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

Mitch Connor · 12-05-2015 02:55PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Because from what ive seen and heard of the yes campaign the last few weeks/months and how they have went about everything im not fully behind them.

So really at the end of the day i support the idea of gay marriage but i dont like how its been mainly represented in this situation so im not voting and in fairness id be very VERY surprised if this goes any other way then a yes win.

So you are not going to support the gay people who want equal rights because you don't like how some campaigners have acted? Seems a rather weak reason to help keep an unequal discriminatory and damaging institution in place.

12-05-2015 02:56PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

This was never ever going to be an equal fair open referendum in which it could be debated openly and each side could have there say.

Except that is exactly what it is. Both sides are given equal air time - both sides have access to the press - both sides can put up posters and canvass. It is as equal and open as it gets.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont even know why we bothered having one it should of just been passed and we could all get on with our lives.

In this context our constitution can not be changed without a referendum. So you can not "just pass" it and let people get on with their lives. It has to be put to the people.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

i think in fairness even if people have valid reasons to vote no they where never going to be aloud to be taken seriously.

Except that is exactly what they are allowed to do. Several of us - myself included - have not just politely asked - but literally begged to hear the reasons for voting "no". Many of us genuinely wanted to know.

The reasons - simply - were - not - forthcoming.

So it is a bit of a reality-skew to claim they were not going to be allowed to be taken seriously - when we genuinely tried to engage with them - and they simply had nothing to offer.

The fault was with them not having a single argument to offer - not with some aggressive majority silencing them and not allowing them to be heard - considered - or taken seriously.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

The reason it appears to be so one sided is because you dont get to see any logical reasons for why people are voting no but there has to be.

Nice idealism there - to think that if someone is voting one way there must be a logical reason for them to be doing so. I am not sure I share your optimism in this. Many people do vote from the gut - not the intellect.

I - like you - spent awhile thinking "There just has to be" reasons for a no vote. At this point however I have realised either there simply is not a single one - or there is some kind of fantastical consorted conspiracy to simply not allow us to hear them - that for strange reasons also known only to themselves - they have ALL signed up to.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 02:56PM

ixoy wrote: »

Can you give an example?

And even if you disagree with some of the tactics, do you honestly believe it's a good idea that your opinion of those campaigners, who are only a small fraction of the LGBT population affected by this - should be pushed onto all of them? Surely it's not fair on those others campaigning quietly or those not in a position too for whatever reason? You must know that the Yes side contains a wide spectrum of people, many with differing approaches and that because some shout more strongly doesn't mean they reflect the thoughts and approaches of everyone.

I dont agree with the whole pulling down opposition posters weather there right or wrong if u start doing that your more or less telling people they can only have one opinion.

I dont agree with people using social media to gang up on others and label them because there not in full agreement with them.

I dont agree with the fact the whole thing has turned into not being about whats right and wrong but more a case of whoever screams loudest wins.

This whole thing was meant to be about ''equality'' but none of that is treating people equal is it?

WoolyJumper · 12-05-2015 02:56PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about.

Of all the Yes supporters on this thread, and there are a lot, how many made any genuine effort to coax a No voter towards the Yes side? I recall seeing it maybe twice.

If the people vote NO to this referendum, a referendum which should pass by a landslide, you "Keyboard Campaigners" should hang your heads in shame.

Very few posters on the no side actually come here with an open mind. Some come here with genuine questions and concerns others come with here looking to convince themselves of their own opinion. It becomes clear very early on which is the latter and to be honest there is no point in engaging with them. The minute you address their concern they completely ignore and bring in some other red herring. When they have run out of those then you are bullying them and shouting them down. Some people don't want to be convinced.

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 02:56PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Are men and women equal?

They should be treated equally.

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 02:57PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

then the husband of the marriage shall be presumed to be the father of the child unless the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

I think on the balance of probabilities it is proven that the husband is not the father, since he does not exist.

Although there was this one case in Judea a couple of thousand years ago...

osarusan · 12-05-2015 02:57PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But how would that concern the gays or harm them once they have legal protections for life, whether for them, their partner or their own biological children? What else do ye want? Gays, are officially and legally accepted now a days, just like the De facto couples who were once considered to be "living in sin"

De facto relationships are not Constitutionally protected.

Heterosexual de facto couples can get married if they want to avail of that protection. Homosexual couples should be able to do likewise.

Homosexual de facto couples will not be entitled to that constitutional protection either.

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 02:58PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What else do ye want?

Equality before the law.

efb · 12-05-2015 03:00PM

So even when the Referendum Commission say otherwise- No votes still want to fudge the issue

seamus · 12-05-2015 03:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Are men and women equal?

Equal? Yes. Identical? No.

Two very different words.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 03:00PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Because from what ive seen and heard of the yes campaign the last few weeks/months and how they have went about everything im not fully behind them.

So really at the end of the day i support the idea of gay marriage but i dont like how its been mainly represented in this situation so im not voting and in fairness id be very VERY surprised if this goes any other way then a yes win.

You may have grievances about the people involved in the campaign, but this amendment to the constitution will hopefully outlive every one of us. Why would you forever deny people rights in principal, or not support those rights, because of how individuals/groups you were aware of acted over a 60 day period?

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I think thats been made very obvious over the last few months. My point is a lot of these people would never entertain the no side even if they did come out with valid reasons to not vote yes.

The reason it appears to be so one sided is because you dont get to see any logical reasons for why people are voting no but there has to be. It cant be as black and white as ''You cant vote no cause its wrong''. Nothing is ever that simple.

If and when this passes its going to be like most things in that there will be situations that arise that most of us never really taught about that is bound to affect more then just one type of person.

If the No side came out with logically sound arguments then it would only be the people who as you say "would never entertain the no side even if they did come out with valid reasons to not vote yes". There are plenty of people on the no side who will not be persuaded no matter what as well. If there was an undeniable no argument then I would acknowledge it and weigh it up against the benefits when making my decision. Maybe you know one?

smash · 12-05-2015 03:02PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont agree with the whole pulling down opposition posters weather there right or wrong if u start doing that your more or less telling people they can only have one opinion.

This has happened on both sides.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont agree with people using social media to gang up on others and label them because there not in full agreement with them.

The world is larger than facebook and twitter. You're viewing a minority and again it comes from both sides.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont agree with the fact the whole thing has turned into not being about whats right and wrong but more a case of whoever screams loudest wins.

this is the fault of the no side for diluting the issues with lies.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 03:02PM

smash wrote: »

It's infuriating to watch these people getting air time for these debates. Just look at the advocates of a yes votes... There's so many organisations that you can choose to represent the side. Then look at the advocates of a no vote and they're the same people over and over. The same deep rooted religious clap trap.

If they can't find a credible representative then they shouldn't hold a debate. RTE should spell it out simply: We have numerous organisations ready to debate for the yes side and we have 3 or 4 for the no side. In the interest of keeping it equal we have cancelled the debate because the no side representatives have previously had their say and we can't just have the rest of the unheard yes side debating nobody.

Why are you so worried about the alleged religious clap trap? Shouldn't you not be welcoming it? Delighted to get a chance to publicly expose them? Afraid that the Irish people are not smart enough to make their own choices?

Absolutely convinced that you ate completely right, since, who the hell knows what will happen in a few years time?

Remember the "loonies" voting No to Nice and subsequent Treaties to reform voting procedures etc. One reason, taxation attack on out copro. On paper it was bollox. Treaty had nothing to do with it. Guess what,? Due to the voting procedures and what we knew then and now, it's very much a topic being pushed by the big boys.

Why should a debate be cancelled? For your benefit and no more!

So, the Rory O'Neill of this world, who I would be happy to see talking again , but did "have his say", is entitled to repeat again and again the more simplified arguments about second class citizens, right to be happy and be loved etc... I wouldn't stop him, even if I think that line of argument is weak..

It's called a debate, love, if all you have to Doris constantly rebut nonsense arguments which you believe that you confidentially can, then you won't have to worry too much. Your asking people of all hues to accept your argument. You are entitled to attack your argument and theirs, yours

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 03:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think on the balance of probabilities it is proven that the husband is not the father, since he does not exist.

And I repeat, it's incoherent to rely on a balance of probabilities argument in a situation of certainty. It's incoherent to have a wording that assumes a woman is married to a husband, and assumes that husband to be the default father. Even, as you say, when he doesn't exist.

Bear in mind, in the background, the Amendment wording says "no distinction" based on gender. And you can't just replace the gendered words in that paragraph with "spouse".

The point is obvious. Please don't avoid it again, and then pretend you've addressed it.

Mr. CooL ICE · 12-05-2015 03:03PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I think thats been made very obvious over the last few months. My point is a lot of these people would never entertain the no side even if they did come out with valid reasons to not vote yes.

The reason it appears to be so one sided is because you dont get to see any logical reasons for why people are voting no but there has to be. It cant be as black and white as ''You cant vote no cause its wrong''. Nothing is ever that simple.

But there hasn't been any relevant "no" argument yet. As Bannasidhe points out...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps you have failed to notice that it tends to go:
I'm voting no because adoption.
Adoption has nothing to do with it because*detailed explanation follows*
Yes, well I think every child needs a mammy and daddy stands to reason.
Well, studies show *link to meta studies*.
I don't believe that. My gut tells me there are things only a mother can do.
What kind of things exactly?
STOP BULLYING ME!!!!

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 03:04PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Equality before the law.

Fair enough (and when you you want it... Catchy)

One problem. Equality doesn't treat everyone as the same. Treat like for like, dislikes differently

kunst nugget · 12-05-2015 03:04PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

This was never ever going to be an equal fair open referendum in which it could be debated openly and each side could have there say.

I dont even know why we bothered having one it should of just been passed and we could all get on with our lives.

Its one of the first times ive ever really noticed such an important issue that the public has to vote on where only one outcome is really at the end of the day being entertained.

Dont get me wrong i want it to pass i originally was going to vote yes *Im not voting now* but i think in fairness even if people have valid reasons to vote no they where never going to be aloud to be taken seriously.

Ah, no you weren't…

ixoy · 12-05-2015 03:06PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont agree with the whole pulling down opposition posters weather there right or wrong if u start doing that your more or less telling people they can only have one opinion.

I dont agree with people using social media to gang up on others and label them because there not in full agreement with them.

I dont agree with the fact the whole thing has turned into not being about whats right and wrong but more a case of whoever screams loudest wins.

This whole thing was meant to be about ''equality'' but none of that is treating people equal is it?

Again though those people only represent a fraction of the people affected by this vote. You're basically saying "Because that small percentage acted in that manner, I'm going to tarnish all of them." For example, there's posters pulled down, yes, but most Yes voters are against that and have cried against that. Don't let a few militants tarnish everyone.

Don't vote on how the tactics are employed by a small minority but on the issue itself. You seem to believe in the idea of gay marriage and so, putting aside the loud voices of a few who do *NOT* represent everyone, so surely you should vote yes for all the other unheard voices.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 03:06PM

seamus wrote: »

Equal? Yes. Identical? No.

Two very different words.

I'd agree.

But, apparently, if they differ, they're not equal.

So SireOfSeth says.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 03:08PM

I dont no who to reply to at this stage :pac: so ill just say this.

At the end of the day i have nothing against gay people wanting to get married and that is why i was going to vote yes and ultimately why i know it will be the right thing when it passes.

I just dont agree with how ive seen so many go about promoting it though and im not the only one who thinks this ive seen plenty of people say the same.

Im not against what yes stands for behind all the crap being dealt by others but at the same time its just who i am that if im not 100 percent happy with something id rather not leave my mark on it by making a choice on it.

Ive actually had this conversation with more then one gay person and i was able to talk to them rationally about it without being told i was wrong i just dont see that happening enough when it comes to the campaigning of this referendum though.

Its been mainly forced on people and i dont agree with that. If your anyway on the fence for whatever reason right or wrong your been pushed to one side.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 03:09PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah, no you weren't…

Yes i was.....

No wait i hate gay people right ? :pac:

smash · 12-05-2015 03:09PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why should a debate be cancelled? For your benefit and no more!

In the interest of keeping it equal. If they've had their say already and they can't stick to a topic either, then don't give them the air time.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So, the Rory O'Neill of this world, who I would be happy to see talking again , but did "have his say", is entitled to repeat again and again the more simplified arguments about second class citizens, right to be happy and be loved etc... I wouldn't stop him, even if I think that line of argument is weak..

He's an advocate of a cause, a cause that will directly affect his life. The outcome of this referendum will not directly affect Iona or the other no advocates! Rory also hasn't repeatedly entered into these debates spouting lies.

The parts I've omitted from your post aren't worth replying to.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 03:10PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Fair enough (and when you you want it... Catchy)

What does this mean?

The Saint · 12-05-2015 03:11PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd agree.

But, apparently, if they differ, they're not equal.

So SireOfSeth says.

Yes or No, do you believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry?

osarusan · 12-05-2015 03:12PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

At the end of the day i have nothing against gay people wanting to get married and that is why i was going to vote yes and ultimately why i know it will be the right thing when it passes.

I'm going to ask you, respectfully, to think about it this way:

You were going to vote yes because you agreed that gay couple should be allowed to get married, and you still feel it is the right thing.

Now, you might be unhappy with the tone of the Yes campaign (no more so than the No campaign, I would have thought, but that is another debate), but the issue (Same sex marriage) itself hasn't changed, nor has your opinion on it - you still believe it is the right thing to do.

Please don't let some negative/aggressive campaigning dissuade you from voting for what you felt, and still feel, to be the right thing to do.

Please vote, and please vote Yes. It will make a huge difference to those gay people you talked to.

kunst nugget · 12-05-2015 03:12PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What else do ye want?

A cure for Tourettes!

When do we want it?

Cúnts!

traprunner · 12-05-2015 03:12PM

The Saint wrote: »

Yes or No, do you believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry?

He has refused to answer that question a number of times. Even if everything he was concerned about was removed from the equation.

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 03:12PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And I repeat, it's incoherent to rely on a balance of probabilities argument in a situation of certainty.

So you're pretending that something which is certain is not proven on the balance of probabilities?

Remedial English for you.

efb · 12-05-2015 03:13PM

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/in-the-face-of-political-inaction-it-is-up-to-us-to-back-the-rights-of-minority-groups-31214250.html

This article addresses many of the points raised

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 03:13PM

traprunner wrote: »

He has refused to answer that question a number of times../QUOTE]

He's obviously a Yes voter. He's just yanking our chains, like gravehold.

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

Comments