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

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You and marien are still missing the point of sup_dude's inquiry walshy.

Nobody is saying these people are right or justified in tearing down the posters. sup_dude is asking how come people are saying they're all of a sudden going to vote "no" now because of people tearing down the posters, and they had no problem before with what is actually written on the posters that these people are tearing down?

Not sure how much clearer I can make that tbh.

So what ! You can do nothing about it , these people were never going to vote yes and they are entitled to do and say what they like without reference to you or anybody else .

Move on and focus on people that are open to change .

Bannasidhe

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Let's not forget posters have been torn down from both campaigns. It's a silly reason to base a vote on.

Yeah. Not seeing posts talking about those people who came home to find a rock put through their window that had a Yes poster in it.

Funny that.

Ryu Hayabusa

I am voting no because of Adam Lambert

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I have already said. If someone puts one of those posters on the lamppost directly outside my house I will take it down.

I will take it down because I will not have my grandchilden aged 8 and 5 - both of whom can read - upset at being told that their family of unmarried parents who do not live together, divorced maternal granddad (who is so estranged from his ex-wife that they have never met their maternal grandmother) and their two lesbian grannies is somehow less than ideal. They are two happy, innocent kids and I will not have them upset by manipulative lying point scoring.

If anyone wants to arrest me - go ahead!

Now - would anyone like to call me a fascist?

Well as Jonny Giles is fond of saying - just because a footballer occasionally does great things doesn't make him a great footballer.

Similarly if you occasionally indulge in a fascist action it doesn't make you a fascist .

Lets leave the emotionalism out of it and win the war and not get dragged in to some irrelevant battle.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

Well as Jonny Giles is fond of saying - just because a footballer occasionally does great things doesn't make him a great footballer.

Similarly if you occasionally indulge in a fascist action it doesn't make you a fascist .

Lets leave the emotionalism out of it and win the war and not get dragged in to some irrelevant battle.

Protecting one's family is emotionalism now?

A poster likened taking down posters to Golden Dawn but now I am getting advice. How lovely.

As an aside - I do so like how straight people are queuing up to tell us Gays how to win a battle we have been fighting our whole lives.

One eyed Jack

walshyn93 wrote: »

You are the king of nit-pickers.

I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or not tbh

1. Given that the word "vote" is in the title I think they'd have some idea what's going on. Given that the word "anti-democratic" is used. Did you think you were being clever there?

I'm dyslexic, can't read for shìt, but the TTS abilities on this phone are pretty spiffy (technology, ain't it great ). Not sure what you're talking about "anti-democratic" or where you got that from, but all that suggests to me is the irony in you suggesting that people ripping down posters are being anti-democratic, when the posters themselves want to promote the very essence of anti-democracy... well, it's quite something really!

No, I sure as hell ain't the sharpest pencil in the box, but do I need to be? This isn't exactly splitting the atom we're talking about here - we're talking about giving people equal representation and participation in society, and the people who would rather they didn't have equal representation and participation in society. Either we live in a democratic society, or we live in something that claims to be a democratic society as long as nobody points out the obvious flaws.

2. I'm sure your grandmother listens to the radio, no doubt this will be mentioned numerous times tomorrow across all frequencies. Again a terrible counter-point.

Erm, I know I said I couldn't read for shìt, but what's your excuse? I said it was my mother, and no, she will have her head buried in a big book, she's a very well educated and highly academic woman (granted there was that 20 year gap when we stopped speaking to each other for a while, but I was misled to think she was finally mellowing out in her old age, we shan't be speaking for a while again I think, but I can live with that, and she certainly can!).

My grandmother I know if she were alive, fiercely religious woman, compassionate to a fault, I could guarantee you she would be voting in favour of this referendum were she alive today, and she would be disgusted by the lies being spread by people who claim to be religious (always an honest woman, loved that about her, even when she did say "hasn't he a woeful beggar face?", she said it when I was 6, you'd think I'd be over it by now ).

3. I started responded before I read the 3rd paragraph and beyond and now I'm just confused.

If you've managed to read down this far, fair play, I can't even remember what I wrote on the first line! (memory like a goldfish... :rolleyes:)

Zubeneschamali

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'.

But the No side already told me that passing the referendum would destroy the institution.

One of us is confused.

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Protecting one's family is emotionalism now?

A poster likened taking down posters to Golden Dawn but now I am getting advice. How lovely.

As an aside - I do so like how straight people are queuing up to tell us Gays how to win a battle we have been fighting our whole lives.

Just more emotionalism , I would remind you that without straight people this referendum is lost.

The best way to protects one's family is to win this vote and to show that SSM is just a normal part of society .

Those posters are not illegal and my own opinion is that they are counter productive - so let us highlight that and not give them more cause for victim status . They have just alienated a huge section of society that heretofore was uninvolved . Lets us concentrate on that and stop giving them ammunition.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

Just more emotionalism , I would remind you that without straight people this referendum is lost.

Yes Massa.

I'se be nice k.

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes Massa.

I'se be nice k.

Would you prefer to be right and lose or pragmatic and win ?

Zubeneschamali

marienbad wrote: »

I would remind you that without straight people this referendum is lost.

If no straight people vote, it'll pass in a landlside, since Keith Mills is at Eurovision, there'd only be Paddy Manning and a bunch of closeted clergy voting No.

NuMarvel

marienbad wrote: »

Just more emotionalism , I would remind you that without straight people this referendum is lost.

The best way to protects one's family is to win this vote and to show that SSM is just a normal part of society .

Those posters are not illegal and my own opinion is that they are counter productive - so let us highlight that and not give them more cause for victim status . They have just alienated a huge section of society that heretofore was uninvolved . Lets us concentrate on that and stop giving them ammunition.

While I agree with what most of what you say, I don't think it's fair to characterise Bann's posts as just more emotionalism. If one of those posters goes up outside her house, she's the one that has to deal her grandkids if it upsets them. And it's not as if it would only be there for a few days, it would be for the next 4 weeks. If I was in those circumstances, I couldn't say for certain I'd leave the poster up. Could you?

eviltwin

marienbad wrote: »

Just more emotionalism , I would remind you that without straight people this referendum is lost.

The best way to protects one's family is to win this vote and to show that SSM is just a normal part of society .

Those posters are not illegal and my own opinion is that they are counter productive - so let us highlight that and not give them more cause for victim status . They have just alienated a huge section of society that heretofore was uninvolved . Lets us concentrate on that and stop giving them ammunition.

People are emotional because it's so personal. It's easy to be detached when it's not your relationship under the microscope, when it's not a poster on your street that you have to look at every day, when you don't feel your family is being attacked unfairly. You can't expect people in gay relationships especially those with children to not take it personally. Sure it would be great if they could but they are only human.

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A poster likened taking down posters to Golden Dawn but now I am getting advice. How lovely.

They did? Missed that. Loving the advice on how you should behave in the face of these outrageous slurs tho.....

As an aside - I do so like how straight people are queuing up to tell us Gays how to win a battle we have been fighting our whole lives.

Yeah, but it's not a competition obviously. We fight many battles our whole lives and some we lose repeatedly in our own country. I have to say I'm not particularly loving that I've had to give a history lesson to my kids over the "No" poster campaign, including the history of the battles that I've lost so far. Feeling a bit sh!t by telling them we've lost some of the more secular battles within my lifetime.

It's plenty disheartening (as you know) to be describing to your children how "Hello divorce, goodbye Daddy" could pale in comparison to the slogans for this campaign, but they're a sussed and interested bunch. There is hope (for me, and I hope for you) that this next generation doesn't see it as straight versus gay in a battle situation. We might get that far in our lifetimes Bann.

Shrap

marienbad wrote: »

Would you prefer to be right and lose or pragmatic and win ?

How is that still a threat, in this day and age? Jaysus.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

Would you prefer to be right and lose or pragmatic and win ?

I would prefer we didn't have to go through this whole hateful process.
I would prefer to just be treated as an equal citizen without needing anyone's 'support'.

I happen to think the No side has scored an own goal with these posters and ripping them down is tactically a bad move so we agree on that.

However, emotionalism or not, I will still take one down if it appears outside my front door. We are fighting to have our families protected but we risk damaging our children in the process I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As the old slogan goes - the personal is the political. This is personal for me.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If no straight people vote, it'll pass in a landlside, since Keith Mills is at Eurovision, there'd only be Paddy Manning and a bunch of closeted clergy voting No.

Ha - yes.

We need the support of straight people to vote yes to counteract the straight people who will vote no.

NuMarvel

eviltwin wrote: »

You can't expect people in gay relationships especially those with children to not take it personally. Sure it would be great if they could but they are only human.

To expand on that, it's not just same sex couples that are objecting to those posters, heterosexual people who've adopted or are single parents are complaining too. And their friends probably have something to say about them as well.

What's kinda funny is that the poster with the most relevance to the referendum, i.e. the civil partnership one, is the one getting the least attention. It's the other two, the ones concerning children, that are raising people's hackles. The No campaign really underestimated how attitudes have changed to "non-traditional" families and the removal of a few of their posters gives them a great excuse to take attention off that.

I'm 26 and have never voted or registered to vote, I checked the register and all my details are in there and I'm registered to vote.

From what I've read you aren't automatically registered when you turn 18 so how am I already done?

Ave Sodalis

cisk wrote: »

I'm 26 and have never voted or registered to vote, I checked the register and all my details are in there and I'm registered to vote.

From what I've read you aren't automatically registered when you turn 18 so how am I already done?

Happened to me too. Apparently, sometimes those running for election will register you in order to get more votes if you're in an area where they're popular... or something like that. I'm not sure.

S.O

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If it is ok in some situations then it can't be that bad then.

If having a mother and a father was such an important requirement then it would apply to all children.

Im back online I will reply to some posts, a neighbour of mine down the road was married and living with her husband for the last 15 years roughly, last summer they broke up and have separated he no longer lives there, although they broke up and separated the youngster aged about 12 to 13 still sees his father during the week , its my understanding he stays at his fathers place one night at the weekends, the thing is the kid still has both a mother + father figure in his life, now lets imagine if he had of being adopted at very early age by a same sex female couple and they broke up , he wouldn,t have a father figure in his life at all.

One eyed Jack

cisk wrote: »

I'm 26 and have never voted or registered to vote, I checked the register and all my details are in there and I'm registered to vote.

From what I've read you aren't automatically registered when you turn 18 so how am I already done?

The electoral register was "cleaned up" in 2004, so someone could probably have added you then by mistake.

It happens, my young lad is only 10 and he's been registered to vote since he was born because my wife thought she was filling out the census forms! :pac:

Always gives me a laugh every time he gets his voting card any time there's an election or a referendum, he's only got another eight years to go before he can actually vote, but tbh I'd say he knows more about what this referendum is about than some of the people who are actually entitled to vote already...

Ave Sodalis

S.O wrote: »

Im back online I will reply to some posts, a neighbour of mine down the road was married and living with her husband for the last 15 years roughly, last summer they broke up and have separated he no longer lives there, although they broke up and separated the youngster aged about 12 to 13 still sees his father during the week , its my understanding he stays at his fathers place one night at the weekends, the thing is the kid still has both a mother + father figure in his life, now lets imagine if he had of being adopted at very early age by a same sex female couple and they broke up , he wouldn,t have a father figure in his life at all.

To use your username, so? Many people don't know one or both their parents. They turn out fine. What about those who are adopted all over the world by straight people? What about single parents?

Madame_Diem

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ha - yes.

We need the support of straight people to vote yes to counteract the straight people who will vote no.

And the gay people who will vote No too.

marienbad

NuMarvel wrote: »

While I agree with what most of what you say, I don't think it's fair to characterise Bann's posts as just more emotionalism. If one of those posters goes up outside her house, she's the one that has to deal her grandkids if it upsets them. And it's not as if it would only be there for a few days, it would be for the next 4 weeks. If I was in those circumstances, I couldn't say for certain I'd leave the poster up. Could you?

I really don't care to discuss what if scenarios . I too have grandchildren and am quite sure they will not be traumatised by these posters particularly as there are enough of us around to answer any concerns they might have .

And 4 weeks is nothing if we succeed in making such vile nonsense from the no side irrelevant for the remainder of our lives and those kids lives.

The truth is that we should not have to have to ask the electorate to legalise ssm , just like women should not have had to ask men for the vote . But that is the situation we find ourselves in for apparently sound legal reasons . So on a once off basic we have to carry the majority with us . Can we concentrate on that .

Was it General Westmoreland that said when it was pointed out to him that a measure they were proposing would alienate the Jewish vote said '' Fcuk em , they won't vote for us anyway'' That should be our attitude to all those no voters - let us concentrate on getting our own vote out and convincing the undecided to come with us.

Anything else is just poor me emotional I have the moral high ground prepare to fail talk.

Let us win and win decisively and stop getting distracted.

S.O

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But it's ok for heterosexual couples to adopt and use AHR?
What about single mothers where there is no 'father' - are you going to take their children away and give them to a nice hetro couple? - Oh, wait... that sounds familiar...

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM?

Sometimes one just has to shout. :mad:

With heterosexual couples adopting, the kid hasn,t being deprieved by design of a mother or a father figure, in cases of single mothers and the father not being around , if its one of these cases of he walks away after learning she is pregnant, he should be made pay child support towards his kid from his source of income.

frostyjacks

What's the problem about having an ideal vision of a family? Children growing up with their mother and father in a stable and secure environment...is that offensive now?

S.O

sup_dude wrote: »

To use your username, so? Many people don't know one or both their parents. They turn out fine. What about those who are adopted all over the world by straight people? What about single parents?

S.O, username short for silent observer.

Ave Sodalis

S.O wrote: »

With heterosexual couples adopting, the kid hasn,t being deprieved by design of a mother or a father figure, in cases of single mothers and the father not being around , if its one of these cases of he walks away after learning she is pregnant, he should be made pay child support towards his kid from his source of income.

And with a gay couple, both can contribute to the child financially whilst having the support of each other that many single parents don't have.

ohnonotgmail

S.O wrote: »

With heterosexual couples adopting, the kid hasn,t being deprieved by design of a mother or a father figure, in cases of single mothers and the father not being around , if its one of these cases of he walks away after learning she is pregnant, he should be made pay child support towards his kid from his source of income.

But what does this have to do with this referendum? I'll save you the bother of replying and just tell you. It has nothing to do with this referendum.