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

Peist2007 · 12-05-2015 03:30PM

efb wrote: »

No. It doesn't achieve anything

It does actually. Unless you are trying to manipulate the other side into agreeing with you. I'm not interested in doing that. Let them be grown ups and come up with some reasons for their position or be treated as fools.

This is a simple issue. There simply isnt any credibility to claiming you were on the yes side and are now on the no side. Logic is moving in the opposite direction to a change of heart such as that. So, he is a liar and is trying to paint his (always) no vote in some sort of protest light. When he is just a homophobe like the rest of them.

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 03:30PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

He was always voting no.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.
There are a lot of people who are on the fence, uninformed, worried about certain percieved impacts of a yes vote. Personally, I think it is better to reply positively to someone, correcting their misconceptions, providing knowledge where it is lacking etc. Being negative to someone who you are convinced is in the no camp is also possibly p1$$ing someone else off. You are not in a one to one conversation, you are responding to boards.

seamus · 12-05-2015 03:32PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Do you see why im not voting at all here?

There's nothing wrong with being on the fence, but if you're on the fence it's because;

1. You're conflicted or unsure. In which case you have questions, all of which can be answered. By far the best way to get questions answered is researching it yourself. Because then at least you can assess the credibility of the answers for yourself.
This was the primary purpose of RefCom - to ensure that undecided people in the middle wouldn't be overwhelmed with confusing or irrelevant information.

2. You don't care. In which case you're probably better off abstaining.

As this is an anonymous poll, I don't really see the logic in abstaining because, "I don't want to be associated with any side". If you feel this is important enough to vote on, then you don't need to align yourself with either campaign, you can review and research everything yourself and cast your vote without once ever having to discuss it with anyone.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 03:33PM

Right ok i get what most people are saying and as for the usual ****e talkers in here well ya....

As much as i dont agree with most of what ive seen and heard i guess its only fair ill think about it some more.

I think the fact i want it to pass is the only reason ill think about voting that day.

Its the fact im so sure it will pass makes me feel no one needs to rely on how i feel about it.

Mitch Connor · 12-05-2015 03:34PM

efb wrote: »

As a gay person I want this Referendum to pass so I can be equal in my own country but as was pointed out above, we are a minority and must rely on the understanding and good will of others for that, so for those who are not directly affected by this but will vote YES, Thank You.

And isn't that so sad? We are basically being asked if we would be kind enough, and benevolent enough to bestow equal human rights on a group of people within our society. Whether we will allow them to be treated as equal to the rest of us. Its horrible such a question is being asked, never mind debated with a possibility of it not being passed.

smash · 12-05-2015 03:35PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Its the fact im so sure it will pass makes me feel no one needs to rely on how i feel about it.

Unfortunately there's too many who think like this. Your vote does make a difference, no matter what side you're on.

RollieFingers · 12-05-2015 03:37PM

seamus wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with being on the fence, but if you're on the fence it's because;

1. You're conflicted or unsure. In which case you have questions, all of which can be answered. By far the best way to get questions answered is researching it yourself. Because then at least you can assess the credibility of the answers for yourself.
This was the primary purpose of RefCom - to ensure that undecided people in the middle wouldn't be overwhelmed with confusing or irrelevant information.

2. You don't care. In which case you're probably better off abstaining.

As this is an anonymous poll, I don't really see the logic in abstaining because, "I don't want to be associated with any side". If you feel this is important enough to vote on, then you don't need to align yourself with either campaign, you can review and research everything yourself and cast your vote without once ever having to discuss it with anyone.

Exactly how I feel about this referendum!

kunst nugget · 12-05-2015 03:38PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I think the fact i want it to pass is the only reason ill think about voting that day.

If you want it to pass then vote. I don't understand why you wouldn't vote if you want it to pass.

efb · 12-05-2015 03:38PM

http://soundcloud.com/morning-ireland/marriage-referendum-your-questions-answered

The Referendum Commission on Morning Ireland

Peist2007 · 12-05-2015 03:38PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.
There are a lot of people who are on the fence, uninformed, worried about certain percieved impacts of a yes vote. Personally, I think it is better to reply positively to someone, correcting their misconceptions, providing knowledge where it is lacking etc. Being negative to someone who you are convinced is in the no camp is also possibly p1$$ing someone else off. You are not in a one to one conversation, you are responding to boards.

