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

I've seen quite a few No ads on youtube videos this morning from the Iona institute,

looks like the no campaign is ramping up, I wonder will the yes side match them?

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.

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

Maybe groupthink of the "well, the red-haired child worked for John Hinde with the tourists" kind so we'll use it in our an Ad as well.

Slicemeister wrote: »

Wonder will Mothers Day or Fathers Day be a thing of the past in years to come?

Don't know about Fathers Day, but Mothers Day will stay there. The religious will ensure that, as it's from Mothering Day, referencing Mother Church.

floggg wrote: »

Perhaps read back over your post before getting snarky:

I didn't mean to come across as snarky tbh. At the time I was writing that, we were talking in the context of canvassing on the doorsteps, and you saying to complete strangers to imagine if their child were gay. Then you presented a high profile GAA player talking about the fact that he had asked himself that question already and pointed to role models like Sean Óg and so on.

Not even close to the same thing, and where I was coming from is that if a complete stranger turned up on my doorstep campaigning for a Yes vote, and asked me to imagine if my child were gay, I'd simply tell them to fcuk right off tbh. I don't even like it when my friends I have known for years try and analyse my child's behaviour like that and even suggest in a joking fashion that my child may be gay.

Y'know why? Because he's a child first of all, and I don't like it when adults try and impose their adult world view on a child, and secondly, and you may laugh when I say this, but I don't think it's their place. I find it rude and I find it disrespectful. I think if they have their own issues, fine, but don't try and force their issues on my child.

That's why, from my own personal perspective, I would never, ever ask anyone to simply "imagine if your child was gay".

There is a difference between somebody who is confused on the issues because of the deliberate red herring and scare mongering tactics of the no side, and a firm no voter (the ones usually engaging in the red herring and scare mongering tactics).

Somebody who is confused by their message about children, surrogacy etc and inclined to vote no as a result (and there are lots of those unfortunately) can be brought back to a yes by clarifying the issue and pointing to the reputable entities confirming the position.

They aren't the type of posters engaging here - the no posters engaging here are committed to their position irregardless of whatever argument might be put forward.

Will you win all of the confused voters? No.

But you will win some back by educating them. And every vote counts. I

If you didn't counter the irrelevant and incorrect claims being made that class of confused voters will increase, not decrease. There are soft yes which we need to protect as much as we need to win over no's or undecideds.

If the no side where to say a Yes vote will lead to commercial surrogacy (for example), and nobody corrects the position a lot of people will start to accept there is some truth to it.

I can agree with a lot of that, but the way I talk about it is that I was talking to people about this kind of stuff long, long before there was even a sniff of a referendum on the horizon. The Yes campaign have literally come out of nowhere in the last few weeks and were initially convinced that "sure people don't really care nowadays who is or isn't gay". They're only finding out now that people actually DO care. They didn't care as long as there wasn't anything to care about, and their prejudices went unchallenged. People believe what they want to believe, and what the no campaign are doing is feeding people's prejudices. What does that tell you about people in general when they had these prejudices already that they will believe these lies? It's because they want to believe these things about other people, not simply because the no side is actually telling them anything.

It's great that you are such an idealist in terms of campaign strategy. But honestly, if sticking to your own message and ignoring the other side entirely was an effective strategy, don't you think there would be somebody somewhere doing it (in a campaign with broadly equal access to airwaves and print media).

Funnily enough, I don't know of one campaign which ever has.

We see it all the time in campaign strategies. They simply focus on their goals and you don't see them trying to compete with their opposition. They show leadership and positivity and that's why people look up to them, as opposed to the kind of campaign that's just a mud flinging match that turns people apathetic to the whole charade.

For me personally, it's never been about politics, and I think engaging in political battles of wit is simply ignoring and alienating so, so many people that feel like there's nobody speaks for them. Up to a couple of weeks ago, yes people thought they had this one in the bag, a done deal, no contest. Those people were living in their own little backslapping bubble. There's more of a chance in reality though that this referendum won't pass, but like I said earlier - people believe what they want to believe, and I want to believe this referendum will pass.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes of course. Wedding anniversaries will be banned too because marriage won't be the same anymore. Anyone caught celebrating one will immediately have their parents confiscated and will no longer be entitled to a mother and a father.

Now that's straying down the - some priests will ban wedding photographers inside church/grounds along the confirmation-photo ban "can't have children taken advantage of" line.

traprunner wrote: »

If it is Fidelma then surely she should be doing something we pay her for....work...:pac:

Cue the Blues Brothers.........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't mean to come across as snarky tbh. At the time I was writing that, we were talking in the context of canvassing on the doorsteps, and you saying to complete strangers to imagine if their child were gay. Then you presented a high profile GAA player talking about the fact that he had asked himself that question already and pointed to role models like Sean Óg and so on.

Not even close to the same thing, and where I was coming from is that if a complete stranger turned up on my doorstep campaigning for a Yes vote, and asked me to imagine if my child were gay, I'd simply tell them to fcuk right off tbh. I don't even like it when my friends I have known for years try and analyse my child's behaviour like that and even suggest in a joking fashion that my child may be gay.

Y'know why? Because he's a child first of all, and I don't like it when adults try and impose their adult world view on a child, and secondly, and you may laugh when I say this, but I don't think it's their place. I find it rude and I find it disrespectful.

We see it all the time in campaign strategies. They simply focus on their goals and you don't see them trying to compete with their opposition. They show leadership and positivity and that's why people look up to them, as opposed to the kind of campaign that's just a mud flinging match that turns people apathetic to the whole charade.

Ta for that P.O.V., I'll mention it to other "yes vote" canvassers as a pertinent point on thinking of how the O/P would feel on that question.

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I've seen quite a few No ads on youtube videos this morning from the Iona institute,

looks like the no campaign is ramping up, I wonder will the yes side match them?

Speaking of ramping up - just saw this shared on facebook ( I do know the people involved):

I've just received this from a good friend in Wales, she is originally from N. Ireland and has no idea how they got her email address or exactly who sent it- anyone with any ideas, let us know or for others out there be alert...

"[I removed name],I received an email today asking me to sign a petition regarding the upcoming referendum on ROI on same sex marriage. Luckily I read it before i signed as it was in support of the 'No' campaign. Cheeky bastards! How did they get hold of my email address?

The receiver of the email says 'It claimed to be from Josh Craddock at CitizenGO citizengo@citizengo.org'. She contacted Citizengo and they told her her email address is not on their list...She also said it took careful reading to find out it was from the No campaign - I haven't seen the email so can't comment on the wording but I can say the receiver of the email is furious that they have her email address.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I looked at that 160 differences list thing, While there are some minor differences there are a load of similarities. Surely these can be tidied up without having to introduce marriage for same sex? Then everyone is a winner the no side the yes side the whole gambit. Give Civil Partnership the equivalency of marriage but just don't call it marriage. Simple work around job done!? :cool:

I have also belatedly realised if the referendum does not have anything to do with children (something I was repeatedly told here) why is a necessity at all that same sex couples get married since it does not involve children? Since civil partnerhip can be used for same sex couples to express their love for one another etc etc ?

Also I saw a map of the world of who has civil partnership and who has marriage are Ireland is not as backward as people on here are portraying. Germany has some sort of civil partnership like Ireland and they are supposed to be far more advanced then the likes of our little country.
World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg.png

Do countries that have civil partnership have a clause in their Constitution which grants special protection to those who are married and results in their courts defining only those couples who are married as a family?

It no such clause exists you are not comparing like for like.

I honestly don't know if they do or they don't but here in Ireland that is the issue - it it wasn't for the 'protection of marriage' clause SSM could have been introduced via legislation with no possibility of a Constitutional challenge to it's validity and the legal definition of family would be broader - and more in line with reality.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed, I've been answering many posters saying much the same thing. Perhaps I should explain again, I don't have staff.Yes it does. It's one of the "160 differences" listed on the marriage equality website. The right to marry of under 17 years olds will automatically extend on foot of a Yes vote.There is no requirement for parental consent to marriage in Ireland, regardless of the age of marriage.I did answer you question fairly. You didn't answer mine at all.

Right, actually, let's settle this once and for all.

We're both wrong. I went and looked into it and the Family Law Act 1995.

The age of consent for marriage is not 17 - it's 18. You do not need parental consent to marry under the age of 18, but you do need a Court Exemption Order. To be granted such an order, you have to prove that there are good reasons for your application and that the granting of an Order is in the best interests of the parties to the intended marriage. (Generally, as a minor, an applicant would also need to prove parental consent, barring exceptional circumstances.)

Your concern about the under 18 year olds marrying is currently being addressed by the Oireachtas - ast year the Government supported a proposal by Labour party senators to remove the ability for under 18 years to marry - Exemption Order or not.

Therefore your concern for underage gay Irish citizens, while touching, is not a reason to vote no to the SSM Referendum.

traprunner wrote: »

That would what would be known as inequality.

I disagree it is just another use of a a term for example a man gets married to another man (if this gets passed). One may call his man his wife the other my call his man his husband.

It is just use of terminology. This it would leave marriage free for traditionalists who believe that the standard family married unit involves a man and a women.

I don't understand why the gay community just have civil partnership bumped up to marriage equivalency. Otherwise it will be seen as breakdown of social/societal norms for some of the non-gay community.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I looked at that 160 differences list thing, While there are some minor differences there are a load of similarities. Surely these can be tidied up without having to introduce marriage for same sex? Then everyone is a winner the no side the yes side the whole gambit. Give Civil Partnership the equivalency of marriage but just don't call it marriage. Simple work around job done!? :cool:

No, it requires a constitutional amendment anyhow, as marriage is protected and civil partnership is not.