SSM Referendum - Has Anyone Actually Changed Their Mind? MOD Warning 1st Post

darkpagandeath

desertcircus wrote: »

If people think the Yes campaign as it's currently operating is aggressive, they're in for a serious shock the day after the referendum. The Yes campaign has been positive and incredibly restrained so far, focused incredibly tightly on talking to people with concerns, reassuring people that children won't be negatively effected, and appealing to the electorate's best nature. There's no comparison whatsoever between the Yes and No sides in this campaign; one side has been lying ceaselessly out of both sides of their mouths, and the other has been gritting its teeth, shaking hands and patiently explaining the truth day after day.

Do people actually understand what a bullying campaign is? Because this isn't it, not even close. Not on the Yes side, anyway.

What's that supposed to mean some kind of veiled threats ? Classy.

StewartGriffin

ronivek wrote: »

As opposed to the openly condescending attitude you clearly hold in relation to civil rights and equality for homosexuals?

Please explain with relevant quotations.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Flincher

I'll be voting yes to, and haven't changed my mind as a result of either campaign. I

One of the few people I know who have changed their mind in my mother, who has gone from a soft No to a Yes. That change of mind came around from lengthy discussions/debate over the kitchen table, not as a result of the campaigning.

Both campaigns have been disgraceful - the tone and sense of righteousness of the Yes side hasn't helped, nor has their failure to engage with people's genuine concerns. The No side have been pedalling anything from half-truths to deliberate mis-interpretations of the Constitution to outright lies.

gravehold

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean some kind of veiled threats ? Classy.

I was wonder that too, will the yes side be worse if they win?

jobbridge4life

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean some kind of veiled threats ? Classy.

Yes. The day after the vote should it pass the nations churches will be filled with all no voters and set ablaze whilst outside the gays will eat children and engage in wild sexual abandon not unlike the Witches Sabbath.

StewartGriffin

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes. The day after the vote should it pass the nations churches will be filled with all no voters and set ablaze whilst outside the gays will eat children and engage in wild sexual abandon not unlike the Witches Sabbath.

Well why didn't you say this before? That's a YES from me then.

c_man

I do think if somehow a No vote comes through, that it will be thanks to some elements of the Yes campaign and their general alienating/pissing off of people enough to stay away on voting day. I'm amazed that they don't realise how destructive they possibly could be. Everyone expected the same auld ****e from the No campaign, since it's exactly the same guys from the No side on Children's ref etc. so their antics come as no surprise.

Got chewed out of it at lunch at work ( :pac: ) by a colleague for saying that I think anyone taking down election posters should be ashamed of themselves. Apparently it's fine when your side is right. I wolfed down my chicken curry to get the hell out of there.

ronivek

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Please explain with relevant quotations.

It's in my original post.

StewartGriffin

ronivek wrote: »

It's in my original post.

What original post?

Polka_Dot

K4t wrote: »

There are a lot of posts stating unease and discontent regarding the antics and behaviour of the Yes side and how this has made them unsure about voting yes, so I'll just make this point: You are not voting for the yes side with a yes vote. Nor are you voting for the no side with a no vote. You're voting yes for same sex marriage and ONLY same sex marriage. And you're voting no to prevent it. That's it. You are not even necessarily voting for gay people with a yes vote either (Keith Mills and Paddy etc. are evidence of this). And you are not necessarily voting against gay people with a no vote. A yes vote is a vote for everyone, not just gay people, but for yourself. It will allow you to live free in the knowledge that every single person of consenting age in the country can marry the one they love. And of course this will visibly benefit gay couples the most, and the future gay children of Ireland who wish to marry their partner some day. So forget about sides, both yes and no, and vote for the society you want to live in. Yes for same sex marriage. No to prevent it.

I'm still voting yes, there's no need to convince me!

K4t

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not directly, as we aren't homosexuals. But we could just as easily have been born gay. That's the lottery of life. The No side would want that lottery to continue to result in equality for some (us straight people who can marry our partners) and discrimination for others (homosexuals who can't marry their partners). It really is that simple. Obviously voting yes won't directly affect you as you won't be marrying someone of the same sex, but it will allow you to live in the knowledge that your friends, your family members, your neighbours etc. can all avail of the opportunity to marry their loved ones the same as you and I.

20Cent

The No side have had to make how the campaigns were conducted an issue as they have such weak arguments. Really amazing how hat fellow citizens have to pretty much plead to have equal rights and the side who want to deny them complain about petty stuff like posters etc.

WoolyJumper

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Please do vote yes. I can understand peoples frustration with the campaign. I would appeal to you though to imagine being a gay person during this, even one who is not campaigning having to listen to the radio, tv everywhere bang on about your life, about whether your a danger to children so and so forth. Please don;t lose patience now and help make thousands of people happy next friday by voting yes.

Yeah just today a yes banner went back up in cork city that was cut down. Just down the road from me a yes poster was ripped off and scratched. It happens on both sides, it's just doesn't fit in with the narrative the no side have created where they are the victims. It stuck. It was their most successful campaign.

Really the victims in all of this are gay people. Gay people have always felt the weight of discrimination, whether its been subtle or overt, whether it was from the outside or the inside. Now we've be thrown in a situation where we feel like we are on trial. Asked to defend ourselves, explain ourselves and refute the mistruths of the no side. I've heard so many nasty and untrue things over the last few weeks, even months and we are not allowed to react to that or we are seen as being undemocratic and shouting down the no side. It's an impossible and unfair situation.

c_man

20Cent wrote: »

The No side have had to make how the campaigns were conducted an issue as they have such weak arguments. Really amazing how hat fellow citizens have to pretty much plead to have equal rights and the side who want to deny them complain about petty stuff like posters etc.

I'm voting Yes for gods sake. Arghh, do you just assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is a No voter?! Do you realise how this might piss people off?

And yes, I think one side deciding their cause is just and right enough to excuse shutting up and tearing down the otherside sets a dangerous precedent for any future referenda in the country.

desertcircus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean some kind of veiled threats ? Classy.

Why on earth would I make a veiled threat about post-referendum discussion? I'm stating an opinion - at the moment, the Yes campaign is behaving incredibly carefully, and avoiding the temptation to give into entirely justifiable anger at the No campaign and the motivations of a lot of (but not all) No voters. The media, in addition, has been hamstrung by the requirement to provide "balance" to every single discussion on every single show on every single station for the past couple of months, giving massive amounts of airtime to the likes of Breda O'Brien, John Waters and David Quinn. Discussion of their motivations and the Iona Institute's tactics has been incredibly limited, because the hatchet job that would be entirely justified by the facts could be perceived as editorialising in favour of the Yes side. Equally, outside of the editorial pages, they've had to pretend that the utter bollocks being peddled by the No side regarding the law deserves serious coverage, again because calling it for what it is could hand them in hot water.

On the 23rd of May, the media as a whole will no longer be required to provide balance to the two sides of this referendum, and the Iona Institute and their members will be in for a shock. Eery newspaper will be happy to report how the Iona Institute didn't make a single submission to the referendum commission regarding the wording of the gay marriage amendment, despite caring so much about it that they're leading the No campaign. Every radio host will be free to demand answers from David Quinn about why he kept claiming that the change would guarantee a right to surrogacy for gay couples even after he was told otherwise by Michael McDowell, Lawyers For Yes, the head of the referendum commission and more or less every legal brain in the State. Every interviewer will be free to ask Breda O'Brien why she and her colleagues kept talking about children when they knew full well that the change would have no effect on the ability of gay people to adopt.

There's an incredible amount of leeway being given to the No campaign at the moment by dint of the fact that media laws require equal coverage of both sides of the campaign, and once that restriction is released, the tactics on the No campaign will be properly dissected and condemned for what it is - a tidal wave of untruths, misdirection and desperate efforts to pretend that the people in the Iona Institute are motivated by anything other than vicious, base homophobia.

Bob24

20Cent wrote: »

The No side have had to make how the campaigns were conducted an issue as they have such weak arguments. Really amazing how hat fellow citizens have to pretty much plead to have equal rights and the side who want to deny them complain about petty stuff like posters etc.

I think the yes campaign did that on their own (and some people are now luckily starting to realise it). The no guys just had to shut up (as told to) and wait.

WoolyJumper

c_man wrote: »

I'm voting Yes for gods sake. Arghh, do you just assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is a No voter?! Do you realise how this might piss people off?

And yes, I think one side deciding their cause is just and right enough to excuse shutting up and tearing down the otherside sets a dangerous precedent for any future referenda in the country.

In fairness, I think he was trying to explain where the yes side is coming from, and the unfairness of the no side trying to make themselves look like victims when it is gay people on trail, literally begging people to vote yes.

Btw thanks for voting yes

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

I think the yes campaign did than on their own (and for some people are now luckily starting to realise it). The no guys just had to shut up (as told to) and wait.

With respect they haven't 'shut up' they have peddled lie after lie so much so that the Referendum Commission and the Adoption Authority had to issue clarifications.

darkpagandeath

desertcircus wrote: »

Why on earth would I make a veiled threat about post-referendum discussion? I'm stating an opinion - at the moment, the Yes campaign is behaving incredibly carefully, and avoiding the temptation to give into entirely justifiable anger at the No campaign and the motivations of a lot of (but not all) No voters. The media, in addition, has been hamstrung by the requirement to provide "balance" to every single discussion on every single show on every single station for the past couple of months, giving massive amounts of airtime to the likes of Breda O'Brien, John Waters and David Quinn. Discussion of their motivations and the Iona Institute's tactics has been incredibly limited, because the hatchet job that would be entirely justified by the facts could be perceived as editorialising in favour of the Yes side. Equally, outside of the editorial pages, they've had to pretend that the utter bollocks being peddled by the No side regarding the law deserves serious coverage, again because calling it for what it is could hand them in hot water.

On the 23rd of May, the media as a whole will no longer be required to provide balance to the two sides of this referendum, and the Iona Institute and their members will be in for a shock. Eery newspaper will be happy to report how the Iona Institute didn't make a single submission to the referendum commission regarding the wording of the gay marriage amendment, despite caring so much about it that they're leading the No campaign. Every radio host will be free to demand answers from David Quinn about why he kept claiming that the change would guarantee a right to surrogacy for gay couples even after he was told otherwise by Michael McDowell, Lawyers For Yes, the head of the referendum commission and more or less every legal brain in the State. Every interviewer will be free to ask Breda O'Brien why she and her colleagues kept talking about children when they knew full well that the change would have no effect on the ability of gay people to adopt.

There's an incredible amount of leeway being given to the No campaign at the moment by dint of the fact that media laws require equal coverage of both sides of the campaign, and once that restriction is released, the tactics on the No campaign will be properly dissected and condemned for what it is - a tidal wave of untruths, misdirection and desperate efforts to pretend that the people in the Iona Institute are motivated by anything other than vicious, base homophobia.

So balance is a bad thing ? Why would regular people be swayed by the no side ? They are the same lot from other campaigns.

jobbridge4life

c_man wrote: »

I'm voting Yes for gods sake. Arghh, do you just assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is a No voter?! Do you realise how this might piss people off?

And yes, I think one side deciding their cause is just and right enough to excuse shutting up and tearing down the otherside sets a dangerous precedent for any future referenda in the country.

One side didn't do that. Both sides have had posters defaced and torn down. It isn't the no-side or the yes-side, its foolish people who should stay at home.

and thank you sincerely for voting yes.

Taco Chips

Hey guys, I just want to address anyone so far who said that they've changed from a Yes to a No.

I understand that a lot of heightened, emotional language has been used in the debate so far. Civil rights + a long marginalised group + a lot of dirty tactics by the No side have brought out a lot of impassioned responses from Yes campaigners and I can see why this might be off putting.

