sometimes break up-fact of life. As you know, gays and lesbians are no different to anyone else.

Of course. However its not as straight forward with gay couples. One of the parents maybe a natural parent and the other not. Imagine the uproar if a custody of a child was given to non natural parents. Complications. My point is that I would like to see some framework in order to handle the fallout of this. Some other posters here would like to stick their heads in the sand and think everything will be all happy after Harvey Milk Day. It won't. One set of complications will be replaced with another.

Ave Sodalis

Madame_Diem wrote: »

Of course. However its not as straight forward with gay couples. One of the parents maybe a natural parent and the other not. Imagine the uproar if a custody of a child was given to non natural parents. Complications. My point is that I would like to see some framework in order to handle the fallout of this. Some other posters here would like to stick their heads in the sand and think everything will be all happy after Harvey Milk Day. It won't. One set of complications will be replaced with another.

Nothing to do with referendum. Same thing would happen if a gay couple adopted as a couple and split up, or one parent was the biological parent and the other not. Nothing really to do with marriage.

Hann56

I will vote NO. But if I told you why it would not make any difference because people have a free will.

Ave Sodalis

Hann56 wrote: »

I will vote NO. But if I told you why it would not make any difference because people have a free will.

Nice of you to come back after so long and tell us However, you are in a discussion forum and discussion is usually expected.

Bannasidhe

Madame_Diem wrote: »

Of course. However its not as straight forward with gay couples. One of the parents maybe a natural parent and the other not. Imagine the uproar if a custody of a child was given to non natural parents. Complications. My point is that I would like to see some framework in order to handle the fallout of this. Some other posters here would like to stick their heads in the sand and think everything will be all happy after Harvey Milk Day. It won't. One set of complications will be replaced with another.

How does it differ from when a man marries a single mother and adopts her children? This already happens in Ireland.

Stop trying to make it unique to same-sex couples.

And do stop with the High Horse attitude. You aren't doing your argument any favours with this 'I have thought this through more than you' attitude.

See, I am middle aged and I have never been in the closet. I identify as dyke/Queer. I do not, nor have I ever, wanted to get married. But - others do and they should - as equal citizens - have that right. What I, personally, want is immaterial. I am big enough to make my own choices but I should have the same range of choices as everyone else.

Embrace Queer theory and Queer politics all you want but you have no right to expect every single gay person to do likewise nor to impose them on everyone. If two lesbians or gay men want to get married that has as much impact on your life or my life as it does on a hetro married couple's life - zero.

Lollipops23

Hann56 wrote: »

I will vote NO. But if I told you why it would not make any difference because people have a free will.

Of course you're entitled to your vote just like anyone else, but curiousity makes me ask why...?

Bannasidhe

Hann56 wrote: »

I will vote NO. But if I told you why it would not make any difference because people have a free will.

Take it you don't believe in predestination then?

barneystinson

Why is the poll closed?

Anita Blow

I just do not get how No voters solely focus on the surrogacy issue. Surrogacy is not only really rare, it's really expensive. The vast majority of gay couples who seek to start a family will be doing so through adoption, I imagine. These kids have absolutely no parents currently. They are living crap lives in an orphanage or being passed from family to family in the foster system and they have no mother or father. They will never know what it feels like to know a parent's love, and come 18 years old they'll be thrown out with very little stability on which to start their life as an adult.

Are people really so cruel that they would rather such kids have no parents rather than 2 loving parents, simply because they're the same sex? And this argument that "all other things being equal, a heterosexual couple would be better" is complete nonsense, because in the real world all other things will not be equal. There will always be one couple which has a higher income to support the child, or will have had a greater connection with that child, or a better history which shows they'll be better parents. It shouldn't matter what sexuality they are, all that should matter is what sort of life and love they will be able to offer the kid and that is not gender-specific.

Madame_Diem

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How does it differ from when a man marries a single mother and adopts her children? This already happens in Ireland.

Stop trying to make it unique to same-sex couples.

And do stop with the High Horse attitude. You aren't doing your argument any favours with this 'I have thought this through more than you' attitude.

See, I am middle aged and I have never been in the closet. I identify as dyke/Queer. I do not, nor have I ever, wanted to get married. But - others do and they should - as equal citizens - have that right. What I, personally, want is immaterial. I am big enough to make my own choices but I should have the same range of choices as everyone else.

Embrace Queer theory and Queer politics all you want but you have no right to expect every single gay person to do likewise nor to impose them on everyone. If two lesbians or gay men want to get married that has as much impact on your life or my life as it does on a hetro married couple's life - zero.

I'm still voting No. I would rather bring down the whole institution than enter it in order to consider myself 'equal'.

Bannasidhe

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm still voting No. I would rather bring down the whole institution than enter it in order to consider myself 'equal'.

And that is your prerogative.

But that doesn't give you carte blanc to muddy the waters with yet more 'won't somebody think of the children' B.S.

One eyed Jack

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm still voting No. I would rather bring down the whole institution than enter it in order to consider myself 'equal'.

I take it you've already understood then that your voting no will have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage?

You're only going to allow the State to continue to discriminate against people on the basis that you feel they should discriminate against everyone equally?



Am I getting any warmer?

StewartGriffin

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I would rather bring down the whole institution than enter it in order to consider myself 'equal'.

Nice comment. I like it!!:)



Sign me up, I'm joining the revolution.

matrim

Madame_Diem wrote: »

Of course. However its not as straight forward with gay couples. One of the parents maybe a natural parent and the other not. Imagine the uproar if a custody of a child was given to non natural parents. Complications. My point is that I would like to see some framework in order to handle the fallout of this. Some other posters here would like to stick their heads in the sand and think everything will be all happy after Harvey Milk Day. It won't. One set of complications will be replaced with another.

