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

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.

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.

The point is marienbad's post say nothing about not appealing to swing voters.

walshyn93 wrote: »

The only reason to figure out what swing voters are influenced by is to appeal to them. So the link is obvious. It's not even a slight stretch.

But it's not the only way to appeal to them, so marienbad never asserted that appealing to them is pointless - which is what you called stupid. It was never said. You imagined it, like the vast swathes of undecided voters hanging on whether the gays are well presented.

walshyn93 wrote: »

In order to appeal to anyone you need to know what they want. It's pathetic how you can't just admit you were wrong, but on the evidence on this thread some people have a tendency to get emotionally invested in things to the point where anything other than standing their ground is pandering.

You read the post wrong. Suck it up.

walshyn93 wrote: »

If they put you in charge of the SSM referendum campaign they'd relegalise homosexuality.

Here's our self appointed PR department.

And just for those swing voters you are so concerned about , we have had a stereotypical gay catfight ! Shame on you - think of the children !

RobertKK wrote: »

Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

Voting no as I would rather a whole new system of marriage without state involvement.

You have no idea what the term bisexual actually means.

Someone who is bi falls in love with a person, that person could be of either sex but they still commit to just one person for a life-time. You are confusing bisexuality with a lack of monogamy. They are not the same things.

Essentially, the no camp is opposed without really knowing anything about the people whose lives they are opposing. It is tragic.

Faith in Marriage Equality launched today.

walshyn93 wrote: »

It doesn't erase gay people. It just controls the image that is projected. I don't think the IT was trying to do gay people any favours with their cover.

Excuse me?

Erase is exactly what it does.
It says silence the queer and conform to hetero-normative conventions so one doesn't scare some ill defined section of society.

Do you know what this dyke says to that? - F OFF!

I am a short haired, tattooed, big boot wearing dyke. I have been a short haired, tattooed, big boot wearing, dyke since the early 1980s. It is who I am as much as make-up wearing, blond highlights, high heeled shoes is part of who my straight sister is and if anyone expects me to change who I am or stay in the background they can uck right off!

I am not like my sister - but I am equal to her and should be treated as such by the State.


You want the queers to pretend to be the 'same' - we are not the 'same' but we are equal and we will not be silenced because our queerness makes some people uncomfortable.

Too many of us died or lived miserable existences trying to be square pegs in society's round hole.

I will not be quiet. I will not conform to make someone else feel more comfortable. Some narrow minded fools whose lives run in circles so small they think they have seen it all never have and never will dictate how I choose to present myself to the world.

I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses or apologies.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Raaawwwwrrrrrr!!!!

:rolleyes:

K4t wrote: »

He knows that everything you said is right, he simply questions whether it is the right thing to portray on a magazine cover in the context of making sure this damned referendum passes. Yes, this issue is very close to people's hearts and a lot of people are emotionally invested, but first and foremost it is a political issue. A lot of people on both sides don't even see that it's an equal rights vote, not so much as a gays against the homophobes. This is Ireland, you know our troubles with doing what is right for fellow citizens, and how difficult it is for many to escape the stranglehold of religious conservatism. He's simply theorising about what the best strategy might be for Irish citizens winning this thing.

he said "rawr". get a grip.

walshyn93 wrote: »

He's right though.


And I've already said how terrible I think it is that we're in a situation where people might have to downplay their personality/identity to win votes. But that doesn't change the reality of things as I see it.

and then you said "rawr" in response to someone explaining their personality/identity....

K4t wrote: »

He knows that everything you said is right, he simply questions whether it is the right thing to portray on a magazine cover in the context of making sure this damned referendum passes. Yes, this issue is very close to people's hearts and a lot of people are emotionally invested, but first and foremost it is a political issue. A lot of people on both sides don't even see that it's an equal rights vote, not so much as a gays against the homophobes. This is Ireland, you know our troubles with doing what is right for fellow citizens, and how difficult it is for many to escape the stranglehold of religious conservatism. He's simply theorising about what the best strategy might be for Ireland winning this thing.

Firstly, he has proven himself quite capable of speaking for himself put thank you for explaining it to me like I am hard of thinking. I understand perfectly well what he is saying and I profoundly disagree.

Secondly for you it might be just a political issue but for many, many people who have spent their lives checking themselves it is far more than that.
It is about been seen and treated as equal.

Equal does not mean 'just like everyone else'.
Equal does not mean 'as long as you do not threaten other people's way of thinking'
Equal does not mean 'completely straight apart from one minor detail'.

Equal means Equal.

Equal right to self expression.
Equal right to cultural identity.

If, in order to win this vote, we need to silence and render invisible the queens and the dykes - those heirs to the Stonewall Rioters who fought because they would could no longer remain in the background - because some people may find queer identity uncomfortable then that is a price I, for one, am not prepared to pay.

They can stick their comforting conformity up their Elton John CD collections.

I will not betray myself, my community and it's history to fit in with what makes some people comfortable so 'politically' Ireland can feel liberal.