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

Ozymandius2011 · 15-05-2015 08:31AM

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I've found this too, what is with the moderators at the Indo? They seem to block perfectly fine comments. They need to put less resources into moderation and more into copy editing.

I wonder is there some sort of split between the O'Reilly and O'Brien wings of IMN? O'Brien is seen as liberal on these kind of issues e.g. Newstalk. Not sure what O'Reilly thinks but historically the Indo was seen as socially conservative.

floggg · 15-05-2015 08:39AM

paleoperson wrote: »

They include all of the evidence of the psychological associations and more.

The biological basis of mother and father, personal experience, and writings about paternal and maternal figures over the years.

Wait, you say your belief in the superiority of opposite sex parents is based (in part) on the evidence of psychological associations which overwhelmingly conclude that there is no such superiority, and that both same sex and opposite sex parents are equally capable.

It makes me question whether you were reading them right (or at all).

As for the other basis you cite, well there are just anecdotal and subjective opinions which don't add anything to the issue.

Its like me concluding Nicholas Bendtner is the best football ever based on his autobiography and only ever seeing Nicholas Bendtner highlight reels on Youtube.

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 08:39AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

I'm asking this as somebody who sees no reason to vote no but always as somebody who doesn't quite understand what the Yes side are looking for, so would like somebody to explain please!

The Constitution. In this country, you are not a family (for legal purposes) if you are not married. You will live in a "shared" home, not a family one.

At least the people you refer to that are not married are so by choice. They could marry if they wanted to.

traprunner · 15-05-2015 08:42AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

I'm asking this as somebody who sees no reason to vote no but always as somebody who doesn't quite understand what the Yes side are looking for, so would like somebody to explain please!

Equality.

Merry Prankster · 15-05-2015 08:48AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

I'm asking this as somebody who sees no reason to vote no but always as somebody who doesn't quite understand what the Yes side are looking for, so would like somebody to explain please!

Bacause legislation can be changed by any government at any time. The constitution can only be altered if we, the people, decide.

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 08:58AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story", that seems to be what the no campaign are running with. There seemed to be a bit of a vacuum from the referendum commission that they've managed to fill with their propaganda. Kevin Cross has been on the radio a lot recently clarifying the issues, but the horse has bolted from that stable.

There should be laws preventing the dissemination of false or misleading information for referendums. I'm talking about factually incorrect nonsense such as adoption being related to this referendum.

I'd like to see it enforced on the campaign material, the media - trying to conflate unrelated topics should be shut down, and on the internet. I am surprised by here on boards.ie for example where many posters are aggressively posting factually incorrect information or completely unrelated issues (such as vote no so there will be less teenage marriages), and are allowed to post and post and post the same repetitive stuff, despite being proven factually incorrect.

It's irresponsible (as a society) to allow people to be misled by having these muddying issues pushed so hard on them.

Not enough is being done to clarify what is real and what is nonsense. In print, on tv, on the internet etc..

Merry Prankster · 15-05-2015 09:12AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

There should be laws preventing the dissemination of false or misleading information for referendums. I'm talking about factually incorrect nonsense such as adoption being related to this referendum.

Or - setting aside the issue of adoption's relevance - the use of logical fallacies such as 'if you believe that, ideally, children should have a mother and father', then that automatically means that gay couples are unsuitable for parenthood. The former does not automatically validate the latter.

Vex Willems · 15-05-2015 09:18AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

But the option to marry is there for them, why not open that option to everyone, if they want it?

jameskil · 15-05-2015 09:19AM

Why im voting yes and why i think everyone should!

https://www.facebook.com/jameskil/posts/10153349173235681:0

Just my experience and a yes vote will hopefully pave the way for significant future change!

Sheldons Brain · 15-05-2015 09:22AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

There should be laws preventing the dissemination of false or misleading information for referendums. I'm talking about factually incorrect nonsense such as adoption being related to this referendum.

I'd like to see it enforced on the campaign material, the media - trying to conflate unrelated topics should be shut down, and on the internet. I am surprised by here on boards.ie for example where many posters are aggressively posting factually incorrect information or completely unrelated issues (such as vote no so there will be less teenage marriages), and are allowed to post and post and post the same repetitive stuff, despite being proven factually incorrect.

It's irresponsible (as a society) to allow people to be misled by having these muddying issues pushed so hard on them.

Not enough is being done to clarify what is real and what is nonsense. In print, on tv, on the internet etc..

Good idea, it would be especially helpful to nail the lie that marriage has nothing to do with children.

Merry Prankster wrote:

Or - setting aside the issue of adoption's relevance - the use of logical fallacies such as 'if you believe that, ideally, children should have a mother and father', then that automatically means that gay couples are unsuitable for parenthood. The former does not automatically validate the latter.

No, but it appropriate for society to support children having arrangements that are as ideal as possible, and that includes encourages men and women to marry and provide a responsible environment to nurture children, without confusing the definition of marriage with sterile combinations as some propose.

tigger123 · 15-05-2015 09:23AM

Zen65 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ursula-halligan-referendum-pointed-me-towards-telling-the-truth-about-myself-1.2212960

Nice article by Ursula Halligan of TV3 fame.

Very touching. It's so important to hear the human side of this debate.

traprunner · 15-05-2015 09:27AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Good idea, it would be especially helpful to nail the lie that marriage has nothing to do with children.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross from The Referendum Commission nailed that lie yesterday.

Vivisectus · 15-05-2015 09:29AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

Ah, but here is the clincher: we were asking for valid reasons, reasons you can support by rational argument.

Maybe there is a non-homophobic reason to believe marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual. If so, we still have not come across it to my knowledge. But let me know what your rational, non-homophobic reason is and we can examine it.

Shrap · 15-05-2015 09:29AM

jameskil wrote: »

Why im voting yes and why i think everyone should!

https://www.facebook.com/jameskil/posts/10153349173235681:0

Just my experience and a yes vote will hopefully pave the way for significant future change!

How wonderfully heartfelt, honest, personal and necessary. Well done you and thanks.

Tasden · 15-05-2015 09:32AM

jameskil wrote: »

Why im voting yes and why i think everyone should!

https://www.facebook.com/jameskil/posts/10153349173235681:0

Just my experience and a yes vote will hopefully pave the way for significant future change!

Nice post, the comments from your friends and family underneath are just lovely!

Vivisectus · 15-05-2015 09:35AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Maybe you think marriage should be left as it is, nothing got to do with your views on LBGT or any other group that isn't a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about a no vote unless you use your vote to vote no just because your homophobic.

In other words:

- Conservatism for it's own sake has nothing to do with anything except conservatism for it's own sake
- No-voting is not homophobic unless it is.

Are you a member of the tautology club by any chance?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-05-2015 09:35AM

I have a yes equality badge that I wear on my uniform.
Went home from work yesterday and was talking to a friend. She sees the badge and says she's voting no. Curious as to how anyone could be so ignorant I ask why. And guess what? She's voting no because "the government are trying to sweeten us up, there's something in it for them".

You would actually wonder about some people the rest of us are forced to share oxygen with

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 09:36AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I see the "No" tally on the poll has just nosed past 16% for the first time. I could almost get excited.

I know it's not a scientific survey, but I can't help noticing the "No" tally on the poll is now heading for 19%, while the "Yes" tally has dipped below 70% for the first time.

jameskil · 15-05-2015 09:38AM

Shrap wrote: »

How wonderfully heartfelt, honest, personal and necessary. Well done you and thanks.

Please god it persuades a few yes votes

Vivisectus · 15-05-2015 09:38AM

Tenz wrote: »

Jesus. This entire thread is like a room full of elderly deaf people shouting at each other.

No one has a clue what anyone else has said, but we're all carrying on the conversation anyway.

Make that angry old deaf people.

I'm done.

Another person brutally silenced by the Isis-like tactics of the ultra-militant gay lobby. We will now have a minute of silence, while I play some sad music on the worlds smallest set of bagpipes.

jameskil · 15-05-2015 09:39AM

Tasden wrote: »

Nice post, the comments from your friends and family underneath are just lovely!

Thanks. The reaction from old and new friends has been overwhelming. I just hope we are celebrating next Saturday :P

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 09:39AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You would actually wonder about some people the rest of us are forced to share oxygen with

There was a funny thread over on reddit where someone claimed that 3 friends of hers who had previously been yes voters claimed that they didnt like how the yes side was acting so they were going to vote no in protest.

Well they were hung from a height by a variety of international viewpoints - called a series of unflattering names such as fools of the highest order, it was suggested they continue to vote on X Factor only etc...

Made me laugh. There was nary a post on the subject at hand btw, just on the moronic position of voting no for some reason other than actually wanting to vote no.

Merry Prankster · 15-05-2015 09:40AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No, but it appropriate for society to support children having arrangements that are as ideal as possible, and that includes encourages men and women to marry and provide a responsible environment to nurture children, without confusing the definition of marriage with as some propose.

'Supporting children having arrangements that are as ideal as possible' does not mean preventing any arrangements that do not reach these ideals. Ideally, children's parents would be rich and well educated; that doesn't mean that less well-off, less educated couples should be prohibited from having children, or that they won't make great parents.

'Sterile combinations'? Does that mean that heterosexual couples who can't have children should be prohibited from adopting?

seamus · 15-05-2015 09:41AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I know it's not a scientific survey, but I can't help noticing the "No" tally on the poll is now heading for 19%, while the "Yes" tally has dipped below 70% for the first time.

Re-reggers.

Long polls on boards tend to do that, the same thing happens with political polls, as the Sinn Fein quotient bizarrely creeps upwards at the expense of all others, the longer the poll goes on.

A sitewide poll started next Monday or Tuesday would likely be a better measure of true feeling.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-05-2015 09:42AM

jameskil wrote: »

Thanks. The reaction from old and new friends has been overwhelming. I just hope we are celebrating next Saturday :P

I have no doubt we will!

We are opening an hour later than usual next Friday on the conditions all staff goes to vote!

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 09:45AM

jameskil wrote: »

Thanks. The reaction from old and new friends has been overwhelming. I just hope we are celebrating next Saturday :P

I sincerely hope the streets are alive with rainbow flag waving happy people on Saturday - Im actually going to be out of the country (ill be here to vote) so I have a number of people on standby to text me the result.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 09:47AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I seldom read the Indo now because the comments page is moderated on a pre-clearance basis and they only seem to allow the Religious Right to post in the majority of cases. Some of the stuff you'd read in the comments page is like Iona literature if not Youth Defence.

The comments are appalling.
Some unbelievably vile stuff.

Tasden · 15-05-2015 09:49AM

jameskil wrote: »

Thanks. The reaction from old and new friends has been overwhelming. I just hope we are celebrating next Saturday :P

I'm glad you have that love and support, don't forget that, regardless of the result. I'm hoping to be celebrating too

As of this morning, after months and months of debates and discussions among family members, there's an extra yes vote in our house now. I'm so proud the person has taken everything on board and made their decision based on the facts even though they had doubts initially.

jameskil · 15-05-2015 09:49AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I have no doubt we will!
We are opening an hour later than usual next Friday on the conditions all staff goes to vote!

See thats brilliant in itself!

homerjay2005 · 15-05-2015 09:50AM

Vex Willems wrote: »

But the option to marry is there for them, why not open that option to everyone, if they want it?

but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

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

Comments