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

kylith

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I think there's a bigger issue when people are running around at this crap

You're certainly living up to your user name there.

So, you want to deny 10% of the population the same rights as everyone else because some people took down some bits of cardboard with lies written on them? Am I right?

the evasion_kid

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, no, no, fascists go around dressed in black and tell people what to do ... wait a minute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65D4f6IkbYY

ohnonotgmail

the evasion_kid wrote: »

snipped video

nobody here has defended the tearing down of posters. it is certainly not being orchestrated by the Yes campaign. They are the actions of individuals. whereas the lies told by the No campaign are an integral part of their campaign. in fact they wouldnt have a campaign without them. But you're ok with all that though, right?

VinLieger

the evasion_kid wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65D4f6IkbYY

Definitely living up to your name, still no response to the fact that yes posters are getting torn down too?

Maximus Alexander

I have yet to see a single poster for either side, which suggests to me that they're all being torn down. It's a weird sort of logic where you make decisions on the future of your country and rights of its citizens based on the actions of a few fringe eejits, rather than considering the issue at hand.

Willfarman

To actually take the time and trouble to go and vote, and then to vote against something that would bring about great happiness to a admittedly minor amount of people at no cost to yourself is an awful hateful thing to do.

Ave Sodalis

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's llike fucking groundhog day in here.

Will have to go like YLYL and ban reposts :pac:

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, up to a point. But none of that changes a single word that I said. Ah, yeah, there''s more in the Act than I thought there would be. But the rest of your post is hard to make sense of. I'm stating a plain, banal fact. And it seems to have exactly the effect on some that I thought it would. I doubt you could coherently expand on how I haven't a leg to stand on.

I'm drawing it out for exactly the reason stated. There''s a block of law that''s essential for straight marriage, and irrelevant to SSM.

And as your post shows, some people have great problems hearing that banal fact.

I don't think people have anything difficulty hearing 'that banal fact''. They just don't get ( at least I don't) the significance you attach to it .

efb

John Waters and EU Expenses Queen Kathy Synnott have a new anti ref party called First Families First

Iona, more splinter groups than the Taliban

Hyzepher

At this point it would actually be a good strategy for the No campaign to tear down their own posters.

Ave Sodalis

Hyzepher wrote: »

At this point it would actually be a good strategy for the No campaign to tear down their own posters.

Alternatively, it'd be a good strategy for the Yes campaign to put up outragous No posters

Zubeneschamali

campingcarist wrote: »

I have absolutely no objection to same sex couples have all the legal rights that a married couple have.

Then we need a referendum to remove the bit where the constitution protects families based on marriage.

Zen65

frostyjacks wrote: »

. . . So I don't see how that relationship can be regarded as equal to a heterosexual marriage. I know they're are straight couples who can't have kids etc. etc. I'm talking about in the main, this is why a gay couple shouldn't be thought of as equal to a straight couple.

<Sigh>

So, for the umpteenth time, let's deal with the childish "special cases" argument.

You're saying that a marriage is essentially only a proper marriage if the couple can have kids, and by extension only if they are opposite-sex. But you're happy making an exception for heterosexual couples who don't or cannot have kids because of infertility or age. The basis for making this exception is because "in the main" heterosexual couples can have kids, so an individual couple unable to have kids is only a marginal case.

But in the greater scheme of things SSM will statistically be a minority occurrence. There will be more infertile / older couples getting married than SS couples getting married. The recognition of SSM on our statute books will not alter the average marital situation, so to use your logic they should be considered only a marginal case and therefore not excluded from the right to get married!

Except of course that you actually want to exclude them, isn't that right?

marienbad

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Wasnt going to vote at all but think I'll vote no looking at some of the carry on of people ripping down no posters and thinking there edgy....fascists....just for democracy's sake

For democracy's sake vote yes to both referenda, vote for more equality and vote to expand the electorate .

There is nothing wrong with democracy that more democracy won't cure .

Forget the knobheads on both sides , years down the road you will be glad you did

Zen65

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Then we need a referendum to remove the bit where the constitution protects families based on marriage.

No, we don't.

We need the referendum to explicitly state that marriage is not restricted to heterosexual couples, because the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that the original constitution must have meant heterosexual couples because at the time it was written the notion of SSM did not exist.

We do not want to remove the protection to families based, since that is the very reason that people want to get married (I mean, apart from love and all that).

EDIT: Oh wait, I've just realised you were being sarcastic. Very droll, and very slow of me to miss it

bnt

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in this thread but I believe marriage is traditionally between children...no, hold on. Marriage is traditionally traditional and that means we... no that's not right either. *Cough* The tradition of marriage has played a key role in society afbekluqgflqebm,b,ffhabeflj frrrrgghhhh nnnnnnnnn,

Now here's someone who needs to take a break from watching Game Of Thrones. In that medieval world - which feels a lot like parts of our world today - a girl is ready for marriage and childbirth the first morning she wakes up with red spots on her nightdress. That's a literal description, not a metaphor. "Traditional values", eh? :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

Zen65 wrote: »

No, we don't.

We need the referendum to explicitly state that marriage is not restricted to heterosexual couples, because the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that the original constitution must have meant heterosexual couples because at the time it was written the notion of SSM did not exist.

We do not want to remove the protection to families based, since that is the very reason that people want to get married (I mean, apart from love and all that).

i think he was just logically extending the post by campingcarist to show the absurdity of it. but i could be wrong on that.

Bannasidhe

bnt wrote: »

Now here's someone who needs to take a break from watching Game Of Thrones. In that medieval world, a girl is ready for marriage and childbirth the first morning she wakes up with a red spots on her nightdress. That's a literal description, not a metaphor. "Traditional values", eh? :rolleyes:

It wasn't so much that she was 'ready' in an age of consent way more that it was considered polite to wait.. but as a wife literally belonged to her husband he could do what he wanted when he wanted.

Different in Gaelic Ireland btw. Gaelic Ireland had secular laws which gave far greater protections to women and children then any thing in Christendom.

bnt

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I can only assume you either didn't read past the first mention of the word 'tradition', or your sarcasm detector needs re-tuning :pac:

Nah, it wasn't aimed at you as such. In some ways, I find Game Of Thrones is a dig at those who romanticise the past and "traditional values". Things are better, now, but they need to keep getting better, which is what this referendum is about.

mikemac1

I get that the political parties put out posters supporting the yes vote

Our local Sinn Fein councillor has his smiling mug plastered on posters around here supporting a yes vote too

I suppose there is nothing wrong with it but imo a referendum is something more then an opportunity to jump on to raise your profile.

Maybe I'm wrong here. Just I haven't seen any other politician do this so it stood out to me

VinLieger

mikemac1 wrote: »

I get that the political parties put out posters supporting the yes vote

Our local Sinn Fein councillor has his smiling mug plastered on posters around here supporting a yes vote too

I suppose there is nothing wrong with it but imo a referendum is something more then a bandwagon to jump on to raise your profile.

Maybe I'm wrong here. Just I haven't seen any other politician do this so it stood out to me

So far ive only seen party names on yes poster's which is fine, haven't seen faces but would agree it shouldn't be something to bandwagon your face onto

One eyed Jack

efb wrote: »

John Waters and EU Expenses Queen Kathy Synnott have a new anti ref party called First Families First

Iona, more splinter groups than the Taliban

At first I thought "Ah come on efb, stop taking the piss..."

Sadly, it's true -


New group First Families First to back No vote in referendum


(And I mean 'sadly' as in utterly pathetic')


It also means these clowns will be the media mouthpieces to be argued against in any 'debate' hosted by the State broadcaster with that whole 50/50 time given to each side nonsense.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At first I thought "Ah come on efb, stop taking the piss..."

Sadly, it's true -


New group First Families First to back No vote in referendum


(And I mean 'sadly' as in utterly pathetic')


It also means these clowns will be the media mouthpieces to be argued against in any 'debate' hosted by the State broadcaster with that whole 50/50 time given to each side nonsense.

Are they just setting up new groups so they can say X number of groups oppose SSM and hoping that no-one looks closely enough that they notice all the groups have the same 12 members?

Also, First Families First sounds like a group that wants to repeal the divorce laws.

Nodin

noway12345 wrote: »

Ok, I've just seen the mod warning. I understand the referendum is on SSM but the issue we're talking about is the main issue coming out of the whole debate. People have genuine concerns, these can't be ignored. I think the referendum will pass and I hope it does but the support for SSM does not equal the support for homosexual people adopting or other things. The Irish people have had no say in something that we see as very important, that's a sad state of affairs in a supposed democracy. I'll leave it at that.

But adoption is a separate issue that will be in law before May 22nd.

Sofiztikated

I've been having a little think about what good reason there would be to vote no, and I'm not coming up with much.

The only thing I can think of is:

If a yes vote wins, would a church be obliged to perform a religious ceremony to gay couples, or face a discrimination suit?

efb

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've been having a little think about what good reason there would be to vote no, and I'm not coming up with much.

The only thing I can think of is:

If a yes vote wins, would a church be obliged to perform a religious ceremony to gay couples, or face a discrimination suit?

No. Like they are not forced to marry divorcees

Bannasidhe

Sofiztikated wrote: »

If a yes vote wins, would a church be obliged to perform a religious ceremony to gay couples, or face a discrimination suit?

No.

jobbridge4life

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've been having a little think about what good reason there would be to vote no, and I'm not coming up with much.

The only thing I can think of is:

If a yes vote wins, would a church be obliged to perform a religious ceremony to gay couples, or face a discrimination suit?

No absolutely not in the same way a muslim couple can't sue to force a Catholic church to perform their wedding. This relates solely to secular civil marriage.

falan

Has this been posted? 5 reasons to vote no.

http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/

Sofiztikated

efb wrote: »

No. Like they are not forced to marry divorcees

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No absolutely not in the same way a muslim couple can't sue to force a Catholic church to perform their wedding. This relates solely to secular civil marriage.

Excellent.

So, no valid reasons for a no vote.