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

frostyjacks wrote: »

Go home if you don't like it here. This is a Catholic country, you can hardly be surprised at the opposition to gay marriage. What were you expecting?

Ireland is technically a secular republic (though we might not always act like it)

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is probably going to offend everyone here and I'm also Godwining myself, all in one foul swoop, but I don't really care, this referendum is disgusting! It's a good thing that Nazi Germany never invaded Ireland because the same type of people who seem to be lapping up Iona's vicious propaganda would have been goosestepping and hail hitlering within about 25 seconds, and there seems to be a disproportionate amount to be honest!

Talk about gullible gob****es! I'm voting no now because the yes side are bullying /behaving badly /being mean /I'm doing it for democracy / to save the children/ to save the ****en whales. Errrrrrr no wrong! The right answer is that you have changed from yes to no (if that is really your honest position) because Iona and friends have managed to indoctrinate you with their propaganda during a freaken referendum campaign!

Go ahead and vote no and keep your country in the middle of last century, God knows that you have always done a really good job of that, and it looks like you plan to continue.

And you may tell me to go home if I don't like it here, because I'm sure that will follow in response to my rant! I'll tell you now that I'd be more than happy to after this appalling referendum campaign! For fecks sake your countrymen are asking for equal rights. This is a human rights issue and the response is disgusting! The Iona Institute should be charged with inciting hatred and closed down, but no they are given tax breaks instead!

Wake up for fecks sake!

"keep your country in the middle of last century, God knows that you have always done a really good job of that".

Really is that kind of comment appropriate? I understand the emotive subject matter but come on you've just insulted an entire nation there. We're by no means perfect but that's a really sad perspective you have of us.

omega man wrote: »

I understand the emotive subject matter but come on you've just insulted an entire nation there. We're by no means perfect but that's a really sad perspective you have of us.

Would it be better coming from me, a born and raised Irish woman? It is indeed a sad perspective, and it's one I share with Kiwi. And despair over regularly. The constant beating our heads off of the brick wall of our RCC ridden country....MY RCC ridden so called secular country.....has sent me over the edge a few times.

You might be shocked by what you have seen in Kiwi's post as insulting. Hopefully you'll also be shocked to find that this Irish citizen holds that kind of bitterness in her heart about the state of our nation. Each and every issue that comes up here as a clash between religious/traditional conservatism and non religious liberalism cuts me to the core. It's not a case of "Shur, be grand..." by any stretch of the imagination.

Ps. And before anyone goes "You just want to take away our religious freedoms" - Not at all. I am Irish, I understand the importance of people's faiths. But I FAIL to understand how people of faith can put their beliefs before another human's rights and cling on to the outdated, outmoded and frankly outrageous elements of our constitution that elevates religion higher than those human rights.

omega man wrote: »

"keep your country in the middle of last century, God knows that you have always done a really good job of that".

Really is that kind of comment appropriate? I understand the emotive subject matter but come on you've just insulted an entire nation there. We're by no means perfect but that's a really sad perspective you have of us.

I don't feel even slightly insulted tbh.

Some harsh truths but still truths.

Every single bit of liberalization of Irish society has been hard won from contraception to decriminalizing homosexuality (which the ECHR ordered us to do) to divorce to Civil Partnership we have to go through this same blasted doomsday wailing BS about traditional values and it's a Catholic Country.

Up to and including the last GE we were still picking governments based on two parties that were on opposites side in a Civil War in the last century.

We need to grow the f up as a nation and start behaving like rational adults.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

but I'm also entitled to call a spade a spade.

And thank you for doing so. I'd better go to bed as this is most definitely a case of "don't get me started", and I'm afraid of being a loose cannon and giving the conservative elements any more ammunition tbh. See how scared we all are? It's as if telling it like it is might tip the balance or something, ffs. This is ALWAYS the way here. It's why we were capable of having a civil war I reckon.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't feel even slightly insulted tbh.

Some harsh truths but still truths.

Every single bit of liberalization of Irish society has been hard won from contraception to decriminalizing homosexuality (which the ECHR ordered us to do) to divorce to Civil Partnership we have to go through this same blasted doomsday wailing BS about traditional values and it's a Catholic Country.

Up to and including the last GE we were still picking governments based on two parties that were on opposites side in a Civil War in the last century.

We need to grow the f up as a nation and start behaving like rational adults.

I was born in 1990, I always looked on in astonishment at the Ireland I was born into. I thought it was amazing how Irish attitudes and the Irish Psyche changed so dramatically in such a short space of time. Going from one of the most conservative countries in the western world to being one of the more liberal countries. Living through this referendum though, I'm not so sure. I think we've a long way to go yet. I've heard people talk about a conservative underbelly in Irish society and I've really seen it surface in this Referendum. I really never thought the likes of Iona would have been taken as seriously as they have been.

I have listened to both sides of the argument equally (give or take a few milliseconds) and it would appear fairly conclusive that one should vote yes and no.

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not cast doubt, I just asked if the referendum commissioner is infallible?
I have seen both sides refer to him as if he was.

This is the section it will be inserted into, I will leave the bit about dissolution of marriage out.


This is why the No side can use all the stuff they are using, because the constitution says the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded.
Yes equality, and nothing about fathers, in the section where they plan on putting the wording in to allow same sex marriage.
In the constitution, two men with one at home minding a child, is lesser than a woman/mother at home with a child.
If one is a yes voter, do you see this as equality?

The point you raise above (the meaning of the family and it's connection with marriage) has been raised and thrashed out here before. The new (extra) sub-section in the amendment is being inserted in the section because our Courts decided that marriage was between a Man and a Woman. Ergo: any new sub-section which we choose to input into the constitution on marriage must go into the appropriate section, section 41.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If one just doesn't like the idea that homosexuals have, well, sex with each other and your country not only allows that but says they are equal in every way to heterosexuals who are having sex to make babies and bond with each other in a natural way then I imagine it could affect your life in a way... if you were the kind of person who takes other people's lives personally especially when they aren't behaving the way you believe they should...

I understand your point, but it is not illegal for homosexual couples to have sex, yes I agree people have beliefs about marriage and heterosexual couples having sex to make babies, but that is not the definition of marriage? I mean people do not marry to have sex and babies. There is no valid reason that homosexuals cannot marry, it has absolutely nothing to do with having sex. It is of anything that I'm aware of to devote yourself forever to that person through love and holy matrimony. My point is that we are voting purposely for heterosexual couples to have the right to marry, not to have sex, not to adopt children, just to marry.

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I was born in 1990, I always looked on in astonishment at the Ireland I was born into. I thought it was amazing how Irish attitudes and the Irish Psyche changed so dramatically in such a short space of time. Going from one of the most conservative countries in the western world to being one of the more liberal countries. Living through this referendum though, I'm not so sure. I think we've a long way to go yet. I've heard people talk about a conservative underbelly in Irish society and I've really seen it surface in this Referendum. I really never thought the likes of Iona would have been taken as seriously as they have been.

I was so horrified by the 83 referendum that I got the hell out of Ireland and didn't come back for 10 years.

I thought I had come back to a changing country but the vileness that has recently erupted is like the old days.
Yet, I have never ever been treated disrespectfully* (to my face - who knows what mutters there were behind my back) and I have literally travelled the length and breadth of the country for over 20 years as a very out dyke often with partner and son in tow. Stayed in double rooms from Gweedore to Castletownbere to Rosslare with my same sex partner and no one batted an eye lid. In 1994 the waitresses in a hotel in Gweedore took it upon themselves to arrange a surprise birthday party for the 'girl's wee lad'...

I think the Irish people are not as conservative as we have been lead to believe - I think we have just been raised to fear. The fear of God is instilled in us from a young age and is fed to us under the guise of 'education'.

I think fear and envy is what is motivating a lot of the vocal No campaigners - fear that God will be angry and they will be punished unless they stop us moving away from what the RCC wants and envy that they are following the restrictions while those who flaunt the rules are not being struck down - we may be punished in hell but sure what consolation is that when you see people living freely while you are on your knees begging forgiveness for the sin of being alive in this Vale of Tears.



*Ignoring the No Campaigner who called me a child abuser last week. Extenuating circumstances and all that - passions are running high at the moment.

wil wrote: »

I have listened to both sides of the argument equally (give or take a few milliseconds) and it would appear fairly conclusive that one should vote yes and no.

wil wrote: »

In the interest of fairness and balance, it it only correct to observe that one could equally vote no and yes.

I'm sorry but in the interest of balance you need to have the same number of words consisting of the same number of letters in both posts.

littlemouse22 wrote: »

I understand your point, but it is not illegal for homosexual couples to have sex, yes I agree people have beliefs about marriage and heterosexual couples having sex to make babies, but that is not the definition of marriage? I mean people do not marry to have sex and babies. There is no valid reason that homosexuals cannot marry, it has absolutely nothing to do with having sex. It is of anything that I'm aware of to devote yourself forever to that person through love and holy matrimony. My point is that we are voting purposely for heterosexual couples to have the right to marry, not to have sex, not to adopt children, just to marry.

According to Breda O Brien of the Iona Institute (perhaps someone can supply a link - I refuse to go near the Independent) gay people should be celibate.

In fact, no one should have sex outside marriage and as she (and Iona) also believes gay people should be allowed to get married...
That is also the official position of the RCC - it's the whole love the sinner. Hate the sin mantra.

Gay sex might no longer be illegal but some people consider it a sin - these same people also consider themselves the nation's moral guardians. These same people are the main opponents to Marriage Equality.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sorry but in the interest of balance you need to have the same number of words consisting of the same number of letters in both posts.

Well Give or take a few milliseconds.
No but you are right. obviously there were a few more syllables devoted to yes and no, so in the interest of complete fairness all opinions should be completely retracted and then start again once the balance has been tared and zeroed.
That should do it.

Apologies of repeating the same post twice, didn't think the first post saved.... my bad!