And if there are people genuinely worried about the issues involved why dont they open their eyes or ears and listen to the information provided. If genuinely undecided or worried about an issue, i estimate it would take one minute of your time to become informed and make your decision.

As i said before, no skirting around this. There hasnt been one reason put forward against this yet so i will not be observing the tip-toeing thanks. The No campaign has been a complete joke and one that has insulted and spread fear from the outset. And all to protect the children. Same people were throwing children into wells when the priests told them to 100 years ago.

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 03:39PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Right ok i get what most people are saying and as for the usual ****e talkers in here well ya....

As much as i dont agree with most of what ive seen and heard i guess its only fair ill think about it some more.

I think the fact i want it to pass is the only reason ill think about voting that day.

Its the fact im so sure it will pass makes me feel no one needs to rely on how i feel about it.

Good Man/Woman (delete as appropriate). Have a think but do not assume this is a foregone conclusion. Every vote is important, if you want it to pass, vote yes.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 03:40PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont think anything about the no side really. It never stood a chance from day one and its mainly voiced by ****ing fools.

Do you see why im not voting at all here?

I'd imagine if you're not voting it's because this referendum doesn't directly effect you and because of that you couldn't give a toss?

To be honest it doesn't effect me either, I'm not gay and I'm not too interested in marriage or even monogamy if I'm being perfectly honest. But I will go out and vote Yes because I don't understand why only hetrosexual marriage is allowed and homosexual marriage isn't, I just want to help right that wrong and I'm not a moral crusader, that's just how I feel.

Ps, also the religious fanatics are dead nuts against it and they need to be stopped at every opportunity, that's also a good reason.

ixoy · 12-05-2015 03:41PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Its the fact im so sure it will pass makes me feel no one needs to rely on how i feel about it.

Judging by what I'm reading, I wouldn't be so sure at all. It's people making the assumption it'll pass, without voting, that can very well ensure it won't. To some it seems obvious it'll pass because it'd be stupid if it didn't, but that's not how things work in reality.

Put it this way: If you like the idea of it passing, if it seems better than it not passing, take 30 minutes out of your day to vote 'Yes'. It's not much out of one day of your life but it could help make a massive difference to the lives of myself, my partner and thousands of others including people you know and care about.

12-05-2015 03:42PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I just dont agree with how ive seen so many go about promoting it

Like who exactly? I have not seen "so many" going around promoting it poorly. What I have seen is a handful of people acting purely - and the "no" side actively exaggerating that to feed this "yes side bullying" narrative that they have been selling since the very beginning.

It is like the "Indian Rope Trick" where people swear to have seen a magic tricked performed that has never actually been performed. You have been fed a narrative that "so many" are doing this - and have even become convinced of it - yet I doubt you can identify much of it going on at all if you sat down and tried.

In fact never have I seen a discussion on an issue - since it first came up on boards - go _that_ quickly into a "We are being bullied and silenced and you yes folk are all so rude to us" narrative as this one did. Even on the threads from before what we even knew what the wording of this change was going to be - descended into this from page 2 or 3 on the thread.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

im not the only one who thinks this ive seen plenty of people say the same.

As I said they are exaggerating the actions of a very tiny minority into an ongoing narrative that you appear to by buying into. There are not many people acting poorly - and there are not that many people "saying the same" that they are. There is just a vocal minority - shouting very loudly - feeding this narrative. And people like you are seemingly buying into it.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Im not against what yes stands for behind all the crap being dealt by others

Then - as another user suggested - remember you are voting on the issues not on the campaigners. Even if the narrative were true - that some significant portion of the yes campaign - even the majority of them lets pretend - were engaged in poor tactics and decorum - so what? Learn the issues - learn the legal and social relevance of them - and vote on _THAT_,

Because you claim you were going to vote yes - and the conduct of the yes campaigners has made you doubt voting at all. But what I suspect is you may have been going to vote yes - and an ongoing narrative sold to you by the "no" side have convinced you of the poor conduct of yes campaigners in general.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 03:43PM

ixoy wrote: »

Judging by what I'm reading, I wouldn't be so sure at all. It's people making the assumption it'll pass, without voting, that can very well ensure it won't. To some it seems obvious it'll pass because it'd be stupid if it didn't, but that's not how things work in reality.

Put it this way: If you like the idea of it passing, if it seems better than it not passing, take 30 minutes out of your day to vote 'Yes'. It's not much out of one day of your life but it could help make a massive difference to the lives of myself, my partner and thousands of others including people you know and care about.

Assumptions are very dangerous things, I mean I was so confident that the Seanad was a goner (as I'm sure many others were aswell) I didn't bother getting out to vote......I'll never make that mistake again!

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 03:45PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

And isn't that so sad? We are basically being asked if we would be kind enough, and benevolent enough to bestow equal human rights on a group of people within our society. Whether we will allow them to be treated as equal to the rest of us. Its horrible such a question is being asked, never mind debated with a possibility of it not being passed.

+1

efb · 12-05-2015 03:47PM

https://m.soundcloud.com/morning-ireland/marriage-referendum-your-questions-answered

The Morning Ireland interview with the Referendum Commission

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 03:51PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I think the fact i want it to pass is the only reason ill think about voting that day.

I think that is the only reason anyone needs.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 03:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Like who exactly? I have not seen "so many" going around promoting it poorly. What I have seen is a handful of people acting purely - and the "no" side actively exaggerating that to feed this "yes side bullying" narrative that they have been selling since the very beginning.

It is like the "Indian Rope Trick" where people swear to have seen a magic tricked performed that has never actually been performed. You have been fed a narrative that "so many" are doing this - and have even become convinced of it - yet I doubt you can identify much of it going on at all if you sat down and tried.

In fact never have I seen a discussion on an issue - since it first came up on boards - go _that_ quickly into a "We are being bullied and silenced and you yes folk are all so rude to us" narrative as this one did. Even on the threads from before what we even knew what the wording of this change was going to be - descended into this from page 2 or 3 on the thread.

As I said they are exaggerating the actions of a very tiny minority into an ongoing narrative that you appear to by buying into. There are not many people acting poorly - and there are not that many people "saying the same" that they are. There is just a vocal minority - shouting very loudly - feeding this narrative. And people like you are seemingly buying into it.

Then - as another user suggested - remember you are voting on the issues not on the campaigners. Even if the narrative were true - that some significant portion of the yes campaign - even the majority of them lets pretend - were engaged in poor tactics and decorum - so what? Learn the issues - learn the legal and social relevance of them - and vote on _THAT_,

Because you claim you were going to vote yes - and the conduct of the yes campaigners has made you doubt voting at all. But what I suspect is you may have been going to vote yes - and an ongoing narrative sold to you by the "no" side have convinced you of the poor conduct of yes campaigners in general.

I never taught about voting no i was always going to vote yes. Weather certain yokes on here believe that well i couldn't give a ****

.

Basically ive just had my doubts weather i should vote at all by how ive seen people act.

i dont backtrack on most things but at the end of the day theres no reason why this shouldn't pass. I think reading threw what people have said to me on here has made me think a bit more about it now and maybe i should vote because i know myself im in favour of it being passed.

I dont know what im doing on the day ill more then likely be working as normal where can i even vote? Does it have to be the normal place in the area im registered in ?

LookingFor · 12-05-2015 03:53PM

The No campaign seems to be getting particularly nasty, and having less and less regard for the truth. I found this particularly grating:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/ireland-marriage-equality-referendum#.bpxR8MKJ0

“We would take most succor from what happened in Slovenia,” Quinn said, referring to the 2012 referendum that reversed a law passed by parliament extending legal protections to same-sex couples. Opponents have also consulted the leaders of the 2013 campaign that blocked marriage equality in Croatia.

They hear the same advice from campaigners in every country, Quinn said. “The message that comes back all the time, loud and clear … [is] keep talking about the children.” Marriage is inherently bound up with the right to found a family, Quinn argued: “Obviously the only way two men or two women can found a family is by violating a child’s right to have a mother and a father.”

On a couple of levels this is pretty gross. We have the same suggestion we've been hearing more and more lately that a family isn't a family without kids. What's more annoying in the case of someone like Quinn - unlike some more ignorant people in the No campaign - is that he himself knows perfectly well what the constitution says about what is and is not required to form a constitutionally protected family, but he is disregarding it completely.

More than that, though, is the implicit admission on his part that 'the children' is just the means for them to get them a defeat of the referendum rather than any particularly genuine, from-scratch, motivation for wanting to defeat it. Any means at all will do if it works.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 03:58PM

Dimithy wrote: »

What difficulties do you see this bit of legislation causing, that would lead you to vote no?

The significance is more in establishing how (or if) gender-specific concepts that only apply to straight marriage will apply when we've SSM.
Like, nobody here knows. And that's sort of my point.

I'd like to know, in advance, if the convenience of the presumption of paternity will no longer apply to straight marriages, as its a distinction based on gender. Or whether there will be some amendment, as the existing measure can't be coherently applied to SSM (no matter how much spinning Zubeneschamali does). If there's some tailoring for SSM, is that conflicting with the amendment's commitment to "no distinction".

You'll appreciate, the currently wording doesn't cause a problem for straight marriages where the couple are unlikely to have children - it's just saying that, if they do, the husband is assumed to be the father unless there's good reason to doubt that.

But it just makes ludicrous reading for all female marriages. The law still insists we look for a husband first, before admitting someone else might (and the wording essentially means 'might') be the father.

Is that clear? The reason I'm interested in this specific example is that answering this point would clarify a lot about how law might be changed to accommodate SSM.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The standard for proof on the balance of the probabilities is looser than beyond reasonable doubt, which is looser than absolute certainty.

So something which is certain is proven beyond reasonable doubt and also proven on the balance of the probablilities.

And only the true Messiah denies his divinity.

You're still talking around the issue. The article very clearly assumes that all marriages have husbands, which is just incoherent. It is self-evidently ludicrous to both assume there is a husband, and apply a balance of probabilities test before admitting the possibility that someone else is the father.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 04:00PM

smash wrote: »

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.

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.

Absolute nonsense. In the interest of....

If a TV programme had gays talking on 3 different nights, and only 1 no to marriage lad, you wouldn't give a toss.

Sure the gays have already said their piece, so let's not give them........

How do you know whether the cause will or will not effect people in Iona or their family.? For a start, they have their idea of what a marriage is, it will be drastically changed to a definition that they oppose, boo hoo, I hear you say

moronic statement to make. I suppose you say that about men and the abortion debate.

Newsflash. Marriage is a public institution. Everyone is getting a say on how they want to define it. How they want associated with it. It effects everyone!

Lies, no,?

Rory just spouted out alot of defamatory remarks, that funny enough, didn't cost him a penny. It is Lies, and in the head, that the ban to marry another of the same sex, makes him a "second class citizen"

smash · 12-05-2015 04:01PM

LookingFor wrote: »

What's more annoying in the case of someone like Quinn - unlike some more ignorant people in the No campaign - is that he himself knows perfectly well what the constitution says about what is and is not required to form a constitutionally protected family, but he is disregarding it completely.

He's a dangerous individual. He's intelligent enough to know what he's saying, but more importantly he's intelligent enough to know how to say it in such a way that he comes across as sincere. I do love the fact that he can't hide on twitter, unlike the Iona YouTube channel which has comments and likes/dislikes disabled.

smash · 12-05-2015 04:02PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. In the interest of....

If a TV programme had gays talking on 3 different nights, and only 1 no to marriage lad, you wouldn't give a toss.

Sure the gays have already said their piece, so let's not give them........

You do realise that the majority of yes campaigners aren't gay?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

How do you know whether the cause will or will not effect people in Iona or their family.? For a start, they have their idea of what a marriage is, it will be drastically changed to a definition that they oppose, boo hoo, I hear you say

And this will affect them how?

again, the rest of your post isn't worth replying to.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 04:04PM

LookingFor wrote: »

The No campaign seems to be getting particularly nasty, and having less and less regard for the truth. I found this particularly grating:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/ireland-marriage-equality-referendum#.bpxR8MKJ0

There's that disconnect again; starting with a valid and factual point that nobody can disagree with: "[in the constitution] marriage is inherently bound up with family" and then stating out of nowhere that children have a right to a mother and father. He's acting like the first statement somehow qualifies the second, where there is no connection between them in the constitution. It's common practice for children to have both a mother and father but to imply that the constitution somehow gives this as a right is dishonest.

I'd possibly agree that children have a right to parent(s) (if I fully understood what exactly that meant) but there are fundamentally different definitions of parents at play. I'd say something along the lines of whoever raises a child/legal guardian but for Quinn it's strictly the biological parents (unless of course your children are adopted and you happen to be the founder of the Iona Institute/Lolek Ltd.).

The Saint · 12-05-2015 04:04PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...

Lets try this again.

Do you believe that same sex couples should have the right to get married? Yes or No?

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 04:06PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I dont know what im doing on the day ill more then likely be working as normal where can i even vote? Does it have to be the normal place in the area im registered in ?

Sadly yes. It has to be at whatever location is on your polling card which is usually the nearest polling station to your registered address. Polling stations are open until 10pm though as far as I know.

Kiwi in IE · 12-05-2015 04:09PM

Tenz wrote: »

Generally true I think. But I would add one thing. Almost all of the older generation I've spoken to say something along the lines of ...

"I don't care what two consenting adults do. Let them marry if they want. Nothing to do with me. But will they be allowed to adopt children? I think a child is better off with a mother and a father"

They're not homophobic, irrational, overly religious, or insane. They just have concerns about a child being raised by two daddies or two mammies. And I think its genuinely amusing how many people dismiss these concerns out of hand, while simultaneously shouting 'breast is best!!', and 'too posh to push!'. How you could feel the minutae of a child's medical delivery, and first method of feeding are matters of weighty concern, but the gender of a child's primary caregivers is totally inconsequential, baffles me.

I don't think the type of birth or method of feeding is of any consequence at all and is none of anybody's business other than the parents, and medical professionals in the case of delivery.

Just like who people fall in love with and wish to marry is none of anybody's business other than the couple concerned.

Children are already being raised by same sex parents and will continue to be whether or not this referendum passes. The only difference will be that both parents will be able to be legal guardian for their children, as opposed to the current situation where only the adoptive or biological parent can.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 04:11PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sadly yes. It has to be at whatever location is on your polling card which is usually the nearest polling station to your registered address. Polling stations are open until 10pm though as far as I know.

****e :pac:.

Right ok this doesn't happen very often :P but i think a lot of you have made me think i should change my mind. Not about how i feel the yes vote was put forward i stilll dont really agree with that but the fact at the end of the day if i actually feel it should happen i should at least add to it by voting for it.

Ill have to figure out how the feck im gonna go about doing it now though seeing as i dont live there anymore!.

LookingFor · 12-05-2015 04:12PM

TheChizler wrote: »

There's that disconnect again; starting with a valid and factual point that nobody can disagree with: "[in the constitution] marriage is inherently bound up with family" and then stating out of nowhere that children have a right to a mother and father. He's acting like the first statement somehow qualifies the second, where there is no connection between them in the constitution. It's common practice for children to have both a mother and father but to imply that the constitution somehow gives this as a right is dishonest.

I'd possibly agree that children have a right to parent(s) (if I fully understood what exactly that meant) but there are fundamentally different definitions of parents at play. I'd say something along the lines of whoever raises a child/legal guardian but for Quinn it's strictly the biological parents (unless of course your children are adopted and you happen to be the founder of the Iona Institute/Lolek Ltd.).

What I took more offense to is that, by our constitution's definition, when two people marry they become family. But Quinn's argument is that if two gay people marry and thus 'form a family', they 'obviously' and inherently will deny some child their mother and father. Which is a load of codswallop because children are not required in the forming of a family per our constitution.

He either misunderstands (imo, unlikely) or is just outright lying and twisting things to make connections to his 'children' meme, regardless of whether it's based in truth or not.

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

Comments