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

Ctrl Alt Delete · 16-05-2015 06:06PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah. The instant equating of homesexuals with zoophiles and pedophiles.
Homophobe. Got it.

please do keep calling no voters homophobes as it does nothing but helps no side.

I said it at start of previous thread that worst thing yes side can do is shout down anyone with an opposing view. The large collapse in the latest poll pretty much supports that point.

It's ok to have a view once your voting yes

Ave Sodalis · 16-05-2015 06:09PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

please do keep calling no voters homophobes as it does nothing but helps no side.

I said it at start of previous thread that worst thing yes side can do is shout down anyone with an opposing view. The large collapse in the latest poll pretty much supports that point.

It's ok to have a view once your voting yes

So people who compare homosexuals to those who are involved in beastality and compare them to paedophiles like the poster just did should be completely immune from any sort of backlash or calling out and therefore those people should be free to say such things... but calling them a homophobe is unacceptable...

CiDeRmAn · 16-05-2015 06:10PM

New low alert!
There really should be a way to colour code the timeline of this thread, with markers denoting when milestones are reached.
Comparing being gay to committing bestiality or being a paedophile is a remarkable feat and should be recorded.
It also represents both a gross example of hate speech and gives good insight into the grimy inner workings of the intolerant mind.
I'm pretty sure there are, however, plenty of no voters who would want nothing to do with such a point of view.

Dan_Solo · 16-05-2015 06:10PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Bully

If I'm a bully for calling him what he is, a homophobe, what is he?

Shrap · 16-05-2015 06:12PM

This is homophobia:

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate people living alternative lifestyles, be that relationships with same gender or with animals or with children

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

please do keep calling no voters homophobes as it does nothing but helps no side.

....... worst thing yes side can do is shout down anyone with an opposing view.

Where do you draw the line? And who is shouting by calling out the vile abuse slung at gay people in the post quoted above?

sup_dude wrote: »

So people who compare homosexuals to those who are involved in beastality and compare them to paedophiles like the poster just did should be completely immune from any sort of backlash or calling out and therefore those people should be free to say such things... but calling them a homophobe is unacceptable...

Exactly. Sigh.

aloyisious · 16-05-2015 06:13PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate people living alternative lifestyles, be that relationships with animals or with children

Neither do we.

endacl · 16-05-2015 06:13PM

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Adoption, surrogacy and now Irish Water???

Christ on a bike...

Feck it. Why not...

Shrap · 16-05-2015 06:14PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If I'm a bully for calling him what he is, a homophobe, what is he?

Wooly was being sarcastic. You're forgiven for not being able to tell the difference sometimes, considering what some people actually do say about calling out vile posts on their abuse (case in point above).

Not a NSA agent · 16-05-2015 06:15PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

please do keep calling no voters homophobes as it does nothing but helps no side.

I said it at start of previous thread that worst thing yes side can do is shout down anyone with an opposing view. The large collapse in the latest poll pretty much supports that point.

It's ok to have a view once your voting yes

Ah yes, protecting people who compare gay people to pedophiles. Well done.

Nobody can ever be homophobic. Beat a person for being gay? Sure Im allowed a view :rolleyes:

CiDeRmAn · 16-05-2015 06:16PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

please do keep calling no voters homophobes as it does nothing but helps no side.

I said it at start of previous thread that worst thing yes side can do is shout down anyone with an opposing view. The large collapse in the latest poll pretty much supports that point.

It's ok to have a view once your voting yes

Its not OK to take a viewpoint, that is a voting position, then go off on a frankly untrue rant using the most unpleasant and sickening accusations levelled at any group.
The comment wasn't an opposing view, it was a vile slur and deserves no quarter bar being called out for what it is.
Things may get heated about points and counter points but by and large they are done with dignity.
This kind of thing is unhelpful for both sides of the argument, being exactly the type of opinion that the legislation will help eradicate with normalising being homosexual in this country.

WoolyJumper · 16-05-2015 06:18PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If I'm a bully for calling him what he is, a homophobe, what is he?

Stop shoving your opinion down my throat. The no side should be allowed to have any opinion they want no matter how offensive without the yes side responding to them. It's on democratic to have opinions on our opinions.

I was kidding of course

endacl · 16-05-2015 06:22PM

blacklilly wrote: »

Unauthorised removal of posters is a criminal offence. Do you normally spend your time at home gazing out your windows? What you did was wrong, if someone was to remove yes campaign posters they would be wrong too and in doing so would be carrying out a criminal act

No it's not. Destruction of posters is a criminal offence. Not removal. The posters are quite safe in my shed. Anybody who wants them back can have them. I'll be keeping them till June. That's when I get my annual shed clearing skip, and political posters are almost custom designed for creeling up the sides of skips.

