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

Zubeneschamali · 14-02-2015 05:13PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Okay, you're definitely a hateful person.

What does that even mean, that I hate things? Sure, I hate lots of things.

I hate bigotry, and prejudice, and hypocrites protecting paedophiles who then lecture the rest of us on morals. I hate the Iona institute and Ronan Mullens and John Waters and the way the Catholic Church's influence kept Ireland in the dark ages for 50 years after independence.

So what? I still get a vote.

aloyisious · 14-02-2015 05:26PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

How do you expect the world to accept you if you hate a large portion of the world?

Please tell us where you get the idea that we hate people who don't agree with SSM? We do have a strong dislike for the lies that some opponents to SSM spread about it, and hold similar feelings about them. Speaking one's mind about lies and false claims made by opponents to SSM is not hate. I don't have a mind full of hate. Who here has told you "I hate You"?

I can't see any valid point in lying and making false claims about SSM, and have genuine cause to wonder why some of the opponents tell and make them if it's not because they are seriously bigoted against homosexuals in general.

During most of my adult life I've heard most of the standard "jokes" against gay people. To have them added to by people whom we are supposed to respect telling lies and making false claims in respect of what would happen if SSM was made legitimate in law here is wrong. To have that added-to by inferring that opposing those who oppose SSM is hate is adding insult to injury.

I have never heard a gay person expressing the view that straight persons should be killed because they are straight, but have heard that said about gay people by straight people up close and personal. That is what I would term as "hate".

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 05:36PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Please tell us where you get the idea that we hate people who don't agree with SSM? We do have a strong dislike for the lies that some opponents to SSM spread about it, and hold similar feelings about them. Speaking one's mind about lies and false claims made by opponents to SSM is not hate. I don't have a mind full of hate. Who here has told you "I hate You"?

I can't see any valid point in lying and making false claims about SSM, and have genuine cause to wonder why some of the opponents tell and make them if it's not because they are seriously bigoted against homosexuals in general.

During most of my adult life I've heard most of the standard "jokes" against gay people. To have them added to by people whom we are supposed to respect telling lies and making false claims in respect of what would happen if SSM was made legitimate in law here is wrong. To have that added-to by inferring that opposing those who oppose SSM is hate is adding insult to injury.

I have never heard a gay person expressing the view that straight persons should be killed because they are straight, but have heard that said about gay people by straight people up close and personal. That is what I would term as "hate".

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't read the rest of your post.

aloyisious · 14-02-2015 05:45PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't read the rest of your post.

OK, point taken.

WoolyJumper · 14-02-2015 05:56PM

david75 wrote: »

So did anyone hear the marriage ref. debate on Claire Byrne today?

Say what you like about Shatter, he actually called Ben conroy out on the ionablather & their purposeful mangling & twisting of the whole debate...he made sh!t of the Bishop on too...

Just listening to it now, I have to agree and dare I say it, the Fianna Fail fella did a pretty good job too. He mentioned what Ben and the bishop are saying is hurtful to many people, including himself who was raised by a widowed mother.

Ben sounded a bit like a sulking child at one point when Shatter was calling out him out.

Annasopra · 14-02-2015 06:16PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I wasn't talking to you. I didn't read the rest of your post.

This pretty much sums up your contributions in this thread which have been patronising, dismissive and rude

Nodin · 14-02-2015 06:19PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

How do you expect the world to accept you if you hate a large portion of the world?

Bowing down and taking it would not be on the list I'd imagine, nor should it be.

Annasopra · 14-02-2015 06:26PM

fran17 wrote: »

I don't see the reasons for tears to be honest.The man clearly said that it wasn't difficult to keep his private life private for so long,its usually the same for all of us.He also clearly stated that his speaking to the media is to give another perspective to the upcoming referendum if he can,so its partly political based.
Its all there in the audio Joey,you just have to listen harder

Indeed.

I genuinely found it a very moving interview. We're talking about a man who is in his late 60s being isolated for most of his life. A man who could not bring himself to open up to friends and family because of the societal shame. A man who was shunned by his close friend Mary Hanafin. A man who is finally finding happiness and the ability to express himself openly after many years. A man who had to listen to nasty jibes from his political colleagues during the CP debates. But hey if you choose to make snide comments about me because I found all of that moving that shows you up to be honest.

K4t · 14-02-2015 06:52PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Ben sounded a bit like a sulking child at one point when Shatter was calling out him out.

Beneath the tough, vocal exterior, and the righteous convictions, a lot of conservatives are simply scared; they are scared of change by nature. In Ireland, they opposed contraception; they accept it now and use it like everyone else. They oppose same-sex marriage; they'll accept it and some might even use it in the future. They'll oppose abortion; abortion will be legalised and a woman will have her human rights restored, they'll avail of that too. And then move onto something else.

WoolyJumper · 14-02-2015 07:16PM

K4t wrote: »

Beneath the tough, vocal exterior, and the righteous convictions, a lot of conservatives are simply scared; they are scared of change by nature. In Ireland, they opposed contraception; they accept it now and use it like everyone else. They oppose same-sex marriage; they'll accept it and some might even use it in the future. They'll oppose abortion; abortion will be legalised and a woman will have her human rights restored, they'll avail of that too. And then move onto something else.

I think when you scratch the surface that's what the no side essentially comes down to. Not necessarily fear of gay people but just fear of change. Of what society might look like. Fear of the unknown. I think some aren't really sure what they are afraid of. Add that to the fact some people are genuinely not as empathetic as others and therefore find it hard to relate to gay people and can't easily put themselves in the position of a gay person. So it's hard for them understand why the word marriage is important, or why we do feel treated as second class citizens or why this is an issue of equality. And i've seen that with a few people on this forum.

And of course there are the few who just see us as walking, talking acts of sodomy.

WoolyJumper · 14-02-2015 07:50PM

fran17 wrote: »

I don't see the reasons for tears to be honest.The man clearly said that it wasn't difficult to keep his private life private for so long,its usually the same for all of us.He also clearly stated that his speaking to the media is to give another perspective to the upcoming referendum if he can,so its partly political based.
Its all there in the audio Joey,you just have to listen harder

Some people are just better able to empathise than others. I was born in 1990 and struggled to come to terms with my own sexuality. A time in a rapidly changing and increasingly more accepting and progressive Ireland. I've had nothing but support from family and friends (at least from the ones that mattered) yet still to this day I'm learning to accept myself more and let go of that internalised homophobia that affects nearly every gay person to some extent.

So to hear about this man, who was born in the late 40s Ireland, say he found the courage to came out in recent years, despite the large burden of a much more conservative society he carried with him, despite the fact that for the majority of his life being gay was illegal.

If not only for the fact that i'm sure there were people of a similar age who are gay listening but felt they missed their chance and it is too late for them now to come out and live an open and full life. Perhaps seeing that mans courage will help them come to terms with themselves, come out, and live an open life they never dreamed was possible. I don't know about you but I find that incredibly moving and I certainly shed a tear.

Zen65 · 14-02-2015 07:59PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't believe many people are that stupid.

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.

You do not understand human nature!

The issue is not that the picture will drive 'yes' voters to vote 'no'. The majority of 'yes' voters are heterosexuals, and they are mobilised to vote because of an inherent belief that the current laws are wrong and that gays & lesbians fall victim to those laws. Inherent in that empathy is the belief that the victim is no different to themselves.

The image of heavily-tattooed persons as representatives of the gay community is therefore unhelpful. I do not think that people actually object to the idea of gay / lesbian people displaying their affections to each other, but rather they see these tattooed people as being quite different, and accordingly they identify less with them.

This might seem selfish, or ignorant, but it is simply human nature. The mainly white Europeans are more moved by the plight of 3,000 mostly white people killed in the 9/11 attacks than they are by the weekly deaths that occur in parts of Africa through starvation, disease, or civil war. It takes very little difference for people to stop identifying.

So, IMHO, as a 'yes' voter who has already declared my own inherent homophobias, I would say the image of heavily-tattooed gays is less conducive to a 'yes' vote than if the gay couple had looked more like me and my peers. Further differentiation through imagery only serves to make the 'yes' voter less interested in getting out to vote 'yes', though obviously it could never persuade them to vote 'no'.

But every 'yes' vote is a needed vote.

dr.fuzzenstein · 14-02-2015 08:09PM

I am very straight and that image does not offend me at all. Anyone who is, can't be helped and I don't think many people would be.
If that picture is too much for all those other fragile minds, my my, what a precious flower you are.

Zubeneschamali · 14-02-2015 08:13PM

Zen65 wrote: »

The issue is not that the picture will drive 'yes' voters to vote 'no'.

Well, no problem then.

WoolyJumper · 14-02-2015 08:22PM

Zen65 wrote: »

You do not understand human nature!

The issue is not that the picture will drive 'yes' voters to vote 'no'. The majority of 'yes' voters are heterosexuals, and they are mobilised to vote because of an inherent belief that the current laws are wrong and that gays & lesbians fall victim to those laws. Inherent in that empathy is the belief that the victim is no different to themselves.

The image of heavily-tattooed persons as representatives of the gay community is therefore unhelpful. I do not think that people actually object to the idea of gay / lesbian people displaying their affections to each other, but rather they see these tattooed people as being quite different, and accordingly they identify less with them.

This might seem selfish, or ignorant, but it is simply human nature. The mainly white Europeans are more moved by the plight of 3,000 mostly white people killed in the 9/11 attacks than they are by the weekly deaths that occur in parts of Africa through starvation, disease, or civil war. It takes very little difference for people to stop identifying.

So, IMHO, as a 'yes' voter who has already declared my own inherent homophobias, I would say the image of heavily-tattooed gays is less conducive to a 'yes' vote than if the gay couple had looked more like me and my peers. Further differentiation through imagery only serves to make the 'yes' voter less interested in getting out to vote 'yes', though obviously it could never persuade them to vote 'no'.

But every 'yes' vote is a needed vote.

I wish it wasn't the case but I agree with you. Those two guys on the cover just weren't relateble to the average Irish person. Rightly or wrongly it would have been better if those guys were a little less intimate (not just because they are gay but i find Irish people in general are not mad on PDA) and a little more like a guy you'd be proud to take home to Mammy.

K4t · 14-02-2015 08:27PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I am very straight and that image does not offend me at all. Anyone who is, can't be helped and I don't think many people would be.
If that picture is too much for all those other fragile minds, my my, what a precious flower you are.

As opposed to very gay? It's not about being gay or straight. It's the fact that the majority of people judge others on superficial things such as tattoos, piercings, goatees and beards etc. Often negatively. If it was a picture of a heterosexual couple covered in tattoos and piercings and goatees people would also judge them on those things. It's human nature. They wouldn't all initially think oh how lovely they are in love or oh they are a perfectly normal looking couple. They're not what society deems mornal or natural looking, and not because they're heterosexual; nor the same if they were homosexual.

K4t · 14-02-2015 08:29PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I wish it wasn't the case but I agree with you. Those two guys on the cover just weren't relateble to the average Irish person. Rightly or wrongly it would have been better if those guys were a little less intimate (not just because they are gay but i find Irish people in general are not mad on PDA) and a little more like a guy you'd be proud to take home to Mammy.

He is right, but the more I think about it the more I am glad they chose that cover. It actually helps to confront those who judge others based on superficial things like beards and tattoos, in the long run. Hopefully people won't just look at the picture once, but study it and see their smiles and how happy they look together, and of course read the article.

Zubeneschamali · 14-02-2015 08:30PM

K4t wrote: »

They're not what society deems mornal or natural looking, and not because they're heterosexual; nor the same if they were homosexual.

But this is the whole point of the referendum!

People that society deems abnormal or unnatural should still be allowed to get married.

Because feck societies judgemental bollocks.

K4t · 14-02-2015 08:35PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is the whole point of the referendum!

People that society deems abnormal or unnatural should still be allowed to get married.

Because feck societies judgemental bollocks.

You're missing my point. Society does not deem those covered in tattoos, piercings and beards normal or natural and often look upon people with them negatively, and unfairly make final judgements on them as people. That's what a lot of people who see the picture will initially think, and may associate it with gay marriage and the referendum. When those things have nothing to do with being straight or gay! I admit that my first reaction to the cover was "ugh jeez a bit much" and I don't feel any shame or guilt for saying that. It was based on sight and pre existing societal norms which the society I live in acknowledges. You're lying if you say the majority don't.

jobbridge4life · 14-02-2015 08:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is the whole point of the referendum!

People that society deems abnormal or unnatural should still be allowed to get married.

Because feck societies judgemental bollocks.

Honestly I think you are being completely naive. Society is voting whether or not gay couples can be included in the normative sexual mores of our time. This referendum is not about recognizing the 'abnormal' but rather recognizing gay people as 'normal'.

Ave Sodalis · 14-02-2015 08:45PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I've already laid everything out on the table, and other posters have expressed agreement.

Who's angry? Not me, anyway. I'm just not going to let your strawmen arguments go without saying something.

If you want to know where I'm coming from ask something a little bit more insightful than, "so you want gays to be invisible?"

I thought you could have been onto something or had somewhat of a point except for one or two things that I was looking to clear up but instead of doing that, you act like I was attacking you. You've not laid everything out on the table because you haven't even answered my first question.

Also, you're throwing the word "strawman" about like a two year old who's learned a new word and feels the need to use it at every opportunity. Now I've asked and given you the chance on more than one occasion to actually explain what it is you really mean because it seems you think nearly every poster here has taken you up wrong but instead of doing so, you're essentially sneering at us.

Thirdly, now you're dictating how to ask questions? I think you need to take a step back and a deep breath and come back and read the questions. I think it's hilarious that you're dictating how to go about this referendum when your own method of getting your point across is so poor.

dr.fuzzenstein · 14-02-2015 08:49PM

K4t wrote: »

As opposed to very gay? It's not about being gay or straight. It's the fact that the majority of people judge others on superficial things such as tattoos, piercings, goatees and beards etc. Often negatively. If it was a picture of a heterosexual couple covered in tattoos and piercings and goatees people would also judge them on those things. It's human nature. They wouldn't all initially think oh how lovely they are in love or oh they are a perfectly normal looking couple. They're not what society deems mornal or natural looking, and not because they're heterosexual; nor the same if they were homosexual.

It is actually a separate issue, the way some people might look at beards, tattoos and piercings.
Ireland is a very funny place, we don't mind if you're gay, but OH MY GOD IS THAT A TATTOO!? :rolleyes:
It is just another form of ignorance and prejudice. I had an earring (nothing outrageous) for many, many years, got it in 1990. I was told many times that I would not get certain jobs if I wore this one, small, inoffensive earring. This kind of attitude makes me want to put on a mankini and get a million tattoos and piercings.
Ireland needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, nevermind the 21st.
And people that are 50 years behind shouldn't get pandered to, but told "look, it's not 1890 anymore"

B_Wayne · 14-02-2015 08:54PM

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe.Or maybe Joey was chopping onions at the time :pac:

Mr.Carey's arrogance towards the end of the interview was unhelpful,he
"forgives" everyone for being uneducated,crude hicks.I guess you can take the man out of the ministerial role but you'll never take the minister out of the man.Enjoy your 165,000k and your 45,000k lifetime pension Pat.

To be honest Fran, it's a fairly ****ed up situation where you're unlikely to retain your job if your sexuality is revealed. Fran, pay packets aren't going to make up for 40 years of hiding your sexuality because your homeland has had it criminalised for much of your life and has only very recently grown beyond it.

STADEdeLUC wrote: »

Referendum is a joke in my view, marriage my arse heard some bellend on the radio last week saying he will finally move to another level of society now be can be married, load of tripe if you ask me I know loads of people who aren't married have kids and there by no means at a lesser level than anyone else, civil partnership/marriage all the same real issue should be sorting out adoption and surrogate laws

Straight people have the option to choose to get married. Gay people do not. Pretty simple really.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 08:54PM

sup_dude wrote: »

I thought you could have been onto something or had somewhat of a point except for one or two things that I was looking to clear up but instead of doing that, you act like I was attacking you. You've not laid everything out on the table because you haven't even answered my first question.

Also, you're throwing the word "strawman" about like a two year old who's learned a new word and feels the need to use it at every opportunity. Now I've asked and given you the chance on more than one occasion to actually explain what it is you really mean because it seems you think nearly every poster here has taken you up wrong but instead of doing so, you're essentially sneering at us.

Thirdly, now you're dictating how to ask questions? I think you need to take a step back and a deep breath and come back and read the questions. I think it's hilarious that you're dictating how to go about this referendum when your own method of getting your point across is so poor.

I'm pointing out strawmen because using them is the easiest way to derail an argument and I'd prefer to stay on point. If I allow you to misrepresent my argument I may as well not bother defending it.

You haven't asked me any real questions. If you ask me a loaded question I'm obviously not going to answer it.

I don't feel as though I'm being attacked, but you seem to feel as though everyone is against me. If you read back through other people's comments you'll see that's not the case.

Also your attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy is fairly weak. And you've just asked me to "clear a few things up" without telling me what they are. .

Unless you wanted me to clear up whether or not I think gays should be invisible. The answer is no.

Annasopra · 14-02-2015 09:05PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm pointing out strawmen because using them is the easiest way to derail an argument and I'd prefer to stay on point. If I allow you to misrepresent my argument I may as well not bother defending it.

You haven't asked me any real questions. If you ask me a loaded question I'm obviously not going to answer it.

I don't feel as though I'm being attacked, but you seem to feel as though everyone is against me. If you read back through other people's comments you'll see that's not the case.

Also your attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy is fairly weak.

Your attitude towards everyone who engaged with you was as I said earlier rude, dismissive and condescending.

Ave Sodalis · 14-02-2015 09:05PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm pointing out strawmen because using them is the easiest way to derail an argument and I'd prefer to stay on point. If I allow you to misrepresent my argument I may as well not bother defending it.

You haven't asked me any real questions. If you ask me a loaded question I'm obviously not going to answer it.

I don't feel as though I'm being attacked, but you seem to feel as though everyone is against me. If you read back through other people's comments you'll see that's not the case.

As I have repeatedly said at this stage, I'm asking you to explain your point, not to derail it.

I've asked you several question, especially a few posts back. They were "real" questions and I was expecting an answer.

I don't feel as though everyone is against you. I feel as though many of us have misread your posts and you won't actually explain them.

Ave Sodalis · 14-02-2015 09:07PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Also your attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy is fairly weak. And you've just asked me to "clear a few things up" without telling me what they are. .

Unless you wanted me to clear up whether or not I think gays should be invisible. The answer is no.

What are you on about? I've said what is it I want cleared up: your point.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 09:09PM

sup_dude wrote: »

What are you on about? I've said what is it I want cleared up: your point.

That's way too vague to even answer.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 09:11PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your attitude towards everyone who engaged with you was as I said earlier rude, dismissive and condescending.

No, it wasn't really. I dismissed one person after they resorted to talking about pig ****.

Ave Sodalis · 14-02-2015 09:11PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's way too vague to even answer.

So you told me I wasn't getting what you were saying and when I ask you what you were saying, you won't explain.

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

Comments