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

efb · 16-02-2015 12:20AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's separate if one believes the only difference between gay and straight is who one has sex with - which is to reduce both a being defined by nothing but sex.

Maybe for some that is true - but would you be happy that the sole criteria by how you are defined is who you have sex with?
Everything else can be abandoned as unimportant? Your culture is essentially meaningless?

That is an easy thing to advocate when you are part of the majority culture because most people don't even realise they have a culture until they find themselves removed from it. Ever hear of culture shock?

Not every person who identifies as Gay is involved in Gay culture or the Gay community - however, everyone who is able to live their lives out of the closet owes that to the Gay community and it's lack of conformity.

There has been change yes - but that change was won by those who wouldn't look 'nice' or, what that really means 'straight'. It was the diesel dykes and the drag queens who wouldn't 'pass' and chose to fight back at Stonewall who launched the Gay Liberation Movement.

It was Harvey Milk who showed we were electable.

When Thatcher brought in Clause 28 the response was Bronski Beat, Pet Shop Boys, Frankie Goes to Hollywood and a vibrant queer culture.

The man who battled to decriminalise Male homosexuality in Ireland wasn't 'nice' - he was (still is) flamboyant, prone to theatricality and has his moments of high camp.

Now, our 'Marianne' is a Drag Queen.

So what if some men are screaming queens?
Some men are beer bellied Man U fans.
Both are cultural stereotypes but only one gets accused of 'shoving it in people's faces' (effin Man U fans :mad: - gods, I hate soccer!)

To my way of thinking advocating that gay people act less 'gay' is homophobic. It is saying your cultural stereotypes are lesser/make people uncomfortable so you should act like the majority. Says more about those who get uncomfortable than those allegedly doing the 'shoving'.

Would you tell a black person to act less 'black'?
Would you tell a Jew to not use Yiddish expressions and eat that bacon and cabbage you're in Ireland now?

We are not at this point where we are holding a Referendum on SSM because Irish Gay people were 'nice' and didn't act Gay - those were the Pat Carey's of this world. We are here because Gay Irish people took the Irish government to the ECHR. We are here because Gay Irish people refused to be 'nice' and demanded to be treated as equals and many of those who lead the charge learned how to do this in the UK while fighting against the Clause and Thatcher in the 80s. We came home in the 90s because we are Irish and wanted to live in our own country and we are politically savvy and we do not intend to forget where we came from or who we are -no matter how uncomfortable our history makes people. We weren't going to change who are or what we were so Ireland had to change. And it did.

Not because we were 'nice' but because we were unashamedly out and people learned that were were not perverted quair divils but actually fabulously well dressed, artistic, good at DIY, funny, witty, charming, nice to our mammies people who knew where all the best clubs and restaurants were :pac:

For us to forget Stonewall and act 'straight' now would be akin to African -Americans forgetting Selma and acting 'white' because hey - we're all the same really....

Gay is my Sexually not my lifestyle - and I do camp

WoolyJumper · 16-02-2015 12:45AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's separate if one believes the only difference between gay and straight is who one has sex with - which is to reduce both a being defined by nothing but sex.

Maybe for some that is true - but would you be happy that the sole criteria by how you are defined is who you have sex with?
Everything else can be abandoned as unimportant? Your culture is essentially meaningless?

That is an easy thing to advocate when you are part of the majority culture because most people don't even realise they have a culture until they find themselves removed from it. Ever hear of culture shock?

Not every person who identifies as Gay is involved in Gay culture or the Gay community - however, everyone who is able to live their lives out of the closet owes that to the Gay community and it's lack of conformity.

I agree with everything you say but for me, the only difference between Gay and Straight is who you have sex with (well really who you romantically fall love with) It has impacted on my personality in so far as dealing my own struggle with my sexuality, knowing what its like to be different has perhaps made me more empathetic. But gay isn't my culture. I don't think that reduces me down solely to who I have sex with. In fact I think its quiet the opposite. Being gay is just a small part of who I am. There is so much more to me than that.

Unfortunately many in society can't see past who I sleep with. And suddenly only see me as that gay guy and begin to make all sorts of assumptions about my personality and interests.

I hope it doesn't come across as dismissing the gay community or it's importance. I know I wouldn't have the life I have today without them, and it's thanks to the hard work of gay community that I don't really need to be apart of it. It is thanks to the gay community I can live openly and I have straight family and friends that treat me like any other person.

aloyisious · 16-02-2015 01:02AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not a distorted view though. Unless they had straight people pretending to be gay it wouldn't be distorted. Besides no one would even detect that gay people were being whitewashed.

Just the sudden gap in the ranks when gay men with (visible) tattoos and body piercings were "whitewashed" out of the picture.

walshyn93 · 16-02-2015 01:08AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Just the sudden gap in the ranks when gay men with (visible) tattoos and body piercings were "whitewashed" out of the picture.

What ranks?

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2015 10:00AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

My argument is that it's best to represent them in a way that appeals to traditional notions of normality for the sake of securing the maximum possible number of votes and Yes voter turnout.

You have not made a sound argument, you have just stated this proposition over and over again. If you actually want to make an argument, you need to start from generally accepted premises, and derive your proposition from them. You are starting with premises which are just as contentious and objectionable as your conclusion:

You have not established that tattooed beardy gays on the cover of the Irish Times will cause swing voters to vote No.

You have not established that clean cut gays who look like hetero advertising models will cause swing voters to vote Yes.

Even if we pretend you did, your argument ignores the fact that beardy-tattooed guys may have positive effects for a Yes campaign which make up for it:

For yes voter turnout, you have ignored the possibility that an "in-your-face" campaign may be more effective at mobilizing Yes voters.

You have ignored the possibility that getting up the noses of SSM opponents may cause them to say or do things which reveal their true nastiness, turning off swing voters and firing up the Yes base.

So, you have not shown that your tattoo-beardy premise is true, and you have ignored the fact that even if it is true, there are other reasons for showing in-your-face gays as part of a campaign.

D-

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2015 10:04AM

Zen65 wrote: »

I'm saying PR companies don't use ugly people

So now those two tattooed beardy guys are ugly?

Aren't you a charmer.

Zen65 · 16-02-2015 06:00PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So now those two tattooed beardy guys are ugly?

Aren't you a charmer.

I said no such thing. I pointed out the obvious truth that PR companies - whose business it is to know how to influence people - do not use ugly people. It's an obvious truth. It's not for me to say who is or is not ugly, but if you were honest with yourself you'd have to admit that the couple on the front of the IT would not get rated highly by the general public for their appearance. However deeply emotional the crusade for acceptance of SSM is to you, or to me, it is the general public that will decide if this law changes.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You have not established that tattooed beardy gays on the cover of the Irish Times will cause swing voters to vote No.

You have not established that clean cut gays who look like hetero advertising models will cause swing voters to vote Yes.

I think it has been universally agreed even on this thread that neither of the above scenarios are likely to be true, and indeed I do not recall anyone saying otherwise. What has been said, and is proven through social experimentation, is that people identify and empathise most strongly with other people who look, dress and behave most like themselves, and share common values. Straight and gay communities share more in common than they hold different. Emphasising shared values has a track record of helping to broker agreements, whereas highlighting differences has no such track record.

At the end of the day, for this referendum to pass, straight people need to do more than just agree with SSM. They need to do more than click on a vote button that stares at them on their computer screens; they need to make the effort to go to a polling station and vote for the rights of somebody else. Getting large numbers to vote for this will be an effort. The 'easy' polls show a large 'yes' majority, but the referendum will probably have a low turnout and I predict a much closer vote.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's separate if one believes the only difference between gay and straight is who one has sex with - which is to reduce both a being defined by nothing but sex.

You post more eloquently than me, with a passion for the subject matter which I cannot match, so I will not debate the bulk of your post. Frankly I agree with most of it.

But the SSM referendum is not about gay vs straight. It's not about the cultures. Those things do not need to be voted on. Gay culture, like black culture, atheist culture, anglo-culture or teen culture is already legal. What's missing is legal acceptance of SSM. That is what the referendum is about and that's where the debate needs to focus.

When divorce was being put to the country for a referendum (twice - because the first one failed despite the popularity of the concept) nobody focussed on 'divorce culture' except those who wished to prevent it from being passed. We were told that the culture of divorce would lead to women being forced to accept divorce against their will, and farms being split up into unmanageably small holdings as men remarried and possibly started having second and third families all over the place. Debating 'culture' when the issue at stake is 'rights' does not serve the LGBTi community well.

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2015 06:26PM

Zen65 wrote: »

if you were honest with yourself you'd have to admit that the couple on the front of the IT would not get rated highly by the general public for their appearance.

So you aren't saying they're ugly, just that the general public thinks they're ugly, and if I don't agree with you, I'm not being honest?

Well, I am being honest with myself, those guys are not ugly, and I don't think the general public would think they are.

Those two look unconventional, with the tattoos, but mostly what they look is gay and happy about it.

And as stated a lot earlier in the thread, if a voter has such a negative reaction to a happy same-sex couple that they'd vote no, they are not a swing voter: they are a No voter. And more than a little bit bigoted, whether it's against gays, beards, tattoos or happy couples.

jobbridge4life · 16-02-2015 06:32PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you aren't saying they're ugly, just that the general public thinks they're ugly, and if I don't agree with you, I'm not being honest?

Well, I am being honest with myself, those guys are not ugly, and I don't think the general public would think they are.

Those two look unconventional, with the tattoos, but mostly what they look is gay and happy about it.

Agree 100%

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And as stated a lot earlier in the thread, if a voter has such a negative reaction to a happy same-sex couple that they'd vote no, they are not a swing voter: they are a No voter. And more than a little bit bigoted, whether it's against gays, beards, tattoos or happy couples.

Regretfully disagree 100%.

K4t · 16-02-2015 07:46PM

hondaguy01 wrote: »

This state is called a republic, and as i believe in a republic thn fairness and equality applies to all.

The NO side and possible NO voters are so caught up in their own sense of what is right and proper that they can't open their minds to the fact, that by voting NO they are voting AGAINST themselves.

And what drives that type of mentality and mind set is religion, and the infallible nature of Catholicism. And it's why you will even see non-Catholics and even those who call themselves atheists unsure on things like SSM. The Church's influence and power may have declined, but it will take centuries for that way of thinking to disappear: The want for CONTROL of others: See Abortion next.

jobbridge4life · 16-02-2015 07:52PM

K4t wrote: »

And what drives that type of mentality and mind set is religion, and the infallible nature of Catholicism. And it's why you will even see non-Catholics and even those who call themselves atheists unsure on things like SSM. The Church's influence and power may have declined, but it will take centuries for that way of thinking to disappear: The want for CONTROL of others: See Abortion next.

You see as a practicing Catholic, gay, seven year long partner In just can not accept the above. K4T the whole nature of Catholicism is not infallibility, its universality. Catholics are the sole major Christian religion that acknowledges the Bible as fallible, as not the sole truth of Christ. We're slow. Super slow. But we are not immovable.

K4t · 16-02-2015 07:59PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You see as a practicing Catholic, gay, seven year long partner In just can not accept the above. K4T the whole nature of Catholicism is not infallibility, its universality. Catholics are the sole major Christian religion that acknowledges the Bible as fallible, as not the sole truth of Christ. We're slow. Super slow. But we are not immovable.

You can choose to believe in the good parts of religion and compartmentalize all you want, a lot more intelligent people than me do and have done for generations, but humanity, especially the western world, would be better off without religion; and certainly Ireland over the last fifty years would have been. Just because something is slowly improving on the surface, does not mean it is good, or that the things at its core are not still evil. I don't want to get into a religion debate, I was just making an observation, and I think it has more than merit in a country with our religious past and present.

jobbridge4life · 16-02-2015 08:27PM

K4t wrote: »

You can choose to believe in the good parts of religion and compartmentalize all you want, a lot more intelligent people than me do and have done for generations, but humanity, especially the western world, would be better off without religion; and certainly Ireland over the last fifty years would have been. Just because something is slowly improving on the surface, does not mean it is good, or that the things at its core are not still evil. I don't want to get into a religion debate, I was just making an observation, and I think it has more than merit in a country with our religious past and present.

You are free to call it compartmentalizing or whatever else. I certainly don't deny a struggle between rational and irrational sides. As to which side I would ascribe the greater intelligence I really cannot say.

I neither claim to know nor deny the full extent of the damage that Catholicism and catholicism have perpetrated or 'achieved'. I was replying to the very specific claim I highlighted. Full facts.

wupucus · 16-02-2015 08:46PM

Well, I am being honest with myself, those guys are not ugly, and I don't think the general public would think they are.

Those two look unconventional, with the tattoos, but mostly what they look is gay and happy about it.

I lost my breakfast seeing those pair first thing in the morning- ugly does not cover it !!!!!

Nodin · 16-02-2015 08:58PM

wupucus wrote: »

Well, I am being honest with myself, those guys are not ugly, and I don't think the general public would think they are.

Those two look unconventional, with the tattoos, but mostly what they look is gay and happy about it.

I lost my breakfast seeing those pair first thing in the morning- ugly does not cover it !!!!!

?

K4t · 16-02-2015 09:00PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You are free to call it compartmentalizing or whatever else. I certainly don't deny a struggle between rational and irrational sides. As to which side I would ascribe the greater intelligence I really cannot say.

I neither claim to know nor deny the full extent of the damage that Catholicism and catholicism have perpetrated or 'achieved'. I was replying to the very specific claim I highlighted. Full facts.

The NO side and possible NO voters in the SSM debate are so caught up in their own sense of what is right and proper that they can't open their minds to the fact, that by voting NO they are voting AGAINST themselves. They are voting against a potential time in history or in the future when they may be the ones without equal rights, when they may be the ones discriminated against under the law. Now religion and the Catholic Church's control and influence over Ireland for centuries explains the strong opponents, the IONA's and so on, but what affects the young heterosexual men and women or the atheists who won't even bother to turn out and vote in the referendum? Well, that is ironically enough explained by the very freedoms we enjoy each and every day living in a democracy, and the majority of Irish people have done for their entire lives. They do not see the wider picture and they do not see that it could just as easily be the other way; not that they could have been gay or attracted to the same sex, but that without the very freedom and right they have in being allowed to vote, they could be in a lot worse off a position right now than gay people in Ireland looking for equality under the law.

Zen65 · 17-02-2015 01:05AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you aren't saying they're ugly, just that the general public thinks they're ugly, and if I don't agree with you, I'm not being honest?

No. "Ugly" is very much your word, not mine. In over 2,000 posts here on Boards I think I have only ever used the word 'ugly' in reference to my own features . . . and that was intended as an exaggeration for the purposes of self-deprecating humour. The IT cover couple are not ugly, but neither are they attractive to the majority of people. There's a lot of intermediate points on the scale between 'ugly' and 'attractive'.

You already have evidence from the reaction to the photo from people here (most of whom support SSM) that the couple in the picture are by no means 'easy on the eye'. Moreover, the image is representative of a couple very far off mainstream, and despite what you may think, most gay people are not in fact far off mainstream in their appearance, nor in their societal values, nor in fact in any way except that they love somebody of the same sex. Using that tattooed couple to promote the idea that SSM should be normalised is as strategic as using '50 Shades of Grey' to promote sex education in schools. It is irrelevant that BDSM is a real part of heterosexual culture. . . the book is a poor advert for sex education.

K4t · 17-02-2015 02:42AM

There's a thread in the atheist forum and the title is GAY marriage, which I just thought was a bit funny, considering it's in fact SAME-SEX marriage that people vote on and bring into law; gay people can already get married of course, even to other gay people!

But it did make me realise, and another poster convinced me with a great post, that this really needs to be seen more as a Human Rights issue, rather than a Gay Rights issue. The majority of gay people will vote for this, that's a given. (And that some gay people are against it proves my point even more) The people that we really need to vote are those who tick yes on online polls and who don't see anything wrong with guys or girls marrying each other, but who won't bother going out and voting on the day; they might think it's just a gays' issue or they might think their vote won't be needed and so on. These people must be made aware that this is a Human Rights issue and that they are voting YES for their fellow human beings! For themselves! All Irish people must be convinced of how important this referendum is, not just for gay people, but for humans, and human rights, and themselves.

Zubeneschamali · 17-02-2015 10:27AM

Zen65 wrote: »

You already have evidence from the reaction to the photo from people here (most of whom support SSM) that the couple in the picture are by no means 'easy on the eye'.

If the IT ran a photo of either of them on their own, because of a feature on tattoos, or beards , or stamp collecting , no-one would pass any remarks. No-one would say "It turned my stomach to see that beardy tattooed stamp collector on the IT before I even had my breakfast".

No-one would be saying they were a bad advert for stamp collecting, or not easy on the eye, or not rated highly for appearance or any other polite version of "disgusting".

The reason people are talking this way is because thay are on the cover as a "happy couple", and people are used to seeing a stereotypical pair of models pretending to be heterosexual. Soft bigotry.

floggg · 17-02-2015 12:54PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Strawman.

Whether or not it is incredibly insulting is irrelevant really. You didn't honestly think you could get through this campaign with your feelings intact did you?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Another strawman.

How do you expect there to be a high level of debate wherein people can say their piece without being ignorant or deliberately insulting if you can't do anything other than put words in my mouth?

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. See here - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was correctly characterising the argument that the inclusion of lgbt couples in the media, such as those in the magazine cover referred to, would harm lgbt acceptance and a yes vote as flawed and insulting.

Whether I am surprised by the fact that insulting statments were made (I'm not) doesn't alter the position.

And while you may be correct that some people may find the idea of lgbt equality more palatable as long as we stay out of sight and out of mind, if we can only win equality by staying the the shadows, then we lose in a different way.

Edit - It's not even the argument that your making which is so irritating, as there is some truth to it unfortunately.

It's the way that the requirement to beg, plead and pander in order just to be seen as equal is being presented by some as a reasonable ask, rather than acknowledging that it's an unfortunate and demeaning reality which we are being faced with.

Nobody should be asked to plead for equality, and the fact that we are having to do so is wrong, even if it's the reality we are now faced with.

floggg · 17-02-2015 03:31PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

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.

Promoting difference? Do you mean diversity?

If they were trying to send a message with the cover, it was likely to be that relationships comes in all shapes and forms, but ultimately they are all built on the same love.

aloyisious · 17-02-2015 04:43PM

floggg wrote: »

Promoting difference? Do you mean diversity?

If they were trying to send a message with the cover, it was likely to be that relationships comes in all shapes and forms, but ultimately they are all built on the same love.

Peculiarly enough, that was what the Irish Times were aiming at. There were 4 couples in the article, only of which was gay (the cover couple) the other 3 being straight. It was about the different development levels their relationships were at.

floggg · 17-02-2015 04:58PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

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

So you agree with me.

We can agree gay people would face less discrimination if they acted less gay. Equally we could argue that Muslims might face less discrimination if they became Christians.

That doesn't mean that either gay people or Muslims should ever have to change who they are to be accepted.

Rightwing · 17-02-2015 04:59PM

I'll vote No.

K4t · 17-02-2015 05:06PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'll vote No.

Why would you vote against yourself and your own equal rights?

marienbad · 17-02-2015 05:08PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'll vote No.

Any particular reason why ?

Rightwing · 17-02-2015 05:09PM

K4t wrote: »

Why would you vote against yourself and your own equal rights?

I'm not enamoured with homosexuals.

Furthermore, we shouldn't be encouraging it and leading them on.

Zubeneschamali · 17-02-2015 05:12PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not enamoured with homosexuals.

It is not proposed to allow you to marry more than one.

Nodin · 17-02-2015 05:13PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not enamoured with homosexuals. .

I can think of a number of people I'm not enamoured with, but feel no need to discriminate against them in law.

Rightwing wrote: »

Furthermore, we shouldn't be encouraging it
.

It's not a fashion. Its also legal.

marienbad · 17-02-2015 05:17PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not enamoured with homosexuals.

Furthermore, we shouldn't be encouraging it and leading them on.

You are taking the p*&* surely, you must be ?

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

Comments