Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…8687899192…325

Comments

  • #2642
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    david75 wrote: »
    Ironically, conservatives, by opposing the extension of full marriage rights to gay people, have ended up weakening the institution they sought to defend.

    I think this was also true of divorce: the 1986 referendum was defeated, and in the years before and after, there were so many people in stable, long term second relationships who could not get married that we all got used to people NOT being married. Loads of people just said "partner" and got on with it.

    By the time divorce and remarriage arrived, it was just a thing for the couple themselves, the old conservative idea that an unmarried couple were "living in sin" was dead already.


  • #2643
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


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

    Perhaps then somebody from the 'No' camp would come on here and give a reason for voting no? Not whine on in some vague way about children, the original meaning of marriage or the possibility of future incest referenda, but actually discuss the topic at hand and offer a reason (good or bad) why they will vote 'No'?

    I do not have any issue with people voting 'No', but this is a forum for discussion and it merits enough respect (even in AH) to actually debate the topic in a reasoned way.

    Nobody admitted that racism was the reason why they would not vote for Obama, but it was abundantly clear to the world that the swing vote was largely a matter of racism (positive and negative). I do not expect anyone to admit they will vote 'No' because of some deep-rooted homophobia, but I do expect them to either offer a reason or admit it's purely because they feel uncomfortable about SSM.


  • #2644
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    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!

    We're nearly 2,700 posts into the thread and not once has somebody offered up the bible as a reason to vote no. But we know that a considerable portion of the population still believe that the hate-filled words of scripture are to be taken as the commandment of their god, and will vote with their conscience to block SSM. It should not be assumed that a poll on Boards.ie, much less on the After Hours forum, is any indication of how the referendum will be voted.

    Apathy among the 'yes' side is a very real risk to their ambition.


  • #2645
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Perhaps then somebody from the 'No' camp would come on here and give a reason for voting no?

    I think the nearest Reprise came to giving any reasons for voting no was here:

    An appeal to thousands of years of tradition, gut instinct for those disinclined to research the issue, catholic church disapproval

    Reactionary Catholic prejudice, which sounds correct to me.

    Those voters were a majority in 1986, when divorce was defeated, but even in 1992, it was getting even: the madder Abortion stuff failed, and in 1996 divorce squeaked through (and, dum dum dum ... REDEFINED MARRIAGE!!!).

    We haven't had a big Bishop-bashing referendum since, but they have not made themselves more popular in the intervening years, and a lot of their die-hard supporters have, well, died.

    Unless there is some freakish "Anti-Water Down with anything vaguely to do with the Government" vote, I really can't see this one failing. But I wil be sure to vote, as I always do.


  • #2646
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    floggg wrote: »
    So if their referendum fails their choice is either have a reduced pool of prospective employees to choose from, and therefore potentially end up with a lower calibre of employee, or else pay higher wages in order to attract their preferred staff - but still it won't cost them anything?

    Sorry, but you contradicting yourself. The cost is either higher wage costs or accepting a lower return for wages paid - either way there is an economic impact.

    If the referendum fails, they will find another way to recruit the staff.

    Not contradicting myself, just pointing out that no issue is without a solution.
    They have found a way in the past and will do again.

    The Yes is an easy statement for them to make as it has no cost.
    However if a No result happens, they will spend a bit of money if needed.

    Re the potential lower calibre of staff if No happens, could just as easily raise the calibre, you and I don't know either way.


  • Advertisement
  • #2647
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    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.

    I thought you said this wasn't about the referendum?

    And to answer the question in bold, due to the lies being spread from the No side that are dangerous and sometimes disgusting.

    Not bullying? Have you seen the No side? Have you heard what excuses they've been using?


  • #2648
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Perhaps then somebody from the 'No' camp would come on here and give a reason for voting no? Not whine on in some vague way about children, the original meaning of marriage or the possibility of future incest referenda, but actually discuss the topic at hand and offer a reason (good or bad) why they will vote 'No'?

    I do not have any issue with people voting 'No', but this is a forum for discussion and it merits enough respect (even in AH) to actually debate the topic in a reasoned way.

    I have given several reasons and all of them have been treated with dripping disdain. When I have dared to suggest that the people looking for the change should make an effort to justify it, I get back the mostly negative whinge and victim cards for suggesting holes. Your spite filled post, which absurdly trys to dictate the terms of the debate vis a vis censoring vital parts, is no exception.


  • #2649
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    reprise wrote: »
    I have given several reasons and all of them have been treated with dripping disdain. When I have dared to suggest that the people looking for the change should make an effort to justify it, I get back the mostly negative whinge and victim cards for suggesting holes. Your spite filled post, which absurdly trys to dictate the terms of the debate vis a vis censoring vital parts, is no exception.

    It's almost like the issue effects people's personal lives or something...


  • #2650
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    I have given several reasons and all of them have been treated with dripping disdain. When I have dared to suggest that the people looking for the change should make an effort to justify it, I get back the mostly negative whinge and victim cards for suggesting holes. Your spite filled post, which absurdly trys to dictate the terms of the debate vis a vis censoring vital parts, is no exception.


    You've given several reasons for a no vote, majority of them taken from whoever else is here arguing the no vote.

    None of them were in any way well thought or, justified or solid in their argument.


  • #2651
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    I have given several reasons and all of them have been treated with dripping disdain.

    We heard the very same reasons for rejecting divorce:

    1) Think of the children
    2) The Bishop says...
    3) Destroying traditional marriage

    And it all turned out to be nonsense. Divorce has arguably strengthened marriage here, not destroyed it. Lack of divorce was rapidly making marriage a thing of the past. Children are better off when second relationships are officially recognized. The Bishop can go and sh!te.

    Fortunately, this time, we don't have the reason the first divorce referendum failed after a last minute switch by the No side to their secret weapon:

    4) The family farm! Land! The field is mine!


  • Advertisement
  • #2652
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    It's almost like the issue effects people's personal lives or something...

    Which I would understand in a time and place where homosexuality was illegal and CP unavailable.

    The frenzy of indignation and invective goes far beyond that and is counter productive.


  • #2653
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Yeah I'll listen, but I don't entertain fools or appreciate insults.

    You mustn't think to highly of yourself so:
    reprise wrote: »
    Oh please, spare me the hysterics. Stop hijacking racial segregation and slavery and fight your own corner like an adult.
    reprise wrote: »
    I could have sworn you were the tosser calling me a bigot as proof of how out of your depth you are.
    reprise wrote: »
    Actually, the adults were discussing whether it was bigoted.
    reprise wrote: »
    I am starting to think you would struggle anywhere you went.


  • #2654
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    We heard the very same reasons for rejecting divorce:

    1) Think of the children
    2) The Bishop says...
    3) Destroying traditional marriage

    And it all turned out to be nonsense. Divorce has arguably strengthened marriage here, not destroyed it. Lack of divorce was rapidly making marriage a thing of the past. Children are better off when second relationships are officially recognized. The Bishop can go and sh!te.

    Fortunately, this time, we don't have the reason the first divorce referendum failed after a last minute switch by the No side to their secret weapon:

    4) The family farm! Land! The field is mine!

    I voted for divorce. Sorry.


  • #2655
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Which I would understand in a time and place where homosexuality was illegal and CP unavailable.

    The frenzy of indignation and invective goes far beyond that and is counter productive.

    Are you just bringing up the "the yes side are so mean for calling me out on arguments that don't make sense! I'm gonna use the offended tactic where they must grovel to me!"

    It's been done at the start of the thread, and you've been way worse than any yes side with smarmy comments and condescending attitudes.


  • #2656
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    You mustn't think to highly of yourself so:

    Back to attacking me? How original.


  • #2657
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Are you just bringing up the "the yes side are so mean for calling me out on arguments that don't make sense! I'm gonna use the offended tactic where they must grovel to me!"

    It's been done at the start of the thread, and you've been way worse than any yes side with smarmy comments and condescending attitudes.

    No, it's back to, convince me to vote yes and stop being so utterly spiteful and negative.


  • #2658
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Back to attacking me? How original.


    You said all of those. How made comments have you made that attck the yes side? How many of them look down on people who don't agree with you? How many of them just skirt the borders of what's allowed? And you say you're being attacked? Did you read what the poster quoted?


  • #2659
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    No, it's back to, convince me to vote yes and stop being so utterly spiteful and negative.


    You won't vote yes anyways. Where's the spite?


  • #2660
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    I will be voting No.


  • #2661
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    I voted for divorce. Sorry.

    But children, tradition, Catholic church, redefining marriage!

    The very reasons you have told us folks will vote against this one!


  • Advertisement
  • #2662
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    hinault wrote: »
    I will be voting No.


    And do you have a well thought out, justified reason for this that thus far, the no side hasn't come up with?


  • #2663
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    If the referendum fails, they will find another way to recruit the staff.

    Not contradicting myself, just pointing out that no issue is without a solution.
    They have found a way in the past and will do again.

    The Yes is an easy statement for them to make as it has no cost.
    However if a No result happens, they will spend a bit of money if needed.

    Re the potential lower calibre of staff if No happens, could just as easily raise the calibre, you and I don't know either way.

    You said there was no cost either way - but spending money is a cost. If they have to go to extra lengths to find a way, that's a cost.

