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

floggg · 07-05-2015 09:50AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Doesn't need an amendment. On tax, it's substantially done by civil partnership.

You cannot have absolute equality between marriage and CP as long as marriage is constitutionally protected and CP is not.

Also, separate but equal is a nonsense argument and nothing but an excuse to discriminate.

sjb25 · 07-05-2015 09:50AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Lol at Mattie McGrath backing the "vote no" campaign....... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/miriam-lord-mattie-s-on-the-dossier-but-he-s-no-yes-man-1.2202629

Lol at Paul keogh "you are looking at it upside down they are putting posters up"

smash · 07-05-2015 09:50AM

floggg wrote: »

It pisses me off that the Yes side seem to be trying to steer the conversation away from this argument, rather than just blasting it out of the water.

The Yes side have blasted it out of the water and it keeps coming back because it's THE ONLY argument the no side have, even if it's false. We can't go physically and beat the ignorance out of them, and to tackle them on an intellectual level seems to be failing because they just don't get it. It's all they have to hold on to.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 09:50AM

Shrap wrote: »

It sickens ME that one side (and I'll leave you to guess which) claimed that they were only spending 150,000 on their entire advertising campaign (posters and youtube combined) and have somehow managed to poster every small village in the country, every busy intersection in cities and have an ad playing for every youtube view.

Whould you prefer a communist dictatorship where people weren't allowed freedom of speech. Should only one side be allowed to put up posters?

MrWalsh · 07-05-2015 09:54AM

gravehold wrote: »

Whould you prefer a communist dictatorship where people weren't allowed freedom of speech. Should only one side be allowed to put up posters?

Id like if both sides were required to spend the same amount on posters and actually put up truthful posters.

floggg · 07-05-2015 09:55AM

smash wrote: »

Have to agree. I usually like him but he was brutal tonight. He let the debate go completely off topic and there didn't seem to be a clear agenda.

Vincent Browne is a great in a panel discussion but terrible in a debate. He is to convinced of his own importance to play the role of a neutral and impartial moderator.

There was a few points he actually seemed to get angry with George Hook of all people, who was simply trying to be a moderate voice (even if he didn't have enough knowledge of the issues to be effective).

You could also see him just giving up at times in trying to get Kathy Synnot to stay on topic.

He is only good when he is able to insert his own opinion into the debate himself, and argue his point of view whichever way he likes. He is utterly unsuited to being an impartial moderator though.

swampgas · 07-05-2015 09:56AM

gravehold wrote: »

Whould you prefer a communist dictatorship where people weren't allowed freedom of speech. Should only one side be allowed to put up posters?

I think the concern is that Ireland has become a proxy battlefield for US interests, who are (allegedly) channeling a lot of money into groups such as (again allegedly) Lolek Ltd.

The huge number of posters they have been able to afford seems disproportionate to their level of support in Ireland.

Interference in national politics from another (much larger) state is not always welcome.

floggg · 07-05-2015 09:59AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't know why you quoted me, this doesn't relate to what I said.

Oh, haven't you met gravehold? Gravehold's favourite hobby is making stuff up and putting words in people's mouth. Something to do with playing devil's advocate - but only against the side they (apparently) support.

floggg · 07-05-2015 10:00AM

Shrap wrote: »

It sickens ME that one side (and I'll leave you to guess which) claimed that they were only spending 150,000 on their entire advertising campaign (posters and youtube combined) and have somehow managed to poster every small village in the country, every busy intersection in cities and have an ad playing for every youtube view.

Especially when Yes equality needed €50k for their poster campaign alone - and they have feck all up.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:01AM

swampgas wrote: »

I think the concern is that Ireland has become a proxy battlefield for US interests, who are (allegedly) channeling a lot of money into groups such as (again allegedly) Lolek Ltd.

The huge number of posters they have been able to afford seems disproportionate to their level of support in Ireland.

Interference in national politics from another (much larger) state is not always welcome.

The person complaining about free speech said the posters on the poles where of equal amount, if the yes side can afford it without being a proxy Battlefield I can't see why the side would not be able to.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:02AM

floggg wrote: »

Oh, haven't you met gravehold? Gravehold's favourite hobby is making stuff up and putting words in people's mouth. Something to do with playing devil's advocate - but only against the side they (apparently) support.

Only one side doesn't want freedom of speech and is trying to bully a side into silence

floggg · 07-05-2015 10:03AM

smash wrote: »

The Yes side have blasted it out of the water and it keeps coming back because it's THE ONLY argument the no side have, even if it's false. We can't go physically and beat the ignorance out of them, and to tackle them on an intellectual level seems to be failing because they just don't get it. It's all they have to hold on to.

In any of the debates I have seen, the Yes side have said that the referendum had no impact on it and pointed to the requirement now under the Constitution to put the welfare of the child first.

What I would like is for them to ask why would you want to discriminate in the first place - though I understand that they are likely trying to avoid playing into the no sides hands by making it a referendum on gay parenting.

Ave Sodalis · 07-05-2015 10:04AM

gravehold wrote: »

Only one side doesn't want freedom of speech and is trying to bully a side into silence

What is it you're trying to achieve gravehold? You've repeatedly twisted words and made statements like that based on the words you twisted. What is it you're getting at? Isn't there enough No voters on the thread for you that you have to "play devils advocate"? Because what your saying has been gone over. Other posters have tried it over and over which is why the Yes side are getting more frustrated. So, I ask you, what is it you're trying to achieve?

Shrap · 07-05-2015 10:06AM

gravehold wrote: »

Whould you prefer a communist dictatorship where people weren't allowed freedom of speech. Should only one side be allowed to put up posters?

And would you further extrapolate from what I said that lizard men and women were secretly infiltrating the posters of AH? No? Don't see why you wouldn't, considering your leap just there to something equally nonsensical that I DIDN'T SAY, OR INDICATE, OR THINK.

floggg · 07-05-2015 10:06AM

gravehold wrote: »

Only one side doesn't want freedom of speech and is trying to bully a side into silence

You really have no idea what you are on about, do you?

Using facts and evidence to refute the other sides claims isn't bullying anybody into silence or shutting down a debate - its just winning a debate.

And asking for transparency in how political campaigns are funded is one of the most democratic things you can do.

But I'll let you get back to making stuff up now.

floggg · 07-05-2015 10:07AM

sup_dude wrote: »

What is it you're trying to achieve gravehold? You've repeatedly twisted words and made statements like that based on the words you twisted. What is it you're getting at? Isn't there enough No voters on the thread for you that you have to "play devils advocate"? Because what your saying has been gone over. Other posters have tried it over and over which is why the Yes side are getting more frustrated. So, I ask you, what is it you're trying to achieve?

I wonder....

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:07AM

sup_dude wrote: »

What is it you're trying to achieve gravehold?

Freedom of speech so one side doesn't get silenced. Both sides get a valid vote and people should be allowed to post about their side without being sealioned.

Ave Sodalis · 07-05-2015 10:09AM

gravehold wrote: »

Freedom of speech so one side doesn't get silenced. Both sides get a valid vote and people should be allowed to post about their side without being sealioned.

And you feel the No side can't do this themselves? The No side are perfectly able to come up with their own arguments if they have one. Nobody is telling them not to. In fact, you could argue that the only people being told to shut up is the Yes side. It's just unfortunate that the vast majority of No side posters on here were either trolls or re-regs.

Ave Sodalis · 07-05-2015 10:10AM

floggg wrote: »

I wonder....

Trying to give the benefit of the doubt but I'm drawing a similar conclusion.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:11AM

floggg wrote: »

You really have no idea what you are on about, do you?

Using facts and evidence to refute the other sides claims isn't bullying anybody into silence or shutting down a debate - its just winning a debate.

And asking for transparency in how political campaigns are funded is one of the most democratic things you can do.

But I'll let you get back to making stuff up now.

He was complaining there was an equal amount of poster on poles outside his home an equal amount.

Yes people are cutting down posters cause they don't like that the no side has the freedom to pit their side across.

The yes side call people bigots and try to shame them into not voting. They say if you don't agree just don't vote but it's a persons right to vote

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 10:12AM

When people list out the group on the "no" side all i can think about is the People's Front of Judea, The Judean People's Front and the Judean Popular People's Front,

Shrap · 07-05-2015 10:13AM

gravehold wrote: »

Freedom of speech so one side doesn't get silenced. Both sides get a valid vote and people should be allowed to post about their side without being sealioned.

Here's a little freedom of speech thought experiment for you gravehold. If the yes side were to stoop to the level of the no side's freedom of speech, our posters could read "Catholics are brainwashed into seeing homosexuality as a sin, Vote Yes", or perhaps "Knuckle draggers have had their way since the formation of this state, time for change, Vote Yes", those too would be freedom of speech amirite?

Seems the Yes posters are not ABUSING freedom of speech though, nor are they in the business of DENIGRATING anyone.

Ave Sodalis · 07-05-2015 10:14AM

gravehold wrote: »

He was complaining there was an equal amount of poster on poles outside his home an equal amount.

Yes people are cutting down posters cause they don't like that the no side has the freedom to pit their side across.

The yes side call people bigots and try to shame them into not voting. They say if you don't agree just don't vote but it's a persons right to vote

Some people are cutting down posters on both sides. They aren't the Yes campaign. They have even been condemned. It's just that the No side are raising a fuss. Maybe the Yes side should too about their posters.

You're still ignoring what the No side are calling gay people.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 10:16AM

So gravehold

You mention that you'll be voting Yes - why?

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:16AM

Shrap wrote: »

Here's a little freedom of speech thought experiment for you gravehold. If the yes side were to stoop to the level of the no side's freedom of speech, our posters could read "Catholics are brainwashed into seeing homosexuality as a sin, Vote Yes", or perhaps "Knuckle draggers have had their way since the formation of this state, time for change, Vote Yes", those too would be freedom of speech amirite?

Seems the Yes posters are not ABUSING freedom of speech though, nor are they in the business of DENIGRATING anyone.

If the yes side wan't to put up those posters go ahead. Yes are not abusing freedom of speech they are trying to silence it.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:16AM

Hyzepher wrote: »

So gravehold

You mention that you'll be voting Yes - why?

Gay friends

Maximus Alexander · 07-05-2015 10:17AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Id like if both sides were required to spend the same amount on posters and actually put up truthful posters.

Yeah, perhaps the worst part is that their posters are about as relevant as this:

Shrap · 07-05-2015 10:19AM

gravehold wrote: »

If the yes side wan't to put up those posters go ahead. Yes are not abusing freedom of speech they are trying to silence it.

That is a ridiculous claim and is entirely baseless. The Yes side are not in the habit of scaremongering or denigrating anybody, so those suggestions I made are clearly ludicrous. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech can be abused, and that it's a crying shame that there are no standards for freedom of speech (bar hate speech) in a referendum campaign.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 10:21AM

gravehold wrote: »

Gay friends

Because you have Gay friends or because you believe that gay people have the right to marry?

Grayditch · 07-05-2015 10:21AM

I know who the Pedantry, Strawman, Avoidance and Deflection awards are going to this year. A masterclass in all performances to take the four trophies home.

Back to the matter at hand, as much I liked he idea of the MAFM poster couple re-doing the No poster to a Yes poster, the media reporting that they didn't give their permission for their image to be in a such a deceitful poster. Well, they posed for the stock photo website, so they don't have a say (within reason, and probably not in this case.) Small point that irked me. Still, the new poster is cool and is a great boost to the Yes campaign.

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

Comments