For clarity, I live on a side street. No point in having any posters at all here, but I have one gobshyte neighbour who keeps on replacing them. I'm sure if he had an issue with me taking them, he'd say something. He hasn't yet. I'd quite like him to though.

I'll take yes posters too. But not until next Saturday. I need about six more.

Not a NSA agent · 16-05-2015 06:27PM

Can anyone explain why saying derogatory things about a group is an opinion one second and then bullying the next? Im just wondering who I can accuse of what.

endacl · 16-05-2015 06:30PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Can anyone explain why saying derogatory things about a group is an opinion one second and then bullying the next? Im just wondering who I can accuse of what.

You can accuse me of 'storage with malice aforethought'. Outlawed under the Shenanigans and Divilment Act, 1998.

Guilty as charged, m'lud.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 16-05-2015 06:35PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Ah yes, protecting people who compare gay people to pedophiles. Well done.

Nobody can ever be homophobic. Beat a person for being gay? Sure Im allowed a view :rolleyes:

where did he compare gays to zoophiles or paedophiles.

What he did say though was he was making his opinion not based on someone being gay. But as per usual no siders miss the point of what he was saying by a country mile and lash out the homophobe label as has been the defacto tactic thus far.

Bannasidhe · 16-05-2015 06:37PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Can anyone explain why saying derogatory things about a group is an opinion one second and then bullying the next? Im just wondering who I can accuse of what.

Best I can work out one can say anything one likes if one is valiantly struggling against the PC Brigade as the end justifies the means when stemming the liberal tide which is threatening to rent the fabric. Also free* speech must be preserved along with democratic wotsits.

If one is a member of the aforementioned PC Brigade then you must be censored lest impressionable child minds will be exposed to the ghey is ok propaganda. It's for the greater good.

*for a given value of free

Not a NSA agent · 16-05-2015 06:45PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

where did he compare gays to zoophiles or paedophiles.

What he did say though was he was making his opinion not based on someone being gay. But as per usual no siders miss the point of what he was saying by a country mile and lash out the homophobe label as has been the defacto tactic thus far.

And other people made their opinion. Why do you only want to allow some people to have opinions? You're no better than what you are complaining about.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 16-05-2015 06:59PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

And other people made their opinion. Why do you only want to allow some people to have opinions? You're no better than what you are complaining about.

I don't every one is entitled to their opinion but doesn't mean you should completely and obviously Misrepresent what someone posts supporting a no vote in order to add the homophobe label to them

Not a NSA agent · 16-05-2015 07:03PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't every one is entitled to their opinion but doesn't mean you should completely and obviously Misrepresent what someone posts supporting a no vote in order to add the homophobe label to them

You agree I can have the opinion someone is homophobic and can express my opinion then?

Bannasidhe · 16-05-2015 07:04PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate people living alternative lifestyles, be that relationships with same gender or with animals or with children

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't every one is entitled to their opinion but doesn't mean you should completely and obviously Misrepresent what someone posts supporting a no vote in order to add the homophobe label to them

You think that was simply a statement supporting a No vote?

An innocent little comment which has been misrepresented?

CiDeRmAn · 16-05-2015 07:31PM

I wonder if Jeremy Clarkson came out in support of a Yes vote, would it be the type of wound the No side could never recover from?
Someone give a shout, quick!

Shrap · 16-05-2015 07:43PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate people living alternative lifestyles, be that relationships with same gender or with animals or with children

I tried giving this person the benefit of the doubt here, and asked outright whether he just meant keeping animals or having "relationships" with animals, but got no reply to this:

Shrap wrote: »

Interestingly, I live with both animals and children and may be classed as alternative (which is not against the law to my knowledge). However, I assume you mean "having a sexual relationship" with animals and/or children.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't every one is entitled to their opinion but doesn't mean you should completely and obviously Misrepresent what someone posts supporting a no vote in order to add the homophobe label to them

How were they misrepresented? This person was given the opportunity to represent themselves and that's what they did. They can come up here and deny that's what they meant/said if they like. So far, they seem happy to stand over their homophobic hate speech.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think that was simply a statement supporting a No vote?

An innocent little comment which has been misrepresented?

Exactly that.

Ctrl Alt Delete, you are either in the business of misrepresenting us or that poster. Which? Basically, sh1t or get off the pot

padd b1975 · 16-05-2015 07:51PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

New low alert!
There really should be a way to colour code the timeline of this thread, with markers denoting when milestones are reached.
Comparing being gay to committing I bestiality or being a paedophile is a remarkable feat and should be recorded.
It also represents both a gross example of hate speech and gives good insight into the grimy inner workings of the intolerant mind.
I'm pretty sure there are, however, plenty of no voters who would want nothing to do with such a point of view.