Like this case from a few months ago. So what you're concerned about happens anyway without marriage equality

K4t

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm still voting No. I would rather bring down the whole institution than enter it in order to consider myself 'equal'.

That institution is called society, and you are a part of it whether you like it or not. Thankfully Irish society has escaped the shackles of Catholicism and is moving towards a more secular and equal state. Vote Yes and let the truth set you free.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

Same question: why is taking down posters so much worse than the insults and dehumanising lies the No side have been using?

Because democracy is more important than feelings.

pauliebdub

If there was any doubt in my mind before, well I'm definitely voting yes now after seeing those deplorable No posters. A real slap in the face for anyone who has to bring up children on their own whether they be separated or widowed. Desperate tactics by very desperate people that will hopefully backfire.

NuMarvel

Anita Blow wrote: »

I just do not get how No voters solely focus on the surrogacy issue. Surrogacy is not only really rare, it's really expensive.

From my canvassing experience, No voters aren't mentioning surrogacy at all. That's solely something campaigning groups and their allies are using.
When No voters on the doors bring up parenting, their main objection is that gay couples are parents at all; they're not overly concerned with how they've become parents.

That's been the experience of the group I've been with anyway, it may vary in other areas. It's probably not a representative sample, because we're not coming across huge numbers of Nos in the first place.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because democracy is more important than feelings.

Were you not banned?

Democracy isn't more important than humanity.

marienbad

sup_dude wrote: »

Were you not banned?

Democracy isn't more important than humanity.

Ridiculous response .

Ave Sodalis

marienbad wrote: »

Ridiculous response .

It's not though, not in this case where people are changing their vote because a few posters were taken down, but are completely ignoring the content of the posters. If you take the post in context, the poster was replying to why there's more outrage at a few posters being taken down than at the insults and lies on the posters and by some of the No side. I'm still not seeing how it's justified.

walshyn93

pauliebdub wrote: »

If there was any doubt in my mind before, well I'm definitely voting yes now after seeing those deplorable No posters. A real slap in the face for anyone who has to bring up children on their own whether they be separated or widowed. Desperate tactics by very desperate people that will hopefully backfire.

I'm curious to know what your reservations were before, assuming that wasn't just a figure of speech.

marienbad

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not though, not in this case where people are changing their vote because a few posters were taken down, but are completely ignoring the content of the posters. If you take the post in context, the poster was replying to why there's more outrage at a few posters being taken down than at the insults and lies on the posters and by some of the No side. I'm still not seeing how it's justified.

Even more ridiculous , there is no justification for tampering with election literature no matter how vile . If you think it transgresses some law or other then report it . Otherwise you are well on the way to fascist group think.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

Democracy isn't more important than humanity.

A few months of insulting posters isn't a threat to humanity.

StewartGriffin

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not though, not in this case where people are changing their vote because a few posters were taken down, but are completely ignoring the content of the posters. If you take the post in context, the poster was replying to why there's more outrage at a few posters being taken down than at the insults and lies on the posters and by some of the No side. I'm still not seeing how it's justified.

People behave this way because they are human, irrational emotions, "most illogical, Captain", and all that. Humanity.
Democracy is just the fairest way we have to ensure that the majority of the people get their way, usually the majority are right, but not always.
In that case, the way to change it is through education.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not though, not in this case where people are changing their vote because a few posters were taken down, but are completely ignoring the content of the posters. If you take the post in context, the poster was replying to why there's more outrage at a few posters being taken down than at the insults and lies on the posters and by some of the No side. I'm still not seeing how it's justified.

I don't think people will genuinely change their vote. Even my intense hatred of the crustie hippies in that video wasn't enough to make me change mine.

However I would be very worried that this would go viral and international. It confirms a lot of what many people now suspect about lefty faux-liberals, that they have as much respect for democracy and free speech as the hard right.

Ave Sodalis

marienbad wrote: »

Even more ridiculous , there is no justification for tampering with election literature no matter how vile . If you think it transgresses some law or other then report it . Otherwise you are well on the way to fascist group think.

If you read the rest of my posts, you'll know that's not the case.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Even more ridiculous , there is no justification for tampering with election literature no matter how vile . If you think it transgresses some law or other then report it . Otherwise you are well on the way to fascist group think.

You're still ignoring context. sup_dude is asking why people are changing their voting preference on the basis of some people taking down posters that were put up by the no campaign?

It's a valid question to ask why are these people only changing their vote because of the actions of some people, and they're ignoring the content of the no posters that are being put up by the no campaign.


Me personally, I don't think these people were ever voting yes in the first place, and they're looking for any reason at all to say "ah no, you've put me off now, that's it, I'm voting no". They're actually that immature that they think anyone ever thought they were voting yes in the first place. They weren't, all they were doing was keeping quiet until they had some semblance of a reason to justify their own homophobia. That's exactly what their opinions are based on - an irrational fear of people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

As one poster put it earlier having been out canvassing - no voters were even surprised people who are LGBT are even allowed adopt in the first place. I know a good many people have changed their views on marriage equality thinking that "I have no problem with gay people getting married, but they shouldn't be allowed have children".

When I inform them that people who are LGBT have children naturally the same as anyone else, because their sexuality doesn't mean their reproductive organs don't function; then the person changes their stance almost immediately to "Oh well I didn't know that now, well in that case what do they want to be married for?", and it goes on, and on, and on, and at the end, you know they're just going to say they're voting no anyway!

It's fcuking exhausting, and I can easily understand why people are getting frustrated and physically and mentally drained from it all, enough to feel angry enough to tear down posters trying to make out that they should be treated like crap. You would too if something made you angry enough in that moment.

osarusan

Anybody know where i can download some Yes posters - I'd especially like the Labour one