Marriage Equality Referendum

gravehold wrote: »

I live in the limerick countryside and there is way more yes posters on the poles, how can the yes side afford more posters then theno campaign?

I don't believe you

Yes Equality bought 50,000 posters.

Mothers and Fathers Matter bought 450,000.

gravehold wrote: »

I live in the limerick countryside and there is way more yes posters on the poles, how can the yes side afford more posters then theno campaign?

There are multiple Yes campaigns erecting signs - YesEquality, Labour, FG, FF, SF, AAA. Many of them are fairly simplistic, two colour jobs (FF and some AAA ones particularly)

There is one No campaign erecting signs, hower they are using large, full colour posters.

Prime Time right now is doing much the same thing - explaining that the No side is scare-storying about things that are not affected by the referendum at all.

Aard wrote: »

ETA: one of the Prime Time debates highlighted that to the Iona chap. That most references to gay couples were to gay men and not women. I think there is a crack there that shows both a homophobic and sexist attitude towards men.

Not to get too hung up on semantics and exercises in definism, I'm not sure I'd call this "sexism", which is almost to imply a net disadvantage to gay men as against lesbians across the board. (Or to men as against women more broadly, even.)

But there's definitely a massive genderedness to the homophobia going on here. I'm reminded, perhaps inappropriately, of an Aaron Sorkin character saying "I’m homophobic in the way that makes sense." Male-male relationships are seen as personally threatening and destructive to the social order in a way that female-female relationships are not.

It's of course all bound up in gender roles and gender stereotyping more generally, in a way I couldn't begin to try and unpack at this hour... or probably even given a few decades at it.

J_E wrote: »

It all mostly unwraps to a disgust of two men holding hands or the image of them having sex. Females get erased because they're not as icky.

Bingo. One of the Burke's even tried to drag a radio debate down to discussing actual sexual intercourse - but only between men.

Trying to push the "ewww, icky" line to heterosexual men rather falls apart if its two women, based on what the media has told them for 20+ years!

In other news, an explanation of why Ursula Halligan hasn't been doing coverage for TV3:

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

alaimacerc wrote: »

Not to get too hung up on semantics and exercises in definism, I'm not sure I'd call this "sexism", which is almost to imply a net disadvantage to gay men as against lesbians across the board. (Or to men as against women more broadly, even.)

I never implied anything about gay men being globally more disadvantaged than gay women. Men can still suffer from sexism, even if women suffer from more often.

It boils down to – yuck, men kissing each other. Or yuck, two men as parents.

Lesbian parents and the idea of two women holding hands in the street doesn't come up as often as something objectionable.

You could simplify it further.

When men 'choose' to be gay they are disgusting and irresponsible.
When women 'choose' to be gay, they're just being silly.

The bible informs us that women can always be shook or slapped into 'seeing sense' by a responsible and caring father or husband. Their homosexuality is not as corrosive to a healthy and normal society; it's just a sign that a male disciplinarian has neglected his duties to this woman and allowed her to run away with herself. It's a domestic issue rather then a social one.


But when a man chooses to be gay? well he should know better, how disgusting the things he gets up to.
What a disgrace to society.

Yep, great piece by her in the IT. Wonder how it will go down with the “undecided” voters.

Aurongroove wrote: »

You could simplify it further.

When men 'choose' to be gay they are disgusting and irresponsible.
When women 'choose' to be gay, they're just being silly.

The bible informs us that women can always be shook or slapped into 'seeing sense' by a responsible and caring father or husband. Their homosexuality is not as corrosive to a healthy and normal society; it's just a sign that a male disciplinarian has neglected his duties to this woman and allowed her to run away with herself. It's a domestic issue rather then a social one.


But when a man chooses to be gay? well he should know better, how disgusting the things he gets up to.
What a disgrace to society.

no-one chooses to be gay its genetic

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

no-one chooses to be gay its genetic

In case you're not Trolling, I was very obviously quoting the word 'chooses'.

Yes of course the earth is round, yes of course we are the result of evolution, and yes of course nobody chooses to be gay.

Even wee Daniel is on board! That might just make Donegal break tradition and actually pass a referendum for once in their lives!

With this, the various independent bodies (RefCom and Adoption Agency) rubbishing the No side's claims, not to mention Ursula Halligan's heartbreaking piece in the Irish Times today, the past few days have been very good for the Yes side, especially after the whole non-story about Accord (they also cut the funding to Barnardos, but that wasn't reported at all) not to mention the appalling egging of that child at some No event in Meath earlier on in the week. I didn't even know the state funded Catholic marriage courses until this came out, if I lived in Ireland and someone came to my door asking me for their vote I would be asking them would they get rid of the funding for such a thing, because I don't believe that religion and the state should mix.

Having Daniel O'Donnell saying yes is a big plus, no doubt about it, that might be enough to persuade the older and more conservative voter to change their mind - here's hoping anyway!

There will be a poll published tomorrow (it's that time of the month for the RedC tracking poll, although they're doing it slightly earlier than usual this month obviously with the referendum), in one sense I don't want the Yes side to be too far ahead, if it was tight it would persuade the Yes side to do all they can as it would remove any complacency, though it could equally be argued that if it looks close tomorrow it will give the No side a real boost.

Either way, the biggest danger by a country mile is complacency and if the poll tomorrow says the Yes side will walk it then my worry is a lot of people (especially younger voters, whose turnout is absolutely critical in getting this passed) will think there's no point in voting and we could end up with a shock defeat. Polls can, and do, get it wrong, as the British General Election has shown.

Good news, the Yes side is still well ahead in the latest Irish Times poll. It will be interesting to see if this is backed up by the RedC poll which will come out around 6 pm (possibly a little before that).

The BIG danger is complacency and people thinking they don't need to vote because it's going to be carried! Young people are most in favour but traditionally don't vote in big numbers. Older voters are less supportive and they are more likely to vote! There's still a big debate on Prime Time on Tuesday night, not sure who's on it, but I hope the Yes side presents its case well. If there are a few nutters from the No side (e.g. someone from 'Mandate for Marriage') or Paddy Monaghan (the man who said 'gays have equality as they can marry someone of the opposite sex :eek: ), then all the better. Hopefully we'll see someone like Noel Whelan or Una Mullally out for the Yes side.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/marriage-referendum-good-news-for-yes-campaign-1.2214430