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

Ave Sodalis

noway12345 wrote: »

Yes and it's working for the no side. It wont be enough but this is the issue that concerns people more.

I'm still not seeing your point. What are you suggesting so?

noway12345

TheChizler wrote: »

So what are you saying? No point being secretive.

I'm of the opinion that the no side are using it because as you said there's a little less support for adoption, so they're trying to bring the people who would be ok with SSM but not adoption onto their side by conflating the two; wholly dishonest.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's very dishonest but it's what the general public would look more negativly on.

Hyzepher

I don't think NoWay is suggesting anything - he/she is just pointing out that adoption generates more public interest than marriage and that's why the No campaign are using it.

I think NoWay is Pro SSM?

Peist2007

noway12345 wrote: »

It's what people are discussing coming up to the referendum, it's the only reason why there is any doubt over there being a yes vote.

But that does not make it a legitimate conversation. Maybe people need to educate themselves as to what the referendum is actually about?

Also, believing homosexuals cannot be trusted to raise children is homophobic.

househero

TheChizler wrote: »

So what are you saying? No point being secretive.

I'm of the opinion that the no side are using it because as you said there's a little less support for adoption, so they're trying to bring the people who would be ok with SSM but not adoption onto their side by conflating the two; wholly dishonest.

If you think its misleading, you can complain to the advertising standards agency Ireland. [url]Http://asai.ie[/url]

noway12345

sup_dude wrote: »

I'm still not seeing your point. What are you suggesting so?

The subjects should be seperated, this referendum should be passed and a different discussion should be had on the bill.

No-one here will agree with that and before someone says it, I know it's already been passed but I think it's become clear that it's something many aren't happy about.

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

I'm still not seeing your point. What are you suggesting so?

I do not believe him to be suggesting anything - but merely restating quite badly something we have known since page 4 or 5 of this thread - that the "no" camp are wilfully conflating SSMarriage with SSParenthood because they know the latter pushes the buttons they want to push in a way none of their (non-existent) arguments against the former actually do.

In essence he is merely restating something we all already know - and doing so in such a poor way that quite a number of users appear to have no idea where is he coming from - or going to - with his posts.

That would be my summary anyway - should it help anyone

Hyzepher wrote: »

I think NoWay is Pro SSM?

Did he not say earlier in this thread that he will vote "no" simply because he likes to support the underdog? Or was that another user? I must "use the search luke" to figure out who that was.

Edit: Ah yes here it is.

noway12345

Hyzepher wrote: »

I don't think NoWay is suggesting anything - he/she is just pointing out that adoption generates more public interest than marriage and that's why the No campaign are using it.

I think NoWay is Pro SSM?

Yes but I have reservations about gay couples adopting.

TheChizler

househero wrote: »

If you think its misleading, you can complain to the advertising standards agency Ireland. [url]Http://asai.ie[/url]

Do the ASAI cover campaign materials? (The answer is no)

jobbridge4life

noway12345 wrote: »

Why would putting posters up concerning gay couples having kids scare or distract anyone? Is it because there's far less support for gay couples having kids than gay couples marrying? Of course it is.

I haven't suggested that isn't the case. It still irrelevant to the referendum at hand and therefore a deeply duplicitous manner of campaigning.

noway12345

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not believe him to be suggesting anything - but merely restating quite badly something we have known since page 4 or 5 of this thread - that the "no" camp are wilfully conflating SSMarriage with SSParenthood because they know the latter pushes the buttons they want to push in a way none of their (non-existent) arguments against the former actually do.

In essence he is merely restating something we all already know - and doing so in such a poor way that quite a number of users appear to have no idea where is he coming from - or going to - with his posts.

That would be my summary anyway - should it help anyone



Did he not say earlier in this thread that he will vote "no" simply because he likes to support the underdog? Or was that another user? I must "use the search luke" to figure out who that was.

Edit: Ah yes here it is.

That was tongue in cheek. I wont be voting.

noway12345

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I haven't suggested that isn't the case. It still irrelevant to the referendum at hand and therefore a deeply duplicitous manner of campaigning.

Yes it is.

Peist2007

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not believe him to be suggesting anything - but merely restating quite badly something we have known since page 4 or 5 of this thread - that the "no" camp are wilfully conflating SSMarriage with SSParenthood because they know the latter pushes the buttons they want to push in a way none of their (non-existent) arguments against the former actually do.

In essence he is merely restating something we all already know - and doing so in such a poor way that quite a number of users appear to have no idea where is he coming from - or going to - with his posts.

That would be my summary anyway - should it help anyone



Did he not say earlier in this thread that he will vote "no" simply because he likes to support the underdog? Or was that another user? I must "use the search luke" to figure out who that was.

Edit: Ah yes here it is.

Kinda makes a complete mockery of his own serious "analysis" over the past few pages. Pure desperation from the no's. Why cant they just tell us the truth about their reasoning? Their failure to be honest betrays the fact that they know they are wrong about this.

Peist2007

noway12345 wrote: »

Yes but I have reservations about gay couples adopting.

Why?

ohnonotgmail

noway12345 wrote: »

Yes but I have reservations about gay couples adopting.

i dont suppose you care to explain why?

Bannasidhe

noway12345 wrote: »

I know this referendum has zero impact on it but surely you can see the reason why the no side are using it?

Far less people support gay couples adopting than gay couples marrying.

They are selling the electorate a pig in a poke. Get people worked up about something that is done and dusted.

If I were cynical (who am I kidding with 'if') I would suggest that a successful No vote will try and be spun into calls to repeal the Children and Family Relationships Act for the simple reason that it recognises that the world is far more complex than Daddy plus Mammy plus babies = Nirvana. Those who are behind the NO Campaign do not want complex, messy, real life. They want to control society and force it to conform to their dream of a world that never actually existed.

househero

TheChizler wrote: »

Do the ASAI cover campaign materials? (The answer is no)

Well now that's a can of worms hahaha

Our politicians are exempt from complying with the (voluntary) asai rules. BUT they do have a duty to provide impartial and unbiased information on referendums (not election materials).

If the posters are in ANY way funded by third parties, which they invariably are, they are subject to asai rules.

You may receive a brush off reply, but if you pursue the case in point, they will investigate the matter. Although the result would take longer than the ref due date, its purpose would only serve to discredit the no camp and a ref in the future would be affected by the distrust.

kylith

noway12345 wrote: »

Yes but I have reservations about gay couples adopting.

But it doesn't matter if you do because they already can and do adopt.

TheChizler

househero wrote: »

Well now that's a can of worms hahaha

Our politicians are exempt from complying with the (voluntary) asai rules. BUT they do have a duty to provide impartial and unbiased information on referendums (not election materials).

If the posters are in ANY way funded by third parties, which they invariably are, they are subject to asai rules.

You may receive a brush off reply, but if you pursue the case in point, they will investigate the matter. Although the result would take longer than the ref due date, its purpose would only serve to discredit the no camp and a ref in the future would be affected by the distrust.

I refer you to the ASAI statement in response to complaints about Youth Defence posters a few years ago, not too dissimilar from now.

Actually, the current code wrote: »

The Code does not apply to:

...

(f) marketing communications whose principal purpose is to express the advertiser’s position on a political, religious, industrial relations, social oraesthetic matter or on an issue of public interest or concern;

househero

kylith wrote: »

But it doesn't matter if you do because they already can and do adopt.

If I was a child waiting to be adopted.

I would rather have two dads (or mums) than none

222233

I will be voting a very very very BIG YES! Alongside almost everyone else I know, haven't met any of these notorious "no" campaigners that I have been hearing so much about yet, thankfully

househero

TheChizler wrote: »

I refer you to the ASAI statement in response to complaints about Youth Defence posters a few years ago, not too dissimilar from now.

Thanks for that. What else can you find on the internet to show me?

This is part of my job. If you know better than me because you just found google, good for you.

As I said. If you press the matter, EU law actually supersedes the ASAI regulations and they full well know this. ASAI rules arw voluntarily adhered to by respectable companies. They don't really have any power apart from shame, until recently you could even use them for a good bit of free coverage.

househero

222233 wrote: »

I will be voting a very very very BIG YES! Alongside almost everyone else I know, haven't met any of these notorious "no" campaigners that I have been hearing so much about yet, thankfully

I know a few no voters. They (the people i know) are generally close minded and struggle to see things from a different perspective. Basically they are idiots.

#disclaimer
I am NOT saying no voters are idiots, but the people I do know that are voting no, are in fact idiots.

Peist2007

Nothing like being asked directly to explain why they are voting no to get a no voter to disappear

222233

it annoys me very much that there even needs to be a vote, this kind of thing should be standard, people don't choose to be gay it is who they are, if this is the case maybe ugly people shouldn't be allowed to marry good looking people... just because.. well for no apparent reason really.

it does not affect me, the Catholic Church or absolutely anyone else in this country if two men want to get married.. or two women want to get married, it will not impact on anyone else's life except the two people involved.

househero

Peist2007 wrote: »

Nothing like being asked directly to explain why they are voting no to get a no voter to disappear

I was curious. I understand some people would vote no because of their religious beliefs. But I don't understand why anybody else would vote no.

househero

222233 wrote: »

it annoys me very much that there even needs to be a vote, this kind of thing should be standard, people don't choose to be gay it is who they are, if this is the case maybe ugly people shouldn't be allowed to marry good looking people... just because.. well for no apparent reason really.

it does not affect me, the Catholic Church or absolutely anyone else in this country if two men want to get married.. or two women want to get married, it will not impact on anyone else's life except the two people involved.

It might affect you. Ireland is seen as a non gay friendly country and our pink tourism take is far below EU averages. Gay couples spend significantly more on holiday than their straight counterparts, telling the world Ireland is OK for gay people would give us a much needed € boost. Irish people spend more on holiday than the people coming here, which is crap as only 4 people live here. We should have a tourism surplus not a deficit.

222233

househero wrote: »

I was curious. I understand some people would vote no because of their religious beliefs. But I don't understand why anybody else would vote no.

The church are hypocrites, Catholics have no problem adopting children born outside of marriage, yet "illegitimately" born children were considered lesser human years ago ...

BTW i am not saying there is anything wrong with children born outside of marriage I am not religious and love all humans equally... just saying the church don't know what they believe in..

JCX BXC

I will be voting yes. I have yet to see a valid reason against it.

*-"I believe a family unit is a heterosexual couple and children".

So others should have to follow your beliefs?


*-"It is against the Catholic religion"

1. The catholic church haven't a valid argument against it

2. Again, why should others follow your beliefs?


*-"I don't like homosexuals"

What if I said I don't like people of a different colour to me?


*-"It doesnt cater for bisexuals who want to marry 2 people"

Does that one even need a response?

BlitzKrieg

So now the topic is shifting to paranoid of persecution against those who vote no: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/supporters-of-no-vote-worried-that-vengeful-yes-campaign-will-cost-them-their-jobs-675077.html