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

K4t · 14-05-2015 12:03AM

RobertKK wrote: »

You brought up muslims for discussion.

I had a point. You obviously don't..

K4t, you are dangerous and backward, because i don't agree with your opinions. That is what you are saying.
I don't mind criticism, I do take issue with you saying people who hold different beliefs to you are dangerous and backward, because with you people are not allowed to have the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression of that, which are human rights.
You say these human rights are dangerous and backward.

It's truly astonishing that you still clearly cannot understand the difference between certain beliefs a person holds and the person themselves. Yet again you directly associate the person (this time myself) with the proposed beliefs.

And then you go further and associate the actual human rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression with those certain beliefs! Utter madness. It's like me arguing that rape and murder are good, and when someone questions me, I accuse them of not respecting me as a person or those who think like me, and of not allowing me my right to free expression or free religion etc. I would be deemed crazy. But that is exactly what you are arguing for.

I am a massive advocate of freedom of expression and speech, and freedom of religion, perhaps the biggest on this site. That is why arguments such as yours enrage me so much. Those rights have to exist for everyone, and they have to protect everyone. You can hold and express whatever belief, religious or otherwise, that you like. But I am also then free to question or criticise or offend that belief. And if I think it's backward or dangerous, I'll damn well say it is. And that is not impinging on your right to freedom of expression or religion. And if you think it is, then you don't understand the meaning of them my friend.

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 12:03AM

gandalf wrote: »

Campaigning for a very divisive and emotive issue. Personally that is bad parenting and certainly not the behaviour one would expect of an organisation pretending to promote the protection of children as one of its core values.

The debate is only divisive and emotive because one side has done it's best to bully and intimidate the electorate into passing this amendment.

Kiwi in IE · 14-05-2015 12:04AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Will be for me, will be at the 3Arena presuming I'm still alive on June 29th.

efb wrote: »

Im not usually a fan! Kylie and Grace Jones previous week!

None of the above do it much for me. I will be celebrating at the Who concert the next day.

SaveOurLyric · 14-05-2015 12:05AM

RobertKK wrote: »

You brought up muslims for discussion.

K4t, you are dangerous and backward, because i don't agree with your opinions. That is what you are saying.

I would say that it is not because you dont agree with him. Rather, if they are religion derived beliefs, then they are without a serious foundation. And for that reason can be deemed dangerous and backward. It is really the pivot on which this SSM referendum swings - what level of this foundationless and out of date thinking still pervades Irish society and what proportion has matured beyond it.

efb · 14-05-2015 12:05AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

None of the above do it much for me. I will be celebrating at the Who concert the next day.

each to their own!

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 12:07AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Just how many times have you Godwin'd this thread? Must be dozens at least.

Desperate.

Atomic, where's these dozens of Nazi analogies you think I've posted? I don't like the accusation. Have you confused me with someone else?

RobertKK · 14-05-2015 12:07AM

K4t wrote: »

I had a point. You obviously don't..

It's truly astonishing that you still clearly cannot understand the difference between certain beliefs a person holds and the person themselves. Yet again you directly associate the person (this time myself) with the proposed beliefs.

And then you go further and associate the actual human rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression with those certain beliefs! Utter madness. It's like me arguing that rape and murder are good, and when someone questions me, I accuse them of not respecting me as a person or those who think like me, and of not allowing me my right to free expression or free religion etc. I would be deemed crazy. But that is exactly what you are arguing for.

I am a massive advocate of freedom of expression and speech, and freedom of religion, perhaps the biggest on this site. That is why arguments such as yours enrage me so much. Those rights have to exist for everyone, and they have to protect everyone. You can hold and express whatever belief, religious or otherwise, that you like. But I am also then free to question or criticise or offend that belief. And if I think it's backward or dangerous, I'll damn well say it is. And that is not impinging on your right to freedom of expression or religion. And if you think it is, then you don't understand the meaning of them my friend.

Article 18 of the UN universal declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

You want this right denied.

blacklilly · 14-05-2015 12:08AM

gandalf wrote: »

Campaigning for a very divisive and emotive issue. Personally that is bad parenting and certainly not the behaviour one would expect of an organisation pretending to promote the protection of children as one of its core values.

Absolute and utter nonsense. If you believe it is bad parenting maybe you should consider reporting the mum to social services........

It was in a very public place in broad day light in a busy town at a meet and greet session. The very fact people are saying that the parent should have considered the childs safety confirms the fact that there is much vitriol and abuse directed towards the no side.

Irrespective of which side this relates to, no person should have to worry about being assaulted under such circumstances

sunshine and showers · 14-05-2015 12:10AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

The debate is only divisive and emotive because one side has done it's best to bully and intimidate the electorate into passing rejecting this amendment.

FYP. :rolleyes:

Had a charming man come aggressively storming out of his house with a leaflet a friend and I put though his letter box while canvassing (he didn't answer the door). He proceeded to rip the flyer up and throw it at us. Lovely.

K4t · 14-05-2015 12:11AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

The debate is only divisive and emotive because one side has done it's best to bully and intimidate the electorate into passing this amendment.

The only reason? The ONLY reason? I can only imagine how an lgbt poster must feel reading that statement. Obviously you simply do not care at all about lgbt people or their feelings in this country. And the yes side haven't done their best to bully and intimidate the electorate. That's ONLY your opinion. And it's wrong in mine.

gandalf · 14-05-2015 12:11AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

The debate is only divisive and emotive because one side has done it's best to bully and intimidate the electorate into passing this amendment.

I disagree totally. It is getting divisive and emotive because the no side are lying and totally misrepresenting what the actual amendment is about. The only reason that they are shouting about bullying is because when any sane logical person sits down and considers the wording and what is actually being asked there is only one logical conclusion and that is to vote in favour of the proposition.

What you are seeing is frustration at the constant stream of mistruths from the mouths of odorous individuals like Ronan Mullen.

Bringing children along to a campaigning event is being done by both sides and I disagree fundamentally with it. From my perspective these people as abusing their children using them as window dressing to somehow validate their position more to Joe Q Public.

Kiwi in IE · 14-05-2015 12:12AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have seen children at yes and no events while browsing social media. I don't see the problem, we live in a supposedly free society.
These children are part of society and parents have a right to bring up children with values they believe in, and they can decide for themselves when older.
Shouldn't have to hide the children, whether yes or no because neither side should be getting attacked with things.

And if that child or one of her siblings discover that they are gay in a couple of years, they will be thrilled that they took part won't they? Never mind having to come out to parents who campaigned against LGBT equality.

efb · 14-05-2015 12:12AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

FYP. :rolleyes:

Had a charming man come aggressively storming out of his house with a leaflet a friend and I put though his letter box while canvassing (he didn't answer the door). He proceeded to rip the flyer up and throw it at us. Lovely.

I had a woman crumple up a Gay Byrne leaflet in front of me! He is my best flyer!!!!

K4t · 14-05-2015 12:17AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Article 18 of the UN universal declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

You want this right denied.

News to me! Where have I ever said this? Or even insinuated it? Your interpretation of my post which you obviously did not understand does not count. The truth is that you want that right to be allowed for some and denied for others. You want a person to be allowed to hold and express whatever religious thought they like (me too), except you don't want another person to be allowed to question and criticise that thought. So, YOU WANT THIS RIGHT DENIED. (because you don't understand the right which is fair enough, but you will not even try to understand it which is unforgivable).

gandalf · 14-05-2015 12:18AM

blacklilly wrote: »

Absolute and utter nonsense. If you believe it is bad parenting maybe you should consider reporting the mum to social services........

It was in a very public place in broad day light in a busy town at a meet and greet session. The very fact people are saying that the parent should have considered the childs safety confirms the fact that there is much vitriol and abuse directed towards the no side.

Irrespective of which side this relates to, no person should have to worry about being assaulted under such circumstances

From what I can see there is abuse and vitriol coming from both sides. I saw comments from a woman who was approached by some of these people at the "meet and greet" at this very shopping centre before this incident saying she was severely verbally abused by two of their number when she told them that she was voting yes.

Personally as a parent I wouldn't surround my child with aggressive individuals like this or put them in a position where there was a possibility that they would get in harms way. If I was there and saw this happening then yes I might take your advice and report this parent to the authorities.

I do agree with you that in a perfect world no person should have to amend their normal behaviour but it is quite obvious that we don't like in an equal and perfect world.

Frank Bullitt · 14-05-2015 12:20AM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/598562153700990976
Also
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/598569341802684417

Disagree with 2nd tweet as I don't see why they have to condemn something they didn't do. I have seen condemnation by Yes campaigners for the record, but that is because decent people don't want to be associated with that type of behaviour.

I assume Mr.Quinn has proof that the person in the bike was a yes voter...

K4t · 14-05-2015 12:22AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Atomic, where's these dozens of Nazi analogies you think I've posted? I don't like the accusation. Have you confused me with someone else?

In fairness, you're the one who compared me to Hitler, and strangely enough for arguing in favour of the right to free expression and freedom of religion.

I didn't like your accusation! Because it made no sense.

Kiwi in IE · 14-05-2015 12:22AM

Gintonious wrote: »

I assume Mr.Quinn has proof that the person in the bike was a yes voter...

It was probably Mr Quinn himself or Breda O'Briens son, ensuring they get some more airtime to whine about 'persecution'.

osarusan · 14-05-2015 12:25AM

Ah Jaysus whoever threw the egg at the young girl is a moron, yes voter or not.

It's silly to say that her mother should have known better than to bring a young girl with allergies into a possibly contentious situation.

RobertKK · 14-05-2015 12:30AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

And if that child or one of her siblings discover that they are gay in a couple of years, they will be thrilled that they took part won't they? Never mind having to come out to parents who campaigned against LGBT equality.

The problem is you are associating a no vote as being somehow being against gay people. ok it will be for some, but for a lot it isn't.
I don't think Paddy Manning is against gay people or Keith Mills for that matter. They are just going with what they believe.
On the 22nd I am voting number 1 for Paddy McKee an openly gay man who is voting yes, but I'm voting no in both of the other polls.
I vote for what I believe, it is not about being against something. We all have to live with ourselves, and for the mind doing what you believe is the best way to treat life.
I had a very strong Catholic upbringing, it is a part of whom I am. Was never told to hate anyone, but to be nice to other people. Marriage was always then a man/woman thing. I can't help it that is what I believe, same sex marriage didn't exist when I was younger.
I can't help I am set in my ways, change is hard and not something that can be done overnight.
The best a parent can do is bring up their child not to hate anyone and whatever their position on marriage to show that child love, because that is what the child needs and if they are gay, whether a yes or no voter, it should be a 'so what, it changes nothing, I still love you'.

RobertKK · 14-05-2015 12:32AM

Gintonious wrote: »

I assume Mr.Quinn has proof that the person in the bike was a yes voter...

Would you say the same if this happened at a Yes event?

This is how one should approach the situation.

Whether yes or no, the person had nothing to offer either side.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 12:33AM

Some-one on one of the threads in which this issue is included mentioned new green-coloured Vote-No Ad posters around Dublin. I saw one near Sydney Parade and the sponsor is Reformation Ireland. I saw another Vote-Yes Ad on Parliament St referencing the differences between Civil Marriage and CP's to the effect there wasn't enough space on the poster to list them - lol.

I also saw two (2) Ad posters torn down in Bray today. One was a new "Vote No" with the red-haired kid by the bike rack outside McDonalds, the other a Sinn Fein "Vote Yes" poster near the Killarney Rd/Boghall Rd junction.

Zen65 · 14-05-2015 12:44AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I can't help it that is what I believe, same sex marriage didn't exist when I was younger.
I can't help I am set in my ways, . . .

Yes, you can.

Unless you have some intellectual capacity deficit, you can question the things you have believed, and see if they stand up to your own scrutiny. Do not start from the position of a believer, start from the position of a sceptic and see if the arguments to support a belief are strong enough to 'convert' you to the position you already hold.

K4t · 14-05-2015 12:44AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Atomic, where's these dozens of Nazi analogies you think I've posted? I don't like the accusation. Have you confused me with someone else?

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is you are associating a no vote as being somehow being against gay people. ok it will be for some, but for a lot it isn't.
I don't think Paddy Manning is against gay people or Keith Mills for that matter. They are just going with what they believe.

They blatantly are against gay people in this instance though, due to their beliefs on same sex marriage. So you're in effect proving the point I was trying to make to you earlier; you cannot define a person by their beliefs. I'm sure Paddy and Keith aren't against gay people in general, but their beliefs on same sex marriage will mean that they are against gay people in relation to this referendum. And therefore their beliefs on same sex marriage are being correctly challenged and criticised by the Yes side. They're not merely accepting them or ignoring them, or making convenient arguments about the person being attacked when their beliefs are attacked.

I had a very strong Catholic upbringing, it is a part of whom I am. Was never told to hate anyone, but to be nice to other people. Marriage was always then a man/woman thing. I can't help it that is what I believe, same sex marriage didn't exist when I was younger.
I can't help I am set in my ways, change is hard and not something that can be done overnight.
The best a parent can do is bring up their child not to hate anyone and whatever their position on marriage to show that child love, because that is what the child needs and if they are gay, whether a yes or no voter, it should be a 'so what, it changes nothing, I still love you'.

If your decision is influenced so strongly by your religion, and if your own marriage or potential to marry won't be affected by same sex marriage, then why not simply abstain from the vote instead of actively preventing same sex marriage? You can still hold onto your beliefs, but you won't be preventing other people from expressing their right to love through marriage.

Kiwi in IE · 14-05-2015 12:47AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is you are associating a no vote as being somehow being against gay people. ok it will be for some, but for a lot it isn't.
I don't think Paddy Manning is against gay people or Keith Mills for that matter. They are just going with what they believe.
On the 22nd I am voting number 1 for Paddy McKee an openly gay man who is voting yes, but I'm voting no in both of the other polls.
I vote for what I believe, it is not about being against something. We all have to live with ourselves, and for the mind doing what you believe is the best way to treat life.
I had a very strong Catholic upbringing, it is a part of whom I am. Was never told to hate anyone, but to be nice to other people. Marriage was always then a man/woman thing. I can't help it that is what I believe, same sex marriage didn't exist when I was younger.
I can't help I am set in my ways, change is hard and not something that can be done overnight.
The best a parent can do is bring up their child not to hate anyone and whatever their position on marriage to show that child love, because that is what the child needs and if they are gay, whether a yes or no voter, it should be a 'so what, it changes nothing, I still love you'.

I disagree with your stance on this totally and utterly with every fibre of my being, however I respect the fact this is probably the most honest post I have seen from a no voter in here and contains no red herrings (oh, apart from Paddy Manning, he himself is a red herring)

Not a NSA agent · 14-05-2015 12:51AM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Like you clearly missed my whole post.

This is actually the exact sort of thing I'm talking about. It's either 100% buy in or you get abuse.

Abuse like people claiming your relationships are inferior or being told that if you would damage any children you raised? Or when they go out of their way to ensure a person isnt treated equal to themselves?

But yeah, Ive seen all sorts of ****, like calling a person homophobic for saying gay people are dysfunctional. 100% abuse as you say.

RobertKK · 14-05-2015 12:51AM

K4t wrote: »

News to me! Where have I ever said this? Or even insinuated it? Your interpretation of my post which you obviously did not understand does not count. The truth is that you want that right to be allowed for some and denied for others. You want a person to be allowed to hold and express whatever religious thought they like (me too), except you don't want another person to be allowed to question and criticise that thought. So, YOU WANT THIS RIGHT DENIED. (because you don't understand the right which is fair enough, but you will not even try to understand it which is unforgivable).

You said: making excuses for people who not only hold dangerous and backward beliefs, but who also wish to enforce those very beliefs on the state (for example through a No vote in this referendum), by associating the person directly with those beliefs,

UN human rights declaration says has the right to manifest religious beliefs in practice.

You don't know me, which doesn't put you in a position to judge me.

By the way article 16 of the UN declaration of human rights which deals with marriage, in its without limitations, it doesn't include sex.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

K4t · 14-05-2015 01:08AM

RobertKK wrote: »

You said: making excuses for people who not only hold dangerous and backward beliefs, but who also wish to enforce those very beliefs on the state (for example through a No vote in this referendum), by associating the person directly with those beliefs,

UN human rights declaration says has the right to manifest religious beliefs in practice.

You don't know me, which doesn't put you in a position to judge me.

Yes, you want a person to be allowed to hold and express whatever beliefs they like, but you don't want another person to be allowed to criticise and question those beliefs....because in your view this somehow shows a lack of respect to the person (who you believe is defined by their beliefs) and infringes on their freedom of thought, expression and religion. When in fact it's the opposite, and it shows a lack of respect to a person by not allowing their beliefs to be criticised, and also infringes on the critic's freedom of expression. You really have no clue what you're talking about in relation to free expression and freedom of religion tbh and refuse to address any of the points I've made so I'm finished. Good luck to you.

Kiwi in IE · 14-05-2015 02:07AM

Hahaha 7 people are going to spoil their vote. I find that highly amusing. Better than voting no for sure, but why bother to make the effort to turn up at the polling booth just to spoil your vote?

Foxtrol · 14-05-2015 03:42AM

marienbad wrote: »

And you think the social media commentary is worse than the No poster campaign , both official and unofficial ?

You think the constant threat of legal action by Iona and co. is better than the yes campaign ?

You think the likes of Senator Ronan Mullen and that chap Manning who have done nothing but shout down any opposing opinion untrammelled by any effective moderation from broadcasters to cowed by ligation to be effective is better than the yes campaign ?

You think unofficial no posters comparing gay couples to horses and bulls , anonymous threats to business showing yes posters , anonymous threats to radio dj's judged too favourable to a yes vote as better than the yes campaign ?

You think a prominent no advocate grilling his yes opponent about his sexual practices in the most obscene way on local radio ( Donegal I think)
better than the yes campaign ?

The no campaign is a text book negative campaign and it is not the first time they have used it and done so successfully, both divorce referenda and all the abortion ones . And it won't be the last

The notion of the No campaign being bullied and silenced and made victims is just so laughable if it were not so serious . To appropriate the real life experience of those on the other side is hypocrisy of the highest order. The tragedy is reasonable people are buying it.

Maybe I just had higher expectations for the Yes side, seeing how their campaign is supposed to be about love and understanding.

I note you haven't once acknowledged any issues with the Yes supporters, just how much worse you think the No side has been.

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

Comments