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

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

I already said i think taking them down is wrong.

I agree. I also said it was strategically wrong also, as they are good for the Yes side.


There have been a good few people on this thread talking about flaws, aggressiveness, double standards from the Yes side, but never seem to comment on the No side. Even worse when they claim that this may lead them to switch their vote, or abstain.

I wondered if you were one of them, but you are not. That's good.

I thought this was the thread about the mural that was defaced (by rain) and people losing their **** over it. I see it has been merged now

Bannasidhe

LordSutch wrote: »

Heard a fascinating discussion on Newstalk this morning involving ex PSNI ombudsman Nula O'Loan.

She was really wound up about something to do with the Garda openly advocating a YES vote, even though the police force is meant to be totally neutral. Apparently the GRA openly back the Yes vote, and the Garda are expected to follow their line .....

I don't know much more than that, but O'loan was really incredulous & annoyed that a whole police force could be manipulated to vote either way.

The interview was on this mornings Ivan Yeats programme.

I heard parts of it and I have to say she is among the few people I have heard who explained why they vote No (she can't vote) without insulting anyone.

I did find her position to be 'tangled' in that she absolutely and utterly believes homosexuals should have absolutely the same legal rights as heterosexuals but not have 'marriage' as she believes that is strictly between an man and a woman. This strikes me as saying 'Yes. Woman should have the same rights and be allowed to indicate their preference in elections but not actually vote because that is what men do.'

Plus I don't think she addressed the niggly little fact that the Irish Constitution uses the term 'marriage' to determine who gets certain protections.

I completely agree with her about the AGS btw. A police force should be seen to be apolitical - we already have enough problems arising from the politicisation of the Gardaí without adding to them.

tigger123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I heard parts of it and I have to say she is among the few people I have heard who explained why they vote No (she can't vote) without insulting anyone.

I did find her position to be 'tangled' in that she absolutely and utterly believes homosexuals should have absolutely the same legal rights as heterosexuals but not have 'marriage' as she believes that is strictly between an man and a woman. This strikes me as saying 'Yes. Woman should have the same rights and be allowed to indicate their preference in elections but not actually vote because that is what men do.'

Plus I don't think she addressed the niggly little fact that the Irish Constitution uses the term 'marriage' to determine who gets certain protections.

I completely agree with her about the AGS btw. A police force should be seen to be apolitical - we already have enough problems arising from the politicisation of the Gardaí without adding to them.

The police force is apolitical. It's the GRA who are requesting a Yes vote. Not AGS.

Bannasidhe

tigger123 wrote: »

The police force is apolitical. It's the GRA who are requesting a Yes vote. Not AGS.

I know that - it's about perception. Which is why I said 'seen to be'

And I don't happen to believe the AGS as a force are apolitical - just because Shatter and Callinan are gone it doesn't mean the cosy relationship is finished.

But - that has nowt to do with the Referendum

tigger123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I know that - it's about perception. Which is why I said 'seen to be'

And I don't happen to believe the AGS as a force are apolitical - just because Shatter and Callinan are gone it doesn't mean the cosy relationship is finished.

But - that has nowt to do with the Referendum

People can perceive things anyway they choose, but it doesn't detract from the accuracy of what's actually happening. The GRA does it represent AGS, nor would they choose to be perceived in that manner, they represent their members who are the rank and file.

I'm delighted their advocating for a Yes btw.

Bannasidhe

tigger123 wrote: »

People can perceive things anyway they choose, but it doesn't detract from the accuracy of what's actually happening. The GRA does it represent AGS, nor would they choose to be perceived in that manner, they represent their members who are the rank and file.

I'm delighted their advocating for a Yes btw.

Fair point.

folamh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the problem with that poll is that the bit in bold isnt true.

It's not a problem with the poll. They're asking people if they think it's true or not.

sjb25

PutDownArtist wrote: »

I'm thinking of lashing 50 quid on the turnout being below 50% -- does anyone else think this is a good bet?

Not that many people seem to really care that much about the outcome.

Yes IMO and if that does happen the yes vote is in trouble I'd say so I hope it doesn't happen that way and people get out and vote because the can't give out afterwords if they don't

noway12345

I think it's becoming obvious that the huge majority of people support SSM but many of them don't really see it as a big issue and probably wont vote. What people do care about is adoption and whether gay people are allowed too. I'd say if there was a vote on that it would be a no. Now the laws have already been changed on this but I'm not sure if many were aware of it?

07Lapierre

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.

I'm Married. Myself and my wife don't have kids.. Are you saying my marriage is not real?


oh I'm MALE by the way.. and my wife is FEMALE, just in case you weren't sure.

frostyjacks

07Lapierre wrote: »

I'm Married. Myself and my wife don't have kids.. Are you saying my marriage is not real?


oh I'm MALE by the way.. and my wife is FEMALE, just in case you weren't sure.

But you can procreate. A gay couple, as far as I'm aware, cannot. So why afford them the same status?

SpaceTime

frostyjacks wrote: »

But you can procreate. A gay couple, as far as I'm aware, cannot. So why afford them the same status?

So the infertile and females over 50 / who have hit menopause should be banned from marriage by that logic?!!

We have a raft of children's rights legislation nowadays and it is not based on marriage of their parents.

Bear in mind that 1 in 3 children in Ireland aren't born to married parents to begin!

In reality, marriage was always about sharing property rights and connecting families. Whether the couple had or didn't have kids was and is totally irrelevant other than it simplifies the guardianship arrangements a bit but not much these days.

07Lapierre

frostyjacks wrote: »

But you can procreate. A gay couple, as far as I'm aware, cannot. So why afford them the same status?

So do we ban all "Straight" Couples from marriage if their over 60 years old? or if the guy has a low sperm count? of if the Women has had her ovaries removed ?

Who are we to tell gay people what to do? We live in a free society. if any two adults want to get married..who are we to stop them?

SpaceTime

I know two people who can't have kids due to chemotherapy - I suppose the poster above would advocate immediate annulments for them?!!

frostyjacks

SpaceTime wrote: »

I know two people who can't have kids due to chemotherapy - I suppose the poster above would advocate immediate annulments for them?!!

You're missing the point. A same sex couple cannot contribute to society in the way that a heterosexual marriage can. It's not discriminatory to keep the them separate because of this. Homosexuals are still equal.

Maximus Alexander

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're missing the point. A same sex couple cannot contribute to society in the way that a heterosexual marriage can. It's not discriminatory to keep the them separate because of this. Homosexuals are still equal.

What way is that?

07Lapierre

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're missing the point. A same sex couple cannot contribute to society in the way that a heterosexual marriage can. It's not discriminatory to keep the them separate because of this. Homosexuals are still equal.

:eek: Are you serious? Explain please...

The Black Oil

Why is what any couple contributes to society any of your business?

PrettyBoy

PutDownArtist wrote: »

I'm thinking of lashing 50 quid on the turnout being below 50% -- does anyone else think this is a good bet?

Surely there is a better way that you could be spending your dole money?

frostyjacks

The Black Oil wrote: »

Why is what any couple contributes to society any of your business?

Because there's a referendum coming up on redefining marriage, I think I saw a poster about it somewhere.

LordSutch

tigger123 wrote: »

People can perceive things anyway they choose, but it doesn't detract from the accuracy of what's actually happening. The GRA does it represent AGS, nor would they choose to be perceived in that manner, they represent their members who are the rank and file.

I'm delighted their advocating for a Yes btw.

But should you be delighted that our police force is not neutral on the matter?
Certainly Nula O'Loan is scathing in her comments on the matter.

Must see if I can find the link @Newstalk for the audio of this mornings interview.

frostyjacks

07Lapierre wrote: »

:eek: Are you serious? Explain please...

Children being brought up by both their parents. I know, it's a really offensive belief to hold.

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because there's a referendum coming up on redefining marriage, I think I saw a poster about it somewhere.

The poster you saw was wrong. Marriage is not being redefined. Marriage is still marriage. It's just that more people will be allowed to get married. Nothing about marriage itself is being changed or redefined.

PutDownArtist

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Surely there is a better way that you could be spending your dole money?

Not if I were to win.:rolleyes:

sjb25

frostyjacks wrote: »

But you can procreate. A gay couple, as far as I'm aware, cannot. So why afford them the same status?

Why not? I'm not gay I'm not married yet but me and my girlfriend have a child (sorry for the sin) but I don't see myself any better than a gay couple I think you are talking sh1t to be honest

Maximus Alexander

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because there's a referendum coming up on redefining marriage, I think I saw a poster about it somewhere.

"Why have you decided to vote No?"

"It's a democracy, I can vote whatever I want"

"Sure, but why do you want to vote that way?"

"I'm free to vote however I like."

"I agree, but what's the rationale behind it?"

"Referendum coming up."

"Yep. You're voting no, right? Why so?"

"Because I can vote however I please."

"And do you know why you're voting the way you're voting?"

"Because it's a hurr and I durr free to hurrdurr hurr...."

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

Children being brought up by both their parents. I know, it's a really offensive belief to hold.

So, you're against single parent families and childless couples adopting then?

Bannasidhe

frostyjacks wrote: »

Children being brought up by both their parents. I know, it's a really offensive belief to hold.

So unless one is part of two people of the opposite sex bringing up children arrangement one isn't contributing to society?

That's fairly offensive actually.

callaway92

What's the divorce rate for gay couples compared to non-gay couples in places where it's legal already?

Just curious really and would be interested to find out more.

At a guess I'd go a fair bit higher but I dunno.

EDIT: I'll be voting yes, but some of the yes campaigners are on a level which is bordering unbearable (including in this thread).

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

So, you're against single parent families and childless couples adopting then?

and widows...