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

Just to address the whole "Yes side are bullying" rhetoric.
We just had Yes canvassers call to the door there for the first time and they were lovely. Very well spoken and smiles, looked just like regular people who asked if we'd like to discuss the vote and if not they can leave a leaflet with us if we want.
In contrast to this, my only interaction with the No side was last week in Swords main street where I was physically grabbed and called a sodomite in front of other passers-by for wearing a Yes badge.

I've encountered zero aggression from the Yes side. Every instance of "being shouted down" I've encountered online has been people addressing very real mistruths spread by the No campaign, such as misrepresenting research, bringing in peripheral issues like adoption and surrogacy, and offensive remarks from the likes of David Quinn who described homosexual relationships as "grotesque" on Twitter the other day. In many cases, it isn't even Yes voters who are speaking up on social media, but one of the many unrelated groups who the No side has labelled as inferior such as single parents, fathers, adoptive kids, infertile couples etc.

I had to laugh on a Irish Times comment thread the other day. One lad spouted nonsense about this being a conspiracy from the government and managed to bring in cuts to Lone parents allowance in 2012 as a reason for voting no and he repeatedly finished his comments with "No need to call me a homophobe". Not one person replying even mentioned the word homophobe or attacked him, but all refuted his clearly illogical points and he pre-emptively played the "stop labelling me homophobe/being bullied" card when nobody did such a thing. I called him out on the fact that the only times homophobe was used in the thread was when he said it, and then he claimed that the new tactic from the Yes side was to not label people homophobes and not alienate people to make them feel guilty. You literally cannot win with that logic.

Canyon86 wrote: »

Glad you understand

What I understand is that you said I was in a strop due to me asking you this question (quoted here below).

Shrap wrote: »

Are you not voting on how you have reasoned out the question we're voting on rather than what people are saying about the campaigning?

It reasonably follows that you are similarly misinterpreting the attitudes of the Yes campaigners that you had previously described thusly:

Canyon86 wrote: »

the Yes campaigners seem to be very in your face and nearly aggressive in their campaigning,

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I haven't encountered any militant no voters tbh. There's no militant no voters raining down on my fb time line. I don't doubt they exist as they do in all referenda, but they are greatly outnumbered by the yes side it would seem from my own experience. Everyone Tim dick and Harry seems to be banging on about how people who vote no aren't decent human beings.

So you are voting No based on what pops up in your FB newfeed - the newsfeed that you to a great extent control by who your friends are and the pages you like?

Jesus wept....

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I made the reason very clear in the rest of my post why I was voting no, to protect democracy.

you should respect everyone's entitlement to a different opinion than your own. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's wrong. Each opinion is valid and must be respected;you would want to respect that to respect the tenets underpinning democracy, not the group think cultural liberalism that is being forced upon people regarding this topic.

If I don't agree with you please respect that and don't bully or attempt to brain wash me - that's the big problem with this referendum.

In a democracy you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to what you can argue for. A person can say 2 + 2 = 5 all they like and claim it is their opinion, but if they cannot prove it despite overwhelming evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, then their opinion doesn't mean much. Similarly, when people's intention is to vote no for unrelated reasons such as adoption, surrogacy, disapproval of the government etc. then others are more than entitled to challenge that view. Debate is incredibly important in the democratic process.

But on the point of democracy, there's two central tenets which are just as, if not more important than the one you raised.

1) The rights of a minority should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority as John Adams said, or Ochlocracy as the Greeks (founders of democracy) described.

2) For a debate to be free and fair, it must be informed as Aristotle said. In fact he feared democracy for this very reason, that the uninformed masses could exercise such power if they were not educated. As the neutral bodies in this referendum have repeatedly clarified, those propagating a no vote are not informed, and I'd imagine deliberately so as they intend to mislead the public.

The biggest threat to democracy has not come from the Yes campaign, but the No campaign whose very ethos is anti-democratic.

Plryty wrote: »

The only irony in the whole situtation is that the yes-campaign sought a democratic process for change & then when that democratic process is used to speak opposing views, it is shouted down through abusive tactics. Questioning such conduct is condescendingly dismissed as looking for any old reason to vote no or shout "bullying" & immediately the lime-light is attempted to be turned back onto the conduct of the no campaign, as if that is a justification for such behaviour. There has been numerous instances of defacing posters, vandalising posters, being associated as a bigot/homophobe over questions of all calibre.


Is it not fair to say people expected more from the yes side when they promote themselves for equality & as the rationale party, regardless of the pot-shots taken by the no side?

You speak as if the Yes side was some sort of political party with an internal disciplinary committee or a tightly controlled lobby group and it's offshoots.

It is far from that. It is just people. Ordinary everyday people, many of whom have never ever been involved in anything like this before and some of whom are so shocked by the No campaign that they lose the rag. What do you expect the Yes campaign do do exactly? Bull whip people? Take away their voting privileges if they call someone a homophobe ?

You seem to want the Yes side to exert a near fascist level of control over ordinary individuals to ensure everyone stays on message.

How exactly do you think the Yes side can stop ordinary people getting angry at some of the bile that has come from the No side?

Are you going to caution the No side to stop upsetting people and speaking about their fellow citizens in a derogatory manner?

allym wrote: »

If you're claiming that you're going to vote no because of the "carry on" of the yes side, it's pretty clear you never had any intention of voting yes.

If you really believe in marriage equality (which is ALL we are voting on), then the actions of a small minority of the yes side wouldn't change that.

I am a NO voter and it has nothing to do with children or adoption or surrogacy or anything the YES side have argued. I am a NO voter because I do not support putting something into the constitution which should not be there.
There is currently no definition of marriage in the constitution, nor should there be.
We have made mistakes in the past with the abortion and divorce referendums where putting clauses into the constitution have caused subsequent problems of interpretation.
All these matters could, and should, be regulated by law.
In any case the right to marry that is being proposed is not universal. The phrase 'according to law' means that the Dail can, and, does specify that certain classes of person cannot marry each other. It leaves an opening for any future Dail to specify by law further classes who may not marry.
This referendum is pointless. It will further mangle a constitution which is flawed enough as it is.

Roger_007 wrote: »

I am a NO voter and it has nothing to do with children or adoption or surrogacy or anything the YES side have argued. I am a NO voter because I do not support putting something into the constitution which should not be there.
There is currently no definition of marriage in the constitution, nor should there be.
We have made mistakes in the past with the abortion and divorce referendums where putting clauses into the constitution have caused subsequent problems of interpretation.
All these matters could, and should, be regulated by law.
In any case the right to marry that is being proposed is not universal. The phrase 'according to law' means that the Dail can, and, does specify that certain classes of person cannot marry each other. It leaves an opening for any future Dail to specify by law further classes who may not marry.
This referendum is pointless. It will further mangle a constitution which is flawed enough as it is.

But there's a huge difference between saying 'You are legally allowed to marry someone of the same sex' and 'You have a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex'

Realistically not many Yes nor No voters will have their opinion swayed by the either side. I don't believe those claiming the actions of campaigners persuaded them to change their vote from Yes to No (or vice versa).

Both sides are targeting the casual or soft Yes/No voters. Those who agree but are less likely to vote. I would reckon that there is a few more Yes than No in this camp. Hence why the campaigning on the Yes side appears a little more intense.

You won't turn many of these over to the "other side", however depending on your campaign strategy, you do run the risk of losing them to poor turnout.

endacl wrote: »

iPhone? Mods can mod from a phone?!? :eek:

I'd imagined some kind of hollowed out mountain/batcave/underground bunker type arrangement.

Obviously, it's a hollowed out mountain/batcave/underground bunker type arrangement where iphones work... mostly...kinda...

Canyon86 wrote: »

I m not misinterpreting anything,

I do find the yes side in my area a bit forceful, only stating my view,

shoving leaflets in your face and reacting badly when i refuse to take them,

its not how campaigning should be done,

Your not allowed an opinion..you just vote yes or be called a bigot...