SSM referendum canvassing

_Redzer_

I've finished up exams so I've the time to go canvassing, and since being out of the liberal bubble of the college and back at home, I'm beginning to see that it might be closer than I thought, so I want to help make the difference.

Are there any official canvassing groups around the city still making the rounds I could join up to?

Mrs OBumble

Which side do you want to canvas for?

_Redzer_

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Which side do you want to canvas for?

The yes side, obviously

Kevhog1988

_Redzer_ wrote: »

The yes side, obviously

Why obviously?

snubbleste

Find these two women and follow them around.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32753085
Btw where is that housing estate?

_Redzer_

theemigrant wrote: »

Why obviously?

Given my post history, and given its the right thing to do

pmasterson95

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Given my post history, and given its the right thing to do

Only took 5 posts in the thread to get to the real reason it was started. Canvasing the Galwegians of Boards!

_Redzer_

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Only took 5 posts in the thread to get to the real reason it was started. Canvasing the Galwegians of Boards!

I don't care about that, I actually want to canvass. I haven't done it yet, and I feel like I should considering I am gay myself and the yes side is dropping.

snubbleste

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I don't care about that, I actually want to canvass. I haven't done it yet, and I feel like I should considering I am gay myself and the yes side is dropping.

Just go around random houses this evening or stand on Williamsgate St and preach your point of view

vinnycoyne

https://www.yesequality.ie/canvass/

Red_Wake

_Redzer_ wrote: »

The yes side, obviously

I hope you do a better job then the current lot - I'm voting yes, but I find the Yes crowd off putting.

I don't think they've done a good job of getting the swing voters onside as the No side.

Mrs OBumble

Red_Wake wrote: »

I hope you do a better job then the current lot - I'm voting yes, but I find the Yes crowd off putting.

Indeed.

There was a piece by Brendan O'Connor (?) in the Sunday Info (?) this week about reluctant-yes'es. I suspect it was intended to be satirical. But it described the thinking of me and a few people I know.

IMHO it's not self-evident to everyone that there is only one way to vote.

Some people say "no" because they're concerned that the constitutional effects haven't really been spelled out, and they want this done before making the change. (Apparently there is history in this country of doing a half-*** job and making things worse.)

Some people say No because they believe we should abolish the patriarchal institution of marriage, not extend it to even more people.

Some people say "no" because they've got the ideas of religious marriage and civil marriage totally entwined. Personally I think that with a respectful discussion, some of these might be swayed: divorced people can have a civil marriage without having a church one, and all that's proposed is to give gay people the same option.


OP - good luck with your canvassing, I hope these notes give you some ideas re what to say in some cases.

zarquon

Red_Wake wrote: »

I hope you do a better job then the current lot - I'm voting yes, but I find the Yes crowd off putting.

I don't think they've done a good job of getting the swing voters onside as the No side.

Agression, bullying, intimidation. Tearing town no posters! Some of the yes campaign has been a disgrace, if they lose they only have themselves to blame. The political stunt with the Gay cake controversy couldn't have come at a worse time for the yes campaign and could seriously impact the undecided voters. The last thing i want is my privacy invaded with door to door canvassers.

Ash.J.Williams

zarquon wrote: »

Agression, bullying, intimidation. Tearing town no posters! Some of the yes campaign has been a disgrace, if they lose they only have themselves to blame. The political stunt with the Gay cake controversy couldn't have come at a worse time for the yes campaign and could seriously impact the undecided voters. The last thing i want is my privacy invaded with door to door canvassers.

Put up a no canvassing sign

zarquon

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Put up a no canvassing sign

I used to have a "no unsolicited mail" sign up which was ignored on a consistant basis. It's a good idea though and i will do so but i expect it may be ignored. If people feel their junk mail is so important they will ignore such requests how much more people canvassing for such an important topic.

To the OP, if you come across a no solicitation or no canvassing sign, would you duly respect it?

_Redzer_

zarquon wrote: »

I used to have a "no unsolicited mail" sign up which was ignored on a consistant basis. It's a good idea though and i will do so but i expect it may be ignored. If people feel their junk mail is so important they will ignore such requests how much more people canvassing for such an important topic.

To the OP, if you come across a no solicitation or no canvassing sign, would you duly respect it?

