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

walshyn93

marienbad wrote: »

How so ? you will be voting no , and saying that to you is an insult ? A bit of a persecution complex there .

You called him a homophobe, I think he has an issue with that. Name-calling is name-calling no matter how progressive it may be.

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

How so ? you will be voting no , and saying that to you is an insult ? A bit of a persecution complex there .

Says the person who is telling me how I will vote :rolleyes:

Not persecution either. I have been call homophobic, bigot and even had my children dragged into the er debate so far. Go yes!

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

Because the only reason you can't have your rattle is homophobia. :rolleyes:

So...more people who think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry due to their own bigoted beliefs is a good thing in your mind why exactly?

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Says the person who is telling me how I will vote :rolleyes:

Not persecution either. I have been call homophobic, bigot and even had my children dragged into the er debate so far. Go yes!

Unfortunately, I can't remember the posts where your children were dragged into it. However, given your post history thus far, I'd be willing to bet it wasn't mentioned in the way you think or imply it was said.

dr.fuzzenstein

I dare say that some people here (well, this is after hours) are arguing bullsh*t for their own amusement. There will be a Yes vote, I have no doubt of that. Most of them won't care either way, because people arguing for the sake of it will never be persuaded, because they don't defend their truly held beliefs, but merely argue to piss others off and the people who really are against it won't show up here, because they still live in 1798. And it's very hard to type with knuckles that bleed from being dragged on the ground.
This is such a no brainer, I don't even have to make an argument but let's try anyway. Do we live in the middle ages? No. Is this a church ruled state? No. Are we in fact nominally members of the civilised world? Yes albeit on the fringes and there's even some decent coffee available.
That means it's a yes. I don't have to come up with an argument against the no side at all, because of the above outlined reasons.

bb1234567

walshyn93 wrote: »

You called him a homophobe, I think he has an issue with that. Name-calling is name-calling no matter how progressive it may be.

And denying peoples rights is homophobic. He just said it is as it is. If I were to say black people shouldn't be allowed to marry , people would call me racist and rightly so. If I don't want to be called racist I should change my attitude.

reprise

bb1234567 wrote: »

And denying peoples rights is homophobic. He just said it is as it is. If I were to say black people shouldn't be allowed to marry , people would call me racist and rightly so. If I don't want to be called racist I should change my attitude.

Are we back to brothers marrying their brothers already?

marienbad

walshyn93 wrote: »

You called him a homophobe, I think he has an issue with that. Name-calling is name-calling no matter how progressive it may be.

I think you have the wrong poster ,I have never used that word about anyone ,never mind in this thread.

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

Are we back to brothers marrying their brothers already?

?

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

I think you have the wrong poster ,I have never used that word about anyone ,never mind in this thread.

I'll second that.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Are we back to brothers marrying their brothers already?

You keep pulling this one out of thin air at the most random of times. Is this your actual reason, since you've brought it up about three times now?

walshyn93

bb1234567 wrote: »

And denying peoples rights is homophobic. He just said it is as it is. If I were to say black people shouldn't be allowed to marry , people would call me racist and rightly so. If I don't want to be called racist I should change my attitude.

I agree. But "telling it like it is" isn't a blanket excuse to lower the debate. I'm hoping we can shoot for a higher standard than they do in the states where Bill O'Reilly gets on air and calls Maddow a pinhead and Maddow gets on and calls him a bigot while the crowd watches on getting more and more divided.

These homophobes you speak of would be less homophobic if you didn't accuse them of homophobia. When you resort to name calling you scupper any potential for a live and let live resolution.

What's that saying about bees and vinegar?

walshyn93

marienbad wrote: »

I think you have the wrong poster ,I have never used that word about anyone ,never mind in this thread.

Sorry, my bad

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

You keep pulling this one out of thin air at the most random of times. Is this your actual reason, since you've brought it up about three times now?

I pull it out when the argument gets ridiculous, like when someone, yet again, decides that not agreeing with ssm = homophobia.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

You keep pulling this one out of thin air at the most random of times. Is this your actual reason, since you've brought it up about three times now?

I think that was a joke.

Brothers = black men

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

I pull it out when the argument gets ridiculous, like when someone, yet again, decides that not agreeing with ssm = homophobia.

So do you or do you not think it would be racist of me to say black people shouldn't be allowed to get married in Ireland because they're black?

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

I pull it out when the argument gets ridiculous, like when someone, yet again, decides that not agreeing with ssm = homophobia.

But homophobia does exist. Yes, the term is banded about too often but it shouldn't be stopped completely because it does exist and that will be a reason for people voting no.

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think that was a joke.

Brothers = black men

Nah, he's brought up the whole incest thing a few times now.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

But homophobia does exist. Yes, the term is banded about too often but it shouldn't be stopped completely because it does exist and that will be a reason for people voting no.

I guarantee you that it will increase the no vote, used the way it is here.

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

I guarantee you that it will increase the no vote, used the way it is here.

The people its used against are very set in their ways, clearly, and no amount of niceness and understanding will make them any more likely to vote yes.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

But homophobia does exist. Yes, the term is banded about too often but it shouldn't be stopped completely because it does exist and that will be a reason for people voting no.

I think it's the only reason for voting no, myself, but the harm it does outweighs the good. It used to be necessary to have the vocabulary to call people out on homophobia, I think we're experiencing diminishing returns, because everyone that can be turned by usage of the word has been turned and you're just left with people who need to have their sense of self intact before they accept changes in society. They don't want to be outsiders in their own society. Words like this make them feel that way and makes them hold onto the status quo even more desperately.

walshyn93

bb1234567 wrote: »

The people its used against are very set in their ways, clearly, and no amount of niceness and understanding will make them any more likely to vote yes.

Wrong. How many people constantly bleated on about smartphones being stupid now own smartphones? There's a marketing term for this, they're called 'laggards'. They take longer to change, but like marketing anything, whether its an electrical device or an idea, if you offend your customers you won't get far. If Steve Jobs came out and said anyone who doesn't own smartphones is an idiot, a technophobe, a dinosaur do you think that would help sales?

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Wrong. How many people constantly bleated on about smartphones being stupid now own smartphones? There's a marketing term for this, they're called 'laggards'. They take longer to change, but like marketing anything, whether its an electrical device or an idea, if you offend your customers you won't get far. If Steve Jobs came out and said anyone who doesn't own smartphones is an idiot, a technophobe, a dinosaur do you think that would help sales?

But how many will change by May and after that, how much does it matter?

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

But how many will change by May and after that, how much does it matter?

Are you accepting my argument or not?

I'm talking bigger than the referendum. It's already won in my mind, it was never in doubt.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Are you accepting my argument or not?

I'm talking bigger than the referendum. It's already won in my mind, it was never in doubt.

Neither. I found a point in it I figured was worth adapting further. Similarly, where does the pandering cross into pushover territory, if it's nothing to do with the referendum?

Annasopra

walshyn93 wrote: »

Are you accepting my argument or not?

I'm talking bigger than the referendum. It's already won in my mind, it was never in doubt.

Its far from won at all. If there is a continued complacency like this it will be lost.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

Neither. I found a point in it I figured was worth adapting further. Similarly, where does the pandering cross into pushover territory, if it's nothing to do with the referendum?

It's not pandering. You think the opposite of shaming tactics is pandering?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its far from won at all. If there is a continued complacency like this it will be lost.

I think worse case scenario is a narrow win.

But even if it was to be defeated, that would back up my point. No one is coming out calling gays disgusting or immoral because they know that's only going to hamper their side of the debate. They're trying to use red herrings and avoid saying what they really think, and you seem to think this is a tactic that might win them the referendum! So why are you so against mirroring this supposedly effective tactic of not slinging mud?

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's not pandering. You think the opposite of shaming tactics is pandering?

It's not necessarily shaming tactics either. You're not getting what I'm saying. I've already stated that the word "homophobe" is overused. However, that doesn't mean it should stop being used because there is very obvious homophobes out there. These people aren't going to change their mind by May and after May, it doesn't really matter as much. So why should the use of the word be cut completely? I don't see "oh well you might offend some people" as a valid reason. If someone is clearly a homophobe, then they should be called out. If someone was racist, they should be called out. If someone was sexist, they should be called out. And so on, so forth.
I mean, imagine you had a kid that's being bullied in school because of their sexuality. Would your advice be to not mind them, your just making them feel like outsiders by acknowledging their narrowmindedness so just let them go on with their bullying and not bother saying anything to them?

you seem to think this is a tactic that might win them the referendum!

Nope, I think people on the yes side going "ah it's grand, it'll win no bother sure" will win the no side the referendum.

Annasopra

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think worse case scenario is a narrow win.

But even if it was to be defeated, that would back up my point. No one is coming out calling gays disgusting or immoral because they know that's only going to hamper their side of the debate. They're trying to use red herrings and avoid saying what they really think, and you seem to think this is a tactic that might win them the referendum! So why are you so against mirroring this supposedly effective tactic of not slinging mud?

Sorry what now? What on earth are you on about? I didnt express any opinion about "slinging mud"

Annasopra

sup_dude wrote: »

Nope, I think people on the yes side going "ah it's grand, it'll win no bother sure" will win the no side the referendum.

This.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not necessarily shaming tactics either. You're not getting what I'm saying. I've already stated that the word "homophobe" is overused. However, that doesn't mean it should stop being used because there is very obvious homophobes out there. These people aren't going to change their mind by May and after May, it doesn't really matter as much. So why should the use of the word be cut completely? I don't see "oh well you might offend some people" as a valid reason. If someone is clearly a homophobe, then they should be called out. If someone was racist, they should be called out. If someone was sexist, they should be called out. And so on, so forth.
I mean, imagine you had a kid that's being bullied in school because of their sexuality. Would your advice be to not mind them, your just making them feel like outsiders by acknowledging their narrowmindedness so just let them go on with their bullying and not bother saying anything to them?



Nope, I think people on the yes side going "ah it's grand, it'll win no bother sure" will win the no side the referendum.

Not in a political debate, which is what this is. If someone was sexist in a work environment then yeah call them out. If someone is expressing a political/religious or moral stance then argue with them on the merit of their arguments rather than resorting to shaming tactics, which is what it is whether you like it or not, because you're not going to win them over like that. And if you don't think you can win them over anyway then why bother interacting with them on the issue?

The bullying argument has absolutely nothing to do with it. Expressing a political, moral or religious belief is not bullying. Bullying is harassment or intimidation.