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…9091939596…325

Comments

  • #2762
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    That's exactly what I'm advocating.

    No its not, you are more or less saying 'tone it down' until after the vote .


  • #2763
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Well that's just classless and sad. If you can't be gracious in victory I don't want you on my team.

    I don't remember applying to join your sad-sack team of losers.


  • #2764
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I don't remember applying to join your sad-sack team of losers.

    lol


  • #2765
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    marienbad wrote: »
    No its not, you are more or less saying 'tone it down' until after the vote .

    I'm saying be tactful.


  • #2766
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Passing a law involves what some people with tender feelings like to call sucking up. It's actually just defending your position. As long as people's rights are political issues people will need to justify them. Don't get all bent out of shape over it.

    No one would vote no because they didn't like demeanour of some woman in Amsterdam that they never met. More likely they always were going to vote no/not vote at all, and they just like taunting the gays.


  • Advertisement
  • #2767
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I'm saying be tactful.

    Waste of time , I am not advocating being deliberately outré either,that is unless you are anyway. Be yourself , those people offended will vote no anyway.


  • #2768
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    No one would vote no because they didn't like demeanour of some woman in Amsterdam that they never met. More likely they always were going to vote no/not vote at all, and they just like taunting the gays.

    If yes voters and no voters are all as rigid and stereotypical as you're making them out to be then why run a campaign at all? Surely even talking about this is futile if the aim is not to win people over.


  • #2769
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    lol

    What? You are saying gay couples shouldnt do any media and should hide away

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2770
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    If yes voters and no voters are all as rigid and stereotypical as you're making them out to be then why run a campaign at all? Surely even talking about this is futile if the aim is not to win people over.

    You're the one claiming people would vote no because gay couples go in the media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2771
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    marienbad wrote: »
    Waste of time , I am not advocating being deliberately outré either,that is unless you are anyway. Be yourself , those people offended will vote no anyway.

    This is not true. We're going around in circles so we'll leave it be but it just isn't true.


  • Advertisement
  • #2772
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    What? You are saying gay couples shouldnt do any media and should hide away

    Total strawman that doesn't even deserve a response.


  • #2773
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    If yes voters and no voters are all as rigid and stereotypical as you're making them out to be then why run a campaign at all? Surely even talking about this is futile if the aim is not to win people over.

    Let me reiterate, if you would vote no based on not liking the demeanour of one particular poster on a message board, you are thick as pig****. Far, far too thick to be reasoned with. I don't believe there are many people who are that thick AND still capable/arsed voting.

    Further, I believe the concern various posters are voicing about tact and undecided voters to be disingenuous.

    I'll not prance for those people.


  • #2774
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Let me reiterate, if you would vote no based on not liking the demeanour of one particular poster on a message board, you are thick as pig****. Far, far too thick to be reasoned with. I don't believe there are many people who are that thick AND still capable/arsed voting.

    Further, I believe the concern various posters are voicing about tact and undecided voters to be disingenuous.

    I'll not prance for those people.

    Well, you're wrong, swing voters are by definition easily swayed. Often this comes down to emotion. Do you think all the swing voters in the 2008 presidential election were racist?

    And you're overly stubborn. That's admirable, but not constructive. If you feel demeaned by having to explain your right to equality I get that, it's wrong that you live in a world where you have to do that, but its not pragmatic to just disregard a large number of voters in a referendum.


  • #2775
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Well, you're wrong, swing voters are by definition easily swayed. Often this comes down to emotion. Do you think all the swing voters in the 2008 presidential election were racist?

    And you're overly stubborn. That's admirable, but not constructive.


    See previous answer. Someone voting no based on my demeanour isn't a "swing voter", they are a moron or a liar. I suspect the latter.


  • #2776
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Well, you're wrong, swing voters are by definition easily swayed. Often this comes down to emotion. Do you think all the swing voters in the 2008 presidential election were racist?

    And you're overly stubborn. That's admirable, but not constructive. If you feel demeaned by having to explain your right to equality I get that, it's wrong that you live in a world where you have to do that, but its not pragmatic to just disregard a large number of voters in a referendum.

    I don't believe many people are that stupid.


  • #2777
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    I don't want to believe many people are that stupid.

    Fixed.


  • #2778
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    See previous answer. Someone voting no based on my demeanour isn't a "swing voter", they are a moron or a liar. I suspect the latter.

    Your demeanour? Are you going back to a sarcastic comment I made about 2 weeks ago? You do realise that was sarcasm don't you? My god. There's more than enough pig **** to go around.


  • #2779
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Further, I believe the concern various posters are voicing about tact and undecided voters to be disingenuous.
    If IONA and the NO side keep peddling the right to a mother and father, think of the kids, traditional marriage arguments in opposition to SSM, then the sight of two tattooed, bearded, piercings wearing men with their hands around each other on the cover of a national magazine, could easily have a deterring effect on the more conservative natured undecided and the won't votes. The undecided can swing both ways! and the won't votes might be reinforced in their belief that it's a gay issue. It's not disingenuous. The concern has merit. Not saying it is right.


  • #2780
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Total strawman that doesn't even deserve a response.

    hmmmmm
    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Out of sight out of mind applies to a lot of Yes voters. They're happy to let people marry but don't want it shoved in their face.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2781
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    hmmmmm

    You don't seem to understand the difference between, can, ought and shouldn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #2782
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand the difference between, can, ought and shouldn't.

    Oh I understand. You think gay people shouldnt be seen in the media at all basically.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2783
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Well, you're wrong, swing voters are by definition easily swayed.

    Why don't you stop abusing people who will vote the way you want us to vote, and go sway some easily swayed voters, so?


  • #2784
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Oh I understand. You think gay people shouldnt be seen in the media at all basically.


    Is this your response to my accusation of using strawmen?

    You're right actually. The representation of gay people in the media is not important at all in the lead up to this referendum. I think the next feature should be "10 things that show how No voters are everything that's wrong with Ireland"


  • #2785
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Why don't you stop abusing people who will vote the way you want us to vote, and go sway some easily swayed voters, so?

    Do you think this is abuse?


  • #2786
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Do you think this is abuse?

    Yes, calling me bigoted is abuse.


  • #2787
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Oh I understand. You think gay people shouldnt be seen in the media at all basically.
    He's attempting to look outside of this thread at the wider picture, Joey. And it's a noble endeavour on a thread where 99% are pro-ssm. It makes us remember that this is the same country where homosexuality was criminalised only 20 years ago as you obviously know. We could all come in here and say this should obviously pass and the NO side are loons! But in the real world, with real voters (and those who may not bother to vote - 100 won't votes on boards is alarming imo) the consensus on the referendum is not necessarily the same as on here; nor the general outlook on life or concern for equal rights in a country where most young people have never experienced prejudice or inequality. Older folk and women especially will have but you could also assume they are more likely to be more conservative, perhaps conservative enough not to actively support ssm.


  • #2788
    DM addict
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 567 ✭✭✭DM addict


    K4t wrote: »
    Looking at the poll, the 100 Won't Votes is the most disappointing number imo. And you have to imagine it reflects a large portion of Irish society. Those who won't vote are saying they don't care at all about equal rights for their fellow citizens. At least you can kind of understand those voting No and their misguided explanations.


    As someone who clicked 'Won't vote' - I'm not a citizen, so can't vote in the referendum. There'll be a few more like me, and others who are Irish citizens living abroad so won't be eligible either. If I could, I'd be voting yes on this, as I care a lot about equal rights.


  • #2789
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    marienbad wrote: »
    No its not, you are more or less saying 'tone it down' until after the vote .

    I know it sounds bad but he is right. Its awful that we have to tone it down to appease the hetero majority just so we can be treated equally. It makes me so angry but he is right.


  • #2790
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Fixed.

    I fail to agree.


  • Advertisement
  • #2791
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,009 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    OK, I can understand the rationale of saying that the image of two bearded men hugging and kissing might upset some people, but there is a strong chance that the same people might have had a pre-existing aversion to any image of two bearded men hugging and kissing, and getting upset when they saw the image was the cover image for an article on SSM would not have out of the norm for them.

    Saying that the magazine should not have used the image as it could sway some voters from ticking the YES box on the referendum paper is not really fair to the publisher. IMO any voters who would vote NO because of a national newspaper's magazine cover photo were likely to have voted that way anyway.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement