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

30-04-2015 05:57PM

"for fear of the backlash"... what kind of interview language is this ... that says it all

marienbad · 30-04-2015 05:57PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Whether it's true or not, I'm not seeing your point. Yeah, the No side are lying. I'm not sure of the relevance for this thread.

I take that poster's point completely . The campaigners don't get to decide what is relevant - the electorate do . And they have decided that children and adoption are relevant . The no side must have known this from their private polling , hence their negative campaign.

It is irrelevant that it is a heap of lies , that these issues are unconnected, that in any case all such adoption issues are covered under legislation in effect in May etc. etc. ad nauseam .

They are now part of the campaign whether we like it or not and we need to deal with that and concentrate on putting the record straight instead of alienating people that hold these views

seamus · 30-04-2015 06:00PM

If you hold and express the kind of opinion that you think could lose you your job, then you may want to reassess either your opinion, your job, or the wisdom of expressing that opinion at work.

If I was to sit in the canteen and say that I think black people shouldn't be allowed marry white people, I'm pretty sure I would lose my job. And with good cause.

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 06:01PM

marienbad wrote: »

I take that poster's point completely . The campaigners don't get to decide what is relevant - the electorate do . And they have decided that children and adoption are relevant . The no side must have known this from their private polling , hence their negative campaign.

It is irrelevant that it is a heap of lies , that these issues are unconnected, that in any case all such adoption issues are covered under legislation in effect in May etc. etc. ad nauseam .

They are now part of the campaign whether we like it or not and we need to deal with that and concentrate on putting the record straight instead of alienating people that hold these views

The electorate told MFM to do those posters?

jobbridge4life · 30-04-2015 06:02PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So now the topic is shifting to paranoid of persecution against those who vote no: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/supporters-of-no-vote-worried-that-vengeful-yes-campaign-will-cost-them-their-jobs-675077.html

Its a fiction, another utterly unsubstantiated claim by the no side setting themselves up as victims. Genuinely sickening when you consider the fact that under the law gay teachers can be fired for no reason other than their sexuality.

efb · 30-04-2015 06:06PM

Straight guy gets verbally assaulted

@geoffsshorts: On seeing my badge and wedding ring a no voter took it upon herself to follow me to my bus stop shouting how I wasn't really married #marref

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 06:07PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Its a fiction, another utterly unsubstantiated claim by the no side setting themselves up as victims. Genuinely sickening when you consider the fact that under the law gay teachers can be fired for no reason other than their sexuality.

They really like playing the victim.

I'm waiting for a picture of Christians being thrown to the lions if SSM gets in... not sure if it would be a vote No or Yes...:P

Zen65 · 30-04-2015 06:07PM

seamus wrote: »

If I was to sit in the canteen and say that I think black people shouldn't be allowed marry white people, I'm pretty sure I would lose my job. And with good cause.

I recall some 30 years ago a colleague at work told me he believed that married women should not be allowed work outside the home, because every married woman who worked was depriving a man from a job. He also had some very extreme views based on his faith (which was a 'Christian' faith) which were unconnected to his views on women. Pretty much from that day on I regarded him as an idiot and stopped any non-essential communication with him. In my eyes he had relegated himself to the level of people who believed they had been abducted by aliens.

househero · 30-04-2015 06:09PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Genuinely sickening when you consider the fact that under the law gay teachers can be fired for no reason other than their sexuality.

No they can't. EU employmwnt law overrides country level laws. You can't discriminate on race, religion or sexual orientation. If I was gay and I was sacked for being gay, I would hire a good lawyer and pick which Caribbean island I would like to retire on.

30-04-2015 06:09PM

How are the no/yes campaigns funded? Who printed and payed for the posters etc does anyone know?

Generic Dreadhead · 30-04-2015 06:10PM

222233 wrote: »

How are the no/yes campaigns funded? Who printed and payed for the posters etc does anyone know?

The church?

househero · 30-04-2015 06:11PM

efb wrote: »

Straight guy gets verbally assaulted

@geoffsshorts: On seeing my badge and wedding ring a no voter took it upon herself to follow me to my bus stop shouting how I wasn't really married #marref

If it happens again. Take a photo and post it on social media #viralshame

What a bigoted idiot

30-04-2015 06:11PM

Im curious as bakers etc can refuse to make cakes but printers are allowed to print posters regarding surrogacy? Which are actually attacking anyone who is infertile and considers surrogacy...

Peist2007 · 30-04-2015 06:13PM

househero wrote: »

I was curious. I understand some people would vote no because of their religious beliefs. But I don't understand why anybody else would vote no.

Even the religious belief argument is a cop out because those religious beliefs are founded in homophobia. Deciding that homosexuals are dirty and evil because the clergy decided as such centuries ago is almost too ridiculous a stance for my tiny mind to comprehend. I genuinely cannot abide homophobes but i hold even greater contempt for those that like to hide their homophobia behind reasons like religious beliefs when they are all just homophobia.

househero · 30-04-2015 06:13PM

222233 wrote: »

Im curious as bakers etc can refuse to make cakes but printers are allowed to print posters regarding surrogacy? Which are actually attacking anyone who is infertile and considers surrogacy...

I'm confused by your example there

Peist2007 · 30-04-2015 06:16PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Its a fiction, another utterly unsubstantiated claim by the no side setting themselves up as victims. Genuinely sickening when you consider the fact that under the law gay teachers can be fired for no reason other than their sexuality.

And a smart route to take when you have no argument. Given the idiots who vote in referendums for "underdogs" etc

30-04-2015 06:16PM

househero wrote: »

I'm confused by your example there

I mean that the surrogacy posters which say "she needs her mother for more than just 9 months or whatever it is, are an attack at everyone, nothing to do with being heterosexual or homosexual, even though Im sure the intent was to target the homosexual community

Im curious , I would love to know what company printed these?

househero · 30-04-2015 06:19PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Even the religious belief argument is a cop out.

They always are

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Nothing about gay people

househero · 30-04-2015 06:24PM

222233 wrote: »

I mean that the surrogacy posters which say "she needs her mother for more than just 9 months or whatever it is, are an attack at everyone, nothing to do with being heterosexual or homosexual, even though Im sure the intent was to target the homosexual community

Im curious , I would love to know what company printed these?

Oh you mean there's a poster up with a surrogate mother... Yes I would agree, that doesn't make sense.

On the back of the poster, or in very small writing on the pribted side in the corner (aprox 1 inch squared) you may find the logo of the printing company. Although if it is a controversial poster,they may well have removed their own watermark so they are not associated with a negative campaign. Even if they disagree with the content they might not want to loose a big client. #politicsrunsdeep

LadyAthame · 30-04-2015 06:37PM

222233 wrote: »

Im curious as bakers etc can refuse to make cakes but printers are allowed to print posters regarding surrogacy? Which are actually attacking anyone who is infertile and considers surrogacy...

Printers I assume will print posters for either side. Remember the mobile poster parked outside Pantibar that was anti abortion? I assume the company would work for either side. Whereas the baker was refusing a service on the basis of discrimination.

K4t · 30-04-2015 06:45PM

Took a drive down past Croagh Patrick today and saw two No posters (one beside a primary school) but no sign of a Yes poster. Are there any?!

MrWalsh · 30-04-2015 06:51PM

222233 wrote: »

How are the no/yes campaigns funded? Who printed and payed for the posters etc does anyone know?

The No side is mostly funded by the same people who fund the likes of Iona.

All political parties have produced Yes posters so that's funded however their party is funded. Yes Equality have done some crowdfunding (but that hasn't gone on posters as far as I know).

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 06:51PM

K4t wrote: »

Took a drive down past Croagh Patrick today and saw two No posters (one beside a primary school) but no sign of a Yes poster. Are there any?!

Going up now around the country. The Yes Campaign doesn't have access to a seemingly bottomless pit of money unlike the No Campaign.

Might work in our favour though given the anger out there at the No posters My FB newsfeed has been lighting up today with cheers from people in rural towns announcing the arrival of a Yes poster.

pauliebdub · 30-04-2015 06:53PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So now the topic is shifting to paranoid of persecution against those who vote no: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/supporters-of-no-vote-worried-that-vengeful-yes-campaign-will-cost-them-their-jobs-675077.html

The martyrdom lines are always brought up in desperation by those losing the argument. It was also brought up during the civil partnership debate a few years back.

LadyAthame · 30-04-2015 06:55PM

noway12345 wrote: »

Not what I'm saying.

Yes but when it comes to referendums we have to vote based on our constitution.

The no side are ignoring the fact that if you want to debate about gay adoption you would need to amend the constitution to ban gay adoption rather than allow it because there is nothing preventing it. Whatever the polls say to allowing gay adoption. I think fewer people would vote to ban it than voting against a referendum to allow it. I know that seems contradictory. But the no camp would have to start a campaign to ban gay adoption. It would not fly.

We can't vote to allow something it does not prevent. They are not presenting a campaign based on the constitutional issue. They are bringing in non issues. And they are NON issues CONSTITUTIONALLY yes if people wish to vote no on a constitutional issue of gay marriage to try and stop something not in the constitution they will be disappointed. If you are voting no purely for that reason it is an ineffective vote.

The NO side are selling this ref as having possible fruition for those against gay adoption and that is dishonest. There already is gay adoption and there will never be anything in the Constitution to stop that now.

Children or the mere mention of them bring up emotions and we know it sure is not reason that is the NO sides strong point.

jobbridge4life · 30-04-2015 07:06PM

househero wrote: »

No they can't. EU employmwnt law overrides country level laws. You can't discriminate on race, religion or sexual orientation. If I was gay and I was sacked for being gay, I would hire a good lawyer and pick which Caribbean island I would like to retire on.

Really? Which explains why Section 37 remains absolutely in tact. :rolleyes:

househero · 30-04-2015 07:07PM

LadyAthame wrote: »

Yes but when it comes to referendums we have to vote based on our constitution.

The no side are ignoring the fact that if you want to debate about gay adoption you would need to amend the constitution to ban gay adoption rather than allow it because there is nothing preventing it. Whatever the polls say to allowing gay adoption. I think fewer people would vote to ban it than voting against a referendum to allow it. I know that seems contradictory. But the no camp would have to start a campaign to ban gay adoption. It would not fly.

We can't vote to allow something it does not prevent. They are not presenting a campaign based on the constitutional issue. They are bringing in non issues. And they are NON issues CONSTITUTIONALLY yes if people wish to vote no on a constitutional issue of gay marriage to try and stop something not in the constitution they will be disappointed. If you are voting no purely for that reason it is an ineffective vote.

The NO side are selling this ref as having possible fruition for those against gay adoption and that is dishonest. There already is gay adoption and there will never be anything in the Constitution to stop that now.

Children or the mere mention of them bring up emotions and we know it sure is not reason that is the NO sides strong point.

One of the best posts on this thread

K4t · 30-04-2015 07:14PM

househero wrote: »

One of the best posts on this thread

Indeed, and amidst strong competition such as..

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I will vote no in this referendum

househero · 30-04-2015 07:16PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Really? Which explains why Section 37 remains absolutely in tact. :rolleyes:

State laws are baseless if they are superseded by EU law. A country is free to implement laws contravening EU law, as long as it was introduced before the EU law. BUT if a case is brought against the state level law citing EU law as a reference, the EU law is upheld over the state level and eventually the state is forced by the EU to ammend its law to fall in line with the EU. Its usually given some time to do this. The case would be held as a reference by judges while the law is changed.

Similarly a business is free to write in to a contract it is allowed to treat you different the basis of your colour. But EU law prevents this from actually being enforced. A more extreme contract may even say you give a business the right to kill you, but once again the contract would be null and void as it is illegal to take a life.

Roll your eyes as much as you like. I guess ignorance of your rights must be bliss. Maybe you should stop reading newspapers

books are still available in your local library for free and full of increasingly forgotten information

sjb25 · 30-04-2015 07:17PM

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057422516/1/#post95291200

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

Comments