SSM Referendum Spring 2015

B.A._Baracus · 06-07-2014 11:25PM

I just voted "No, other" because being brutually honest...

While I believe gay people should have the right to get married.... I won't be voting... As I have never voted in my life.

Like I could turn around and say "yup, you bet your ass i'll be voting yes!" but it would be a lie.

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 11:26PM

psinno wrote: »

I don't think there is anything improper in largely basing the decision whether to vote on how one side behaves when you have already decided not to vote with the other side.

Anyway it is interesting the different reaction abstract advice gets compared to an individual saying the same thing about themselves. If I had said the best way to win was to be positive , spread a confident message of positivity and love and don't resort to calling people bigots and homophobes it is cool. Somehow it escapes people that abstract advice applies to individuals.

Its interesting you didnt respond to my last couple of responses to you

AtomicHorror · 07-07-2014 12:07AM

fran17 wrote: »

sorry put I never used the word normal once.what is normal can have many different meanings to many different people.but history,nature and religion is factual and is recognised over many millennia

Sooo... what about those weird definitions of marriage in the old testament then? Some interesting points made by others? Will you be pushing for male-arranged marriages, polygamy and marrying slaves (pending new slavery legislation)?

Carlos Orange · 07-07-2014 12:19AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its interesting you didnt respond to my last couple of responses to you

Honestly I wouldn't read too much into it. I didn't feel like there was a way to respond that would be helpful. You are angry and even if you weren't I don't really expect people to understand the way my thought process works. People don't really differentiate that well between voting no and not voting or thinking something can be the right thing to do but it is the wrong time to do it.

I have only gone through a small portion of the thread but I don't see anyone saying they were considering not voting. Given that 30-40% of people won't vote I think it was worth mentioning I might not. Surprising thoughts is what the thread is about. It isn't about convincing people one way or the other. Certainly I'm not interested in convincing people since I have not made up my mind on what I will actually do next year.

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 12:22AM

psinno wrote: »

Honestly I wouldn't read too much into it. I didn't feel like there was a way to respond that would be helpful. You are angry and even if you weren't I don't really expect people to understand the way my thought process works. People don't really differentiate that well between voting no and not voting or thinking something can be the right thing to do but it is the wrong time to do it.

I have only gone through a small portion of the thread but I don't see anyone saying they were considering not voting. Given that 30-40% of people won't vote I think it was worth mentioning I might not. Surprising thoughts is what the thread is about. It isn't about convincing people one way or the other. Certainly I'm not interested in convincing people since I have not made up my mind on what I will actually do next year.

I think your thought processes are completely messed up that you think its perfectly fine for lgbt people to be treated like scum and dirt and yet feel the people treating them like scum and dirt shouldnt be called out on it.

marienbad · 07-07-2014 12:24AM

psinno wrote: »

Honestly I wouldn't read too much into it. I didn't feel like there was a way to respond that would be helpful. You are angry and even if you weren't I don't really expect people to understand the way my thought process works. People don't really differentiate that well between voting no and not voting or thinking something can be the right thing to do but it is the wrong time to do it.

I have only gone through a small portion of the thread but I don't see anyone saying they were considering not voting. Given that 30-40% of people won't vote I think it was worth mentioning I might not. Surprising thoughts is what the thread is about. It isn't about convincing people one way or the other. Certainly I'm not interested in convincing people since I have not made up my mind on what I will actually do next year.

In my experience (limited I know) if you haven't made your mind up at this stage you will either not vote or vote no.

It is such a cut a dried issue - give other the rights we so take for granted- that if you can't see that on your own at this stage nothing will persuade you.

And that is why it takes Ireland so long so get with the times - we have to wait for the younger voters to come of age.

iguana · 07-07-2014 12:35AM

Links234 wrote: »

...the **** are you on about? Seriously.

For a while there all I could think of was that "You've got the Love" Coca Cola ad that was out around St Patrick's Day. The British version had two men getting married, whereas the Irish one had a mixed race heterosexual couple. That seemed to me as if Coca Cola thought that us Irish, are on the whole, way too homophobic to risk making us think that Coca Cola is in favour of ssm.

floggg · 07-07-2014 12:37AM

fran17 wrote: »

sorry put I never used the word normal once.what is normal can have many different meanings to many different people.but history,nature and religion is factual and is recognised over many millennia

Religion is factual? Tell me where Joshua Bin Josef, or jesus as the kids call him, walking on water, resurrecting, or being in any divine is factual?

Please show me the evidence, Evidence, not a third party account written in an old book of fables (yes, I went there).

floggg · 07-07-2014 12:40AM

fran17 wrote: »

well your the one who agrees that Jesus Christ suffered from mental illness and was bipolar.so I could ask the same question of yourself lol

Lol. Hey, how about you prove to us he wasn't then.

Seriosuly, there is as much evidence for jesus being who you think was, as there is for buddha being who the dalai lama thinks he was.

If the unsubstantiated beliefs of believers passes as fact, then all religions are true. Which means none of them are.

floggg · 07-07-2014 12:45AM

fran17 wrote: »

can I get a reply to my question first if I may?

Can I get a reply to mine?

floggg wrote: »

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

floggg · 07-07-2014 12:51AM

psinno wrote: »

The way I look at it peoples opinions are largely a result of a bunch of inputs they have little if any control over. They should be given time to adjust their opinions or learn to hide them. At some point they will be doing more damage to themselves than to anybody else.

Even aside from all that I think it is fairly standard for the tenor of discussion around a referendum to affect turnout. The childrens referendum posters that were basically vote yes or you hate kids probably didn't help with the turnout for that referendum. The last 20 referendums have <60% turnout. If the tone of discussion about the referendum is negative and full of bile I'm less likely to vote but I'll hardly be the only one who doesn't (for a variety of reasons).

Again, could you please tell me why me rights should be subservient to the feelings of people who go out of their way to discriminate against me?

Carlos Orange · 07-07-2014 03:03AM

floggg wrote: »

Again, could you please tell me why me rights should be subservient to the feelings of people who go out of their way to discriminate against me?

At the end of the day I factor things into my decision that you consider completely irrelevant. Nothing is going to change that. Ultimately I think I'm more likely to vote if the referendum discussion follows the template below even if it is likely that the decisions are tactical and not reflective of any higher level thinking.

http://bit.ly/1skwfGU

seenitall · 07-07-2014 03:08AM

Great thread, everyone.

Keep up the good work! I read all 100+ pages in the last day or two.

I would be voting yes if I could vote, but that "if I could" is not very useful, I know.

Anyone notice the front page of the RTE Guide this week? (5-11 July)

https://www.facebook.com/rteguide

In my 14 years living here, I don't think I've ever seen a homosexual couple on the cover, and for such an occasion as well. Coincidence?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 03:12AM

psinno wrote: »

At the end of the day I factor things into my decision that you consider completely irrelevant. Nothing is going to change that. Ultimately I think I'm more likely to vote if the referendum discussion follows the template below even if it is likely that the decisions are tactical and not reflective of any higher level thinking.

http://bit.ly/1skwfGU

It's stunning how you might base your voting decision on how the debate will play out, instead of reading up about the points, sitting back and thinking what you think is right. Listen to what people have to say, sure, but listen to the reasoning and content of what they say, not how they say it.

There was another poster on here who would vote no if the campaign was too pushy, which is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of the ability to think for yourself. To me that just comes off as extraordinarily lazy as if it is a competition on who can win your attention the best.

floggg · 07-07-2014 09:35AM

psinno wrote: »

At the end of the day I factor things into my decision that you consider completely irrelevant. Nothing is going to change that. Ultimately I think I'm more likely to vote if the referendum discussion follows the template below even if it is likely that the decisions are tactical and not reflective of any higher level thinking.

http://bit.ly/1skwfGU

It's not that I think they are irrelevant - it's that I can't see why you would deny me equality for this reasons.

You don't seem to have any objections in principle to marriage equality (at least that you've posted) so it baffles me that you seem to place so little importance on the question being asked in this referendum (whether to grant equality and extend rights to all citizens equally or continue discrimination) and the impact the referendum results either way on LGBT people.

You don't seem to recognise that's at the minute we are unequal as a matter of law, or recognise that we are the ones being discriminated against.

The only possibl consequence for the no side of the referendum passing is having to accept/tolerate the right of LGBT to marry on equal terms as them - which isn't a big ask.

Yet that seems to be a bigger imposition to you then the very real consequences a no vote will have on LGBT people - no right to marry, second class treatment of civil partnerships (currently 169 differences between civil partnership and marriage) and the damage done to all LGBT people, and especially young people, of having the nation tell them that they aren't deserving of the same rights of the rest of the country just because of who they may love, that their relationships are unequal and less deserving of respect and protection.

Have you actually tried to consider it from our perspective and what a no vote will mean for us? You don't seem to have any regard for out rights at all - you seem to think my rights should be subservient to those who seek to discriminate against me (and who already enjoy the rights I now seek).

PopePalpatine · 07-07-2014 10:30AM

fran17 wrote: »

I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

Well, go ahead, call the Gardai and whine about blasphemy.

Delirium · 07-07-2014 10:43AM

fran17 wrote: »

I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

Not if you belong to a Christian denomination that blesses same-sex unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches#Churches_favorable_to_same-sex_union_and.2For_same-sex_marriage

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 10:44AM

fran17 wrote: »

I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

Oh so cus there supposedly 2.3 billion christians you have more right to be oiffended than everyone else? Your entire belief system, lack of logic, lack of intelligent thought and lack critical thinking offends me and a lot of other people like me but we arent asking you to accept our beliefs you can do what you want just don't force them on everyone else as you and your ilk are so determined to do.

Also again the fallicy that marriage was invented by the church, the concept of coupling has been in existence for alot longer than any organised religion has been around so no you don't own the concept

Muise... · 07-07-2014 10:53AM

Lot of confusion about marriage being "by definition a covenant between a man and a woman" as if this is something that cannot be changed by us mere mortals with our smarts and consensus.

Marriage is rather prosaic - a copperfastening of a romantic relationship so that all belongings and inheritances are shared between the couple. This is why Catholic priests are celibate; the church did not want its property chopped up and given away to priests' children when they died.

The security that marriage affords has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with ensuring that the couple are recognised by law and their shared property and decisions on their care for each other in ill-health etc. are fully respected.

osarusan · 07-07-2014 10:56AM

Muise... wrote: »

Lot of confusion about marriage being "by definition a covenant between a man and a woman" as if this is something that cannot be changed by us mere mortals with our smarts and consensus.

You nasty homophobophobe.

Muise... · 07-07-2014 10:57AM

osarusan wrote: »

You nasty homophobophobe.

:pac:

fran17 · 07-07-2014 10:58AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, go ahead, call the Gardai and whine about blasphemy.

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 11:02AM

marienbad wrote: »

It is such a cut a dried issue - give other the rights we so take for granted- that if you can't see that on your own at this stage nothing will persuade you.

That's such a bad attitude to go into a referendum campaign with. "Ah, sure we are where we are, no point trying to convince anyone else."

You can be sure that the No side (and others on the Yes side) will be trying to convince people of the merits of voting for their side.

rainbow kirby · 07-07-2014 11:03AM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

Why should religion be automatically worthy of respect?

shruikan2553 · 07-07-2014 11:08AM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

You can't prove he wasn't bipolar! So its an opinion that should be respected.
Discrimination is bad now is it? You didn't seem to have an issue with it before.

floggg · 07-07-2014 11:11AM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

As opposed to when you "concluded" he was divine.

Ave Sodalis · 07-07-2014 12:02PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

I don't respect religion in that I'm not religious. I respect that people have and need religion in their lives. I don't respect people who try and enforce those religious beliefs of others. That goes for all religions but Buddhism is very much a philosophy more than a religion and the Dalai Lama famously said that if anything in their teaching goes against what science has definitely found, then it will be changed. Buddhism teaches acceptance of all, including yourself and is very against discrimination, so for that alone, it holds my respect more than any religion. That doesn't mean I'm Buddhist, it just means Buddhism and its followers have given me more reason to respect them than Christianity and its followers.

P_1 · 07-07-2014 12:04PM

fran17 wrote: »

I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

Did you ask all 2.3 billion to find out how they feel or have we a new self-appointment spokesman?

Perhaps marriage is defined that way under Christianity but guess what, shock horror this referendum will not apply to how it's defined under Christianity.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 12:09PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

Why aren't you respecting my religion?

Chri... I mean, Thor, wants us all to be happy and have equal rights. To deny us that is breaking his teachings and infuriates him.

So I think you should stop being a hypocrite and stop discriminating against my austr.., I mean, Nordic god!

PopePalpatine · 07-07-2014 12:10PM

Quoting this just to give Fran less reason to weasel his way out of answering this:

floggg wrote: »

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

Also, Fran, do you advocate the various punishments the Bible proscribes, e.g. stoning to death for adulterers, homosexuals and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists?

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments