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

alchemist33 · 15-05-2015 04:29PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

They'll be burning effigies of him in Donegal. Paddy Power has Donegal North-East as favorite for highest no vote. Followed closely by Donegal South-West

I'll do what I can for Yes in DNE, as long as Ican find my polling station (see earlier post!)

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 04:29PM

alchemist33 wrote: »

Which is actually a slight problem for me. I moved 18 months ago, went through the hoops of changing my address on the register, and had that confirmed. But I don't know where my new polling station is! I'll just have to ask a neighbour.

www.checktheregister.ie will tell you.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 04:32PM

St David of Iona is on Ray D'Arcy now telling us that Daniel didn't mean/underrstand what Daniel said and mammy daddy blah blah blah special lurve blah blah.

David didn't sound as smarmy polished as usual - m'thinks there was panic stations in Lolek HQ when they heard Wee Daniel was agin them

floggg · 15-05-2015 04:32PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A team of very committed activists funded by Chuck Feeny. I am sure that the NO side are funded by some dubious right wing groups but the point is that they were not funded to change our constitution. The yes side was. Also I don't believe for a second that there are more no posters than yes. In my area yes posters outnumber no ones 20 to 1.

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

You seem to be finding it very easy to be cynical.

I find it hard to see why you would be more outraged by a disclosed donor, who has given millions to various causes across the country, giving funding to change the Constitution for the better than a network of undisclosed donors giving funding to prevent a positive change to the constitution, and who wish to see discrimination enshrined in our laws.

Judge the measure on its own merits. If you see it as a positive change, then that should be it

I'll leave this now, because it's just playing into the No side's red herring nonsense.

Remember, a Yes vote is for equality and positive change. That is all we really need to focus on.

alchemist33 · 15-05-2015 04:32PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

www.checktheregister.ie will tell you.

Cheers! I now know.

floggg · 15-05-2015 04:35PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am not surprised. But the whataboutery argument doesn't deflect from the ability of well connected foreign billionaires to set the political agenda of this country and I accept the good work done by AP.
However we cannot condemn Sinn Fein for using foreign funds for political purposes if one side of a political campaign does the same.

This really isn't a political campaign. Its about civil rights.

marienbad · 15-05-2015 04:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It was her choice to not be open about her sexuality, before now. There is a relevance to her and how she gave a man with cancer no choice when she outed his illness.
She had a big story and she announced it at Christmas time on the 26th December.
Here is the Indpendent story the following day about the compassionate Ursula Halligan...

So Ursula Halligan today using the media looking for compassion about her own situation, but gave Brian Lenihan two days to tell his family over Christmas Eve and Christmas day.
The problem I have is the hypocrisy from Ursula.

Not adding anymore on this, I have said what I wanted to.

This is just ridiculous , the country is going down the toilet and the Minister for Finance is dying of cancer and you have a problem with a journalist breaking the story ?

You really do need to get a better grasp of reality . if she knew it was only a matter of hours before others knew .

Lollipops23 · 15-05-2015 04:39PM

Just read this
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/psychologists-nazi-remarks-spark-fury-of-no-campaign-31224192.html

So what if she compared it to racism and fascism? It's the very same!

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 04:42PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Just read this
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/psychologists-nazi-remarks-spark-fury-of-no-campaign-31224192.html

So what if she compared it to racism and fascism? It's the very same!

OH MY GOD SHE MENTIONED NAZI GERMANY.......because gay parents haven't been compared to paedophiles by the no side. :rolleyes:

If you look past the salacious headline, she just said in Nazi Germany Jews weren't allowed to marry those of 'German blood'. Which is a fact.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 04:42PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

I'd guess mobilising young voters, and getting them into the habit of voting for something that isn't SF, is probably part of it.

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2015 04:42PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A team of very committed activists funded by Chuck Feeny. I am sure that the NO side are funded by some dubious right wing groups but the point is that they were not funded to change our constitution. The yes side was.

No they were funded to oppose basic rights for LGBT people including back in the day civil partnerships. In addition whether fighting for change or resisting it both are equally political activities.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Also I don't believe for a second that there are more no posters than yes. In my area yes posters outnumber no ones 20 to 1.

Where I live they are roughly equal. I have heard claims that in the rural areas the No side posters completely overwhelm yes posters. None of us really know for sure.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

You seem to be assuming the referendum will pass. I don't think that can be assumed. Also my human rights are a pretty big deal for me thanks.:rolleyes:

seamus · 15-05-2015 04:44PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A team of very committed activists funded by Chuck Feeny. I am sure that the NO side are funded by some dubious right wing groups but the point is that they were not funded to change our constitution. The yes side was. Also I don't believe for a second that there are more no posters than yes. In my area yes posters outnumber no ones 20 to 1.

It is an unfortunate but unavoidable truth that it is next to impossible to influence change without resources to back it up.

I think we would all prefer 20,000 people with no money working to make a difference than 1 person with a billion euro, but ultimately even the biggest group will need financial assistance if they want to influence change.

The beauty of our constitution is that how or why a proposed amendment has come about is somewhat unimportant. Unlike the US, where enough money can buy a constitutional amendment, in Ireland you cannot buy a constitutional amendment. At the end of the day, the public still has to approve it.

Think of this (or indeed any referendum) as less of an "attempt to change the referendum", and more as a movement to help shape the society we want to live in. On one side you have the Yes vote who believe that the proposed amendment reflects that society. On the other side you have the No vote who believe that society is just fine as it is.

On both sides there is an agenda, a vision that wants to be fulfilled, and behind it are financial backers who are willing to put money behind that vision.

I wouldn't for second believe that one side or the other are in any way "more" attempting to distort anything.

Our political elite have identified this issue as an easy win ahead of next years general election which will give them kudos with many. Thornier, less palatable issues, both constitutional and legislative have been ignored. Regardless of ones position on the yes or no side it is hard not to be cynical.

Ah yes, but this is not relevant to this question. If you are aggrieved that something more controversial wasn't brought up, then you have a general election next year in which to express your displeasure.
Voting no in protest is cutting your own nose off to spite your face. It's like rejecting a payrise at work because someone in another department didn't get a promotion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 04:45PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You made a comment about dubious Right Wing groups not trying to change the Constitution. That is exactly what happened in 83.

Indeed, with a similarly credulous electorate.

Reversing the 8th Amendment would be a debate worth having.

Foxtrol · 15-05-2015 04:47PM

floggg wrote: »

You know that's a really dismissive response to what was a pretty honest and genuine post.

No, the world isn't fair but for you to ignore the insulting and hurtful statements by the No side and then criticise us for how we react when wounded is really just adding to the unfairness of it all.

So you can say that the behaviour of the Yes is turning you against our cause, but when you only choose to scrutinise the behaviour of one side of the debate (and ignore the context), it becomes rather difficult for them to come out of it looking good.

I haven’t ignored anything that the No side has said, which you’d know if you actually read my posts, rather than seeing what you want to be in them. I’ve repeatedly stated that the No side has been wrong.

When you’re trying to get people on your side you can’t continuously go over the top with responses at what the other side is saying (justified or not). There’s a reason why you rarely see successful politicians who regularly become emotional or respond with aggressive hyperbole.

For example, all I did was to point out how I’m finding the Yes side to be more aggressive on social media and I received a number of snide comments from posters. When I responded to one of these asking is why it was so wrong to have a discussion about the issue you posted a nice piece but one that was completely over the top to the point I raised. I can understand your passion on the issue but at times passion needs to be reined in when you’re trying to sway opinion.

Lollipops23 · 15-05-2015 04:49PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

If you look past the salacious headline, she just said in Nazi Germany Jews weren't allowed to marry those of 'German blood'. Which is a fact.

I know, typical Indo sensationalism. Between that and the Ger Brennan article, it's not hard to deduce what side they're on....

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 04:50PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Just read this
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/psychologists-nazi-remarks-spark-fury-of-no-campaign-31224192.html

So what if she compared it to racism and fascism? It's the very same!

It's gotten to the point where my brain can't process any more incredulity:

MFM responded that Mr Finlay was "entitled to his opinion on this referendum, but he was not entitled to make things up as he goes along".

:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 04:56PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Where I live they are roughly equal. I have heard claims that in the rural areas the No side posters completely overwhelm yes posters. None of us really know for sure.

I know for a fact because I drive it several times a week that between New Inn School in Glanmire Cork and the National School in Castletownroche there is one yes poster. One solitary AAA YES poster near Glanmire school... lost count of the No posters but there are two by the church in Castletownroche, 3 near the Amber garage in Ballyhooley and unknown number in Watergrasshill and Rathcormac.

endacl · 15-05-2015 04:57PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's a psychology forum. Fascinating how the human mind works.

Speaking as somebody qualified in that field, I tend to agree with you. A first!

Although I do have a feeling I'm agreeing with what you posted, as opposed to what you meant in the context of your previous in this thread.

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 05:02PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Just read this
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/psychologists-nazi-remarks-spark-fury-of-no-campaign-31224192.html

So what if she compared it to racism and fascism? It's the very same!

She is correct. The no side claim that people are 'scared' to say that they are voting no publicly because they are being 'bullied'. This is bollocks, they are scared to say that they are voting no because they have a subconscious awareness that their position is totally unreasonable, they cannot logically defend it, and they are well aware that many of the people they interact with on a daily basis are going to think less of them for it. That is not the same as bullying.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to vote whatever way they want, but others are also entitled to think less of them for holding that opinion when they find it unreasonable and indefensible.

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

endacl wrote: »

Speaking as somebody qualified in that field, I tend to agree with you. A first!

Although I do have a feeling I'm agreeing with what you posted, as opposed to what you meant in the context of your previous in this thread.

Don't try stand-up.

But a First in psychology, that's impressive.

RobertKK · 15-05-2015 05:16PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

She is correct. The no side claim that people are 'scared' to say that they are voting no publicly. This is bollocks, they are scared to say that they are voting no because they have a subconscious awareness that their position is totally unreasonable, they cannot logically defend it, and they are well aware that many of the people they interact with on a daily basis are going to think less of them for it. That is not the same as bullying.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to vote whatever way they want, but others are also entitled to think less of them for holding that opinion when they find it unreasonable and indefensible.

Say you are voting No here and it is like jam attracting wasps on a summers day. Some people don't mind saying how they will vote, others want a quiet life and saying yes is for a quieter life, certainly in this thread.
There is more acceptance of yes voters than there is of no voters.

Ger Brennan said he is voting no, and it was just looking for abuse, he was attacked for teaching children with those views, he was accused of making his employers happy, he was attacked over his faith and the fact he is a religion teacher.
A Yes voter doesn't receive the same scrutiny. I brought up Ursula Halligan and her past lack of compassion and it was all deemed irrelevant. It was a great example of how yes and no are treated.

marienbad · 15-05-2015 05:17PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Say you are voting No here and it is like jam attracting wasps on a summers day. Some people don't mind saying how they will vote, others want a quiet life and saying yes is for a quieter life, certainly in this thread.
There is more acceptance of yes voters than there is of no voters.

Ger Brennan said he is voting no, and it was just looking for abuse, he was attacked for teaching children with those views, he was accused of making his employers happy, he was attacked over his faith and the fact he is a religion teacher.
A Yes voter doesn't receive the same scrutiny. I brought up Ursula Halligan and her past lack of compassion and it was all deemed irrelevant. It was a great example of how yes and no are treated.

False comparision , you criticised Halligan for doing her job.

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 05:21PM

That's because it was irrelevant Robert - a completely different scenario.

Btw, what are your actual opinions on SSM?

Also to point out, if I thought I was voting to protect families and children's rights to an ideal upbringing, I'd be proud of myself, and happy to shout it to the rooftops, and convince my friends to do the same. It would be nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about. That's what no voters think they're doing, so why do shy?

endacl · 15-05-2015 05:21PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Don't try stand-up.

But a First in psychology, that's impressive.

No. A first time agreeing with you on this topic!

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2015 05:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I brought up Ursula Halligan and her past lack of compassion and it was all deemed irrelevant. It was a great example of how yes and no are treated.

You want to talk about compassion Robert? A middle aged woman writes a heart wrenching piece on how she has been forced to live a lie, like being in 'prison' since she was 17 she says, she talks about how it nearly destroyed her faith, left her feeling suicidal and that she feels she wasted most of her life in fear and self-loathing and your reaction was to attack her. You are no one to judge compassion.

floggg · 15-05-2015 05:24PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's gotten to the point where my brain can't process any more incredulity:

:rolleyes:

Yes, MFM prefer if you make up everything before hand. That why you have time to polish the delivery of your lies.

VinLieger · 15-05-2015 05:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

he was attacked over his faith and the fact he is a religion teacher.

Fyi ger doesn't teach religion he teaches catholocism

sporina · 15-05-2015 05:26PM

hi i have been reading the information on the referendum and the only query i have is, what are the differences between a marriage and civil partnership in terms of social supports?

floggg · 15-05-2015 05:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Say you are voting No here and it is like jam attracting wasps on a summers day. Some people don't mind saying how they will vote, others want a quiet life and saying yes is for a quieter life, certainly in this thread.
There is more acceptance of yes voters than there is of no voters.

Ger Brennan said he is voting no, and it was just looking for abuse, he was attacked for teaching children with those views, he was accused of making his employers happy, he was attacked over his faith and the fact he is a religion teacher.
A Yes voter doesn't receive the same scrutiny. I brought up Ursula Halligan and her past lack of compassion and it was all deemed irrelevant. It was a great example of how yes and no are treated.

No. He was attacked for repeating confirmed untruths, for failing to disclose the fact that he was a religion teacher in a catholic school and that he was informed by his faith. He was attacked repeating words and phrases he was coached to say without being able to defend them.

And her disclosure of news 5 years plus ago isn't relevant to the referendum debate.

Ger Brennan's job, lack of knowledge and false statements are relevant to his "contributions" to the referendum debate.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 05:29PM

sporina wrote: »

hi i have been reading the information on the referendum and the only query i have is, what are the differences between a marriage and civil partnership in terms of social supports?

Can you clarify what you mean by social supports?

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

Comments