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

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 02:26PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Which seems to be the No.1 tactic of the no campaign - introduce irrelevant nonsence and detail the conversation into talking about something different. Because they know they couldn't win if they stick to the actual issues.

I havent got time to do it now, but I would genuinely like to compile a list of irrelevant issues/arguments raised and the resulting indisputable refutations so that it could just be referenced each time rather than going round the houses each time.

aloyisious · 15-05-2015 02:28PM

Got popcorn, wait's for more postings on varied topics

endacl · 15-05-2015 02:30PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I havent got time to do it now, but I would genuinely like to compile a list of irrelevant issues/arguments raised and the resulting indisputable refutations so that it could just be referenced each time rather than going round the houses each time.

So they could be ignored collectively as opposed to individually?

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 02:33PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

If the No vote wins, we should change the country's name to "Republic of Homophobic Ireland".

Maybe we will be asked to vote again?

floggg · 15-05-2015 02:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Atlantic Philanthropies also provide some funding for Tusla, who cut funding towards Accord's marriage courses.
Surely this funding also gives some influence?

This is a really disingenuous and malicious insinuation - and for somebody who holds himself out as being a fair and principled poster you really should know better.

Barnados have come out strongly for a Yes and also received cuts - as did most organisations funded by Tusla.

So it should be clear that the decision had nothing to do with the referendum.

However, the no campaign in their desperation to distort the debate are making baseless insinuations - and you aren't doing yourself much favours by repeating them.

Also, the fact that Atlantic Philantropies fund Tusla should show the breadth of their funding - and that funding very likely also went to Christian organisations like accord.

Which makes it even more egregious that the No side have tried to twist this into some US liberal conspiracy - it is funding that benefited Christian causes as much as any other.

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 02:38PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

McQuaid must have taken time out from worrying about the effects of tampons http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/internal-tamponage-hockey-parturition-and-mixed-athletics/

Hahahaha! You know I have to wonder if this has stuck in a subconscious way. Back home in the 'feminine hygeine' aisle of the supermarket there are rows and rows of shelves full of tampons in all shapes and sizes and numerous different brands, then there is a couple of different types of pads on the bottom shelf, generally for maternity wear and then one or two regular types. Hardly anyone uses pads unless they have to for medical reasons. The supermarkets near me seem to have shelves full of pads and then a couple of types of tampons.

I'm suprised that you lot didn't need a referendum to legalise tampons!

Lollipops23 · 15-05-2015 02:42PM

Was speaking to my mother last night- she lives in France, so neither of us will be able to vote. She reckons the Yes campaign are doing themselves damage at this point, in banging people over the head with it. I told her that was the illusion of social media, and had we had sm during the divorce ref it would have been the very same. She reckons people will be so tried of hearing about it by next Fri there'll be a low turnout.

tigger123 · 15-05-2015 02:44PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hahahaha! You know I have to wonder if this has stuck in a subconscious way. Back home in the 'feminine hygeine' aisle of the supermarket there are rows and rows of shelves full of tampons in all shapes and sizes and numerous different brands, then there is a couple of different types of pads on the bottom shelf, generally for maternity wear and then one or two regular types. Hardly anyone uses pads unless they have to for medical reasons. The supermarkets near me seem to have shelves full of pads and then a couple of types of tampons.

I'm suprised that you lot didn't need a referendum to legalise tampons!

If we had a referendum on tampons we'd spend the 3 months beforehand discussing rubber duckies.

floggg · 15-05-2015 02:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

If it is about equality, why is the legislation in the family section of the constitution and not the equality section?

Because it's the section that deals with marriage.

Also, what would be so achieved by moving it to the equality section? The effect would become the same - same sex couples would still be a constitutionally protected family.

Also, I thought you opposed same sex couples marrying full stop. So clearly you don't have any issue with where it is included - you are opposed to its inclusion full stop.

endacl · 15-05-2015 02:45PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm suprised that you lot didn't need a referendum to legalise tampons!

They're still illegal. And immoral! :mad:

As an aside, you've just reminded me of the indignation from some quarters here when ads for feminine hygiene products first appeared on d'telly!

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 02:45PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Was speaking to my mother last night- she lives in France, so neither of us will be able to vote. She reckons the Yes campaign are doing themselves damage at this point, in banging people over the head with it. I told her that was the illusion of social media, and had we had sm during the divorce ref it would have been the very same. She reckons people will be so tried of hearing about it by next Fri there'll be a low turnout.

Tbh, outside of boards.ie I havent really seen or heard anything about it in real life. I dont have a tv subscription mind you.

aloyisious · 15-05-2015 02:47PM

Re Ursula Halligan: http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Anton_Savage_Show/The_Anton_Savage_Show/33552/2/34We_are_facts_of_nature_not_freaks_of_nature34

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 02:50PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

From Broadsheet. Wow... and with that specific 1.1% the gays took over the world.

Certainly, that's what AP claim

http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/achieving-civil-partnerships-same-sex-couples

<...>The fight for this new, better and healthier Ireland might never have been won – and certainly not as quickly – without Atlantic's core support of nearly €2.7 million ($3.3 million) for GLEN over six years. Its staff was free to pursue a broad agenda and lay the groundwork for civil partnerships and marriage.

<...> Previously reliant on volunteers, GLEN was able to recruit a full-time, top-notch staff of seven, who devoted themselves full time to advocacy. Its staff showed tremendous sophistication in navigating among conservative politicians and gay rights advocates to develop a nonpartisan, national consensus for gay equality. Most remarkably, its hard work resulted in every major political party supporting civil partnership.

GLEN views civil partnership as a stepping stone to full marriage equality, which is its current focus. Civil partnership provides same-sex couples with almost all the rights that opposite-sex couples have, except the right to adopt children. Ireland's law includes uniform rights in critical areas such as immigration, tax law and health benefits, which U.S. state civil partnership and marriage laws do not guarantee.<...>

frostyjacks · 15-05-2015 02:51PM

I'm the kind of man who likes to know who's buyin' their drinks, Lloyd.

gandalf · 15-05-2015 02:51PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Tbh, outside of boards.ie I havent really seen or heard anything about it in real life. I dont have a tv subscription mind you.

I've talked to work colleagues about it. Most will be voting yes, one can't be bothered to vote and one who is a borderline no (ie a probable one) is out of the country on the 22nd so that's one less no.

Lollipops23 · 15-05-2015 02:53PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Tbh, outside of boards.ie I havent really seen or heard anything about it in real life. I dont have a tv subscription mind you.

She was complaining that it's all she sees on facebook over the last few weeks.

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2015 02:55PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Certainly, that's what AP claim

Except the claim is that this money was somehow used in an under hand way, plotting to take over the political agenda. It wasn't. Both parties were out and proud since day one about the aims.

Take another spin on the Roulette of No, see if the next reason sticks.

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 02:55PM

gandalf wrote: »

I've talked to work colleagues about it. Most will be voting yes, one can't be bothered to vote and one who is a borderline no (ie a probable one) is out of the country on the 22nd so that's one less no.

If there's one place I'd never discuss politics, it's the workplace!

floggg · 15-05-2015 02:57PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Was speaking to my mother last night- she lives in France, so neither of us will be able to vote. She reckons the Yes campaign are doing themselves damage at this point, in banging people over the head with it. I told her that was the illusion of social media, and had we had sm during the divorce ref it would have been the very same. She reckons people will be so tried of hearing about it by next Fri there'll be a low turnout.

It annoys me that people say the yes side are the ones banging people over the head.

So people really think we want these debates? Do they think it's fun for lgbt people to have to out themselves to the public and share their personal stories? Do they think we want to debate with the likes of Iona And ronan Mullen over whether are relationships are worthy or equal?

We are askibg for a very simple thing - the right to marry on equal terms. The fact that we have to fight so hard for it really isn't of our choosing.

Quite frankly, I've found the whole thing traumatising. This is the very last thing I would want to be doing to be honest.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 02:58PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Except the claim is that this money was somehow used in an under hand way, plotting to take over the political agenda. It wasn't. Both parties were out and proud since day one about the aims.

It's a matter of public record, and easily found through the Interwebulator. I'm not sure that the public awareness is so high, though.

It mostly just violates the Prime Directive.

Vivisectus · 15-05-2015 02:58PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Certainly, that's what AP claim

If setting the Irish agenda only cost 450k a year, the Catholic Church would have simply bought back a ban on divorce and contraceptives.

mickstupp · 15-05-2015 02:59PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am concerned when a very wealthy foreign individual sets the Irish political agenda.

As opposed to... the church?

kylith · 15-05-2015 02:59PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Certainly, that's what AP claim

One of my co-workers is no longer speaking to me because I'm a yes voter (and I disabused him of the idea that being gay is a choice on FB).

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 02:59PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

She was complaining that it's all she sees on facebook over the last few weeks.

lol I was about to reply "How do you know what the poster was complaining about" when I realised you were the poster and it was your mother you were talking about

Yeah? I havent seen much about it on FB - a bit like, but not a huge amount. There has been no lessening in the number of "pics of the kids" photos that litter my newsfeed anyway

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 03:01PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

If setting the Irish agenda only cost 450k a year, the Catholic Church would have simply bought back a ban on divorce and contraceptives.

I'm not especially suggesting AP's blurb is accurate.

Tbh, I just think it's amusing that AP are out there, telling the world how they trained Irish monkeys to jump through the hoops.

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 03:02PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not especially suggesting AP's blurb is accurate.

Tbh, I just think it's amusing that AP are out there, telling the world how they trained Irish monkeys to jump through the hoops.

I'd be more embarrassed that plenty of Irish people are showing how badly in need they are of such training.

floggg · 15-05-2015 03:03PM

kylith wrote: »

Aren't you at least a little concerned that we have no idea where the No side is getting their funding? Why are you so focussed on AP which funds many causes and is totally above board and transparent?

No - because (s)he supports the No side and therefore doesn't need to search for ways to try and discredit them, misrepresent their arguments or to lie about the effects of their position.

In fact, (s)he supports them so much, all legitimate questions about them are to be avoided at all costs, and a second (to be referred to as the "double standard") must be applied as the No side and those who adopt a contrary position.

gandalf · 15-05-2015 03:03PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like the wealthy foreign individuals in Legatus who throw the odd few shekels at Lolek Ltd trading as The Iona Institute? http://bocktherobber.com/2013/06/what-exactly-is-the-iona-institute/

Or the wealthy foreign individuals who helped fund the War of Independence?

As long as it is open I have no problem with it which brings us to who did pay for all those No posters? Any one know?

Jaysus thanks for that. It is very worrying that this behind the scenes group of rich religious extremists are manipulating our country.

Why aren't the professional journalists shining the lights on these fringe organisations and getting to the bottom of the truth on their funding.

It certainly would be a very worthy project to initiate after the referendum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 03:04PM

kylith wrote: »

Aren't you at least a little concerned that we have no idea where the No side is getting their funding? Why are you so focussed on AP which funds many causes and is totally above board and transparent?

I'm not at all concerned about AP; indeed, GLEN's problem is simply that they took funding from someone who likes to blow their own trumpet.

RobertKK · 15-05-2015 03:04PM

floggg wrote: »

Because it's the section that deals with marriage.

Also, what would be so achieved by moving it to the equality section? The effect would become the same - same sex couples would still be a constitutionally protected family.

Also, I thought you opposed same sex couples marrying full stop. So clearly you don't have any issue with where it is included - you are opposed to its inclusion full stop.

It would have stopped all those No posters about surrogacy for starters.

I am just looking at how it has affected the referendum in this case. It is being inserted into a section where it talks about the mother having a special place in society.

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

Comments