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

homerjay2005 · 14-05-2015 02:07PM

no vote seems to be growing considerably in the last few days.

there was about 40-50 yes campaigners in our estate last night when i got home from work, first time seeing them all campaign.

they appeared to be in a right driven mood, they looked worried.

osarusan · 14-05-2015 02:07PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Our prisons are full of people from well balanced families, aren't they?

What's the implication of that?

Maximus Alexander · 14-05-2015 02:07PM

Person A tells Person B they are going to vote no because [spurious reasons].

Person B explains to Person A why [spurious reasons] are invalid.

Person A realises that attempts to rationalise their gut feelings have failed.

Disturbed, and unwilling to overturn the gut feeling, Person A falls back to their "right to an opinion".

Person B explains that, while person A is entitled to an opinion, some of these things are not matters of opinion, but matters of fact.

Disturbed, and unwilling to overturn the gut feeling, Person A falls back to "it's what I believe".

Person B explains that, while person A is entitled to their beliefs, it's morally questionable to impose those beliefs on others. Person B appeals to person A's humanity.

Person A becomes aware that attempts at rationalisation have completely broken down. Clusters of mirror neurons begin firing in their brain, empathy is occurring. Dissonance between the empathy and the gut feeling is extremely uncomfortable, and must be resolved quickly.

"Stop bullying me! You're trying to silence me!"

This is happening a lot.

galljga1 · 14-05-2015 02:09PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

How do you feel about children growing up fatherless?

I can handle it. I certainly do not get depressed about it.
Some kids are better off, some worse off.
Some kids have only a mother or a father, two of either, none of either.
Life is like that. I cope with different circumstances but that is just me.

AtomicHorror · 14-05-2015 02:09PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Person A tells Person B they are going to vote no because [spurious reasons].

Person B explains to Person A why [spurious reasons] are invalid.

Person A realises that attempts to rationalise their gut feelings have failed.

Disturbed, and unwilling to overturn the gut feeling, Person A falls back to their "right to an opinion".

Person B explains that, while person A is entitled to an opinion, some of these things are not matters of opinion, but matters of fact.

Disturbed, and unwilling to overturn the gut feeling, Person A falls back to "it's what I believe".

Person B explains that, while person A is entitled to their beliefs, it's morally questionable to impose those beliefs on others. Person B appeals to person A's humanity.

Person A becomes aware that attempts at rationalisation have completely broken down. Clusters of mirror neurons begin firing in their brain, empathy is occurring. Dissonance between the empathy and the gut feeling is extremely uncomfortable, and must be resolved quickly.

"Stop bullying me! You're trying to silence me!"

This is happening a lot.

Beautiful.

floggg · 14-05-2015 02:10PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

Well, it's a very Irish question that is being asked. I think there is very little understanding of what a constitution is actually for. The constitution should simply state that all people be treated equally under the law, and those laws should be passed by the Oireactas.
The constitution is already polluted with rubbish that should not be there. What is the point of adding to it?

Because it will do no harm to you or anybody else, but it will do great good for every LGBT person in the country.

Hammer Archer · 14-05-2015 02:10PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

Maybe marriage doesn't have to be just between 2 people. With suragacy a popular option for the future, plus the costs entailed in having a 2 parent family it would make more sense to have a wider base 3 parent family unit.

By changing yes to change you will marginalise others in society. It's not just all about gay people.
If we are going to change the constitution let's include all, until then I vote no.

Just so I'm clear, you are against marginalising people in society so you are going to vote to keep certain people in society marginalised.

galljga1 · 14-05-2015 02:10PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Our prisons are full of people from well balanced families, aren't they?

It seems that I was correct in extending the nomination period.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 02:10PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

no vote seems to be growing considerably in the last few days.

there was about 40-50 yes campaigners in our estate last night when i got home from work, first time seeing them all campaign.

they appeared to be in a right driven mood, they looked worried.

Given some of the abuse being hurled at them wouldn't you be worried?

Most people are actually very supportive but that doesn't diminish the worry that the next house might contain the nasty one.
Usually at least one in every estate who can't just say I'm voting No without 'giving a piece of their mind' too.

endacl · 14-05-2015 02:12PM

floggg wrote: »

Because it will do no harm to you or anybody else, but it will do great good for every LGBT person in the country.

With respect...

It would do good for everybody in the country. Every citizen holds a stake in the equality it otherwise of the society in which they live.

floggg · 14-05-2015 02:12PM

K4t wrote: »

The worst part for me is the resulting claims of democracy prevailing by Iona and so on that will ensue if it's a no vote. It will be democracy in action alright, but the very worst part of democracy. And no, that's not just because I disagree with the outcome no voters in this thread. The outcome will blatantly continue on the discrimination and inequality inherent in our marriage laws. Oh well, thankfully it will most likely be a yes vote.

it is looking scarily close. I am actually fearful of the result. Take nothing for granted - we will absolutely need every single vote.

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 02:12PM

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I think you'll find that the demographic of the prison population is primarily determined by economic factors.

A question: If you had to give up your kids for adoption and you had to choose from the following parents, who would you choose?

1. An extremely wealthy, well educated heterosexual couple who were cold-hearted bastards.

1. A gay couple of less than average means and education who were kind, loving people.

Option 1

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 02:13PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Option 1

You think it is best for children to be raised by cold hearted bastards :eek:

endacl · 14-05-2015 02:14PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Option 1

I'm going to go ahead and presume that's because of the cash...

TheChizler · 14-05-2015 02:14PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

Maybe marriage doesn't have to be just between 2 people. With suragacy a popular option for the future, plus the costs entailed in having a 2 parent family it would make more sense to have a wider base 3 parent family unit.

By changing yes to change you will marginalise others in society. It's not just all about gay people.
If we are going to change the constitution let's include all, until then I vote no.

In fairness voting no on the basis that this referendum constitutionally blocks more than two person marriages is one of the only logically sound arguments I've seen. Not sure why the two person restriction was included in the proposal. Maybe as a preemptive counter to the inevitable claim that same sex marriage would lead to polygamy. I'm generally not a huge fan of including unnecessary wording in the constitution.

I'm not sure what I feel on the whole polygamy thing. Gut says no but I'd have to look at the evidence (advice for the No side!). Can't think of a logical reason as to why not. There have been some studies that show that it inevitably leads to psychological harm, so that would have to be looked at.

The right to more than two person marriages doesn't seem to be a huge societal issue right now, so it's not making me veer towards voting no in any way, so I'm not sure why people would use it as an argument for voting no unless they were looking for an excuse. Can't see Iona and the likes using it! If it does become huge in later years then maybe it's worth looking at another referendum then.

floggg · 14-05-2015 02:16PM

Tenz wrote: »

No need for the sarcasm!

Just trying to understand how a word can mean so much.

But I think I get it. Unless society says yes, we'll call your relationship 'marriage', then homosexuals will feel rejected/dismissed/hurt.

It can be hard to understand for straight people like myself maybe, as I couldnt give a rats ass if they call my relationship civil partnership, marriage, or living in sin. Just as long as they get my tax credits sorted....

Actually, I think the sarcasm helps explain both the ridiculousness of insisting on separate but equal and the pernicious effect it has.

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 02:17PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think it is best for children to be raised by cold hearted bastards :eek:

Whoosh!

galljga1 · 14-05-2015 02:18PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think it is best for children to be raised by cold hearted bastards :eek:

It obviously worked for him. He gets depressed when thinking about fatherless children.

kylith · 14-05-2015 02:18PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

Maybe marriage doesn't have to be just between 2 people. With suragacy a popular option for the future, plus the costs entailed in having a 2 parent family it would make more sense to have a wider base 3 parent family unit.

By changing yes to change you will marginalise others in society. It's not just all about gay people.
If we are going to change the constitution let's include all, until then I vote no.

Oh for flip's sake, not this again.

Just because this referendum doesn't allow every conceivable permutation of human relationships to get married doesn't mean anything. Voting no to gay people getting married because you can't marry two women is churlish. If anything widening the borders of marriage NOW can lead to further widening of said borders in future.

Finally, if you want to campaign for polygamy you go right ahead. Although the legal details of a multiple marriage would be a nightmare I'd still vote for you to be able to do it, even though I myself don't want to.

Montgolfier · 14-05-2015 02:19PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Just so I'm clear, you are against marginalising people in society so you are going to vote to keep certain people in society marginalised.

If we are going to change what defines a marriage why do it for just one sector of our society. To be honest I don't want it to change but if it has to let's include all.
It seems just like a popular vote to boost Kennys legacy.
The way it's being portrayed how could you not vote yes poor little Johnny or Mary down the road. It's not inclusive just easy.

galljga1 · 14-05-2015 02:19PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whoosh!

Is that the sound of your brain departing? Actually, no, it would have to have been there in the first place.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 02:20PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whoosh!

No whoosh - it was option 1 Straight, rich and cold hearted bastards.

So much for what is 'best' for the children...

No love, lots of stuff and penis+vagina parents is your preference.

galljga1 · 14-05-2015 02:20PM

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I think you'll find that the demographic of the prison population is primarily determined by economic factors.

A question: If you had to give up your kids for adoption and you had to choose from the following parents, who would you choose?

1. An extremely wealthy, well educated heterosexual couple who were cold-hearted bastards.

1. A gay couple of less than average means and education who were kind, loving people.

Two option 1s.

Maximus Alexander · 14-05-2015 02:20PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

no vote seems to be growing considerably in the last few days.

there was about 40-50 yes campaigners in our estate last night when i got home from work, first time seeing them all campaign.

they appeared to be in a right driven mood, they looked worried.

Of course they looked worried Homer. They're walking around from door to door, exposing a hugely personal aspect of themselves to perfect strangers, one after another, not knowing what reaction they'll get with each knock, while they beg for the right to be treated like the rest of us.

I'd say it would be fairly hard to keep a joyful smile on your face.

Merry Prankster · 14-05-2015 02:21PM

galljga1 wrote: »

He gets depressed when thinking about fatherless children.

Then he should vote yes and give some lucky kids the chance to have two...

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 02:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No whoosh - it was option 1 Straight, rich and cold hearted bastards.

So much for what is 'best' for the children...

No love, lots of stuff and penis+vagina parents is your preference.

He had both options listed as no.1

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 02:21PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Two option 1s.

HAR HAR.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 02:22PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

He had both options listed as no.1

ok yes- whoosh is true.

Otto Skadelig · 14-05-2015 02:22PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Is that the sound of your brain departing? Actually, no, it would have to have been there in the first place.

I think the poster chose answer one because both options were marked 1

Merry Prankster · 14-05-2015 02:24PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Two option 1s.

D'oh. Fixed. It's heartening to know that frostyjacks picked the same one as me.

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

Comments