I'd only respect it in the sense I wouldn't tear it down, but I have zero respect for the lies and dishonesty being pushed by the no side. It's infuriating to see the 'every child deserves a mother and a father' shíte, which has nothing at all to do with the referendum regarding the marriage of two people of the same sex, only.

My only aim will be to straighten out the misconception that this has anything at all to do with children. It's a referendum for marriage equality, and matters relating to surrogacy and adoption are another matter that has already been addressed by the government.

If they still feel like voting no after that, it's doesn't make me feel great, but at least they'd know the actual facts involved and won't vote no due to false assumptions.

zarquon

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'd only respect it in the sense I wouldn't tear it down

So you'd ignore a no canvassing sign then and proceed to knock on the door. How very big of you to not tear down such a sign. I really hope for your sake that you don't knock on my door with that sort of atitude. It's not going to garner you the response you want.

_Redzer_

zarquon wrote: »

So you'd ignore a no canvassing sign then and proceed to knock on the door. How very big of you to not tear down such a sign. I really hope for your sake that you don't knock on my door with that sort of atitude. It's not going to garner you the response you want.

I misunderstood you. I thought you asked what did I think of the no posters around the city, not your 'no campaigners' sign. I wouldn't push that. I'm not that pushy and it's obviously just fall on deaf ears

zarquon

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I misunderstood you. I thought you asked what did I think of the no posters around the city, not your 'no campaigners' sign. I wouldn't push that. I'm not that pushy and it's obviously just fall on deaf ears

I specifically said a "no canvassing" sign or a "no solicitation" sign. I find it hard to believe you misunderstood what that meant or somehow construed that i meant a no vote sign! I find it easier believe you are just backtracking now to avoid being shown in a negative light as you stated the only respect you would show to a no canvassing sign is to not tear it down. Basically ignoring peoples personal liberties to push your own - that's hardly equality is it.

_Redzer_

zarquon wrote: »

I specifically said a "no canvassing" sign or a "no solicitation" sign. I find it hard to believe you misunderstood what that meant or somehow construed that i meant a no vote sign! I find it easier believe you are just backtracking now to avoid being shown in a negative light

Look man, that's what happened. This is an Internet board, why would I care so much about what an anonymous man thinks of me.

You seem like an absolute delight

zarquon

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Look man, that's what happened. This is an Internet board, why would I care so much about what an anonymous man thinks of me.

You seem like an absolute delight

Because anonymous men have a vote too! Why bother even posting on an internet forum with such an atitude then! I hope your "canvassing" here is not indicative of any door to door canvassing you may do.

_Redzer_

zarquon wrote: »

Because anonymous men have a vote too! Why bother even posting on an internet forum with such an atitude then!

How is it me who has an attitude?

Anyways, hopefully I can make some headway tomorrow

zarquon

_Redzer_ wrote: »

How is it me who has an attitude?

Anyways, hopefully I can make some headway tomorrow

Attitudes can be positive or negative, it doesn't always indicate something negative, it simply means a position or disposition which you clearly have otherwise you wouldn't be canvassing. You declared an apathetic atitude to anonymous members here and that is fair enough. Nothing wrong with that per se but don't forget every poster here over 18 is a real person anonymous or not and can be swayed or dissuade by your input here.

You state you don't care what anonymous people think and yet you are going canvassing door to door to engage the thoughts of anonymous people so there is a contradiction in your thoughts already.

pmasterson95

I just wouldnt go annoying people door to door. Annoying people defo wont help your cause. Theres more than enough pushy yessers. I'd actually say not ramming stuff down their throat would be best. Annoying undecided could push them to no tbh.

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

Agression, bullying, intimidation. Tearing town no posters! Some of the yes campaign has been a disgrace, if they lose they only have themselves to blame. The political stunt with the Gay cake controversy couldn't have come at a worse time for the yes campaign and could seriously impact the undecided voters. The last thing i want is my privacy invaded with door to door canvassers.

You do realise the gay cake "stunt" was a court case in another jurisdiction resulting from an incident that happened several months ago? What the absolute f*** has that got to do with the Yes campaign or this week's referendum?

Storm 10

I had lots of yes and no callers all asking me how I might vote, I told them all its none of their business and closed the door.

zarquon

Zzippy wrote: »

You do realise the gay cake "stunt" was a court case in another jurisdiction resulting from an incident that happened several months ago? What the absolute f*** has that got to do with the Yes campaign or this week's referendum?

Yes it was in another jurisdiction but it is an indication of the type of thing that can happen in any jurisdiction.

In fairness stating that a political stunt by a gay lobby group that was used to suppress freedom of religious expression, has nothing to do with the vote here, is incredibly naive to say the least. The stunt was used in a state where gay marriage was illegal, do you really think that there would be no litigation from such lobby groups towards business and groups that won't support gay marriage once written into the constitution as legal?

People only want equality when it suits them. Freedom of sexual expression but removal of religious freedom. One should either promote equality for all or not at all

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

Yes it was in another jurisdiction but it is an indication of the type of thing that can happen in any jurisdiction.

In fairness stating that a political stunt by a gay lobby group that was used to suppress freedom of religious expression, has nothing to do with the vote here, is incredibly naive to say the least. The stunt was used in a state where gay marriage was illegal, do you really think that there would be no litigation from such lobby groups towards business and groups that won't support gay marriage once written into the constitution as legal?

People only want equality when it suits them. Freedom of sexual expression but removal of religious freedom. One should either promote equality for all or not at all

To be honest that sounds like the paranoid BS that the No campaign have been coming out with. Scaremongering and resentment that people actually fight for equality. Misrepresenting facts, as if religious freedom will be removed. FYI, if you offer a business service, religious freedom does not permit you to discriminate. This case is nothing to do with religious freedom. Whataboutery of the worst kind.... :rolleyes:

I'll be delighted when it's over tbh.

zarquon

Zzippy wrote: »

To be honest that sounds like the paranoid BS that the No campaign have been coming out with. Scaremongering and resentment that people actually fight for equality. Misrepresenting facts, as if religious freedom will be removed. FYI, if you offer a business service, religious freedom does not permit you to discriminate. This case is nothing to do with religious freedom. Whataboutery of the worst kind.... :rolleyes:

On this very island, we have an example of a gay activist that knowingly targeted a christian business owner to force them to provide services in contravention of their religious beliefs and then persued litigation against them when they expressed their religous beliefs.

Will you walk into a Galway Halal supplier and demand pork lest they discreminate against your beliefs.

This campaign is persuing equality but really its persuing equality for some, but inequality for others, freedom of expression for one group and suppression for others. The sooner this is over the better!

In the U.S, places like massachusetts are firing teachers for not teaching homosexuality to young school goers, federal judges are telling parents they have no say in what their children are to be taught in schoool, priest and pastors are being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Suppression of religious freedom is a big problem in places where gay marriage has been legalised such as the U.S and Canada and we can even see it in our own isles in the news today but yet there are some such as yourself that state it won't happen here! What makes the republic so special that religious freedom won't be impacted by the legislation when it is being impacted the world over.

tipparetops

I doubt anyone can convince a No voter to switch to yes.
but i do think some yes voters could switch as the day gets closer.
It is going to be a close vote, i expect a rural NO and an urban YES.

The surrogacy argument is working nicely for the NO crowd,
I think the key for the YES vote to win is to get their vote to come out on friday.

I will say in my part of the world the NO Vote is well ahead,
friday is going to be very close.
BTW i will vote yes.

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

On this very island, we have an example of a gay activist that knowingly targeted a christian business owner to force them to provide services in contravention of their religious beliefs and then persued litigation against them when they expressed their religous beliefs.

Will you walk into a Galway Halal supplier and demand pork lest they discreminate against your beliefs.

This campaign is persuing equality but really its persuing equality for some, but inequality for others, freedom of expression for one group and suppression for others. The sooner this is over the better!

In the U.S, places like massachusetts are firing teachers for not teaching homosexuality to young school goers, priest and pastors are being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Suppression of religious freedom is a big problem in places where gay marriage has been legalised such as the U.S and Canada and we can even see it in our own isles in the news today but yet there are some such as yourself that state it won't happen here! What makes the republic so special that religious freedom won't be impacted by the legislation when it is being impacted the world over.

