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

kevin12345 · 10-05-2015 08:41PM

flossy1 wrote: »

What will happen to the ANN and BARRY books in school, will there be a MAMMY or DADDY or will we have 2 daddys or 2 mammys

How is this relevant? I'm guessing you're not a teacher or involved in education because if you were you would realise the diversity of families in classrooms today from families with lone parents, foster parents, guardians, Same sex parents, the list goes on. Children are already aware of the different types of families, no change to books necessary.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 08:42PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Turnout into Children's Referendum was 33.5%.

That said, I think this will go through. If it doesn't, though, it will raise interesting questions again about the detachment of our political elites from the electorate.

The children's referendum did not get even half the coverage or attention that this referendum has. The presidential age is more comparable to it in terms of people being apathetic towards it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 08:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Now that the referendum is here, of course, that old "There are more important issues" whataboutery won't do, and you had to come up with new whataboutery.

None of which justifies continuing to discriminate against same sex couples.

You may not have noticed, but I'm still primarily advocating a No vote on grounds of this being a waste of time. The reason I have to spend time repeating points is that folk don't seem to digest what's said the first time.

But when you tell me why letting more under 17 year olds solemnise marriage is a good idea, I'll be happy to entertain a yes vote.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 08:45PM

SummerSummit wrote: »

I saw a poster on a lamppost on Westland Row at the weekend basically saying to Vote No because we need to stick it to the government. Also SF are just using the referendum to get their faces on all the posters for the next election.

A number of 'interesting' rationales for voting No have sprung up in the past week. Around Trinity, posters have popped up with a cheesy stock photo of a student giving a thumbs up. The basic message is 'Vote no, because it's an option and it's your equal right to vote No!'. I'm not joking...that's the beginning, middle and end of it.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 08:46PM

lazygal wrote: »

Gosh I don't know.
This is very serious.
Has anyone asked Breda?

I still have a copy of Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin if any school would like to borrow it.

One eyed Jack · 10-05-2015 08:47PM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Gay people are, and have always been, part of society. And society needs to judge people not on their sexuality but by the type of people they are. Treating others poorly just because they are a different sexual orientation is the same as being racist imo.

You say this, and then you go on to make a dirty great sweeping generalisation about the RCC, which has over 1.2 billion members (of which 4% of the Hierarchy engaged in the abuse of children) -

The Catholic church is the last organisation to be in a position to condemn homosexuality. Yet they denounce being gay. Being gay is not a crime. But being a gay pedophile is or being any kind of pedophile clearly is! Some of the very priests who sexually abused boys actually were among the most socially conservative on the alter!

How does being LGBT and Roman Catholic square with your... sweeping generalisation -

Gay Catholic Voice Ireland

So much for preaching about judging people for who they are then, when you're hardly immune to passing judgment yourself on whole swathes of people.

floggg · 10-05-2015 08:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maybe I'm not being very clear here so I'll try and explain better. I absolutely detest the no campaign and their tactics. No question there. But I've said from the very beginning in any of these threads that it annoys me no end when I see the yes campaign try and say "this has nothing to do with children", and then say "but what if your child is gay?" or whatever.

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'.

That sort of trite stock rebuttal just doesn't fly with people who have no interest in the political posturing by either side. It turns people off voting in favour of the referendum proposal because it looks like those people are just interested in issues that affect them only.

IMO the yes campaign are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to attack the no campaign. You'll never combat lies with the truth when it comes to people's inherent prejudices which are based on their experiences.

People aren't just single issues, they're a whole complicated mix of influences. But in making sweeping generalisations about people, the no campaign have shot themselves in the foot (no surprise there really), but the yes campaign aren't doing much better from my perspective.

I wanted to see the yes campaign run a positive campaign, but all I see is political posturing among a few talking heads, and spin from both sides, and I've said it from the beginning that I don't care what the no campaign does, I care that I see the yes campaign are tanking this campaign for themselves, and I'm disappointed, and quite frankly I'm worried that in not being mindful and in making sweeping generalisations about whole groups of people, they're going to turn people off wanting to support them.

I don't mean that to sound like "be nice or else" or whatever kind of way anyone wants to spin it. I mean it as in I'm worried that people are getting so caught up in what the no campaign are doing, that they're forgetting about the people that already support them and want to support them, but the yes campaign are focusing on the issues as opposed to focusing on people. They're preaching acceptance of diversity in society, but failing to acknowledge that people are indeed diverse as it is, and don't fit neatly into labelled categories.

I don't think know if even any of the above will resonate with anyone, but I know what I'm thinking in my head and I'm just not able to articulate it properly. It's just that for me, giving everyone the same opportunity to enter into civil marriage has many benefits for everyone, be they adults, children, homosexual or heterosexual, religious or non-religious, because it's about everyone working towards a society in which everyone is given an equal opportunity to participate, and nobody is left out of the loop because they "don't fit the profile".

When we ask "what if your children are gay" we are still discussing adult rights. What if your child was to grow up knowing they would lack the same adult rights as you did.

That's not using children - its asking people to empathise. There is nothing objectionable about asking people who may feel removed from the debate to think of it from another perspective.

It is also absurd to say the Yes side conduct their campaign without addressing the no side's claims. While we are not happy about having to continually counter these red herring or irrelevant arguments, if we don't address them people will absorb them and they will gain even further traction.

There are lots of people on the door steps who have concerns about surrogacy and children's rights because they have read the posters, the newspapers articles and listened to the radio.

In order to persuade the undecided's an the soft no's we have to rebut their false claims.

Suggesting that we can run a debate without addressing the other sides arguments shows incredible naivety.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 08:49PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You may not have noticed, but I'm still primarily advocating a No vote on grounds of this being a waste of time. The reason I have to spend time repeating points is that folk don't seem to digest what's said the first time.

But when you tell me why letting more under 17 year olds solemnise marriage is a good idea, I'll be happy to entertain a yes vote.

Your nonsensical logic was answered, refuted and slam dunked multiple times already yet you still continue to repeat ad nauseum, woodpecker like indeed.

You are possibly one of the more solid reasons to vote yes, silencing the Alice in Wonderland reasoning will be lovely.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 08:52PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

The children's referendum did not get even half the coverage or attention that this referendum has. The presidential age is more comparable to it in terms of people being apathetic towards it.

I'm not sure that's true. But I think the No campaign last time got more of a hearing. Also, the David vs Goliath spectacle got more sympathy that time. This time, I think people basically don't care, and to the extent that they do they're just vaguely aware that Iona have a problem with gays.

I'd guess a low turnout, as most people don't have a personal interest. But I don't see a wave of no voters rushing to the polls.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 08:55PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Your nonsensical logic was answered, refuted and slam dunked multiple times already yet you still continue to repeat ad nauseum, woodpecker like indeed.

I've obviously missed quite a few posts as my perception is that yes posters have been unable to address any point I've raised.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 08:57PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've obviously missed quite a few posts as my perception is that yes posters have been unable to address any point I've raised.

Best go back and read them so as your horse **** has been solidly swept away. Course you are in denial whenever you are refuted and continue to troll.

Zubeneschamali · 10-05-2015 08:57PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You may not have noticed, but I'm still primarily advocating a No vote on grounds of this being a waste of time.

Which of one of the stupidest reasons for a No vote yet advanced, and in this "debate", that can't have been easy.

Kudos.

wupucus · 10-05-2015 09:01PM

I shall be voting no as I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive and unnatural -

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 09:01PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true. But I think the No campaign last time got more of a hearing. Also, the David vs Goliath spectacle got more sympathy that time. This time, I think people basically don't care, and to the extent that they do they're just vaguely aware that Iona have a problem with gays.

I'd guess a low turnout, as most people don't have a personal interest. But I don't see a wave of no voters rushing to the polls.

I'd argue the opposite. Slightly above average turnout (55-65%), with a far larger showing from young voters than previous years.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 09:02PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which of one of the stupidest reasons for a No vote yet advanced, and in this "debate", that can't have been easy.

Kudos.

It ranks with vote No because otherwise legislation will have to be amended.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 09:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which of one of the stupidest reasons for a No vote yet advanced, and in this "debate", that can't have been easy.

Kudos.

Woah hold on, what about the poster claiming a yes vote was a part of the communist agenda? Or the one who claimed that 2 men wouldn't be able to physically demonstrate how to insert a tampon to their daughter? Surely those posts must be up there

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 09:03PM

wupucus wrote: »

I shall be voting no as I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive and unnatural -

How very broadminded of you.

sunshine and showers · 10-05-2015 09:04PM

wupucus wrote: »

I shall be voting no as I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive and unnatural -

You know that voting no won't make the homosexuals go away, right? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 09:04PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Or the one who claimed that 2 men wouldn't be able to physically demonstrate how to insert a tampon to their daughter? Surely those posts must be up there

:eek:

Seriously... did someone really say that???

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 09:04PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've obviously missed quite a few posts as my perception is that yes posters have been unable to address any point I've raised.

Your 'point' is a (weak) argument for withholding marriage from everyone, not simply from gay people.

It is unjust to withhold marriage from a select group, rather than all, on the basis that you think marriage law isn't perfect. If you think it is so bad that it should be withheld from group A, the fair option is to withhold it from group B also. I don't think that's something you even desire and even if it were, it's not something we're in a position to do.

I've directly addressed your point now. By analogy I could conjure countless examples to illustrate the weakness of your logic. An argument for discrimination on the basis of 'it's for their own good because this law isn't perfect' is no argument at all. Equality is warts and all.

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:06PM

wupucus wrote: »

I shall be voting no as I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive and unnatural -

That's refreshingly honest of you. I wish more haters could be as honest as you (and that's not sarcasm, I mean it!!!)

You do know of course, that a "no" vote will not reduce homosexuality one iota?

Not a NSA agent · 10-05-2015 09:07PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which of one of the stupidest reasons for a No vote yet advanced, and in this "debate", that can't have been easy.

Kudos.

The best part is a yes vote would end this and people would move on. A no vote will lead to this coming up again. Referendums arent cheap, people are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

swampgas · 10-05-2015 09:08PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You may not have noticed, but I'm still primarily advocating a No vote on grounds of this being a waste of time. The reason I have to spend time repeating points is that folk don't seem to digest what's said the first time.

Try Occam's razor. What seems more likely: option 1, that you alone truly understand why this referendum is a waste of time, and everyone else is a misguided idiot, or option 2, that your understanding of the situation is really not up to actual GCU standards, and you are on the wrong side of the argument.

sunshine and showers · 10-05-2015 09:09PM

I'm going to calmly point out that the age requirements for marriage are not contained in the Constitution. If you take issue with them, take it up with your local TD. It's so unbelievably irrelevant to this referendum that it's laughable.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 09:11PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

:eek:

Seriously... did someone really say that???

Indeed. In fairness the poster was not wrong. As a gay male I will have no intention of physically demonstrating tampon insertion to anyone.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 09:11PM

LookingFor wrote: »

Your 'point' is a (weak) argument for withholding marriage from everyone, not simply from gay people.

It is unjust to withhold marriage from a select group, rather than all, on the basis that you think marriage law isn't perfect.

It seems perfectly reasonable to withhold consent until such time as the proposal is sensible.

Bear in mind, this point is listed as one of the 160 spam points that we're voting to eliminate. I choose not to eliminate it. And I notice you are not meeting the point head on, and explaining why extending the scope for under 17s getting married is a good idea.

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:11PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Woah hold on, what about the poster claiming a yes vote was a part of the communist agenda? Or the one who claimed that 2 men wouldn't be able to physically demonstrate how to insert a tampon to their daughter? Surely those posts must be up there

When all of this is over, we should sponsor a prize-giving (or at least a name-and-laughing) of the daftest YES and NO reasons. My mother was widowed when I was young, so I had no male figure to show me how to use a condom. My sisters did have a mother to show them how to use a tampon, but she would not, because she thought such things ruined a girl. We all grew up just fine with the one remaining parent, no therapy needed to rectify our dysfunctional upbringing.

BTW I consider "sending a message to multi-nationals" to be a very weak reason to vote YES.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 09:12PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Indeed. In fairness the poster was not wrong. As a gay male I will have no intention of physically demonstrating tampon insertion to anyone.

I must admit I cannot recall such a demonstration by my mother or any female relative?

Smiley92a · 10-05-2015 09:13PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

:eek:

Seriously... did someone really say that???

MOTHERS OF IRELAND. IF YOU ARE PHSYICALLY DEMONSTRATING THE INSERTION OF TAMPONS TO YOUR DAUGHTERS, STOP.

sunshine and showers · 10-05-2015 09:13PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Indeed. In fairness the poster was not wrong. As a gay male I will have no intention of physically demonstrating tampon insertion to anyone.

As a heterosexual female, I have no intention of physically demonstrating it to anyone either. Child of mine or not.

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

Comments