Oh yeah, bound to be....

mailforkev · 16-05-2015 07:57PM

Yes: we'd like gay couples to be able to get married

No: some unrelated stuff about babies/mothers

Yes: points out that that stuff is unrelated to the referendum

No: stop bullying me and my beliefs.

It really is a masterstroke in a campaign by the No side. Please just be honest and admit you think gay people are icky and you are superior and that's why they can't marry. I would still disagree but at least admire the honesty for a change.

Ave Sodalis · 16-05-2015 08:11PM

sailing Yochons wrote: »

I'm very unsure what way to vote.

Is there anything you're unsure about in particular that we may be able to clear up?

EDIT: Nevermind, post deleted

Sofiztikated · 16-05-2015 08:12PM

sailing Yochons wrote: »

I'm very unsure what way to vote.

Just boil it down to the basic question.

Should 2 people be allowed to get married?

Alt J · 16-05-2015 08:19PM

Im not one to talk about politics ever, in fact the nearest I'd come would be joking about how small our president is when I'm drunk or how our Taoiseach/Prime minister's daughter wrote 'Ps I Love you' (Great Movie). Anyhow next week Ireland will become the first country in the world to ever hold a referendum on equal marriage rights for the lGBT community. There have been definitely bullies on both the 'yes' and 'no' side on social media and the news where I think people not sure what too vote might feel pressured. A lot of people seem not to know while there is Civil partnership for the LGBT community there is not full Constitutional equality. There also many people who might feel like their religion is threatened if the referendum is passed but no religious organization is obliged to marry a Gay couple if so. More people seem to think the referendum is about allowing gay couples to adopt where in fact they are already allowed to do so, and rightly.

This referendum is about equal rights for human beings and nothing else. For anyone that has said they will be voting to 'No' too me, I have asked, 'if your children or future children or relations are gay, will you be happy knowing they are not allowed the same amount of rights as you, that they are not constitutionally your equal. Ireland has the opportunity to make history next week but more importantly show the world we believe all humans are equal. I know there have been a million posts on this and forgive my rant but I wanted to share my side for people that might not know what way to vote. I respect everyone's choice next week, but when your kids are doing their history homework in 10. 20, 30 years time, I hope you'll be able to read their book and say you were one of the reasons why there is full equality in Ireland.

Kiwi in IE · 16-05-2015 08:36PM

Canvassing today went well. I feel very encouraged at the amount of people I encountered who were definate yes voters. No one was particularly rude either thankfully. I was standing on the street handing out yes badges and pamphlets that show people how to get voting reminders text to them, and the amount of people who wanted to wear a yes badge made me feel very hopeful. And I was in the heart of small town rural Ireland. There were a few filthy looks and sour faces but not many.

frostyjacks · 16-05-2015 08:42PM

Alt J wrote: »

Im not one to talk about politics ever, in fact the nearest I'd come would be joking about how small our president is when I'm drunk or how our Taoiseach/Prime minister's daughter wrote 'Ps I Love you' (Great Movie). Anyhow next week Ireland will become the first country in the world to ever hold a referendum on equal marriage rights for the lGBT community. There have been definitely bullies on both the 'yes' and 'no' side on social media and the news where I think people not sure what too vote might feel pressured. A lot of people seem not to know while there is Civil partnership for the LGBT community there is not full Constitutional equality. There also many people who might feel like their religion is threatened if the referendum is passed but no religious organization is obliged to marry a Gay couple if so. More people seem to think the referendum is about allowing gay couples to adopt where in fact they are already allowed to do so, and rightly.

This referendum is about equal rights for human beings and nothing else. For anyone that has said they will be voting to 'No' too me, I have asked, 'if your children or future children or relations are gay, will you be happy knowing they are not allowed the same amount of rights as you, that they are not constitutionally your equal. Ireland has the opportunity to make history next week but more importantly show the world we believe all humans are equal. I know there have been a million posts on this and forgive my rant but I wanted to share my side for people that might not know what way to vote. I respect everyone's choice next week, but when your kids are doing their history homework in 10. 20, 30 years time, I hope you'll be able to read their book and say you were one of the reasons why there is full equality in Ireland.

The only positive thing I'll take from a Yes victory is not having to listen to this sort of saccharine-coated, vomit-inducing claptrap ever again.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 16-05-2015 08:44PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Canvassing today went well. I feel very encouraged at the amount of people I encountered who were definate yes voters. No one was particularly rude either thankfully. I was standing on the street handing out yes badges and pamphlets that show people how to get voting reminders text to them, and the amount of people who wanted to wear a yes badge made me feel very hopeful. And I was in the heart of small town rural Ireland. There were a few filthy looks and sour faces but not many.

Out of curiosity is it your first time ever canvassing?

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

Comments