More whataboutery and examples from outside this jurisdiction with different laws. How do you "teach homosexuality"? :rolleyes:

There are no laws in Ireland that would force churches to perform gay marriages. That religious freedom is safeguarded. A bakery is not a religious institution - it cannot (in NI under their laws) discriminate when it offers a service. Halal butchers do not offer a pork service. Same as bookshops don't offer a taxi service. Also, when you talk about people only wanting equality when it suits them, if we really had equality then churches would pay tax like the rest of us. How's that for religious freedom?

Sofa King

zarquon wrote: »

Agression, bullying, intimidation. Tearing town no posters! Some of the yes campaign has been a disgrace, if they lose they only have themselves to blame. The political stunt with the Gay cake controversy couldn't have come at a worse time for the yes campaign and could seriously impact the undecided voters. The last thing i want is my privacy invaded with door to door canvassers.

I have a parade of the Yes Campaigners around where I live calling door to door.

No door to door canvassing (by anyone) will change my mind.

zarquon

Zzippy wrote: »

How do you "teach homosexuality"? :rolleyes:

The same way one teaches and promotes the standard heterosexual family unit in primary school. :rolleyes:

There are some teacher groups that are calling for a no vote due to concerns about having to give credence to gay marriage as teaching preference for a heterosexual marriage and family unit could be seen as discrimination and met with disciplinary action.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/new-group-of-teachers-calls-for-no-in-marriage-referendum-1.2213001

I'm sure the type of activists that target and attack Christian businesses for their beliefs such as the Ashers Bakery will have no problem extending their campaign to public entities such as schools in order to push an agenda. I'm all for freedom of expression but really, some of the yes campaign are bullying and intimidating no voters in order to suppress their opinions and democratic voting rights. I highly doubt the suppression will stop once the vote is over.

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

The same way one teaches and promotes the standard heterosexual family unit in primary school. :rolleyes:

There are some teacher groups that are calling for a no vote due to concerns about having to give credence to gay marriage as teaching preference for a heterosexual marriage and family unit could be seen as discrimination and met with disciplinary action.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/new-group-of-teachers-calls-for-no-in-marriage-referendum-1.2213001

I'm sure the type of activists that target and attack Christian businesses for their beliefs such as the Ashers Bakery will have no problem extending their campaign to public entities such as schools in order to push an agenda. I'm all for freedom of expression but really, some of the yes campaign are bullying and intimidating no voters in order to suppress their opinions and democratic voting rights. I highly doubt the suppression will stop once the vote is over.

Imagine having to teach children that gay people exist, that they are human beings just like the rest of us with the same likes and dislikes (well, not all the same), the same problems and worries, the same hobbies, careers, families and lifestyles. Imagine teaching kids that everyone deserves love and respect regardless of their sexuality. The horror!

Or maybe it is innate homophobia disguised as concern for children. Why is it always about the children? :rolleyes:

No one can suppress your democratic rights... we're not in a dictatorship yet. So enough with the hyperbole.... and as for bullying and intimidation, see the lovely letter sent to Una Mullaly today. Really nice alright... :rolleyes:

zarquon

Zzippy wrote: »

Why is it always about the children? :rolleyes:

Yes voter once again brushing the needs and rights of children under the carpet, quell surprise.

Zzippy wrote: »

No one can suppress your democratic rights...

So why are some of the yes campaign trying their best to suppress the democratic rights of the yes campaign by tearing down posters as demonstrated by this video.

It is absolutely outrageous behaviour to so blatently suppress democratic freedom and freedom of expression whilst crying from the rooftops that everyone should have equal freedom :rolleyes:

Unrealistic

zarquon wrote: »

In the U.S, places like massachusetts are firing teachers for not teaching homosexuality to young school goers, federal judges are telling parents they have no say in what their children are to be taught in schoool, priest and pastors are being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Suppression of religious freedom is a big problem in places where gay marriage has been legalised such as the U.S and Canada and we can even see it in our own isles in the news today but yet there are some such as yourself that state it won't happen here! What makes the republic so special that religious freedom won't be impacted by the legislation when it is being impacted the world over.

I've seen these arguments/examples before and they sounded a bit extreme and unlikely so I tried to find out some more about them. For example you said teachers are being fired for not teaching homosexuality but when I try to find an example of this I draw a blank. Although interestingly it's not too hard to find examples of the opposite, of schools firing teachers for being gay or having kids outside marriage. It's also interesting that this is something Catholic schools (even when wholly funded by the state) are still legally entitled to do in Ireland despite your concerns about threats to religious freedom. Maybe you could point us to an actual example of a teacher being fired in Massachusetts (or anywhere) for "not teaching homosexuality"?