But I'd just like to ask you all to please reconsider for a moment. Don't let wars of words lead you to a decision where you would deprive a whole section of society the same common decencies and rights that others get to enjoy. Don't allow discrimination to continue because of the tone of certain arguments. Try to think of the wider community of LGBT people who just want to be recognised that their relationships are worth the same as yours. Thats all. Thanks for reading. I hope some of you will reconsider. It will make such a huge, positive difference to my life, the lives of many other young and old LGBT people in Ireland and for Irish society in general.

c_man

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Btw thanks for voting yes

I've actually got that day off from work. First thing in the morning I'll head out to vote. Then a big fry-up in town as a treat. Later that night, I shall be drunk and most likely abandon any issues I may have with the Yes campaign in an attempt to chat up a girl wearing a Yes button or something.

darkpagandeath

Taco Chips wrote: »

Hey guys, I just want to address anyone so far who said that they've changed from a Yes to a No.

I understand that a lot of heightened, emotional language has been used in the debate so far. Civil rights + a long marginalised group + a lot of dirty tactics by the No side have brought out a lot of impassioned responses from Yes campaigners and I can see why this might be off putting.

But I'd just like to ask you all to please reconsider for a moment. Don't let wars of words lead you to a decision where you would deprive a whole section of society the same common decencies and rights that others get to enjoy. Don't allow discrimination to continue because of the tone of certain arguments. Try to think of the wider community of LGBT people who just want to be recognised that their relationships are worth the same as yours. Thats all. Thanks for reading. I hope some of you will reconsider. It will make such a huge, positive difference to my life, the lives of many other young and old LGBT people in Ireland and for Irish society in general.

Is anyone voting no ? All I see is criticism of the Yes sides zeal.

Bob24

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect they haven't 'shut up' they have peddled lie after lie so much so that the Referendum Commission and the Adoption Authority had to issue clarifications.

Fair enough - lets say not be as vocal and omipresent as the yes campaign (at least this is true in my own experience).

20Cent

c_man wrote: »

I'm voting Yes for gods sake. Arghh, do you just assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is a No voter?! Do you realise how this might piss people off?

And yes, I think one side deciding their cause is just and right enough to excuse shutting up and tearing down the otherside sets a dangerous precedent for any future referenda in the country.

Why do you think the comment was directed at you? Just a general observation. Posters get torn down all the time, debates get heated etc it's just that this is the first time ive ever seen it being used as a reason to vote either way. Just an excuse imo.

desertcircus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So balance is a bad thing ? Why would regular people be swayed by the no side ? They are the same lot from other campaigns.

A definition of balance that requires us to treat lies and truth as equally deserving of airtime is a bad thing, yes.

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

Fair enough - lets say not be as vocal and omipresent as the yes campaign (at least this is true in my own experience).

http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201393/rs_500x227-131003121719-mean-girls-21.gif

That may be too gay a joke

WoolyJumper

c_man wrote: »

I've actually got that day off from work. First thing in the morning I'll head out to vote. Then a big fry-up in town as a treat. Later that night, I shall be drunk and most likely abandon any issues I may have with the Yes campaign in an attempt to chat up a girl wearing a Yes button or something.

I'll probably be up at the crack of dawn to vote, have an anxious Friday, anxious Saturday and hopefully celebrations Saturday night. After that whatever the out come at least I will be able to stop talking about being gay, thinking about being gay, and hearing other peoples opinions about gay people. Honestly I've had to talk about or think about my sexuality as much as I've had to in the last few weeks. It's safe to say whether Pro, against or indifferent we are all tired of this campaign.

A friend of mine has been out canvassing for yes votes, he has gotten abuse left right and centre, he has been called every homophobic name under the sun, and he has had things thrown at him. He remains dignified throughout and he has not gone to the newspapers for a front page spread every time he's received abuse.

I will be voting yes, nothing could possibly change my mind on this, there is some intolerance on the yes side, but I'm not voting for intolerance and I don't believe that I should deny my fellow human the right to equality because of the fact that there are some people who are unable to be as dignified as my friend.

This is about equality. It's not about who shouted the loudest and who threw what stones.