Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 11-04-2015 05:03PM

No voters might get the impression that they're being silenced or whatever, I think in most cases it's just that they're in the overwhelming minority in their opinion. The people who disagree with them outnumber them, that's not the same as their views being oppressed, though there can certainly be some rather nasty language used by them.

Of course, no voters don't help themselves by repeatedly demonstrating that they know sfa about what they're voting no to. Case in point, this fcuking thread. Also, it's a rare No voter who will explain the reason why they are voting no rather than the reasons they aren't ("I'm not religious" and "I'm not homophobic" being the main two), or explain them beyond "Marriage is between a man and a woman because it just is and I'm entitled to my belief and help, I'm being oppressed!". No voters have ample opportunity to explain their reasons, but they prefer to use those opportunities to complain about how they're never given any opportunities.

shruikan2553 · 11-04-2015 05:06PM

conorhal wrote: »

Iona have more access I suspect because they're the 'go to crowd for the no side' whenever RTE need a comment, and nobody else is prepared to stick their head above the parapet.
On line is really the only place you tend to see the no side creep out, protected by the anonymity it affords then, and you don't get a lot discussion or political discourse from trolling homophobes. But then the internet can be a nasty place and not the best forum for debate.

I was actually debating SSM with a co-worker over coffee who quietly told me that she intends on voting no and who said that it was refreshing to have an open debate about it, because she felt as if no voters could only really talk to those they can unequivocally trust, she wouldn't even talk about it with her sister who's a fervent yes voter.
Whether you buy it or not, if someone publically voices a negative opinion on SSM, the truth is that they can expect more then a robust debate. They can expect to be the subject of a pervasive on line hate campaign, they might loose their job or be blacklisted from a variety of institutions. She said that telling somebody you're a no voter is like telling somebody that you're a communist in the 1950's.
I think I actually made a lot of points in favour that in the end she agreed with, which is a positive approach, rather then simply bullying people into silence and I've met a few yes campaigners that are more then a little perturbed by the actions of some on their side.

Its quite ironic for people who intend to vote no be afraid of being treated lesser for being different.

conorhal · 11-04-2015 05:10PM

Ismael Incalculable Feet wrote: »

No voters might get the impression that they're being silenced or whatever, I think in most cases it's just that they're in the overwhelming minority in their opinion. The people who disagree with them outnumber them, that's not the same as their views being oppressed, though there can certainly be some rather nasty language used by them.

Of course, no voters don't help themselves by repeatedly demonstrating that they know sfa about what they're voting no to. Case in point, this fcuking thread. Also, it's a rare No voter who will explain the reason why they are voting no rather than the reasons they aren't ("I'm not religious" and "I'm not homophobic" being the main two), or explain them beyond "Marriage is between a man and a woman because it just is and I'm entitled to my belief and help, I'm being oppressed!". No voters have ample opportunity to explain their reasons, but they prefer to use those opportunities to complain about how they're never given any opportunities.

Well for a variety of reasons that I outlined above I don't believe that to be true.
Case in point:

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Hardly silenced, they just spend more time playing victim whenever they get their chance.
Lets spare a thought for neo nazis and the KKK. When was the last time they have had someone explain their side on TV?

Now I know my parents will be voting no, and I have a hard time picturing them wearing comical sheets or swastika armbands, in fact I've never heard them utter a homophobic remark, ever. But that's the level of discourse that they face.
I also suspect you're wrong about the numbers too, as a result of that muted discourse. Like I said, I expect the vote to pass 60-40 in favour. 40% of people isn't a tiny minority, though the lack of any open debate or opposition might lead you to assume that. The tiny minority are the open homophobes who seem to be the only ones midnight postering the city or distributing leaflets, and I doubt that they represent the majority of no voters like my co-worker or my folks.

conorhal · 11-04-2015 05:12PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its quite ironic for people who intend to vote no be afraid of being treated lesser for being different.

What's ironic is to be subject to that sort of abuse from the same people that suffered it.

shruikan2553 · 11-04-2015 05:14PM

conorhal wrote: »

What's ironic is to be subject to that sort of abuse from the same people that suffered it.

Luckily for them nobody is actively trying to have them treated as lesser from the state.

Person 1: Im going to actively make sure you arent treated as equal to me
Person 2: gees, thats a bit of a dick move. What did I do to you?
Person 1: Help, im being oppressed! They're being mean to me and trying to silence me

Anita Blow · 11-04-2015 05:19PM

conorhal wrote: »

What's ironic is to be subject to that sort of abuse from the same people that suffered it.

"Suffered" it? You mean still suffering it? And subject to people like them who are actively seeking to continue to make gay people suffer it?

As a gay person myself, apologies if I don't sympathise with them. It's not them who are having their rights debated so publicly over and hearing absolute vile arguments about your ability to parent or love.

pablomakaveli · 11-04-2015 05:22PM

Ismael Incalculable Feet wrote: »

Of course, no voters don't help themselves by repeatedly demonstrating that they know sfa about what they're voting no to. Case in point, this fcuking thread. Also, it's a rare No voter who will explain the reason why they are voting no rather than the reasons they aren't ("I'm not religious" and "I'm not homophobic" being the main two), or explain them beyond "Marriage is between a man and a woman because it just is and I'm entitled to my belief and help, I'm being oppressed!". No voters have ample opportunity to explain their reasons, but they prefer to use those opportunities to complain about how they're never given any opportunities.

Tbf i haven't heard one valid reason from the no side for voting no.

zeffabelli · 11-04-2015 05:23PM

So the straight men are on marriage strike but the gay ones want to get hitched?

What is going on?

20Cent · 11-04-2015 05:26PM

conorhal wrote: »

Iona have more access I suspect because they're the 'go to crowd for the no side' whenever RTE need a comment, and nobody else is prepared to stick their head above the parapet.
On line is really the only place you tend to see the no side creep out, protected by the anonymity it affords then, and you don't get a lot discussion or political discourse from trolling homophobes. But then the internet can be a nasty place and not the best forum for debate.

I was actually debating SSM with a co-worker over coffee who quietly told me that she intends on voting no and who said that it was refreshing to have an open debate about it, because she felt as if no voters could only really talk to those they can unequivocally trust, she wouldn't even talk about it with her sister who's a fervent yes voter.
Whether you buy it or not, if someone publically voices a negative opinion on SSM, the truth is that they can expect more then a robust debate. They can expect to be the subject of a pervasive on line hate campaign, they might loose their job or be blacklisted from a variety of institutions. She said that telling somebody you're a no voter is like telling somebody that you're a communist in the 1950's.
I think I actually made a lot of points in favour that in the end she agreed with, which is a positive approach, rather then simply bullying people into silence and I've met a few yes campaigners that are more then a little perturbed by the actions of some on their side.

Don't think Iona is getting most of the attention because others don't want to "stick their head above the parapet" its because they are practically the only ones campaigning against it. (though they aren't supposed to campaign in referendums for their charity status). Think RTE have problems finding people to balance debates because there really isn't anyone against it. Iona have had to use Paddy Manning a blogger to go on shows.

Thoie · 11-04-2015 05:35PM

indy_man wrote: »

He is well informed, well balanced and feels balance is needed also in a child's life.

In the first few minutes he's said "our side" (and stressed it) at least 3 times. That's not at all balanced, but I'll keep watching. So far I haven't seen anything that shows he more than averagely informed, but it's only the start.

conorhal · 11-04-2015 05:35PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

"Suffered" it? You mean still suffering it? And subject to people like them who are actively seeking to continue to make gay people suffer it?

As a gay person myself, apologies if I don't sympathise with them. It's not them who are having their rights debated so publicly over and hearing absolute vile arguments about your ability to parent or love.

I don't disagree with you. I do however think debate is important, however painful, it must be had. That is the nature of democracy. It's often disagreeable and ugly, but the alternative is silence and autocracy, we have enough of that from our current government as it stands.

pmasterson95 · 11-04-2015 05:45PM

I think I get what conorhal is saying. You cant publicly say you're voting no or else you will be bombarded with why your wrong or labeled a bigot.

Uncle Ruckus · 11-04-2015 05:51PM

Wow lots of these types of threads popping up recently. The Jebus brigade must be getting desperate-the death throes of a wounded beast.

lazygal · 11-04-2015 05:56PM

Is that the same David Quinn who's robbed two children of the right to biological parents by adopting them from another country? And thinks if you're rich enough you should be able to circumvent the adoption checks?

Thoie · 11-04-2015 06:01PM

3:35 - Non sequitir "If there are no families there can be no society and that's obvious"
4:54 - Another non sequitir. He says (mostly correctly) that only a man and a woman can have a child. However he is then making a leap in logic that only that same man and woman can raise that child, which is patently nonsensical.
5:31 - The preceding sentence could be reconstructed to say "if the referendum goes through, we would be saying all people are equal". His tone of voice suggests that this is something abhorrent. He calls it a legal fiction that the marriage of two men is just as fundamental to society as the marriage of a man and a woman. He is once again ignoring the fact the the family unit, considered fundamental to society (which is a different argument) is not all about children. A family unit can contain children, but does not have to, and often doesn't. Similarly, a family unit can contain two adults, but doesn't have to.

By the 7 minute mark he has used his own definitions of what he believes marriage to be to make his argument for him (Tautology, for those keeping track of bad debating/speaking techniques).

Over a fifth of the way through his talk, he has not come across as either well informed (other than in bad debating techniques) or balanced, so I don't see any point in continuing.

Anita Blow · 11-04-2015 06:33PM

conorhal wrote: »

I don't disagree with you. I do however think debate is important, however painful, it must be had. That is the nature of democracy. It's often disagreeable and ugly, but the alternative is silence and autocracy, we have enough of that from our current government as it stands.

I do agree with you. However the no side have yet to come out with a single credible argument. Debate is good for issues like this, but only if it informed.

With regards to your co-worker and parents who are voting no, I thought Panti Bliss summed it up perfectly. You see these people who are otherwise really good people that you'd get along with and have no reason to dislike, and you hear them debating about why you as a person don't deserve to be treated equally. Why you as a person would be an unfit parent or why you, because of something inherent within yourself, are disgusting. And then you're told that you should be lucky and accept this because hey, you're not getting stoned in the middle east or beat up in Russia. I mean, I'm lucky that I'm out and comfortable within myself. But I cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll that especially takes on young gay teenagers out there who are afraid themselves to come out or accept who they are.

Anybody who has, or plans to have kids, has to accept the possibility that they may be gay. And just as you made a vow to your husband/wife that you'd love them til' death do you part, you make that same commitment to you children. And come May 22nd everyone should be confident in making a decision they can stand by should their child come out to them in the future.

seamus · 11-04-2015 07:11PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

You cant publicly say you're voting no or else you will be bombarded with why your wrong or labeled a bigot.

If you don't feel capable of defending your opinion without appearing to be a bigot, then don't express your opinion. Simple as.

You have a right to hold an opinion, you don't have a right to have your opinion protected from being challenged.

fran17 · 11-04-2015 07:13PM

indy_man wrote: »

If you get to watch all this are you still 100% sure redefining marriage in our constitution is the correct thing to do? It would be best if you watched it before slamming it, if you don't watch it at all probably best not comment.

Rather amusing indeed.Even if one was to view the video,which is the subject which this thread is based on,immediately after its posting it would be 35 minutes before an informed and thought through reply could be given. Yet all the "big hitters" on the topic have made there arguments within 15 minutes.The usual bully boy tactics straight from the lgbtq playbook.This form of nasty abuse has cost the yes campaign a significant amount of percentage points thus far and this will only rise.
A very educational and informed piece by David Quinn and I would encourage everyone to listen to it.I know 35 minutes is a bit of a stretch for many but this is our constitution were talking about and this referendum,if passed,can change what the family and our nations children's place in our constitution mean forever.

etymon · 11-04-2015 07:17PM

33% of our kids are overweight or obese. That's a bit more worrying stigma-wise I'd say.

Ave Sodalis · 11-04-2015 07:20PM

fran17 wrote: »

Rather amusing indeed.Even if one was to view the video,which is the subject which this thread is based on,immediately after its posting it would be 35 minutes before an informed and thought through reply could be given. Yet all the "big hitters" on the topic have made there arguments within 15 minutes.The usual bully boy tactics straight from the lgbtq playbook.This form of nasty abuse has cost the yes campaign a significant amount of percentage points thus far and this will only rise.
A very educational and informed piece by David Quinn and I would encourage everyone to listen to it.I know 35 minutes is a bit of a stretch for many but this is our constitution were talking about and this referendum,if passed,can change what the family and our nations children's place in our constitution mean forever.

Well in fairness Fran, you've made your stance on the referendum remarkably clear and even if the video was speaking a different language and it was titled "Vote No", you'd still write what you have there.

seamus · 11-04-2015 07:26PM

fran17 wrote: »

The usual bully boy tactics straight from the lgbtq playbook.

So 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from a book of fairytales is insightful and listen-worthy, but if you dare challenge his opinions you're a bully.

Standard victim playing straight from the Catholic playbook.

http://www.yoism.org/images/addiscartoon.jpg

David Quinn's hateful nonsense is well publicised. If he has magically come up with a new opinion that's rational and worth hearing, he can put it into a single paragraph, it doesn't need a 35 minute speech.

The fact stands that this referendum has nothing to do with children, so mentioning children immediately proves that the speaker doesn't understand what the referendum is about.

Hermy · 11-04-2015 07:41PM

I decided to have a listen and within 18 seconds David Quinn says "our side" and that was enough for me.

shruikan2553 · 11-04-2015 07:46PM

Its david quinn. Anything he says can be summarised to "The vatican says this is good/bad so it is good/bad." Anything else he says is full of flaws because he has to make up something as one line isnt enough.

PopePalpatine · 11-04-2015 07:50PM

seamus wrote: »

So 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from a book of fairytales is insightful and listen-worthy, but if you dare challenge his opinions you're a bully.

I've a feeling fran's little more than a keyboard warrior who's afraid de gheys are going to take away his favourite Call of Duty insult.

fran17 · 11-04-2015 08:01PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Well in fairness Fran, you've made your stance on the referendum remarkably clear and even if the video was speaking a different language and it was titled "Vote No", you'd still write what you have there.

But you didn't even watch the video,the video this thread is about,before making comment on its contents.

fran17 · 11-04-2015 08:04PM

seamus wrote: »

So 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from a book of fairytales is insightful and listen-worthy, but if you dare challenge his opinions you're a bully.

Standard victim playing straight from the Catholic playbook.

http://www.yoism.org/images/addiscartoon.jpg

David Quinn's hateful nonsense is well publicised. If he has magically come up with a new opinion that's rational and worth hearing, he can put it into a single paragraph, it doesn't need a 35 minute speech.

The fact stands that this referendum has nothing to do with children, so mentioning children immediately proves that the speaker doesn't understand what the referendum is about.

There is little or no reference to the Bible or religion in the video,you cant make judgements on a topic without understanding the topic.You guys really are on autopilot tonight.

PopePalpatine · 11-04-2015 08:08PM

fran17 wrote: »

But you didn't even watch the video,the video this thread is about,before making comment on its contents.

You must have missed (or more likely ignored) oldrnwisr tearing Quinn's bullshit to shreds.

JaseBelleVie · 11-04-2015 08:09PM

Most of the "No" side have probably never met a gay person before. I've a feeling that if most of the big, virulent, anti-gay people actually sat down and had a normal conversation with an average gay person, they would find that there is S.F.A. difference between the average gay person and the average straight person. They just happen to fancy members of the same sex, instead of members of the opposite sex. Aesthetics, really.

I've a huge amount of gay friends and I can safely say that my life is so much richer and better for having known them, having spent a great deal of my time with them, having had some very emotional and passionate conversations with them and having them as my friends. I even dislike the term "gay friends". They're not. They're my friends. They just happen to be gay too. And most of them are in long-term, loving relationships with their partners.

The core of this referendum is human rights. It is about us, the straight majority, saying to the LGBT minority "We respect you. We respect your love. We respect your right to have that love recognised by the State. We are going to treat you like human beings, not as subhumans, as we have done for far too long." The large majority of people in this country are straight and they are going to be the ones who decide the outcome of this election. The LGBT community are a sizable minority, but a minority nonetheless. They cannot win this on their own. They need the good, decent, honest and moral people of this country to do the right thing. To stand up with their brothers and sisters and give to them the greatest gift that can be bestowed upon them.

This referendum is the greatest opportunity in nearly 20 years for Ireland to show the world how far we have come. 20 years ago, divorce was still illegal in this country. 22 years ago, just being gay was a crime. We have come on in leaps and bounds in the past 2 decades, but there is still a long way to go.

This is not just about marriage equality. This is about human rights. It is about giving a downtrodden minority equality in the eyes of the law/State. It is about doing the right thing and giving people's love for one another legal recognition.

It has nothing to do with anything else. It is very simple. Look into your heart, do the right thing and give love a chance. It is the very least we can do.

Shrap · 11-04-2015 08:14PM

fran17 wrote: »

There is little or no reference to the Bible or religion in the video,you cant make judgements on a topic without understanding the topic.You guys really are on autopilot tonight.

Why wouldn't you be on autopilot having to listen to the done-to-death baseless arguments David Quinn spews forth? Haven't we heard them often enough?

Is there anything new? Nope.
Does he carefully avoid bible references? Yup.
Does he appeal to "reason"? I expect so. Oh wait...no, that's usually Ronan Mullen's trick.
Does he mention "tradition" a lot and families requiring a mother and a father in his view (thereby devaluing every single parent and gay family in the country)?
Yes? Ok then.

Shrap · 11-04-2015 08:14PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You must have missed (or more likely ignored) oldrnwisr tearing Quinn's bullshit to shreds.

Ooh, I missed that one. Must go educate myself still further..... :cool:

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments