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

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 09:12PM

sup_dude wrote: »

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.

What was I saying when? I've said a lot about many things.

Ave Sodalis · 14-02-2015 09:12PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

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

You're dismissing me and I'm trying to get where you're coming from. Maybe it'll be easier if I just went and attacked your posts instead without bothering because you're acting like I am anyway.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 09:14PM

sup_dude wrote: »

You're dismissing me and I'm trying to get where you're coming from. Maybe it'll be easier if I just went and attacked your posts instead without bothering because you're acting like I am anyway.

I'm not dismissing you, I'm genuinely trying to clarify whatever it is you're having trouble grasping. I wish you would attack my posts because then I'd know where the problem is. Instead you're just saying, "what's your point" as if I'm supposed to condense it into a sentence or two when it originally took me about 5 posts to flesh out.

Zen65 · 14-02-2015 09:15PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no problem then.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the post? I'm not claiming to have overwhelming insight, but I think you might find the remainder of the post pointed towards the issue that was at stake.

Zen65 · 14-02-2015 09:21PM

K4t wrote: »

It actually helps to confront those who judge others based on superficial things like beards and tattoos, in the long run.

The long run is a different game. In the short term it is imperative that the average voter sees the average gay/lesbian/trans couple as being 'one of us' rather than 'one of a different group'. That's what will maintain the engagement and get voters out to the polling stations. It is a matter of no great importance whether or not 77% of people feel that SSM is right for society, unless they get out and vote that shared understanding will not change the laws.

The way to change society is incrementally. Radical change, involving a challenge to a wide number of our prejudices, does not have a good track record of success.

Ave Sodalis · 14-02-2015 09:22PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm not dismissing you, I'm genuinely trying to clarify whatever it is you're having trouble grasping. I wish you would attack my posts because then I'd know where the problem is. Instead you're just saying, "what's your point" as if I'm supposed to condense it into a sentence or two when it originally took me about 5 posts to flesh out.

From what I can gather from your posts, you're expecting people to bend over backwards to please even the most homophobic of no voters, (and as I have said over and over, yes the term homophob is thrown about too much but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all) and put up with the name calling and the lies and the horrid comments that wouldn't be in any way acceptable in any other situation.
I also don't understand what was so "in your face" about the picture. If that was in your face, what do you expect gay couples to do? Sit apart and pretend they aren't a couple?

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:25PM

Zen65 wrote: »

The long run is a different game. In the short term it is imperative that the average voter sees the average gay/lesbian/trans couple as being 'one of us' rather than 'one of a different group'. That's what will maintain the engagement and get voters out to the polling stations. It is a matter of no great importance whether or not 77% of people feel that SSM is right for society, unless they get out and vote that shared understanding will not change the laws.

The way to change society is incrementally. Radical change, involving a challenge to a wide number of our prejudices, does not have a good track record of success.

The problem with all of this is that even if equal marriage goes through, the exact same level of homophobia will still exist. A few people might have their opinion changed, but there's still going to be people getting assaulted, there's still going to be male gay couples getting abuse in pubs and on the street for holding hands, lesbians are still going to be told they just need the right man to **** them, bisexual people are still going to be told they're not really bisexual, and transgender people are still going to be told that they can't be happily married to their partner. The equal marriage bill is just about legislating for rights, but the fight for people to live their life free from abuse and for equal treatment will continue.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 09:30PM

sup_dude wrote: »

From what I can gather from your posts, you're expecting people to bend over backwards to please even the most homophobic of no voters, (and as I have said over and over, yes the term homophob is thrown about too much but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all) and put up with the name calling and the lies and the horrid comments that wouldn't be in any way acceptable in any other situation.
I also don't understand what was so "in your face" about the picture. If that was in your face, what do you expect gay couples to do? Sit apart and pretend they aren't a couple?

Yeah, pretty much. It's a political campaign. Image is important. You can't expect to offend people's sensibilities and engage them at the same time.

As I've said repeatedly, not every Yes voter is as comfortable with homosexuality as their tick on the ballot box would have you believe. So if you want their vote you'll have to win them over without your posturing.

There are many people who genuinely think that all people should be treated equally, but would feel uneasy about a traveller family moving in next door.

Not all prejudice is absolute prejudice.

As others have said, the Yes side should be trying to present gay people as being essentially the same as straight people except for one thing. Doing anything to represent them in a stereotypical way is harmful to the campaign. Tattoos and piercings might be seen as stereotypical or at the very least "different".

Key to winning this campaign is defeating people's expectations of gay people. That aim is not served by allowing superficial differences to even come into play.

PopePalpatine · 14-02-2015 09:31PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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.

I'm not surprised to read that, considering who her father is.

conorh91 · 14-02-2015 09:32PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

To be honest Fran, it's a fairly ****ed up situation where you're unlikely to retain your job if your sexuality is revealed.

"Unlikely"?

I take it you have statistics? The word unlikely implies a high quantile of probability, and I don't believe there is even one known case of a dismissal on grounds of sexuality alone in which s.37(1) of the Employment Equality Acts was raised as a defence. In fact, it would appear to contravene equality legislation altogether.

Of course, expressly advocating ideas and public policies that tend to impugn an organisation's stated aims and policy position will be a different story. That's not discrimination based on sexuality though, is it.

It's a bit like a man being dismissed from a livestock distributor for attempting to promote vegetarianism among the client base.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 09:33PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

The problem with all of this is that even if equal marriage goes through, the exact same level of homophobia will still exist. A few people might have their opinion changed, but there's still going to be people getting assaulted, there's still going to be male gay couples getting abuse in pubs and on the street for holding hands, lesbians are still going to be told they just need the right man to **** them, bisexual people are still going to be told they're not really bisexual, and transgender people are still going to be told that they can't be happily married to their partner. The equal marriage bill is just about legislating for rights, but the fight for people to live their life free from abuse and for equal treatment will continue.

Yeah, but you're choosing the path of most resistance by trying to normalise tattoos, piercings and gayness all at once.

Zen65 · 14-02-2015 09:42PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

The equal marriage bill is just about legislating for rights, but the fight for people to live their life free from abuse and for equal treatment will continue.

Unfortunately it is not possible to pass a law which obliges people to not have prejudices. However, legalising and ultimately normalising SSM will go a long way towards (slowly) changing the public perception of same-sex couples and so eventually be more accepting of different sexual preferences.

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:45PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not possible to pass a law which obliges people to not have prejudices. However, legalising and ultimately normalising SSM will go a long way towards (slowly) changing the public perception of same-sex couples and so eventually be more accepting of different sexual preferences.

Absolutely, but I think it's important that people are challenged on their problematic behaviour and that putting things in terms of acceptability could hinder the broader cause of ensuring people are free to live their life with dignity.

K4t · 14-02-2015 10:02PM

Zen65 wrote: »

The long run is a different game. In the short term it is imperative that the average voter sees the average gay/lesbian/trans couple as being 'one of us' rather than 'one of a different group'. That's what will maintain the engagement and get voters out to the polling stations. It is a matter of no great importance whether or not 77% of people feel that SSM is right for society, unless they get out and vote that shared understanding will not change the laws.

The way to change society is incrementally. Radical change, involving a challenge to a wide number of our prejudices, does not have a good track record of success.

All very true. That would have been a great cover photo and endorsement of both gay marriage and other things society superficially judges people on, if there was no opposition to same sex marriage or if the opposition was not in fact potentially very strong. It was too much for a lot of people imo. And not because they guys are gay. It would be a similar reaction if it was a man or a woman unfortunately.

Zen65 wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not possible to pass a law which obliges people to not have prejudices. However, legalising and ultimately normalising SSM will go a long way towards (slowly) changing the public perception of same-sex couples and so eventually be more accepting of different sexual preferences.

Nor should people with prejudices be silenced. This referendum would if anything go through a lot smoother if certain groups and individuals expressed their real views and reasons for opposing same sex marriage and gay marriage. And it's not fear of same sex marriage, it's a fear of something else, which ironically we are prohibited from accusing them of in public.

B_Wayne · 14-02-2015 10:05PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah, but you're choosing the path of most resistance by trying to normalise tattoos, piercings and gayness all at once.

Neither tattoos or piercings are something I would associate with gay people. People yes but specifically gay, nope!

K4t · 14-02-2015 10:10PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Neither tattoos or piercings are something I would associate with gay people. People yes but specifically gay, nope!

Exactly, but a lot of people see them as negative things on their own and use them to judge an individual in a negative fashion; thus by showing two gay men with them as a promotion for same sex marriage, you are directly associating those things with gay people in the minds of a lot of conservatives, homophobes, and undecided and won't votes. Tattoos, piercings and goatees are not things that WILL make someone want to go out and vote yes, but they could be seen as things which would make a person think twice or feel uneasy about going out and voting yes. It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it could have some truth to it.

Zen65 · 14-02-2015 10:10PM

K4t wrote: »

This referendum would if anything go through a lot smoother if certain groups and individuals expressed their real views and reasons for opposing same sex marriage and gay marriage.

Agreed.

I've said before though that many people are not aware of what is at the root of their opposition. Something about SSM feels wrong to them, and they cannot articulate what that is. I'm sure familiarity, learned values (often incorrectly taught as being religious values) and anthropological instincts play a role in their feelings, but that's not easily explained and so the kind of nonsense arguments about children are raised instead, as it is a more plausible (albeit irrelevant) position to take.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 10:10PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Neither tattoos or piercings are something I would associate with gay people. People yes but specifically gay, nope!

I think you're being obtuse. It's associated with a lifestyle that many voters would not be familiar with so its easy to see how it might be misconstrued as stereotypical.

bodice ripper · 14-02-2015 10:13PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think you're being obtuse. It's associated with a lifestyle that many voters would not be familiar with so its easy to see how it might be misconstrued as stereotypical.

Then let people who feel that way speak up, instead of you making **** up without basis.

K4t · 14-02-2015 10:17PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Agreed.

I've said before though that many people are not aware of what is at the root of their opposition. Something about SSM feels wrong to them, and they cannot articulate what that is. I'm sure familiarity, learned values (often incorrectly taught as being religious values) and anthropological instincts play a role in their feelings, but that's not easily explained and so the kind of nonsense arguments about children are raised instead, as it is a more plausible (albeit irrelevant) position to take.

The ironic thing about the discussion over the last few pages is that all the posters are in support of SSM and have nothing against homosexuals, but it seems as if some posters are too focused on expressing how liberal and open and tolerant they are that they cannot see where Walshy93 is coming from i.e. Ireland. Not Dublin or Trinity College but the entire country, and a country with ages ranging from 18 to 100 who have a vote, and a still predominantly catholic country, even if many are in name only. Nobody has to defend SSM or homosexuality on boards.ie as being right and moral without 99% of people supporting them. It's good to look outside and be weary.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 10:17PM

Anyone else think the IT deliberately picked lads with neck tattoos and nose rings to represent gay people just to provoke outrage?

On the one hand they're showing gay people in love so "yay tolerance!" but on the other they're subtly promoting difference.

I think it's a bit sneaky. Causing controversy for both sides all the while being able to claim blamelessness.

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 10:18PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Then let people who feel that way speak up, instead of you making **** up without basis.

It's a secret ballot. They don't need to articulate their views to have a say. It's useful to predict how voters will be thinking about certain things rather than assuming that every grievance will be expressed to give us a chance to counter.

bodice ripper · 14-02-2015 10:23PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's a secret ballot. They don't need to articulate their views to have a say. It's useful to predict how voters will be thinking about certain things rather than assuming that every grievance will be expressed to give us a chance to counter.

no, ON HERE. instead of talking down to the homo and bisexuals about how to market themselves to people who judge them, let those people speak up.

what are YOUR VIEWS? rather than arrogantly appoint yourself spokesman for the silent minority....

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 10:29PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

no, ON HERE. instead of talking down to the homo and bisexuals about how to market themselves to people who judge them, let those people speak up.

what are YOUR VIEWS? rather than arrogantly appoint yourself spokesman for the silent minority....

Ah look you've been nothing but hostile from the get-go, I've no interest in conversing with you any further.

aloyisious · 14-02-2015 10:56PM

For what it's worth, walshyn93 may have a point on whether the Irish Times used the photo to attract attention, loth though I want to admit it. I read the article and found an old truism: not to judge a book by the cover. It's about marriage, not same-sex marriage. There are four couples interviewed in it at different stages in their relationships, three of whom are heterosexual.

bodice ripper · 14-02-2015 11:02PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Ah look you've been nothing but hostile from the get-go, I've no interest in conversing with you any further.

So stick me on ignore. I am here, and I am angry because I have a vested interest in the topic, you just want to pontificate about how the gays are doing it wrong.

mzungu · 14-02-2015 11:30PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm not surprised to read that, considering who her father is.

She certainly seems to lack any kind of empathy in general.

Today Ms Hanafin said that although the State may pursue costs from victims of child sexual abuse who take an action against the department, no decision is taken lightly and no one has ever lost their home as a result of such an action.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0323/87110-abuse/

Annasopra · 14-02-2015 11:32PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Ah look you've been nothing but hostile from the get-go, I've no interest in conversing with you any further.

Did it not occur to you that a lot of people have been hostile to you because of your posts? And the dismissive and rude attitude in your posts?

walshyn93 · 14-02-2015 11:36PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Did it not occur to you that a lot of people have been hostile to you because of your posts? And the dismissive and rude attitude in your posts?

It did. But since there's no clear intention to be offensive or insulting to anyone I'd say the hostile people are in the wrong. Besides, only one person has been what I'd consider hostile.

As for being dismissive and rude. It's right to be dismissive of people who make rash statements. I don't think I've been rude to anyone.

The problem for you and bodice is that there must always be an enemy to attack. Even peacemakers are enemies. You're making this about the person rather than the idea and its no surprise because most people have agreed with the idea.

bodice ripper · 14-02-2015 11:49PM

Peacemaker my hole. You are just in it to stir ****. Citing opinions of imaginary voters in your head, on what the gays are doing wrong.

I am openly hostile to finger wagging busybodies telling me I'd better be on my best behaviour or else I might get stuck with second class citizenship forever.

Here's a novel idea: how about voting yes because it's the right thing to do.

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

Comments