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

K4t · 15-02-2015 12:16AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

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.

All citizens do, or ought to.

bodice ripper wrote: »

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

Of course. But that's not the way it is. There is a strong opposition to this referendum passing and in the poll above you there is currently 43 people who don't know and 102 who won't vote. Those are the crucial numbers and votes that Walshy93 is referring to and attempting to understand; not IONA and the cult.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 12:28AM

Are you straight? If so your vested interest is third hand at best.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 12:31AM

I'm sick of this troll derailing discussion from the actual issue and making everything a personal matter. Wish a mod would sort it out.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 12:35AM

K4t wrote: »

All citizens do, or ought to.
Of course. But that's not the way it is. There is a strong opposition to this referendum passing and in the poll above you there is currently 43 people who don't know and 102 who won't vote. Those are the crucial numbers and votes that Walshy93 is referring to and attempting to understand; not IONA and the cult.

No, we already have the votes and by a landslide . Now there is no doubt a lot of that vote is 'soft', but they have already shown in poll after poll that they are at least willing to vote yes. So they are not put off by any superficial images or behaviour.

What we need to do therefore is consolidate our vote and make sure we get them out to vote ( that is the real key to this referendum) and any pandering to probable no voters is just a diversion from that real objective .

K4t · 15-02-2015 12:46AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Are you straight? If so your vested interest is third hand at best.

Wow. Are you serious?

marienbad wrote: »

No, we already have the votes and by a landslide . Now there is no doubt a lot of that vote is 'soft', but they have already shown in poll after poll that they are at least willing to vote yes. So they are not put off by any superficial images or behaviour.

What we need to do therefore is consolidate our vote and make sure we get them out to vote ( that is the real key to this referendum) and any pandering to probable no voters is just a diversion from that real objective .

Agree with most of that, except I don't believe anyone in this thread is pandering to probable No voters. People don't seem to understand the concept of swing votes, they can go either way, and can be influenced by the most trivial and superficial of things. Never mind the won't votes which as I said before is alarming and imo a much lower % of the votes on the boards poll than in real life.

Split · 15-02-2015 12:48AM

Voting yes .

We have enough discrimination and hate in this world without discriminating against someone due to the person that they love and want to commit their lives too . Not too difficult to comprehend that two people of the same sex want equal rights to marriage .

Also very happy to agree to every single / married / gay /straight person adopting or fostering a child once they all usual clearances. We have too many children within our care system that need the love, care and compassion of a man or woman regardless of their sexuality , we have too many children that age out of our system with literally no family unit in place.
For anyone that says 2 parents is better then 1 - is this further discriminating against single parents , widows , guardians ? Not a very realistic argument when plenty of children are been raised in a 1 gender home.

15-02-2015 12:56AM

The no side has got it all wrong. They keep talking about children which is totally irrelevant to this issue.

You should all vote "no" because if the yes vote wins - we will all have to go to more weddings where we have to dance to "rock the boat - dont rock the boat".

I have done this enough with straight people - I do not need my gay friends making me do it too

RomanKnows · 15-02-2015 01:00AM

I was listening to Alan Shatter this afternoon on Saturday View.

Two things became apparent to me. One; that Shatter is a man of extraordinary intellect. Secondly; that this piece of legislation will be his legacy.

The whole show is worthy of a listen for his insight into why this is a very basic and decent thing to legislate for. The clarity and rationalism of his perspective is extremely hard to disagree with. He's the very essence of a true liberal.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10373763%3A0%3A%3A

For a quick synopsis I'd recommend listening between the 12th and 15th minute.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 01:03AM

K4t wrote: »

Wow. Are you serious?

Agree with most of that, except I don't believe anyone in this thread is pandering to probable No voters. People don't seem to understand the concept of swing votes, they can go either way, and can be influenced by the most trivial and superficial of things. Never mind the won't votes which as I said before is alarming and imo a much lower % of the votes on the boards poll than in real life.

People DO understand the concept of swing voters , and you hit the nail on the head - they can be influenced by the most trivial of things , so in fact it is an impossibility to predict or even comprehend what will piss them off and therefore it is an utter waste of time trying to do so- you tone it down for one voter and thus are seen as insincere by another. Waste of time

Concentrate on the arguments ,stay calm, and get our vote out . We do that and keep those poll numbers up and the no campaign will implode with desperation.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:07AM

marienbad wrote: »

People DO understand the concept of swing voters , and you hit the nail on the head - they can be influenced by the most trivial of things , so in fact it is an impossibility to predict or even comprehend what will piss them off and therefore it is an utter waste of time trying to do so- you tone it down for one voter and thus are seen as insincere by another. Waste of time

Concentrate on the arguments ,stay calm, and get our vote out . We do that and keep those poll numbers up and the no campaign will implode with desperation.

Saying that appealing to swing voters is an utter waste of time is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Might as well shut down the campaign altogether.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 01:08AM

K4t wrote: »

Wow. Are you serious?

Completely. It's not your life being restricted.

Although, perhaps I mean second hand. I was assuming second person to be partner, but on reflection, that could be family/friends as well.

Point is it is galling to be told you are trolling when you feel strongly about a topic that actually affects you directly. To watch people wittering on about whether that photo is portraying an acceptable image of gayness to people who are kind of grossed out, but might be coaxed into being a decent human being if we aren't too in your face. I have heard it before.

If these posters are so concerned about the yes side winning, how about attacking the no side and their assinine arguments? Novel, I know.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:14AM

The No side don't have any arguments to attack. Which is why the PR of the Yes side will be the deciding factor.

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 01:16AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

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

If only the real world worked this way!

The prohibition on divorce should have been removed from the Irish constitution in 1986 when a referendum was held for that purpose. At first the view was that the referendum would be carried - there were strong voices among the communities urging to help resolve so many marriages in crisis. It was abundantly clear that the ban on divorce was purely driven by the prevailing catholic ethos of the time, and it discriminated against those from other faiths, and those of no faith.

Removing the ban on divorce would not have affected anyone who did not want a divorce, but scaremongering tactics caused the vote to be rejected. Among the claims made by conservative catholic groups at the time was that farming would be destroyed by the introduction of divorce, and that women could be divorced against their will.

It took another 10 years before the next attempt to remove the ban was put to the people, and it was passed, but with pretty severe restrictions on the circumstances for granting a divorce.

In the current referendum campaign you can be sure that there will be attempts to sway the soft vote, and those attempts will not be based on logic or sound reasoning. The idea of it being 'a right' for couples to marry will be muddied with the suggestion that it will make other matters more difficult. Playing on prejudices is a classic tactic in campaigns such as this, and however wrong those prejudices are, it would be foolish to give any ammunition to the 'no' campaign. Outbursts of anger on the 'yes' do nothing to positively sway the minds of voters; they can only cause 'yes' voters to disengage and decide to stay at home on the day.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 01:19AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

The No side don't have any arguments to attack. Which is why the PR of the Yes side will be the deciding factor.

In that case, given the way you've rubbed up various people on this thread, you should do the yes side a favour and pipe down. I am not the only off-putting face of Yes while we have you on board.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 01:23AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Saying that appealing to swing voters is an utter waste of time is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Might as well shut down the campaign altogether.

It would be a stupid thing all right which is probably why no one said it .Reread my post please .

And would you stop being so rude , it really is unnecessary .

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 01:23AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

If these posters are so concerned about the yes side winning, how about attacking the no side and their assinine arguments? Novel, I know.

Respectfully the population of Boards.ie readers is insignificant compared to the readers of the Irish Times. How the IT go about representing the 'yes' and 'no' camps can be very impactful on voters, whereas anything we say here will have limited impact.

Attacking either side is a mistake. The public loves to support a victim, and allowing the 'no' campaign to portray themselves as victims of a 'gay onslaught' might have the same effect as portraying Irish farmers as victims of a divorce referendum in 1986 (see my previous post).

There are very sound arguments which support SSM, and making those arguments is far more persuasive than attacking anybody.

K4t · 15-02-2015 01:24AM

RomanKnows wrote: »

I was listening to Alan Shatter this afternoon on Saturday View.

Two things became apparent to me. One; that Shatter is a man of extraordinary intellect. Secondly; that this piece of legislation will be his legacy.

That says everything you need to know about this country tbh. If he really wanted to leave a legacy worthy of praise and admiration he'd work towards making Ireland a truly secular state. Same-sex marriage is the decriminalising of homosexuality, the legalisation of contraception, the end to the ban on divorce; its time has simply come.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Saying that appealing to swing voters is an utter waste of time is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Might as well shut down the campaign altogether.

I think what he is saying is that the swing voters are kind of impossible to appeal to in this referendum, and the main aim should be to get those saying and clicking yes in sample polls, to get out and vote on the day.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:26AM

marienbad wrote: »

It would be a stupid thing all right which is probably why no one said it .Reread my post please .

And would you stop being so rude , it really is unnecessary .

Stupid alright.

marienbad wrote: »

so in fact it is an impossibility to predict or even comprehend what will piss them (swing voters) off and therefore it is an utter waste of time trying to do so

And in the face of the reactions I've received on here I've been more polite than you deserve.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 01:28AM

Zen65 wrote: »

If only the real world worked this way!

The prohibition on divorce should have been removed from the Irish constitution in 1986 when a referendum was held for that purpose. At first the view was that the referendum would be carried - there were strong voices among the communities urging to help resolve so many marriages in crisis. It was abundantly clear that the ban on divorce was purely driven by the prevailing catholic ethos of the time, and it discriminated against those from other faiths, and those of no faith.

Removing the ban on divorce would not have affected anyone who did not want a divorce, but scaremongering tactics caused the vote to be rejected. Among the claims made by conservative catholic groups at the time was that farming would be destroyed by the introduction of divorce, and that women could be divorced against their will.

It took another 10 years before the next attempt to remove the ban was put to the people, and it was passed, but with pretty severe restrictions on the circumstances for granting a divorce.

In the current referendum campaign you can be sure that there will be attempts to sway the soft vote, and those attempts will not be based on logic or sound reasoning. The idea of it being 'a right' for couples to marry will be muddied with the suggestion that it will make other matters more difficult. Playing on prejudices is a classic tactic in campaigns such as this, and however wrong those prejudices are, it would be foolish to give any ammunition to the 'no' campaign. Outbursts of anger on the 'yes' do nothing to positively sway the minds of voters; they can only cause 'yes' voters to disengage and decide to stay at home on the day.

Based on nothing.

As for the rest, as stated previously, I am not convinced the undecided-but-still-arsed-voting-and-likely-to-be-swayed-by-the-unacceptable-face-of-gayness group even exists, let alone in sizeable numbers. No information has been presented to suggest it.

I think the most important thing is mobilising the yes vote. And I am doing what I can to ensure the people in my life vote.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 01:29AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Stupid alright.

That post is not saying what you think it is saying.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:32AM

marienbad wrote: »

That post is not saying what you think it is saying.

You're saying that trying to predict what will sway swing voters is a waste of time. But the only motivation to predict what will sway swing voters is to use it to sway their votes. In effect saying there's no point in doing anything to sway swing voters, as the first step in that process is to figure out what makes them tick. What you said was stupid.

You're not left with much wiggle room here.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:34AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Based on nothing.

As for the rest, as stated previously, I am not convinced the undecided-but-still-arsed-voting-and-likely-to-be-swayed-by-the-unacceptable-face-of-gayness group even exists, let alone in sizeable numbers. No information has been presented to suggest it.

I think the most important thing is mobilising the yes vote. And I am doing what I can to ensure the people in my life vote.

You just want licence to be angry at everyone. You don't want there to be any incentive to be nice to people you hate.

Lyaiera · 15-02-2015 01:34AM

Why should yes-campaigners campaign in a way that reinforces homophobia?

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 01:35AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You just want licence to be angry at everyone. You don't want there to be any incentive to be nice to people you hate.

What does this even mean?

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:36AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Why should yes-campaigners campaign in a way that reinforces homophobia?

Not that anyone is suggesting that, but this isn't a campaign to end homophobia it's a campaign for SSM.

K4t · 15-02-2015 01:37AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Completely. It's not your life being restricted.

Although, perhaps I mean second hand. I was assuming second person to be partner, but on reflection, that could be family/friends as well.

Point is it is galling to be told you are trolling when you feel strongly about a topic that actually affects you directly. To watch people wittering on about whether that photo is portraying an acceptable image of gayness to people who are kind of grossed out, but might be coaxed into being a decent human being if we aren't too in your face. I have heard it before.

You're obviously emotionally invested in this referendum which is fair enough. I'm not gay, at least I don't think I am. . .but I am very interested in this debate, and as a citizen of this country, I do consider myself to have a vested interest, as much as you or any gay person. I do not consider a gay person as any different than me as a human being and as a citizen of this country. I am not voting YES for gay people in May, I am voting YES for ME, because someday I might be the one without equal rights for some stupid reason like my hair colour, or my height, or my sexual orientation.

If these posters are so concerned about the yes side winning, how about attacking the no side and their assinine arguments? Novel, I know.

We can do that too, though their arguments don't have much to do with SSM, and when that is pointed out, they simply carry on with the arguments anyway. You will not change these people's minds. It's like arguing against the religious fundamentalist.

Lyaiera · 15-02-2015 01:37AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not that anyone is suggesting that, but this isn't a campaign to end homophobia it's a campaign for SSM.

And I would think that one of the basic parts of a campaign for rights would be to ensure that the campaign doesn't do damage to the group it's working for.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:37AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

What does this even mean?

You haven't got a strategic bone in your body

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:37AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

And I would think that one of the basic parts of a campaign for rights would be to ensure that the campaign doesn't do damage to the group it's working for.

No one is suggesting anything that would damage them

Annasopra · 15-02-2015 01:40AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

No one is suggesting anything that would damage them

Your suggestions of only using acceptable gays is actually quite damaging

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

Comments