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

sup_dude wrote: »

I'm saying that by using a perfect looking couple for every public poster, you're lying to the public about what gay is.

It seems to me there's pages of point-scoring between members on the 'yes' side now in this thread. That's a pity. The issue of gaining public support for SSM would, on the face of it, appear to be a matter of much greater importance than nit-picking over the small stuff.

Winning the 'yes' vote is not going to be achieved by simply making a very good argument in favour of it. Having people nod and say 'oh yes, I agree' is too easy, and achieves nothing. What is needed is to mobilise the people who believe that SSM is a right to get up and vote on Referendum day.

Logic rarely motivates people. There has never been a charismatic leader who led the people with compelling logic. (Since this is AH let me use 'Star Trek' as a comparison to point out that Spock would not have led the Enterprise as successfully as Capt Kirk, as he simply could not establish rapport with people). Our common goal is to gain emotional buy-in and empathy from the majority for the plight of the minority. Only then will the laws be changed.

Every PR company who advertised a product used imagery to sell an idea, an emotion to prospective clients. Beauty products do not use ugly people to advertise their goods.

In the simplest of terms, this Referendum is a campaign; it is a call for people to vote for a change in law which, for the majority, will give them no benefit whatsoever. If 'yes' advocates want to mobilise that army of voters then it is important to keep those voters emotionally engaged, and that means thinking like a PR company.

We all know that there is a crisis in homelessness, but the numbers of people helping to solve that is very low. The truth is that we are more likely to help people if they look like us and dress like us, as this video experiment demonstrates.



Maintaining an emotional connection with the voter is not 'lying', it is simply highlighting the commonality that really exists between the majority of heterosexual people and the majority of homosexual people. While the greater goal is to gain the help of the majority to establish the rights of the minority, exploiting the important commonality in the human condition is more helpful than finding differences.

Zen65 wrote: »

It seems to me there's pages of point-scoring between members on the 'yes' side now in this thread. That's a pity. The issue of gaining public support for SSM would, on the face of it, appear to be a matter of much greater importance than nit-picking over the small stuff.

Winning the 'yes' vote is not going to be achieved by simply making a very good argument in favour of it. Having people nod and say 'oh yes, I agree' is too easy, and achieves nothing. What is needed is to mobilise the people who believe that SSM is a right to get up and vote on Referendum day.

Logic rarely motivates people. There has never been a charismatic leader who led the people with compelling logic. (Since this is AH let me use 'Star Trek' as a comparison to point out that Spock would not have led the Enterprise as successfully as Capt Kirk, as he simply could not establish rapport with people). Our common goal is to gain emotional buy-in and empathy from the majority for the plight of the minority. Only then will the laws be changed.

Every PR company who advertised a product used imagery to sell an idea, an emotion to prospective clients. Beauty products do not use ugly people to advertise their goods.

In the simplest of terms, this Referendum is a campaign; it is a call for people to vote for a change in law which, for the majority, will give them no benefit whatsoever. If 'yes' advocates want to mobilise that army of voters then it is important to keep those voters emotionally engaged, and that means thinking like a PR company.

We all know that there is a crisis in homelessness, but the numbers of people helping to solve that is very low. The truth is that we are more likely to help people if they look like us and dress like us, as this video experiment demonstrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPjUyVtTQw

Maintaining an emotional connection with the voter is not 'lying', it is simply highlighting the commonality that really exists between the majority of heterosexual people and the majority of homosexual people. While the greater goal is to gain the help of the majority to establish the rights of the minority, exploiting the important commonality in the human condition is more helpful than finding differences.

I'm really not nit picking and I'm certainly not trying to "score points". I am genuinely trying to see that posters side because like I said, I thought she/he could have had a point however their manner of poster was very difficult to get through. I found a flaw in their argument and I've still to get a reply about it.
Please read the rest of my posts on the topic. Having a perfect poster picture isn't showing a commonality in my view. Having posters depicting every day people does. In fact, I'm not seeing how a lot of what was posted is showing a commonality.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Okay, chief.

I see it as something that majorly lets down your argument to the point I can't agree with it.

Zen65 wrote: »

It seems to me there's pages of point-scoring between members on the 'yes' side now in this thread. That's a pity. The issue of gaining public support for SSM would, on the face of it, appear to be a matter of much greater importance than nit-picking over the small stuff.

Winning the 'yes' vote is not going to be achieved by simply making a very good argument in favour of it. Having people nod and say 'oh yes, I agree' is too easy, and achieves nothing. What is needed is to mobilise the people who believe that SSM is a right to get up and vote on Referendum day.

Logic rarely motivates people. There has never been a charismatic leader who led the people with compelling logic. (Since this is AH let me use 'Star Trek' as a comparison to point out that Spock would not have led the Enterprise as successfully as Capt Kirk, as he simply could not establish rapport with people). Our common goal is to gain emotional buy-in and empathy from the majority for the plight of the minority. Only then will the laws be changed.

Every PR company who advertised a product used imagery to sell an idea, an emotion to prospective clients. Beauty products do not use ugly people to advertise their goods.

In the simplest of terms, this Referendum is a campaign; it is a call for people to vote for a change in law which, for the majority, will give them no benefit whatsoever. If 'yes' advocates want to mobilise that army of voters then it is important to keep those voters emotionally engaged, and that means thinking like a PR company.

We all know that there is a crisis in homelessness, but the numbers of people helping to solve that is very low. The truth is that we are more likely to help people if they look like us and dress like us, as this video experiment demonstrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPjUyVtTQw

Maintaining an emotional connection with the voter is not 'lying', it is simply highlighting the commonality that really exists between the majority of heterosexual people and the majority of homosexual people. While the greater goal is to gain the help of the majority to establish the rights of the minority, exploiting the important commonality in the human condition is more helpful than finding differences.

That is all very fine and dandy if you have the unlimited resources of a cosmetics corporation. But if you have finite resources then it is a different ballgame.

The yes side do have finite resources - so the question is where are they better spent . On pandering to a percentage of the population that may vote yes but are unlikely to do so. And opening yourself to the accusation of lying and insincerity and thus pissing off another segment of the population.

Or as we already have a large majority in our favour ensuring that we protect that majority and most of all getting them out to vote .

Concentrate on the arguments ,stay calm, and get our vote out . We do that and keep those poll numbers up and we win the day.

Walshyn, to an extent I kind of understand what you are saying. But you fail to understand how much of a human issue this is. We are talking about real peoples lives. It's an incredibly emotive and personal issue. There is a lot of symbolism around passing of this referendum. It's about acceptance, equality, fairness. Getting a majority yes vote would send a clear message to lgb people in Ireland about how our society values us.

I don't think you appreciate how much on a day to day basis gay people have to "check themselves" as Panti put it. It's tiresome, its maddening sometimes. Everytime you meet someone new, it's a coming out experience. And still find coming out awkward and difficult. So I dont think you appreciate how offensive it is to say if you want to win the referendum you need to act a certain way, fit in more, hide aspects of yourself. Gay people are tired of that and its part of the overall problem.

Your correct that if all gay people acted a certain way we would win this much easier. But it's not reality, we don't all fit a certain description. It's not really sending anyone the right message to say you must behave in a certain way if you want to earn the right to marry.

marienbad wrote: »

Concentrate on the arguments ,stay calm, and get our vote out . We do that and keep those poll numbers up and we win the day.

+1 to this

K4t wrote: »

Some interesting points. Thank you. I guess my point is that I still don't view you any differently under the law as a human being, even if the law does right now. And I guess walshy93's view is that people don't really have any interest in your culture or want to know about it, and that shoving it in their faces might hurt your campaign in a country like Ireland, where beneath the surface there are several sinister layers. This is of course about gay rights, but imo, the campaign would strengthen even more if people saw gays as simply themselves, and understood that this is a vote for equal rights, it is a vote for everyone's rights. And the only vote to guarantee that is YES.


That is a part of it, sure, but to say it is solely about that is to do the gay community and the people of Ireland a disservice. And imo that kind of attitude will not strengthen your campaign. Making it a solely gay issue could if anything encourage YES voters to stay at home, to leave it to the gays, or unfortunately to be put off by actively going out of their way to support what they see simply as gay rights, and not equal rights.

That highlighted bit - 'shoving it in their faces' - I don't think you realise how unbelievably offensive that is.

I have straight culture 'shoved in my face' everyday of my life.
50 years of straight, white, Irish, Catholic culture. Shoved. in. my. face.

But ohh poor pookies might be afeard of the not straight, not white, not Irish, not Catholics shoving their cultures in people's faces. Seriously - Ireland needs more diversity shoved in it's face, not less.

No tolerance of diversity brought us the Laundries, the Industrial Schools, and all the horrors of the past - but we, who were excluded for so long, should now subdue that very culture that gave us strength and a place to belong because the 'straights' don't like it (oh, they like it well enough when it's George Michael or Freddie Mercury or Graham Norton or Ellen deGeneres or Paul O'Grady or Larry Greyson or Frankie Howerd but heavens forfend it's 'shoved in their faces' when they are buying their Alexander McQueen knockoffs in a Mary Portes boutique or contemplating buying a faux Eileen Grey chair to put under their framed Warhol print)

I hear what every woman wants constantly from the radio and TV - guess what - I never ever wanted any of those things. Am I less of a woman because I don't want xxx make-up or xxx shoes or xxxx ohmergaawd to catch the bouquet?

Is it make up and hairdos and dresses and waxed bits that decide who is a 'real' woman? Is female identity so shallow?

Is a queen less of a man than Paul O Connell because he isn't built like a brick S'ithouse?

Let me tell you - it takes real courage and strength of character to be a feminine man mincing down Dame Street. It takes a real man to sashy through Dublin in size 13 heels, a beehive hairdo and a full evening dress. A man who isn't cowered into conforming to other's expectations.

Are we being offered our rights as long as we abandon our culture?

Must we pretend it doesn't exist?

That we are really just straight with a kink?

No.

We're here.
we're Queer.

Get used to it.

Zen65 wrote: »

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying PR companies don't use ugly people, they use people that we believe are more like ourselves (which, paradoxically, is why they actually use people who are more attractive than the average punter).

But you also have to bare in mind that there will be a lot of young people that aren't entirely comfortable with their sexuality just yet during this time. I mean, yeah, it's a political debate but like I said, there needs to be a balance during it because this is also can have very negative consequences on the people who the referendum is trying to promote. The way I see it is that walshyn's posts don't have that balance and the no side will be doing enough damage.

walshyn93 wrote: »

I called him a disingenuous twat for being disingenuous, which is a common trait of the twat.

Am I being counselled in restraint by the resident attack dog?

I amn't advising restraint, you are. Whilst losing your **** left right and centre.

walshyn93 wrote: »

So you agree with me, it's just that my view is offensive.

So you agree with me.

Yeah I agree, I just don't think it's right, nor do i feel its the right way to win.

What's with snarky reply though? I wasn't rude to you.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously - Ireland needs more diversity shoved in it's face, not less.

Brilliant post, Bannasidhe.

I agree with the points you make, but worry that those points are really separate from the issue of the referendum on SSM. Yes, Ireland (and most of the world) has very backward views about many aspects of humanity, these being mostly a product of our catholic ancestry. Those views are changing though, as the influence of the churches has declined greatly and we get more exposure to wider cultures. There is a great deal to be gained from diversity, but shoving diversity into the faces of the Irish is far less effective than simply allowing diverse cultures to integrate into the Irish cultures peacefully.

If we want same-sex relations to be seen on a fully equal footing we must firstly remove the prohibition on marriage. This will not solve all of those issues that you describe so powerfully in your post, but it will be another step towards integration and understanding, and that has to be good. There is no panacea for the plight of minorities whether be they cultural, linguistic, religious, sexual or racial minorities. We can encourage people to move forward at the pace they can manage.

If you're old enough to remember Larry Grayson then you've already seen a lot of change