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

sjb25 · 17-05-2015 10:10AM

LookingFor wrote: »

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

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

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?

This week is going to be full of sh1t like that wait and see closer it gets to Friday worse it shall get

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 10:11AM

THE FAMILY

Have look at the section of the constitution which shall be ammended by this referendum. It's titled the "The Family".

May that be a clue about the nature of what is affected by this change.http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/co...html#article41

The constitution is about principles. The actual changes shall be in case law and legal ruling once lawyers get hold of it

gandalf · 17-05-2015 10:16AM

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
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?

Ah but you have insinuated that I haven't. So I have assumed that you have informed yourself. So again can you share the information that you have used to come to the conclusion that a no vote is the correct one? I'm really waiting with baited breathe for your answer.

1. Please show how what I posted is "very biased dishonest YES literature" please. Break it down.

Here's the link again to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties website article we're talking about to make it easy for you.

http://www.iccl.ie/articles/yes-equality-myth-busters.html

2. No it doesn't change my marriage at all. My wife is still the same and I am the same. Only someone who doesn't feel secure in their marriage would feel otherwise.

3. Because I believe people are equal and minorities should be cherished and not excluded.

Now please reference the information that has made your mind up to post no please. You seem to ask a lot of questions but a very cagey about answer them when they are put to you. You seem to think that smart answers "...the bleeding obvious." are sufficient. They aren't.

Dimithy · 17-05-2015 10:16AM

gk5000 wrote: »

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.

What change has ever been made, where the consequences have been understood fully beforehand?
Do we have to wait until we can see the future before we allow for ssm?
And the thing is, even if we did have the full details of any legislation that would be passed, you could just as easily say "well how do we know that wont be changed in the future".
You just end up on a never ending path of what ifs, and nothing ever changes.

Shrap · 17-05-2015 10:22AM

gk5000 wrote: »

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

I believe you are deliberately insulting people now. What you have said there is a very serious and provocative statement to make. As a Yes voter who is voting on the issue at hand for the sake of my children, other people's children, and the future of my country, I will ask you nicely to retract that statement. Thanking you in advance.

MrWalsh · 17-05-2015 10:23AM

gk5000 wrote: »

THE FAMILY

Have look at the section of the constitution which shall be ammended by this referendum. It's titled the "The Family".

May that be a clue about the nature of what is affected by this change.http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/co...html#article41

The constitution is about principles. The actual changes shall be in case law and legal ruling once lawyers get hold of it

No mention of children in there?

mikemac1 · 17-05-2015 10:25AM

efb wrote: »

@paintypaws: If 77 studies, 8,000 lawyers & 14 children's charities can't convince you, you don't want to be & it IS about how y'feel about LGBTQ #marref

Are you asking people to trust lawyers? :pac:

gandalf · 17-05-2015 10:26AM

sjb25 wrote: »

This week is going to be full of sh1t like that wait and see closer it gets to Friday worse it shall get

Yep the bleeding knuckles brigade will be out in force this coming week.

They are about to spend a fortune of their US "Pizza Money" on full page adverts throughout the week on more FUD propaganda.

LookingFor · 17-05-2015 10:35AM

sjb25 wrote: »

This week is going to be full of sh1t like that wait and see closer it gets to Friday worse it shall get

Well I think anyone who has been given pause by Mother&Fathers Matters posters and messages here in Ireland should consider what they're saying in the US, and whether they still agree.

They're dressing up half-truths and misdirections here in an attempt to get the Irish people to swallow. Even for them, this isn't about surrogacy or adoption or 'respecting gay people, but...'. Boyle openly admits to hoping for a 'backlash' to put gay people back on the margins of society.

If you were feeling swayed by their spruced up red herrings here, have a think about what's lying under the mask. Evana let it slip here.

dellas1979 · 17-05-2015 10:38AM

The world/society functions on a big pile of "ideologies" (created mostly by religion-->beliefs)

Let us not forget, collective ideologies have started wars, and suppressed anyone not following them.

People like to be part of a collective group, following these ideologies. It "normalises" things. If you are outside the range deemed by this group, you [were] goosed.

I say [were] because the idealisms are being changed/challenged. Which is astoundingly fantastic.

Young and old people can be part of a new system of thinking - we will evolve to this anyways, where we think about other people (not just ourselves).

It opens the gateway for MANY different changes to repressive collective ideologies.

In short, that we be nice to each other and respectful to each other, as human beings, no matter who/what/where you come from.

Be the change.

(PS: I real that most of the "NOs" on here seem to be bourne out of fear. And you must ask yourself "why" you are fearful.)

PressRun · 17-05-2015 10:44AM

looksee wrote: »

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'?

You're right that the 'No' side have attempted to confuse the conversation with the adoption issue, but I also think the 'Yes' side have sort of let it happen to a certain extent. The debate about adoption should have been closed a long time ago and yet I'm still seeing people on the 'Yes' side getting drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of same-sex couples raising children. That's not what this issue should have ever been about and as soon as the 'No' side brought it up, it should have been swiftly and effectively shut down. Instead of keeping the issue focused on marriage equality, the whole debate seems to have been turned to adoption, and that could potentially be the undoing of the whole thing. The 'Yes' side have allowed these nutjobs to control the conversation imo.

RobertKK · 17-05-2015 10:50AM

Paddypower have changed the odds for Yes and no to:
Yes 1/8
No 9/2

The odds have been tighening as we get closer to polling day.

Wrongway1985 · 17-05-2015 10:51AM

PressRun wrote: »

You're right that the 'No' side have attempted to confuse the conversation with the adoption issue, but I also think the 'Yes' side have sort of let it happen to a certain extent. The debate about adoption should have been closed a long time ago and yet I'm still seeing people on the 'Yes' side getting drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of same-sex couples raising children. That's not what this issue should have ever been about and as soon as the 'No' side brought it up, it should have been swiftly and effectively shut down. Instead of keeping the issue focused on marriage equality, the whole debate seems to have been turned to adoption, and that could potentially be the undoing of the whole thing. The 'Yes' side have allowed these nutjobs to control the conversation imo.

2/3 of these debates are usually about kids whether for or against the given question the issue is there and can be seen in places where same sex marriage exists.

What I want to know is why this referendum has being pushed through by the American dollar, can anyone shed any light on that?

elfy4eva · 17-05-2015 10:53AM

PressRun wrote: »

You're right that the 'No' side have attempted to confuse the conversation with the adoption issue, but I also think the 'Yes' side have sort of let it happen to a certain extent. The debate about adoption should have been closed a long time ago and yet I'm still seeing people on the 'Yes' side getting drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of same-sex couples raising children. That's not what this issue should have ever been about and as soon as the 'No' side brought it up, it should have been swiftly and effectively shut down. Instead of keeping the issue focused on marriage equality, the whole debate seems to have been turned to adoption, and that could potentially be the undoing of the whole thing. The 'Yes' side have allowed these nutjobs to control the conversation imo.

It is shut down and debunked every time it comes up, but it keeps getting thrown back in. Not fair to say that the topic hasn't been put to bed by the yes side, it has been, it just keeps getting woken up to make noise.

PressRun · 17-05-2015 10:58AM

elfy4eva wrote: »

It is shut down and debunked every time it comes up, but it keeps getting thrown back in. Not fair to say that the topic hasn't been put to bed by the yes side, it has been, it just keeps getting woken up to make noise.

Nah, I don't think so. I see plenty of people I know who are voting 'Yes' getting drawn into this argument.

CiDeRmAn · 17-05-2015 10:59AM

gk5000 wrote: »

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.

And there you go again, making out I said something I didn't say.

A gross manipulation.

This referendum is strictly about extending the constitutional protection of marriage to same sex couples.
It will not affect the relationships of straight couples.
It will not affect religious ceremonies around marriage.
It is about adoption
It is not about surrogacy
It is not about birth certificates
It is not about sparing blushes of people on parent days when two fathers or mothers turn up.
It is not about natural orders or moral standpoints.

Those things may well matter to you or others but it is not what this is about.
This is about extending the constitutional protection of marriage to those same sex couples who decide they want to get married.
And this in no way affects the existing arrangements.
The only thing changing here is the rights are being extended to others, no one else is having their rights restricted or limited.
So, what does it cost straight people to facilitate the happiness of gay people, unless this in some way upsets them?

mikemac1 · 17-05-2015 11:02AM

There might be some value in constituency betting.Now most are odds on for yes but Cork North West are 1/4 to vote no. If you fancy a yes vote you can get 5/2

Roscommon South Letrim are also odds on to vote no. Maybe a protest vote against the government. Has been done before in Nice & Lisbon

Maybe some cute Rossies are going to organise a last minute switch and get their holiday money courtesy of Paddy Power !

Berserker · 17-05-2015 11:04AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Certain sections of the state campaigning for Yes is not helpful for Yes

Totally agree and I am finding it very tiring listening to some of them. Had Mary-Lou bleating on about equality and morals, which really is something coming from a member of SF and then she came out with the gem that a 'Yes' vote matches Pearse's vision of Ireland. Give me a break.

Judging by the polls this weekend, this is done and dusted anyway. Can't see the 'No' side closing the gap at this stage.

SaveOurLyric · 17-05-2015 11:04AM

Originally Posted by gk5000 View Post
"You are in trouble if that is the extent of your reading .Ok I'll try another bad example - Say you had a favourite pub, which morphed into a gay bar/druggie bar/sports bar/yuppie bar... would you still like that bar?"

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Awful analogy.

First, marriage is not analogous to a physical room in any useful sense. You don't share it with every other couple that's married. And that's great, because a lot of marriages suck and the rest appear to be awesome and make you feel like you suck.

Second, if it were a room, it could hardly change themes just because somewhat less than 10% of the inhabitants are gay. We're not about to be overrun with gay marriages here. They're a minority, and that's not likely to change.

I think its a very good analogy. gk5000 just reaches an incorrect conclusion. If they think about it will explain to them why they should vote Yes:

- no one else is going to change your pub for you. So your bar stays exactly as it is. You're free to change your pub into a gay bar if you wish, but there is non obligation.
- Others may change their pubs into gay/sports/yuppie bars if they wish. But it wont affect you since you wont ever be in their bars.

So vote YES gk5000 and let other people have same right to have the pubs they like rather than none unless it is the one you like even though you wont ever be in it.

Your logic is excellent gk - kudos in advance for changing from the No side to the Yes.

WoolyJumper · 17-05-2015 11:39AM

_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!)

If someone is presenting misinformation as their reason for voting no on a public forum then I feel it is important to address them on that. Not to try and change their mind but to ensure the facts are known. You have to remember people will read through this forum to try and make an informed decision on what way to vote. So if someone is misrepresenting the facts, I feel it is important to call them out on that.

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 12:03PM

gk5000 wrote: »

But one silly example:
Say girls school, and some mothers accompany girls on school tour.
You could not discriminate from a mam+man "mother".

What do you think happens now in the case of a widower or a divorced couple where the mother no longer plays an active role in parenting?

In any event schools do not organise mother and daughter tours. They might organise tours and seek parents to accompany the children, but they do not discriminate whether that parent is a mother or a father. I have accompanied my daughter to many school events, and I am never the only father there.

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 12:07PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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

The people who really care about children (ISPCC, Barnardos, Chidrens Alliance, etc) are advocating for a YES vote. They spend time dealing with real childhood issues and they see the referendum as a positive improvement in the lives of children; because gay and lesbian children will know that society values them equally.

The Ionans were screaming hysterics in 2009/10 when Civil Partnership laws were being introduced. They were wrong then, and wrong now.

17-05-2015 12:08PM

The No campaign have started showing ads on YouTube. This really bothers me and annoys me that YouTube allow it. YouTube shouldn't be the place to show these.

VinLieger · 17-05-2015 12:10PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The No campaign have started showing ads on YouTube. This really bothers me and annoys me that YouTube allow it. YouTube shouldn't be the place to show these.

Youtube don't care it's all just money to them, just get adblocker and they will go away

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 12:12PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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

No, my marriage will always be defined as being between myself (a man) and my wife (a woman). That the law permits other types of marriage does not alter what I am, nor what we are. Am I less of a man if I get my hair cut in Peter Marks, where people of any gender can get their hair cut?

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 12:16PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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

Why would a white Irish man work for a charity which provides support to black African women? It seems silly when you ask that question, doesn't it?

Or were you trying to make some under-handed judgemental comment about a poster's sexuality?

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 12:21PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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.

EVERY change to the constitution occurs before the legislation is introduced; that's how a constitutional framework works! Laws can only be signed which agree with the principles of the constitution. Refusing a change to the constitution because you do not trust lawyers (who, by the way, do not make our laws - that is the job of legislators) is the idiot's stance. It is neither reasoned nor principled.

Sofiztikated · 17-05-2015 12:22PM

gk5000: Ok, you think "man and woman", the same way you think "fish and chips."

But what if I don't like fish? Should I not be allowed in the chipper?

floggg · 17-05-2015 12:22PM

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.

Nobody said they can't speak. Just that it's nauseating when they actually do.

You seem ignorant of our right to freedom of thought and expression. We are not required to approve or even respect their message - only to allow them express it.

Which they have repeatedly done.

padd b1975 · 17-05-2015 12:26PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

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

If I was Varadkar, I would worry about getting my own house in order before trying to muscle in on random flavour of the month campaigns.:rolleyes:

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

Comments