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

floggg · 10-05-2015 11:39PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're asking people to empathise with a concept that's more than just a simple hypothesis, that they have no experience of, and you're asking them to see something from your perspective about their own children. In case you hadn't noticed, people are very protective of their children and don't like them being used to prick their consciences. Has that whole hypothetical ever actually worked on anyone to change their minds? Let me know if it ever does, because unless people experience something for themselves, the odds are far more likely that they won't possibly come near imagining such a simplistic hypothesis.

And you think five minutes on their doorstep is going to change a lifetime thought process by telling them imagine if one of their children were LGBT?

You know I support marriage equality and what you're suggesting even to me sounds absurd, so I find it almost incredible that someone who has no familiarity with LGBT issues and is unsure about the whole idea is suddenly able to see clearly from your perspective.

I've said already that the no campaign have effectively shot themselves in the foot with their ill-considered campaign slogans, and people can see their hatred for what it is, but this is a campaign that people should have been fighting long ago to integrate into society so that support for marriage equality would have been a no brainer rather than a complete stranger turning up on their doorstep with two weeks to go before the referendum and asking them to imagine if their children were gay.

Incredibly naive to you perhaps, but then from my perspective, I'm not interested in "running debates" or "winning debates". I'm interested in gaining support among ordinary people who have no interest in the politics of a referendum. I'm interested in the future of Irish society for everyone, long beyond May 22nd.

We simply have different perspectives on achieving somewhat similar goals is all. You're thinking more short term, I'm thinking much, much longer term, when those hypothetical children you're speaking about actually are adults themselves.

McGee agreed to become involved in the campaign when he considered what he might have to say to any children he may have in the future. “If I ever have a child and he or she turns out to be gay, they could say to me ‘you had a chance to make a difference in that vote’. I don’t know would I be more ashamed that I didn’t vote or the fact I voted against it. It comes down to equality and one less difference in society.”

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/donegals-eacuteamon-mcgee-shrugs-off-criticism-over-marriage-equality-vote-stance-316406.html

There are plenty of people who have also said things to similar effect. People are protective over their kids - so they tend to change their views about an awful lot of things when they consider what it would be like if their child was effected by the issue.

And yes, the two minutes it takes to inform people about the facts relating to surrogacy, children's issue etc and the organisations confirming them (including referendum commission and the law society) does remove confusion and change minds.

Allowing your opponents say what they like would be the dumbest campaign strategy ever.

Like it or not, it is a debate. And ordinary people won't be persuaded if you don't address the other sides arguments.

At best they will be confused and just won't vote. At worst, they will believe the uncontested statements.

And if you allow enough people to become confused or to believe the lies you have lost all of your soft support and the referendum.

10-05-2015 11:53PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You and your son are lucky. My 17 yr old is gay, went to Catholic schools as there wasn't an alternative and went through some tough times because of it most recently only a year or two ago when Pure in Heart paid a visit and came out with some anti gay stuff. We are lucky she is so strong mentally to cope, another kid might not have fared as well. Things are changing but it's hit and miss and down to individual schools.

We are, though to some degree we made our own luck by choosing to live close to an ET primary school and a "progressive" secondary school. But I also know several 18 year olds who attend two well-known Catholic schools on the south side of Dublin, all of whom are planning to vote Yes, and none of whom have experienced the kind of anti-gay stuff you've described.

I also know many people from their 20s to their 60s who are voting Yes. Every last one of them had the experience of a Catholic education, and almost all of them continue to be practising Catholics. But they have no intention of following the "party line" on this. They even include people who voted No to divorce and Yes to the 8th amendment. I can't say why they feel the way they do now, but they do.

The change is patchy and not universal, but this country has changed beyond recognition and it is continuing to do so. Like I said, the notion of leaving in the event of a No vote is OTT.

sunshine and showers · 10-05-2015 11:55PM

GSU, I have contested your point - you ignored me.

The age requirements for marriage have nothing to do with this referendum, or any other for that matter. That matter is governed by legislation. These are different legal concepts. The people with the power to change the age limit to stop under 17s marrying are the members of the Oireachtas. You and I have no say in it, beyond lobbying our political representatives.

Your argument for a no vote on the basis of age requirements for marriage is nonsensical. Maybe it's a personal protest vote from you over the law as it currently stands, but it's not a valid reason to vote no as a country. Further, under 17s (which is really only 16 year old in this context) require parental consent to marry. You won't find many Irish parents willing to give that consent these days, beyond groups such as travellers who customarily marry so young. Your point applies to a tiny number of young people, who could just marry in the UK instead anyway.

endacl · 11-05-2015 12:01AM

The poll on this thread looks even more promising for a yes result. Even allowing for a ridiculous margin of error.

You'd have to halve the yes result, add the others together and double them for a draw.

sunshine and showers · 11-05-2015 12:06AM

endacl wrote: »

The poll on this thread looks even more promising for a yes result. Even allowing for a ridiculous margin of error.

You'd have to halve the yes result, add the others together and double them for a draw.

Given the history of referendum results in this country, it's still incredibly important that anyone who supports the yes side gets out and votes.

Kiwi in IE · 11-05-2015 12:07AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm suggesting we certainly shouldn't extend the scope for under 17s to marry. Best would be none, but we're only being asked to vote on the extension consequent on this amendment.

That's a clear enough answer from my perspective. Do you feel widening the scope for marriage of under 17 year olds is a good thing?

I really don't understand the relevance of this issue. People voting no are clearly grasping at straws in a very desperate fashion! The age that one is legally allowed to marry is not being changed and has no relevance at all to the upcoming referendum. Should interracial or interdenominational marriage be banned because that would clearly narrow the scope of under 17 year olds who are able to marry? What a ridiculous, illogical argument and I thought I'd heard it all from no voters.

One eyed Jack · 11-05-2015 12:23AM

floggg wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/donegals-eacuteamon-mcgee-shrugs-off-criticism-over-marriage-equality-vote-stance-316406.html

There are plenty of people who have also said things to similar effect. People are protective over their kids - so they tend to change their views about an awful lot of things when they consider what it would be like if their child was effected by the issue.

I asked you let me know if the five minutes on the doorstep ever works to change anyone's opinion, and you present a high profile GAA player as evidence that he thought about it from the perspective of his children. Well I guess that's me told. You forgot to quote this particular part though -

It’s a societal issue rather than a political issue but the majority of it has been supportive and I think it’s a good opportunity too for people to talk about it.

Which is where I'm coming from.

And yes, the two minutes it takes to inform people about the facts relating to surrogacy, children's issue etc and the organisations confirming them (including referendum commission and the law society) does remove confusion and change minds.

Wow! And yet we have been involved in how many threads now on this issue over the last few months, and not in my memory at least has there ever been one poster who changed their mind from a no vote to a yes vote, and yet you claim you can do it in a few minutes conversation by simply debunking the arguments from the no campaign? Well, I know it's rude to speculate about people's identities on here but Keith Barry springs to mind tbh...

Allowing your opponents say what they like would be the dumbest campaign strategy ever.

Well I would say being able to rise above their crap and run a positive campaign is a better strategy than allowing yourself to be dragged down into a mud flinging match that just descends into petty snipes at the opposition (it's one of the reasons I've avoided all these "televised debates" on the issue).

Like it or not, it is a debate. And ordinary people won't be persuaded if you don't address the other sides arguments.

At best they will be confused and just won't vote. At worst, they will believe the uncontested statements.

And if you allow enough people to become confused or to believe the lies you have lost all of your soft support and the referendum.

Like it or not, I see it as a discussion, a discussion that's been going on long before a lot of the voters the yes campaign are depending on were even born. I still believe that we can win this referendum, but I just don't like the way it's become yet another politicised 'debate', when by more people's standards, it's an issue for society as a whole, and not just a political issue.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 12:24AM

I know this is off tangent slightly but within the LGBT community are gay, lesbian bisexual, transgender people all
1) viewed equally
2) treated equally

In other words for example - do lesbian and gay people sort of frown upon bisexual people or transgender people?
Is there any underlying heirachy within the group? Is it a loose alliance based on broad issues. How tight knit is the group?
Are some actually more equal then others or do they co-exist happily? Are there much differences of opinion among these groups?

Probably too many questions. But sure I thought I would ask anyway. I get that most LGBT will be behind this referendum. But as a group the LGBT seem very wide ranging to me sort of like a loose political block of different countries parties in the EU.

Pherekydes · 11-05-2015 12:29AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm suggesting we certainly shouldn't extend the scope for under 17s to marry. Best would be none, but we're only being asked to vote on the extension consequent on this amendment.

That's a clear enough answer from my perspective. Do you feel widening the scope for marriage of under 17 year olds is a good thing?

You didn't answer the fairly clear question I asked:

Do you advocate withholding marriage from all people because some (11) under 17s wish to marry?

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 12:30AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I really don't understand the relevance of this issue. People voting no are clearly grasping at straws in a very desperate fashion! The age that one is legally allowed to marry is not being changed and has no relevance at all to the upcoming referendum. Should interracial or interdenominational marriage be banned because that would clearly narrow the scope of under 17 year olds who are able to marry? What a ridiculous, illogical argument and I thought I'd heard it all from no voters.

I don't get this marriage age argument for the no side either makes no sense to me. It is hard enough to decide which way to vote as is is without eejits introducing marriage age. This is just guff in my view anyway.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 12:49AM

I have it narrowed down to two questions
1) Do I think marriage should only be for heterosexuals / straights (to get the terminology right)

2) Do I think same sex couples need or have the right to marriage?

Which ever one of these I answer a definite yes to that is the way I will vote on the day.

allthedoyles · 11-05-2015 01:15AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcZneYecM-E

Ozymandius2011 · 11-05-2015 01:29AM

Gorm I don't think we can cut Ireland off from a the wider western cultural trend in the era of globalisation. Devs Ireland of comely maidens and cosy homesteads is no more.

Also you say you will be deciding whether or not gay couples need this. Do you think Southerners in the US would have willingly voted in a referendum to end Segregation? I don't because they could imagine what it was like from the other side of the fence. Discrimination just perpetuates g vision in society and if there's a no, this issue is not goin away and will distract our politics from more important issues like the economy as arguably happened in the 1980s with abortion.

endacl · 11-05-2015 01:36AM

allthedoyles wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcZneYecM-E

I fcuking hate flash mobs. Flash mobs are fcuking stupid. The only flash mob that wasn't a derivative, unimaginative, so-predictable-with-hindsight because of the dopey tool who organised it, stupid fcucking idea, was the first one. And that was still fcuking stupid.

tl;dr Flash mobs are fcuking stupid.

aloyisious · 11-05-2015 02:01AM

Is anyone else getting the impression that some people posting "questions" about the marriage issue here are doing so not to get answers but to nurture a bigoted aggressive nature in "vote yes" people posting here?

drunkmonkey · 11-05-2015 02:19AM

Ahh so the bigots are asking questions to bring out the bigots in the non bigots to make them bigots, that's a cunning plan by the bigots.

jimmycrackcorm · 11-05-2015 02:32AM

endacl wrote: »

The poll on this thread looks even more promising for a yes result. Even allowing for a ridiculous margin of error.

You'd have to halve the yes result, add the others together and double them for a draw.

I'd imagine if you were to look at the demographic of boards users you'd find it has no correlation to real life voters.

mrkiscool2 · 11-05-2015 03:32AM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know this is off tangent slightly but within the LGBT community are gay, lesbian bisexual, transgender people all
1) viewed equally
2) treated equally

In other words for example - do lesbian and gay people sort of frown upon bisexual people or transgender people?
Is there any underlying heirachy within the group? Is it a loose alliance based on broad issues. How tight knit is the group?
Are some actually more equal then others or do they co-exist happily? Are there much differences of opinion among these groups?

Probably too many questions. But sure I thought I would ask anyway. I get that most LGBT will be behind this referendum. But as a group the LGBT seem very wide ranging to me sort of like a loose political block of different countries parties in the EU.

I could get into this but I don't see it being an issue. This referendum affects all of them. If bisexuals or transsexuals want to marry someone of the opposite sex they can. However, if they want to marry someone of the same sex then they need a Yes vote in this referendum. So it is an issue for every single person who identifies as LGBT. Because obviously gays and lesbians want it because they are only interested in a person of the same sex whilst bi and trans people may find someone of the same sex they may one day want to marry. So the equality question of how equal the LGBT community is in this debate is irrelevant.

munchkin_utd · 11-05-2015 08:02AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'd imagine if you were to look at the demographic of boards users you'd find it has no correlation to real life voters.

and even the polls in the UK have been shown to be less than reliable when people say one thing and in the privacy of polling booth vote another.

and related to that, a very interesting headline in the independent today
'Silent No': Fears of shock defeat in marriage referendum grow

this thing could snowball especially if folks humped over water (/ other random humpy issues) see the government get nervous and see a no as a chance to piss them off.

LookingFor · 11-05-2015 08:36AM

munchkin_utd wrote: »

and even the polls in the UK have been shown to be less than reliable when people say one thing and in the privacy of polling booth vote another.

and related to that, a very interesting headline in the independent today
'Silent No': Fears of shock defeat in marriage referendum grow

this thing could snowball especially if folks humped over water (/ other random humpy issues) see the government get nervous and see a no as a chance to piss them off.

I think the result will be closer than polls thusfar suggest, however the idea of a 'silent No' can also be overstated. If it was massively significant I would expect it to manifest in areas other than polls, like in grassroots funding etc. Something to bear in mind is that a bigger risk is complacency, and it suits either side in a campaign to talk up anxiety about the outcome in order to galvanise their base to go out and vote.

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 08:41AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm seriously saying it's a negative consequence of a yes vote. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. You are not seriously saying anything, you are just arguing for the fun of it.

You'll probably vote Yes on the day, and laugh up your sleeve at all the eejits who took you seriously here.

Bannasidhe · 11-05-2015 08:47AM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know this is off tangent slightly but within the LGBT community are gay, lesbian bisexual, transgender people all
1) viewed equally
2) treated equally

In other words for example - do lesbian and gay people sort of frown upon bisexual people or transgender people?
Is there any underlying heirachy within the group? Is it a loose alliance based on broad issues. How tight knit is the group?
Are some actually more equal then others or do they co-exist happily? Are there much differences of opinion among these groups?

Probably too many questions. But sure I thought I would ask anyway. I get that most LGBT will be behind this referendum. But as a group the LGBT seem very wide ranging to me sort of like a loose political block of different countries parties in the EU.

Do all rugby players view other rugby players as equal? Do the forwards see the backs as posturing Jessicas (an actual nickname for backs

) who spend more time 'stretching' than playing? Do backs see forwards as knuckledragging human tanks good only for knocking things down?
Do Cork Con players see Highfield payers as equal?

You get my drift :P

Diverse and wide group of people who can be as unpleasant or pleasant as straight people.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I have it narrowed down to two questions
1) Do I think marriage should only be for heterosexuals / straights (to get the terminology right)

2) Do I think same sex couples need or have the right to marriage?

Which ever one of these I answer a definite yes to that is the way I will vote on the day.

Why do heterosexuals have a need to marry?
Can't just be about children as old heterosexuals can marry...

road_high · 11-05-2015 08:58AM

I see Tipperary Neanderthal Kieran Bergin (3rd rate hurler with 0 All Ireland Medals, doubt people have even heard of him here) putting his name behind a No vote. The big clown. This is the same county that gives us Mattie McGrath. So glad I don't live there, like stepping back 30 years.

Zen65 · 11-05-2015 09:02AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm seriously saying it's a negative consequence of a yes vote. Do you disagree?

Everyone disagrees. You are not making a valid argument, and not engaging in debate. It has been pointed out by several posters that your argument is specious and bigoted, yet you continue to spout it. The only persons ever seeking marriage under the age of 17 are heterosexuals (and you will find that those cases mostly refer to terminal illnesses and other tragic circumstances where a court deems that it is fair to bring forward a marriage).

You're on my 'ignore' list now. Goodbye

gandalf · 11-05-2015 09:05AM

The key to the vote on the day is voter turnout. If the turn out is low then it will more than likely be a no because the usual suspects that vote are the elder generation and they obviously will be conservative. If the turn out is higher than normal for a referendum then I think we will have a yes result.

Basically if you can vote, your registered and you want a yes result, get up off your arse and get down to your polling station. The amount of times I have heard people whinging about the "gubberment" just to follow up answering a question on "who did you vote for" to be answered "didn't bodder" is unbelievable.

If you want to change something you have to make an actual effort to go out and change it!

Zen65 · 11-05-2015 09:11AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What a ridiculous, illogical argument and I thought I'd heard it all from no voters.

Sadly, before May 22nd we will all have to listen to many lies being spun in a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo. I've come to believe that for many people any change is more than they can bear, especially in matters which do not directly affect them, in case those matters might have some impact on them after a change. Fear of change is, for many people, much more of a driver than homophobia or religious zeal.

traprunner · 11-05-2015 09:16AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Sadly, before May 22nd we will all have to listen to many lies being spun in a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo. I've come to believe that for many people any change is more than they can bear, especially in matters which do not directly affect them, in case those matters might have some impact on them after a change. Fear of change is, for many people, much more of a driver than homophobia or religious zeal.

We are only on this planet for a short time. We should be leaving it in a better position on all matters for future generations. Fear of the unknown is not a reasonable excuse when it does not directly affect a person. If it was then no one would cross a road.

MrWalsh · 11-05-2015 09:17AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Sadly, before May 22nd we will all have to listen to many lies being spun in a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo. I've come to believe that for many people any change is more than they can bear, especially in matters which do not directly affect them, in case those matters might have some impact on them after a change. Fear of change is, for many people, much more of a driver than homophobia or religious zeal.

I saw a creepy new No poster this morning that showed a woman hugging a child, the message was about not depriving a child of its mother so vote no.

Im fully expecting to see No posters with sad looking puppies and a message saying "Dont kill puppies! Vote No!"

traprunner · 11-05-2015 09:19AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I saw a creepy new No poster this morning that showed a woman hugging a child, the message was about not depriving a child of its mother so vote no.

I feel sorry for anyone that has lost their mothers having to look at that. Even an adult is still the child of someone.

Zen65 · 11-05-2015 09:22AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Devs Ireland of comely maidens and cosy homesteads is no more.

There was never such an Ireland! If the revelation of scandals over the past few years has highlighted anything it is that our past was in reality very different from the way many people liked to portray it. We have been a nation that condoned the abuse of women and children at the hands of the state and religious orders because "the shame" of illegitimacy [sic] was too great for families to bear. We forced our Irish gay men & women to emigrate because they could never gain acceptance here, unless through fake marriages which imposed even more misery on men, women and children.

It's convenient in many ways to blame the state and the church (and a lot of the blame does rest with them) . . . . but the truth is that our laws and our culture were just as culpable. We were so quick to condemn people for lifestyle choices which today we see as being perfectly sane and reasonable. This referendum is one more chance to bring compassion, equality and sanity to our country.

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

Comments