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

efb · 17-05-2015 01:45AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Lilly's.

Irish made, not tested on animals, no nasty chemicals.

:cool:

I use lidl stuff

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 01:45AM

haveringchick wrote: »

Wether you like it or not the priest can hold forth on any subject he chooses.
That's just how it goes. Tough.

Even without relevance to the specific topic the adults present could understand and get their heads around, while the children looked around in puzzlement? How truly enlightening.

Disgruntled Badger · 17-05-2015 02:02AM

Am I the only person concerned with the impact marriage is going to have on Gay People???

For a start you can drop being called 'Gay' that's just going to be a contradiction in terms. Then there is the obligatory lemon sweaters of a Sunday... Oh dear God it's yellow...Yellow!

Sever Tomorrow · 17-05-2015 02:09AM

The Irish correspondent for the Guardian messed up earlier saying that the referendum affected adoption laws. Pretty shocking error, you'd really expect better.

Specialun · 17-05-2015 02:52AM

Man and woman marry and have 2 kids...man then marrys a man and then challenges in the courts on where the kids should be..the woman is a single parent...

If yes is passed what is the ruling here??????

As it stands the ruling is obviously to the woman.

silverfeather · 17-05-2015 03:05AM

Specialun wrote: »

Man and woman marry and have 2 kids...man then marrys a man and then challenges in the courts on where the kids should be..the woman is a single parent...

If yes is passed what is the ruling here??????

As it stands the ruling is obviously to the woman.

No the person who has primary custody is.

silverfeather · 17-05-2015 03:09AM

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Am I the only person concerned with the impact marriage is going to have on Gay People???

For a start you can drop being called 'Gay' that's just going to be a contradiction in terms. Then there is the obligatory lemon sweaters of a Sunday... Oh dear God it's yellow...Yellow!

Seeing as they are the ones asking for it themselves I doubt you are.

The last few pages of this thread have not much about marriage in them.

The Adversary · 17-05-2015 04:09AM

Just had to endure a five minute propaganda piece in the form of an unskippable ad on youtube (I also had adblock+ on) from Mothers and Fathers Matter in which two gay men impassionately argue for a no vote with same old arguments. Babies to order, shutting down of Catholic schools if referendum passes, armaggaydon. Blah blah blah.

I don't really have much to say about this apart from it being 4 in the morning, I can't sleep and now i'm incredibly pissed off.

Also surprised Youtube would run such an ad when Google have called for a Yes vote.

silverfeather · 17-05-2015 04:12AM

The Adversary wrote: »

Just had to endure a five minute propaganda piece in the form of an unskippable ad on youtube (I also had adblock+ on) from Mothers and Fathers Matter in which two gay men impassionately argue for a no vote with same old arguments. Babies to order, shutting down of Catholic schools if referendum passes, armaggaydon. Blah blah blah.

I don't really have much to say about this apart from it being 4 in the morning, I can't sleep and now i'm incredibly pissed off.

Also surprised Youtube would run such an ad when Google have called for a Yes vote.

Is it the one where a man says 'I am gay and I am voting no? ' Or the 'make up your own mind' one. They are both nauseating.

efb · 17-05-2015 04:16AM

I'm gay and I'm an attention seeker morelike - the pair of them

The Adversary · 17-05-2015 04:23AM

silverfeather wrote: »

Is it the one where a man says 'I am gay and I am voting no? ' Or the 'make up your own mind' one. They are both nauseating.

Yeah, one of them even claims he was the last person arrested under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.

Ozymandius2011 · 17-05-2015 05:12AM

silverfeather wrote: »

Is it the one where a man says 'I am gay and I am voting no? ' Or the 'make up your own mind' one. They are both nauseating.

Its interesting that one of them Keith Mills wont be here for the vote because hes at Eurovision. What does that suggest?

CiDeRmAn · 17-05-2015 07:55AM

I hear that certain Christian churches that cater for mostly non Irish born citizens are going to mobilise their members to vote against SSM.
The attitudes towards being gay in non European countries such as Russia and Nigeria hasn't changed from outright hostile and at least one church going colleague suggests that they are going to do their best in this instance to limit the tolerance here as well.

JustTheOne · 17-05-2015 08:11AM

silverfeather wrote: »

Is it the one where a man says 'I am gay and I am voting no? ' Or the 'make up your own mind' one. They are both nauseating.

They have just as much right to campaign for a no vote and vote no.

I will be voting yes but I find people's attitude to the no campaign a bit ignorant of the right to vote whatever way you want.

mikemac1 · 17-05-2015 09:06AM

I see Labour and Fine Gael bickering again over who will represent the government on the next RTE debate.

Varadkar was lined up but Labour complained and demanded Alex White gets the spotlight. It seems a deal was done months ago and Labour were promised this.

I got referendum fatigue

RobertKK · 17-05-2015 09:24AM

Certain sections of the state campaigning for Yes is not helpful for Yes, as the optics are not the best and one could argue inappropriate.
The head of Tusla, Norah Gibbons is actively campaigning for Yes. Given recent controversies that is not good.

It also turns out that the chairperson of the children's Alliance that which gets money from Tusla and Atlantic Philantrophies, in the past worked for Atlantic philantrophies. The children's alliance received €4.2 million from AP and are campaigning for Yes.

looksee · 17-05-2015 09:27AM

JustTheOne wrote: »

They have just as much right to campaign for a no vote and vote no.

I will be voting yes but I find people's attitude to the no campaign a bit ignorant of the right to vote whatever way you want.

Of course everyone can vote any way they want! You have a voting slip and a pencil, and complete privacy, how can anyone force anyone to do anything?

Of course you could do a lot of lying and confusing the issue of what the referendum is about, as the no side have done, but they still cannot stop anyone voting any way they want.

I don't get all this business about the yes side bullying, the vast majority of the time they are simply saying 'that is not what this referendum is about, what you (the no side) are saying is completely irrelevant and scare-mongering'. Even the Referendum Commission have had to come out and emphasise this point. Who is doing the 'bulllying'?

mailforkev · 17-05-2015 09:28AM

JustTheOne wrote: »

I will be voting yes but I find people's attitude to the no campaign a bit ignorant of the right to vote whatever way you want.

I don't think anyone is intolerant of anyone else's right to vote as they wish.

There is however an expectation that a voter is not ignorant of what it is they are voting on.

So if they have wildly misunderstood the question being asked and have then campaigned based entirely on this misunderstanding or on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, then yes, questions are asked of them.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 09:29AM

gandalf wrote: »

Originally Posted by gk5000 No - the point is ssm will affect existing marriages legally.

Again no it won't please show me the background information that you have that says it will.

So GK5000 any chance you can enlighten me further with your "extensive" reading of what this referendum is about? Come on show me what you are basing your no decision on?

Dimithy · 17-05-2015 09:35AM

JustTheOne wrote: »

They have just as much right to campaign for a no vote and vote no.

I will be voting yes but I find people's attitude to the no campaign a bit ignorant of the right to vote whatever way you want.

They have the right to vote whatever way they want, and everyone else has a right to have an opinion on how they vote.

Where has the idea that you cant be criticised for your opinion, or have it challenged, come from?

haveringchick wrote: »

Robertkk and efb should compose a letter advising the Cardinal where when how and what a Catholic priest should say to Catholics in a Catholic church.
It seems a reasonable enough proposition and not a bit fascist.

Yes, fascist...just like a priest advising people to vote no?

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 09:35AM

gandalf wrote: »

So GK5000 any chance you can enlighten me further with your "extensive" reading of what this referendum is about? Come on show me what you are basing your no decision on?

Ahh you're up..

1. I never mentioned extensive reading, but just was a bit disappointed when you refererenced some very biased dishonest YES literature

2. The constutution is about principles. You may have difficulty with that.
But, basically your marriage currently is defined as being between a man and a woman
Going forward your existing marriage shall be defined as being between two persons of indictinct sex

3. Why is a straight man putting effort into advocating gay marriage?

_Kaiser_ · 17-05-2015 09:42AM

mailforkev wrote: »

I don't think anyone is intolerant of anyone else's right to vote as they wish.

There is however an expectation that a voter is not ignorant of what it is they are voting on.

So if they have wildly misunderstood the question being asked and have then campaigned based entirely on this misunderstanding or on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, then yes, questions are asked of them.