How about pointing us to an actual example of a priest or pastor "being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples"? When I looked for that I could only find an example of a Las Vegas style wedding chapel business being the subject of potential legal action but no suggestion that a regular church where people go to worship every Sunday would have to perform a religious wedding for same sex couples.

On the question of parents having no say over what their children are being taught in school the only incidents I could find related to parents who wanted to remove their children from class any time a same sex family was discussed. The teaching seemed to be limited to the something along the lines of some children live with their Mom and Dad, some children live with their Mom or Dad only and some children live with two Moms or two Dads. As a parent with kids in primary school I would have no problem with my kids being taught something like that. It is reality that all of those types of families exist. For all I know some of the other kids in the school could indeed live with two Mums or two Dads. Stigmatising their situation rather than just recognising it as just another part of the landscape seems to me nothing short of wilful cruelty.

zarquon

Unrealistic wrote: »

How about pointing us to an actual example of a priest or pastor "being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples"? When I looked for that I could only find an example of a Las Vegas style wedding chapel business being the subject of potential legal action but no suggestion that a regular church where people go to worship every Sunday would have to perform a religious wedding for same sex couples.

REALLY??? First google link: http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding

second google result: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed

Third result: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

Fourth result......Oh forget it, you get the idea. Do it yourself, there are countless results. Oh wait, you conveniently cant do a basic web search as it wont support your position!

Amazing you couldn't find any examples despite a basic Web search being littered with examples. :rolleyes:

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

Yes voter once again brushing the needs and rights of children under the carpet, quell surprise.

No voter once again misrepresenting what this referendum is about by quoting the needs and rights of children. It's about gay adults being given the right to a civil marriage under the consitution. See I can put words in your mouth too.

zarquon wrote: »

So why are some of the yes campaign trying their best to suppress the democratic rights of the yes campaign by tearing down posters as demonstrated by this video.

It is absolutely outrageous behaviour to so blatently suppress democratic freedom and freedom of expression whilst crying from the rooftops that everyone should have equal freedom :rolleyes:

Yes posters have been torn down too, along University Road in Galway last week for one example. I agree with you, it is absolutely outrageous behaviour. Not quite as bad as writing to someone and suggesting that their cancer was maybe God's will because they supported gay marriage though. See I can do whataboutery the same as you can.


Seriously, if you're going to bring up children, maybe you could be so good as to state specifically what needs and rights of children will be impacted on by 2 adults of the same sex being allowed to marry?

zarquon

Zzippy wrote: »

No voter once again misrepresenting what this referendum is about by quoting the needs and rights of children. It's about gay adults being given the right to a civil marriage under the consitution. See I can put words in your mouth too.




Yes posters have been torn down too, along University Road in Galway last week for one example. I agree with you, it is absolutely outrageous behaviour. Not quite as bad as writing to someone and suggesting that their cancer was maybe God's will because they supported gay marriage though. See I can do whataboutery the same as you can.


Seriously, if you're going to bring up children, maybe you could be so good as to state specifically what needs and rights of children will be impacted on by 2 adults of the same sex being allowed to marry?

Just had a read of that letter. It doesn't strike me as the least bit genuine. It is written like trolling of the highest order. It is disgusting of course but i really doubt it was penned by a genuine person but rather diversionary and tactical.

Zzippy

zarquon wrote: »

Just had a read of that letter. It doesn't strike me as the least bit genuine. It is written like trolling of the highest order. It is disgusting of course but i really doubt it was penned by a genuine person but rather diversionary and tactical.

OK, whatever. We could go back and forth all day swapping accusations like that. Getting back to the actual issue - can you actually articulate exactly what rights of children will be affected if the referendum is passed?

Unrealistic

zarquon wrote: »

REALLY??? First google link: http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding

second google result: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed

Third result: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

Fourth result......Oh forget it, you get the idea. Do it yourself, there are countless results. Oh wait, you conveniently cant do a basic web search as it wont support your position!

Amazing you couldn't find any examples despite a basic Web search being littered with examples. :rolleyes:

As you specifically said you were referring to the US and more specifically Massachusetts I searched for a cases in Massachusetts and came up blank. Then I searched for cases in the wider US and came across the one you have listed third above. That is the very case I was referring to where it is a commercial 'wedding chapel' that has been told it will be in breach of the law if they discriminate in providing business services to members of the public. It's about as far removed from a parish church as you can get. So no pastors or priests being sued there. No one being sued at all actually.

Your first two links are for a single case where two publicity seeking gay activists announced loudly that they were going to sue the Church of England for refusing to marry them despite the fact that English law specifically protects the churches in England from having to perform same sex marriages. No mention anywhere that I can find that actual legal proceedings were ever taken even though more than two years have passed since their publicity stunt. So no priests or pastors being sued there either. We have always had allowances for religious discrimination such that Catholics were not entitled to demand to be married in a Synagogue and atheists could not demand to be married in a Mosque etc. Suggesting that this will change so that gays can suddenly demand to be married in churches seems like nothing but wilful scaremongering.

And no links to an actual example of a teacher being fired for "not teaching homosexuality" even though you assure us this is happening in Massachusetts?

There have been many accusations levelled against the 'no side' that they have been manufacturing red herrings completely unconnected to the referendum we're actually having in Ireland in order to try to muddy the waters. Unfortunately for your cause by spreading these inaccurate scare stories rather than arguing your case on its merits you are reinforcing that impression.

ben.schlomo

Is it the gays that are putting the 'pill' into the water? Or maybe they shot JFK? Either way i think i'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.;)

pmasterson95

zarquon wrote: »

Yes voter once again brushing the needs and rights of children under the carpet, quell surprise.



So why are some of the yes campaign trying their best to suppress the democratic rights of the yes campaign by tearing down posters as demonstrated by this video.

It is absolutely outrageous behaviour to so blatently suppress democratic freedom and freedom of expression whilst crying from the rooftops that everyone should have equal freedom :rolleyes:

Jaysus that video is hilarious

Redhairedguy

Speaking of children. I wonder how our children, and their children will look back at this time, where people willingly and vocally opposed extending the same rights to marriage to other people who happened to be in love with someone with the same genitals?

Possibly the same way I look back at the fact that homosexuality was only de-criminalised in Ireland in 1993. With utter disgust and repulsion.

I cannot hear any single aspect of the 'No' vote, without sniffing the latent religious undercurrent seeping in, or that wonderful schoolyard 'I don't like gays, because being gay is wrong, and I don't want to be seen as gay'. I stand on this issue in the same way that I stand on any issue like this. Does it directly affect you? No? Okie dokie, then why do you even care what other people do?

antoobrien

Redhairedguy wrote: »

Possibly the same way I look back at the fact that homosexuality was only de-criminalised in Ireland in 1993.

This is one of the problems with the "debate" - homosexuality was never a criminal offence in Ireland, the actual offense what was revoked was buggery.

jobbridge4life

antoobrien wrote: »

This is one of the problems with the "debate" - homosexuality was never a criminal offence in Ireland, the actual offense what was revoked was buggery.

Actually other aspects of homosexual behaviour were criminalised using other parts of the law, down to holding hands.

Moreover when you criminalise an act that is part of the nature of person you criminalise the person and the nature. Its jesuitical nonsense to suggest otherwise and that is leaving aside the brutal and cruel social ostracisation against gay people during the time.

ben.schlomo

antoobrien wrote: »

This is one of the problems with the "debate" - homosexuality was never a criminal offence in Ireland, the actual offense what was revoked was buggery.

So they were free to go about their business then? Interesting that many people who felt persecuted during those years felt that way then, given your enlightening revelation.

antoobrien

ben.schlomo wrote: »

So they were free to go about their business then? Interesting that many people who felt persecuted during those years felt that way then, given your enlightening revelation.

Didn't stop Wilde.

Irishgoatman

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Jaysus that video is hilarious

I hadn't bothered watching the video because the picture looked so unreal, but thanks to your comment I have now watched it. Thank you.

Best laugh by far that I have had for days. Far better than any recent comedy show on T.V.

There was me thinking that, because of the earlier comments, it was a serious issue.:D

Arghus

antoobrien wrote: »

Didn't stop Wilde.

It sort of did really. He went to prison for charges of gross indecency and died penniless and broken.