Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

sup_dude wrote: »

A Facebook friend of mine has put up a status about how marriage is for procreation. It's a very long status and he's asked anyone who has a problem with it to contact him via message... However, every single paragraph is correctable and based on ignorance. He's a popular lad though so it's reaching a wide audience and already has 50 likes. These are twenty year olds. A small bit concerning to be honest.

I'm seeing and hearing similar there is a good few no voters starting to put the head above the pit the closer to the 22nd we are getting from what I can see obviously just my experience but as a yes voter myself I'm nervous I think this will be very very close not at all a straight forward win for the yes side at all

sup_dude wrote: »

I really don't think it will be straight forward at all, and I wouldn't not entertain the idea that the referendum could be lost on the 22nd.

Agreed there is a lot of no voters starting to find a voice around and also plenty keeping the mouth shut and will just go out and vote a lot is going to come down to turn out on the day

I'm nervous a lot of people who want a yes vote won't actually go in and vote because they think it's a done deal

SummerSummit wrote: »

Has anyone got the current list of differences between civil partnership and marriage?

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

There's a link to an excel sheet in there

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From my perspective (and I've always made it clear I'm voting yes), I just don't get why the yes campaign wanted to avoid discussing the benefits that this would mean for children, instead defaulting to the stock response 'this referendum isn't about children'.

I'm not a formal member of the 'yes campaign' or whatnot, but from long before this all went into motion properly, I've been more than happy to challenge the No side on children. I think it's an argument 'Yes' wins, can win, but I can also see why the Yes side is reluctant to play too much into the argument - because it requires more time for 'yes' to disarm an emotive and shallow point about children than it takes for the No side to make it.

Unfortunately those points can resound. The idea of 'a right to a mother and a father' will ring positively for many people, on a nostalgic level based on their own upbringing if for nothing more, and it's so simple for the No side to simply say that. I think their concern for the welfare of children falls apart when placed under a microscope, and into the context of the real world, but that takes time and attention. That can be difficult to have in a referendum campaign.

The questions in my last post about children's welfare, I put them to a number of No people on Twitter, including Kate Bopp. Kate engaged me, but when it came down to brass tacks with these questions, she refused to answer and simply closed the debate with a 'goodbye, conversation over'. I should say this was before she was a leading figure in Mothers and Fathers Matter. Others deflected. Others didn't respond at all. I got no good answer to those questions.

On a side note, watching Reeling in the Years last week, the campaign in the seventies to extend childrens allowance to the children of single parents was mentioned. It's not difficult to image a nice emotive opposition to that campaign - 'Children deserve a mother and a father'. That can be wielded in so many ways to idealise one set of families at the heavy expense of others.

Ideals are fine. However they're not necessarily fit for the constitution when we talk about an idealising discrimination in favour of one group of people, at least without some compensating benefit. I think most of the people in the No camp are well meaning in their ideals but have not thought too much at all about practical impact in the real world, and whether practical improvement for many children are worth sacrificing on the altar of their ideals. I've discussed this with people who do have a 'ideal preference' for a mother & father scenario in family, but who are voting yes because they understand this is not a referendum on whether other circumstances will exist or not, and it's not in the benefit of kids with different two-parent families to marginalize them.

I digress. But I guess to wind back on your point - the issue of children is complicated, and the Yes retort to 'No' soundbites on that issue does require more subtlety and attention that many may be willing to give the matter. And that might be why (some) 'yes' people may appear to want to avoid it. But I for one am here if anyone wants to talk about it

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh. Has the list no relevance to the vote, then?

It does. Of course it does. But it's not the only thing that's being voted on.

jimdublin15 wrote: »

The key difference is the "Yes" side are just responding (defending themselves) in a debate to something being claimed that is an absolutely vile tactic . The "No" side brought children into this debate to play on our emotions and to cloud the subject when the issue it's not about children.

I think the problem for me personally is that the Yes campaign are even entertaining the amount of utter shyte being put out there by the no campaign. They are spending more time "debating" and "combatting" lies than they're spending actually putting their own perspective across. The Yes campaign shouldn't be avoiding the issue of children in this campaign, because this will be a positive change for children and will mean massive social and legal benefits for children, and yet all I'm hearing constantly is "This referendum has nothing to do with children!", or "What if one of your children is gay?".

Well which is it like?

I've always said this referendum is as much about the benefits for children as it is for adults, and even more so for children because it's their future more than it is ours.

The yes side campaign has replied by trying to educate and address the concern raised by the No side, and challenging effectively the misinformation put out by the No side. The No side have aimed at misinforming the public using children to confuse/manipulate and gain votes in this evil and twisted manner.

Why do the Yes campaign actually validate the lies being spread by the no campaign, instead of focusing on concerns being raised by ordinary people, who are simply dismissed with "this referendum isn't about children". If I said that offline in response to anyone having concerns about what this referendum will mean for children, I'd likely receive the equally trite dismissal - "Go fcuk yourself!", and I would expect that because I can hardly expect that they should entertain my concerns when I'm unwilling to entertain their concerns!

As for the post on boards and facebook, that is individuals posts and thoughts and not truly representative either sides campaigns and should not be confused with being anything else but an individuals point of view.

I'm not confusing them with anything but ordinary people's opinions, hence why I made allowances for an insufferable amount of shyte that's been posted from numerous different perspectives, each with their own agendas going on, and I've been ticked over the edge a few times to say something (I've pulled up posters on their lies and spin no matter what side they were on), but I hate the overall politicization of people's lives, and people being used to point score, and that's why when I saw a poster say "Nobody cares about these 1200 children" or whatever, it pissed me off, and I had to ask, "Do you?", because it just read to me like they were using those children to score points. They didn't care all that much otherwise themselves. They just cared that someone else wasn't doing something, that someone else didn't care about those children.

Well some people actually do. It's the same reason I'm pissed off that some people want people to ignore the welfare of children unless it suits their agenda to use them to point fingers.

I close on the thought that:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Always struck me as a meaningless platitude tbh. Notwithstanding the fact that whether a person is "good" or "evil" is simply a matter of perspective. My wife often thinks I'm an awful bastard because I don't let her get her own way in the short term, because I'm thinking of the long term benefits for everyone rather than simply being seen as a nice guy by one person.

Sadly Im almost sure this won't pass anymore. I just saw some statistics from he divorce referendum and the yes side won by less than a percentage point where as over 75% of people polled a few months beforehand said they would be voting yes.
A similar percentage said they would be voting yes in this referendum. But I think the turn out of yes voters will be much lower than in the divorce referendum as divorce directly affects straight majority many of whom would feel that this referendum is nothing to do with them and so they won't bother.