    And I really don't think anybody will move or stay here because we vote no. Unfortuantely, the fact that we don't execute homosexuals or ban all "homosexual propaganda", or even allow employers to fire people for being gay (outside of schools and other religious employers) has put us at a serious competitive disadvantage to the Ugandas, Russias and Mississippi's of this world when it comes to attracting homophobes supporters of traditional man owns wife and can rape her at will marriage.

    I doubt the cast of Duck Dynasty are too tech literate though, so I'm sure


  • #2664
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    hinault wrote: »
    I will be voting No.

    You will be losing.


  • #2665
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Back to attacking me? How original.

    They were your words, not mine.


  • #2666
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    floggg wrote: »
    You said there was no cost either way - but spending money is a cost. If they have to go to extra lengths to find a way, that's a cost.

    And I really don't think anybody will move or stay here because we vote no. Unfortuantely, the fact that we don't execute homosexuals or ban all "homosexual propaganda", or even allow employers to fire people for being gay (outside of schools and other religious employers) has put us at a serious competitive disadvantage to the Ugandas, Russias and Mississippi's of this world when it comes to attracting homophobes supporters of traditional man owns wife and can rape her at will marriage.

    I doubt the cast of Duck Dynasty are too teach literate though, so I'm sure

    I said there was no cost involved in them supporting a Yes vote.
    And to repeat it again, if we vote No, and this causes an issue re hiring, they will simply find a way around it.

    Regarding the rest of your post.....:eek::eek::eek:


  • #2667
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Flem31 wrote: »
    I said there was no cost involved in them supporting a Yes vote.
    And to repeat it again, if we vote No, and this causes an issue re hiring, they will simply find a way around it.

    Regarding the rest of your post.....:eek::eek::eek:

    Yes ,they will pay more to help an employee overcome it or they will take the lesser candidate . Both involve a cost to the company and to our competitiveness .

    I don't know why you are pursuing this issue , it is obvious.


  • #2668
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    reprise wrote: »
    No, it's back to, convince me to vote yes and stop being so utterly spiteful and negative.

    You won't vote Yes no matter how many arguments or points in favour you hear. Threads like this are about convincing the lurkers, the ones less 'entrenched' in their views to come down off the fence and vote Yes.

    Or they can vote No, if anyone ever presents a cogent reason to do so.


  • #2669
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yes ,they will pay more to help an employee overcome it or they will take the lesser candidate . Both involve a cost to the company and to our competitiveness .

    I don't know why you are pursuing this issue , it is obvious.

    What happened to the link I asked you about yesterday ?

    If this was that obvious, you would have produced some proof of it by now :)

    They will pay the employee more if he\she is the candidate they cannot do without and not having SSM in Ireland is an issue for the candidate.
    Otherwise no extra cost for a no vote.


  • #2670
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    I said there was no cost involved in them supporting a Yes vote.
    And to repeat it again, if we vote No, and this causes an issue re hiring, they will simply find a way around it.

    Regarding the rest of your post.....:eek::eek::eek:
    Flem31 wrote: »
    They are supporting a Yes vote because it won't cost them anything.
    And if there is a No result, that won't cost them anything either.

    If someone is put off by a No result, multi nationals just go and find someone else or raise the salary sufficiently to overcome this obstacle.
    Not saying that approach is right, but it happens

    I was responding to the assertion there will be no cost for a No vote. I'm not saying its something they won't get around, just that a yes vote is clearly preferable from a hiring perspective (particularly recruiting from abroad).

    Again, it's not going to result in billions of investment, but just responding to the various posts saying it had no business impact. I think your posts recognise there will be some impact, even if you think its something which can be gotten around.

    The rest of the post was a bit snarky (my bad, got frustrated reading pages of childish crap) but I think the underlying point is valid. Nobody is going to move to Ireland just because we don't allow marriage equality, because feels strongly about living in a country which discriminates against same sex couples has much better options out there.

    We can compete on tolerance (but can still do better), but thankfully we would come in lost in the intolerance stakes.


  • Advertisement
  • #2671
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,009 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Why, apart from making things equal and fair before the law when it comes to access to civil marriage for homosexuals as a reason, does one have to justify seeking the equalisation? Is the inequality itself not an obvious enough reason after it's been explained? That's akin to asking why divorce was accepted in law by referendum. It was seen and accepted by the voting public that there was sufficient and sensible cause for the change.

    It seem's to me that (after it has been explained ad infinitum on this thread) continuing to ask for an answer to "justify" a denial serves no reasonable cause. How long does it take for the obvious fact that there is a denial of access equality to the existing Civil Marriage law for homosexuals operated by the state to be acknowledged? It's obfuscation and just ain't just.

    If anyone put's up a reply to me asking for examples of what I've posted, I suggest that they do what I've done, scroll back through this thread and seek the answer there, or look elsewhere on the net.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement