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

CarpeDiem85

Woodville56 wrote: »

So far in this debate, on this thread and others related, I've seen the words "idiotic" "stupid" "homophobe" "asinine" "hypocrite" and other expletives used against the views of anyone who offers any view or opinion other than an unequivocal Yes to the SSM referendum proposal. Now there's a reason to vote no !
The arrogance and intolerance of the yes proponents here won't convert the undecided and may have the opposite effect. I'm at this point still "sympathetic" to the YES cause, but I'm fast losing faith in its keyboard supporters at the vitriol and abuse being slung at those whose opinions differ. The "our way or no way" argument is simply being intolerant and disrespectful, it cuts both ways. To portray those who oppose SSM for whatever reason as sheep being led blindly by religious or moral convictions or as of a lesser intellect is grossly unfair and insulting and is in itself dismissive of the right to free though and the expression of same - the very thing the SSM advocates accuse their opponents of doing !

This is exactly how I feel but you put it soooo much better than I did. I know quite a number of people who are going to protest vote purely due to the aggressive nature of the Yes campaign (I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying it's going to happen).It would not endear anyone sitting on the fence or as of yet undecided. The aggressive undertones have just shocked me to be honest and as I said, I was undecided for a time so wasn't looking at any side with rose tinted glasses.

kunst nugget

gravehold wrote: »

shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

America but yes gay cake shops have an issue with that, only Christian shops should be forced to cater to people they don't want business from

And… that's where the argument goes into loopy land.

Huntergonzo

humanji wrote: »

They didn't mention the no side because they were talking about the yes side. They were talking about certain parts of the yes side attacking anyone who hinted at voting no. Then you attacked him for hinting at voting no.

The referendum is in severe danger of being lost because too many people fail to think before they say anything. The no side must be laughing away to themselves, as all they have to do is mention something unrelated to the referendum and sit back while some of the yes side shoot the entire campaign in the foot trying to shout them down.

It's a very simple and sinister tactic that the No side have been employing but how have been allowed to get away with it? Not only should the Yes campaigners refuse to respond to red herring arguments but adjudicators should pull up the No side on them and demand that they stay on topic.

It would be an incredible national embarrassment if the No vote wins and even worse if people's opinions were swayed by organisations like Iona or the Catholic church, it would be a very poor reflection of the intelligence of the Irish electorate.

I don't really think the referendum is in severe danger though, most people I know intend to vote Yes and Paddypower is pretty confident aswell so all is not lost :-)

smash

humanji wrote: »

The yes campaign needs to make a concerted effort to debate issues and turn the other cheek when the no side flings mud. It's not enough to be right. In fact, being right means little. It's politics. You have to make the other side look wrong and get people to agree with you. That's how votes are won.

It's very hard to make the other side believe they're wrong when their opinion falls back on a religious belief. Also, the blatant lies regarding children and surrogacy have been pushed and believed and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to defend the yes vote and convince people that it's not what the referendum is about. Quite frankly, there should have been regulation of the posters that were published so this didn't happen.

kunst nugget

floggg wrote: »

Probably not.

But he shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make a plain Victoria sponge cake for the local parish priest's birthday party just because he dislikes Christians.

Are Asher's going to court for refusing to make a plain Victoria sponge?

seamus

gravehold wrote: »

irishcentral.com/news/Video-of-Carrauntoohil-cross-being-cut-down-contains-anti-Catholic-messages.html

No indication that an atheist or any atheist group was involved.
Anyway, that's totally off-topic.

Huntergonzo

smash wrote: »

It's very hard to make the other side believe they're wrong when their opinion falls back on a religious belief. Also, the blatant lies regarding children and surrogacy have been pushed and believed and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to defend the yes vote and convince people that it's not what the referendum is about. Quite frankly, there should have been regulation of the posters that were published so this didn't happen.

To me religious belief can be one of the most dangerous things going, especially when specific doctrine enters schools and constitutions but that's a debate for another thread.

What I can't understand is why people even listen to these lies, can people not smell a rat as soon as they hear No campaigners going off topic, I mean honestly is there no more obvious sign that someone has an alternative agenda?

ixoy

I was at a debate with Colm O'Gorman talking and he's exactly the sort of person the Yes side needs more of: He was articulate and was able to debate against all the points the No side rose. He explained why civil partnership isn't enough, the concept of equality as it applies to citizens of a state (which some don't yet understand), adoption, etc.

Crucially he wasn't attacking anyone who was on the No side. He said he respects their opinion but disagrees with it and then debated the points they raised.

That's the approach that needs to be taken. I suspect a number of 'No' voters have been misinformed about the issues and, sadly, been shouted down on the issues rather than have them more clearly explained.

Maximus Alexander

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I don't really think the referendum is in severe danger though, most people I know intend to vote Yes and Paddypower is pretty confident aswell so all is not lost :-)

The problem with that is people you know are more likely to be like you, or think like you, or at the very least be aware of how you feel about the issue and be unprepared to reveal that they feel the opposite, in case it damages your relationship.

Most of the people I know (who have expressed their views) would be in the yes camp. But a lot of them are like me in a lot of ways. That's why I know them.

I'm very fearful that there is a large, silent crowd of Irish people who are still swayed by old traditions, by the RCC, by the culture of their community or their peers, or by fear and mistrust of things that they don't understand and aren't comfortable with.

There are still hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people out there who grew up in a country where homosexuals were something to be derided, shunned, swept under the rug. Indeed, where homosexuality was illegal. The views ingrained in people at a young age die hard, and they're often not open to much reflection.

I don't know if this will pass or not. I hope, hope with all my being that it does, and that I can look around at my fellow countrymen with pride, knowing that I come from a tolerant place that holds the welfare of its citizens above old beliefs and fear. That most of the people I meet in the streets are rational and empathetic and accept that we don't all need to be the same to share a country, or a city, or a street.

But I'm not sure that's going to happen. And if it does, it'll be tight. And I think it's really important that people who think like me are aware of that.

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The problem with that is people you know are more likely to be like you, or think like you, or at the very least be aware of how you feel about the issue and be unprepared to reveal that they feel the opposite, in case it damages your relationship.

Most of the people I know (who have expressed their views) would be in the yes camp. But a lot of them are like me in a lot of ways. That's why I know them.

I'm very fearful that there is a large, silent crowd of Irish people who are still swayed by old traditions, by the RCC, by the culture of their community or their peers, or by fear and mistrust of things that they don't understand and aren't comfortable with.

There are still hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people out there who grew up in a country where homosexuals were something to be derided, shunned, swept under the rug. Indeed, where homosexuality was illegal. The views ingrained in people at a young age die hard, and they're often not open to much reflection.

I don't know if this will pass or not. I hope, hope with all my being that it does, and that I can look around at my fellow countrymen with pride, knowing that I come from a tolerant place that holds the welfare of its citizens above old beliefs and fear. That most of the people I meet in the streets are rational and empathetic and accept that we don't all need to be the same to share a country, or a city, or a street.

But I'm not sure that's going to happen. And if it does, it'll be tight. And I think it's really important that people who think like me are aware of that.

If it fails it will be a really depressing eurovision down the gay bar.

wp_rathead

Aye, Colm O'Gormon is a brilliant debater

smash

Huntergonzo wrote: »

To me religious belief can be one of the most dangerous things going, especially when specific doctrine enters schools and constitutions but that's a debate for another thread.

What I can't understand is why people even listen to these lies, can people not smell a rat as soon as they hear No campaigners going off topic, I mean honestly is there no more obvious sign that someone has an alternative agenda?

The yes campaign are battling against numerous groups. There's religion, the misinformed, the bigots and the mixture of all the above.

It's hard to change the mind of religious and the bigots. To change the mind of the misinformed is a challenge in itself because no, some people can not smell a rat. They take the posters and advertisements at face value. Then there's the likes of Iona who are being given air time which backs up their lies. I mean, if it wasn't about the children then why are they talking about it on prime time? They shouldn't have been given the space to debate!

Zubeneschamali

Hyzepher wrote: »

Voting against your own beliefs don't make sense to me.

If we were voting to force Catholics to get gay married, that would be voting against catholic beliefs.

But voting to allow other people to do things which your religion says you should not do is not voting against your beliefs, it is voting for tolerance, for freedom to pursue any religion or none. Ultimately, it fosters a society where everyone thinks it is OK for you to follow your beliefs, even if, one day, you are in a minority.

It's rather similar to divorce, where many, many Catholics voted to allow civil divorce and remarriage in this country. No-one is forcing Catholics to get divorced, and the Catholic church will not remarry them - but voters recognized that they should not force this view on others who do not share it.

MajorMax

I'm voting no due to the fact that the yes side have bullied and shouted down any dissenting voices. I'm starting to think I'm not the only one who has formed this opinion

Personally I've been ambivilant about this topic as I'm neither religious or political, but I have been completely sickened by the shrill vitriolic abuse that has been heaped on anyone with an opposing opinion.

This is a democracy, it's nobodies business if other citizens vote their conscience

Bullies must be oppossed

Zen65

Woodville56 wrote: »

So far in this debate, on this thread and others related, I've seen the words "idiotic" "stupid" "homophobe" "asinine" "hypocrite" and other expletives used against the views of anyone who offers any view or opinion other than an unequivocal Yes to the SSM referendum proposal. Now there's a reason to vote no !

Really?

You would deny a right to a group of society on the basis that some of them are ill-mannered?

I doubt that you would.

Sure, there will be haters on both sides, but picking on one group of haters and using that to deny others is not exactly the action of a responsible adult.

Zubeneschamali

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Paddypower is pretty confident

Holy crap! 1/12 to win, 11/2 to lose!

Keeping my hand in my pocket at those odds.

Bannasidhe

humanji wrote: »

Exactly! Do you honestly think that people on the no side will see that reply and say "Well that's a friendly reminder that the point made by the other poster was perhaps incorrect"? Or will they see you posting a snarky reply that does nothing to battle their belief that the no side are being bullied?

The argument "Well they did it first" means f-all. Why do you think the no side can come across as victims? It's because they don't go on the attack when the yes side makes a statement. They get to say outrageous things and fall back, knowing that some people are raring for a fight and will charge at them. Then they get to point at these people and say "Hey everyone, look at the people attacking me for making my opinion known."

The yes campaign needs to make a concerted effort to debate issues and turn the other cheek when the no side flings mud. It's not enough to be right. In fact, being right means little. It's politics. You have to make the other side look wrong and get people to agree with you. That's how votes are won.

Point taken.

mumble mumble begging for equal rights just ain't right mumble mumble :mad:

Maximus Alexander

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Holy crap! 1/12 to win, 11/2 to lose!

Keeping my hand in my pocket at those odds.

Actually at those odds it might be worth backing the loss. It'll be much closer than those odds suggest. Might be able to pay for my flights out of here if it loses. :pac:

Zen65

MajorMax wrote: »

This is a democracy, it's nobodies business if other citizens vote their conscience

It's a discussion forum.

If you don't want to discuss an opinion, don't come here. Any man who walks into a brothel and complains that people are having sex is going to be viewed with suspicion!

Ave Sodalis

MajorMax wrote: »

I'm voting no due to the fact that the yes side have bullied and shouted down any dissenting voices. I'm starting to think I'm not the only one who has formed this opinion

Personally I've been ambivilant about this topic as I'm neither religious or political, but I have been completely sickened by the shrill vitriolic abuse that has been heaped on anyone with an opposing opinion.

This is a democracy, it's nobodies business if other citizens vote their conscience

Bullies must be oppossed

Genuine question: have you taken what the No side have said into consideration when forming this conclusion?

gravehold

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Holy crap! 1/12 to win, 11/2 to lose!

Keeping my hand in my pocket at those odds.

Putting €20 on it to loose at those odd's wouldn't be a bad choice.

AtomicHorror

Bullying... I suppose refers to when Yes campaigners point out that certain arguments are based on an irrationality (homophobia), implying that the proponent of the argument (or at least the originator of it) is also homophobic.

Maybe we're right to call a given argument "homophobic", or maybe the proponent just hasn't explained their logic properly. Either way, we're not bullying anyone if we point out that perceived fallacy. If we're wrong, that can be demonstrated.

Are we bullying the No campaigners? Sometimes we might be, particularly by assigning a label of homophobia to people who may just be adopting someone else's homophobic arguments for some other reason. Hard to think of many reasons that lack at least some element of bigotry or wilful ignorance, however. So I'd concede it is happening, though most of the accusations are probably valid and where they're not valid, probably not very harmful.

Intimidation... I suppose refers to the threat of the above label. Is there any evidence of any other intimidation? Threats of defamation, violence, death? The threat of the label could be considered mildly intimidatory, though voter intimidation usually takes far more sinister forms.

Ultimately, on May 22nd, nobody will know what's in your head. Nobody will really know your intentions. Nobody will block your way at the polling station to ask you questions about your intentions. Nobody will be standing over your shoulder at the booth. Nobody will ever really know what way you voted and so you can be certain that there will never be consequences against you or anyone you care about for the choice you make that day.

I see a lot of opinions, a lot of arguments and a lot of reciprocal opinions and arguments. I see one side reaction to the reciprocity as if it is an offence. Am I missing something?

floggg

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I would like to agree with you that baking a cake is a small price, however this is,and has to be, about the wider legal principle rather than the issue of SSM. If they can be forced to accept custom that requires them to make a statement they don't believe in should you or I tomorrow be legally obliged to supply paraphernalia expressing support for what we see as bigotry or to support ISIS or something abhorrent to our conscience?

There has to be a distinction in law between the right to refuse to make a political statement in the workplace and the need to not discriminate against a customer when providing a service. If they'd refused to cater a gay marriage I would consider their position wholly untenable but this was a refusal to express support for a political aim/movement. That's different.

I wasn't commenting on the Ashers case, as that's a complex cluster **** and none of us have enough info to know how they approach "propaganda cakes."

There is also a different law in NI which prohibits discrimination on political grounds.

I was referring to simply being required to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which is the usual context in which this arises.

If you refuse to supply a same sex couple with a product you would supply an opposite sex couple no questions asked, then you are discriminating.

WoolyJumper

Woodville56 wrote: »

So far in this debate, on this thread and others related, I've seen the words "idiotic" "stupid" "homophobe" "asinine" "hypocrite" and other expletives used against the views of anyone who offers any view or opinion other than an unequivocal Yes to the SSM referendum proposal. Now there's a reason to vote no !
The arrogance and intolerance of the yes proponents here won't convert the undecided and may have the opposite effect. I'm at this point still "sympathetic" to the YES cause, but I'm fast losing faith in its keyboard supporters at the vitriol and abuse being slung at those whose opinions differ. The "our way or no way" argument is simply being intolerant and disrespectful, it cuts both ways. To portray those who oppose SSM for whatever reason as sheep being led blindly by religious or moral convictions or as of a lesser intellect is grossly unfair and insulting and is in itself dismissive of the right to free though and the expression of same - the very thing the SSM advocates accuse their opponents of doing !

I've been following this thread and another thread quiet a bit. Rarely have I seen any of the above words used. If they have been used its usually after hours of debating in circles, where one side constantly deflects questions, refuses to knowledge the other sides point, evidence, data or when the discussion suddenly becomes about paedophilia, incest etc.

I have seen gay people, single parents, ss parents, children of ss parents personally attacked on this forum and for the most part they all kept their cool.

Anytime someone has come here with a genuine concern about this referendum, people here have been polite and respectful.

Yes these debates get heated, yes sometimes people on the yes side lose their cool, yes some people have defaced the no posters. The no side are so fast to jump on any example of this so they can make themselves seem more sympathetic and the victims of a situation where they are telling others how they can and can't live their lives, how they are not capable of marriage, of being parents and how they are damaging to society.

SpaceTime

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe that yes voters want to make you marry someone of the same sex?

That's the thing though - voting "yes" opens up more options for everyone and doesn't impose anything on anyone.

Voting "no" closes off options for LGBT people and does impose something on them by excluding them from marriage.

So, it's not quite the same really.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married!
However, if you vote no, all you're doing is removing that option for other people who do want to get gay married!

In reality, this will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on anyone other than gay couples. You're not required to get gay married, to attend a gay wedding, to buy a gay greeting card or to do anything else other than just live and let live.

Bridge93

I'm done with this thread, I can't deal with some of the stuff being spouted here. I thought the Irish nation was moving forward but it appears outside of the bubble I live in it really hasn't. The lies, ignorance and dodging of giving answers when asked or repeating old crap is beyond belief. I can't imagine how awful this all must be for those who are actually gay.

If this doesn't pass it will be the first time I would actually be ashamed to be Irish and be branded with the same brush as those who vote it down.
The lack of empathy for other humans' feeling and rights is incredible in some parts and the sheer stupidity of those protest voting actually pisses me off more than those who have actual reasons.

Enjoy your debate and I hope the majority of you do not just do the right and human thing, but the 'Christian' thing.

Huntergonzo

smash wrote: »

The yes campaign are battling against numerous groups. There's religion, the misinformed, the bigots and the mixture of all the above.

It's hard to change the mind of religious and the bigots. To change the mind of the misinformed is a challenge in itself because no, some people can not smell a rat. They take the posters and advertisements at face value. Then there's the likes of Iona who are being given air time which backs up their lies. I mean, if it wasn't about the children then why are they talking about it on prime time? They shouldn't have been given the space to debate!

The staunchly religious are a lost cause, they believe 100% despite all reason, so forget them, the misinformed are the ones you have to look at, don't tell them lies, just give them the facts and allow them to make their own minds up.

The like of Iona (who most people probably never heard of before this referendum) shouldn't be given air time to spread lies, it does them nothing but harm from my point of view but sadly a lot of people will believe them. If they're going to be given air time then they should be under strict instructions to stick to the topic because there's nothing more poisonous than agenda filled lies.

MajorMax

Zen65 wrote: »

It's a discussion forum.

If you don't want to discuss an opinion, don't come here. Any man who walks into a brothel and complains that people are having sex is going to be viewed with suspicion!

thank you for making my point for me

Maximus Alexander

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's the thing though - voting "yes" opens up more options for everyone and doesn't impose anything on anyone.

Voting "no" closes off options for LGBT people and does impose something on them by excluding them from marriage.

So, it's not quite the same really.

That was basically my point, but I wanted to do the workings with him and see if he could arrive there himself. Sadly he never answered the question.

Snickers Man

So the No campaign forced people who don't agree with them to promote their cause!

The swine!

The Yes side would never do something like that. Such as seeking out an ultraconservative confectioner to insist they bake a fabulous pink Mr & Mr wedding cake bearing the slogan "Support Gay Marriage". Oh, wait a minute....