I'd disagree.. That may be how it's being justified but you only have to read these threads to see how No voters are being belittled, sneered at, and "ganged up on" by Yes voters whose general argument is "what are you, stupid?"

The fact that a Yes vote may be the "obvious" and "right" choice to them, that doesn't give them the right to interrogate and demand justifications from those who disagree..for WHATEVER reason! It's not up to Yes voters to try and make them see the errors of their ways and convert them which is the attitude here in many cases.... Especially when then getting so worked up about the No campaign doing the same thing!

Bottom line here is that this issue is one that questions an individual's deeply held beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and what's "normal" and while our more liberal, younger, generation may have no issues with that, they DO have to respect the views of those that do. It's fine to disagree and vote accordingly, but all votes count and people should feel free to vote whatever way they want WITHOUT the above insults and pressure from the "more enlightened"... That's what democracy is!

If you want to influence things (either way) get out and vote, but if you want people to respect the result, you have to respect their opinions too.. Even if you disagree!

(Oh and for the record, as I've said before I've no stake in this either way really but no problem with it either.. I won't be voting though mainly because I've moved to another County in the last few weeks but I have to admit, the above attitudes by elements of the Yes side don't sit well with me either!)

LookingFor · 17-05-2015 09:47AM

Mother & Fathers Matter seems to be stripping down to an increasingly desperate, and ugly, and yes - blatantly homophobic - core.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-decades-in-the-shadows-gays-in-ireland-ready-for-coming-out-party/2015/05/16/9e2bb6e4-f8ca-11e4-a47c-e56f4db884ed_story.html

“We’re no longer Catholic Ireland,” said Evana Boyle, an organizer of Mothers and Fathers Matter, a group campaigning for a no vote. “We’re changing the essence of an institution that has been known as one man and one woman since the beginning of time.”

Boyle’s group has plastered this city, and much of the country, with posters showing opposite-sex parents kissing a cherub-faced baby along with the words “Don’t deny a child the right to a mother & a father. Vote No.”

Boyle, a lawyer and a mother of four, said her side is counting on a backlash to a new era in which homosexuality has become “normalized.”

I guess she is proud of her kids' reaction to the parents of others?

When even Catholic schools plan lessons around LGBT Awareness Week, she said, she needs to be on guard against attempts to indoctrinate her own children. “The idea of having two dads, they just go ‘Eww, that’s not right,’ ” she said.

So remember guys, vote No to keep gay people on the margins of society, and to maintain a culture where kids like Evana Boyle's feel comfortable expressing outward disgust at other people's families. I guess when Mothers & Father's Matter talk about 'protecting children', they mean their own kids who may want to ridicule others with different families?

looksee · 17-05-2015 09:52AM

gk5000 wrote: »

Ahh you're up..

1. I never mentioned extensive reading, but just was a bit disappointed when you refererenced some very biased dishonest YES literature

2. The constutution is about principles. You may have difficulty with that.
But, basically your marriage currently is defined as being between a man and a woman

In fact it isn't, the constitution does not mention man and woman, it is apparently legal rulings that have introduced the notion of man and woman

Going forward your existing marriage shall be defined as being between two persons of indictinct sex

Assuming you mean 'indistinct', again you are wrong. It says 'without distinction' which is not the same thing at all. It will not in any way change the sex of anyone, hetero- or homo- sexual.

3. Why is a straight man putting effort into advocating gay marriage?

Because some people understand the concept of equality and do not suffer from the 'it doesn't affect me therefore I don't care' syndrome.

CiDeRmAn · 17-05-2015 09:54AM

The last point is like asking white people why they are bothered calling people on racist comments.
Inequality is an issue for everyone, if you think this has nothing to do with you or your circle then you are either mistaken, misled or the time has yet to come.

Look, you've made it clear you see marriage as a natural connection between man and woman, as you described it fish and chips.
But that definition is to be broadened in this referendum, moving to include same sex couples, and this has no effect on existing or future marriage between straight couples.
The issue around children is distraction.
None of that issue is exclusive to gay couples and not relevant unless discussed outside this debate.
To get bogged down in surrogacy, in birth certs is misdirection.

keeponhurling · 17-05-2015 09:55AM

road_high wrote: »

Des Hannifan who really give a toss what that aul codger thinks? He was virulently anti the divorce referendum. How ridiculous does that stance look now.
.

That's it, that's it.
Attack the man personally rather than address his points, that's what we do.
Vote yes !

mailforkev · 17-05-2015 10:02AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Bottom line here is that this issue is one that questions an individual's deeply held beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and what's "normal" and while our more liberal, younger, generation may have no issues with that, they DO have to respect the views of those that do. It's fine to disagree and vote accordingly, but all votes count and people should feel free to vote whatever way they want WITHOUT the above insults and pressure from the "more enlightened"... That's what democracy is!

I've said it earlier in this thread that if someone is voting no because gay people make them a bit uncomfortable or that they feel that gay people are an abomination under the lord or that they flat out hate gay people then I respect their right to hold that view and their vote.

I think they are very wrong and they're not someone I'd associate with in life but they are being honest to their beliefs and I respect that.

However, I will not respect ignorance of what we are actually voting on or people trying to say they're voting no because of unrelated X or untruth Y.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 10:04AM

looksee wrote: »

In fact it isn't, the constitution does not mention man and woman, it is apparently legal rulings that have introduced the notion of man and woman

Assuming you mean 'indistinct', again you are wrong. It says 'without distinction' which is not the same thing at all. It will not in any way change the sex of anyone, hetero- or homo- sexual.

Because some people understand the concept of equality and do not suffer from the 'it doesn't affect me therefore I don't care' syndrome.

Was curious of gandaff's answer to the third point as he had addresed a question to me.

You are correct - the constitution is about principles, but its the legal rulings and lawyers we have to worry about.

And right now we do not know the consequences of ssm on children of existing marriages and how legal rulings resultant from ssm shall affect them legally.

So it is irresponsible to vote to change the constitution on something as important as family, without fully understanding the consequences.

Dimithy · 17-05-2015 10:04AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd disagree.. That may be how it's being justified but you only have to read these threads to see how No voters are being belittled, sneered at, and "ganged up on" by Yes voters whose general argument is "what are you, stupid?"

The fact that a Yes vote may be the "obvious" and "right" choice to them, that doesn't give them the right to interrogate and demand justifications from those who disagree..for WHATEVER reason! It's not up to Yes voters to try and make them see the errors of their ways and convert them which is the attitude here in many cases.... Especially when then getting so worked up about the No campaign doing the same thing!

Bottom line here is that this issue is one that questions an individual's deeply held beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and what's "normal" and while our more liberal, younger, generation may have no issues with that, they DO have to respect the views of those that do. It's fine to disagree and vote accordingly, but all votes count and people should feel free to vote whatever way they want WITHOUT the above insults and pressure from the "more enlightened"... That's what democracy is!

If you want to influence things (either way) get out and vote, but if you want people to respect the result, you have to respect their opinions too.. Even if you disagree!

(Oh and for the record, as I've said before I've no stake in this either way really but no problem with it either.. I won't be voting though mainly because I've moved to another County in the last few weeks but I have to admit, the above attitudes by elements of the Yes side don't sit well with me either!)

No voters are being "ganged up on" by being asked questions, and being corrected on points where they are clearly wrong. If you dont want that, get a blog. If you come on to a discussion board to post your opinion then expect to have to defend it.

And no, you do not have to respect someones views, or opinions. You can have whatever opinion you want, but as soon as it leaves the confines of your own head it is open to criticism.

Every opinion is not valid, and the sooner we get rid of that idea the better.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 10:08AM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The last point is like asking white people why they are bothered calling people on racist comments.
Inequality is an issue for everyone, if you think this has nothing to do with you or your circle then you are either mistaken, misled or the time has yet to come.

Look, you've made it clear you see marriage as a natural connection between man and woman, as you described it fish and chips.
But that definition is to be broadened in this referendum, moving to include same sex couples, and this has no effect on existing or future marriage between straight couples.
The issue around children is distraction.
None of that issue is exclusive to gay couples and not relevant unless discussed outside this debate.
To get bogged down in surrogacy, in birth certs is misdirection.

Children may be a distraction to you - but they are fundamentally important to me and most married people, perhaps our single reason for being, like all the other animals on the planet.

And again the crux of the matter - an agenda changing "the family" section of the constitution by people who do not care about children.

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

Comments