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

Cuban Pete wrote: »

So we've had paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and now incest. Makes ya wonder what the next red herring could be.

Marrying fish.

Obviously.

Discodog wrote: »

I am amazed that, especially after the comments from the referendum commission, that the No campaign are still allowed to use surrogacy, children etc on their posters.

The posters that refer to a man not being able to give the love of a mother is a gross insult to thousands of single parent families. If a wife dies does it mean that a husband isn't capable of showing love to his children ?

There is, quite literally, no argument against gay marriage. What else are the homophobes supposed to put on their posters, if not these kinds of lies? "Vote NO because Gays are icky", probably wouldn't win too many votes.

This referendum will be carried by more than 2 to 1. Ten years from now, when we are living in a country where gay marriage is an everyday event, and the sky hasn't fallen on our heads, 80% of of the 300-350k or so people who will vote no will be embarrassed to admit it in polite company.

Ah for fecks sake are we back onto slippery slopes? I think the Referendum Commission has done the country a great disservice by failing to cater its information booklet to the lowest common denominator on the intelligence spectrum. Clearly there was a vital need to add that the referendum passing will not result in people marrying their vacuum cleaners, pet rabbits or sisters.

From my reading of the many, many different and sometimes contradictory reasons for not voting yes, I have come to the conclusion that those voting no would be in favour of the following changes being made to current marriage law:

To qualify for marriage:
All couples must prove their ability to produce children, as marriage only has one purpose in society.
All couples must prove that they are not just friends by providing evidence of their sexual activities, as marriage only has one purpose in society.
Any couple who does not produce the required children will have their marriage annulled, as marriage only has one purpose in society.

Also, we cannot allow for gay marriage until I am allowed to marry 2 of my sisters, and my dead wife's mothers sister.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Correct its about redefining marriage but denying that its a direct link to the family unit (family is what people become when they marry) is plain ignorance.

A family is the principle institution for the socialization of children.

Yeah people should know what they are voting for.

Ok, and if we vote yes, what exactly is going to change for The Family?

mrsoundie wrote: »

We are approaching the limits of the NO campaign, this week will be even more full of misdirection, muddying of the waters and outrageous lying. The thing to remember is that you should never argue with an idiot,, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I thought Alan Shatter was very good on the news at One. http://www.rte.ie/radio1/news-at-one/programmes/2015/0515/701392-news-at-one-friday-15-may-2015/?clipid=1880850

I think Alan shatter is a great man, and I've been unpopular for saying it. He got an awful time but in fairmess I think the man has the best interests of all in society at heart with regards to social progression and protections. Conservative Ireland didn't like him and used his personality as a weapon to vilify him last year.

Woodville56 wrote: »

Just spotted this little nugget on the tweet machine
" Marriage is something that ordinary, loving couples do, it’s for this reason, and no other, that the No campaign want to see #MarRef fail"

With this "profound" sound bite reasoning, how can the Yes side fail ?

Almost as good as this one

"Given that two heterosexual men or women can marry each other if #MarRef passes, what will marriage then be?"

Checkmate Yes voters!

Dimithy wrote: »

Almost as good as this one

"Given that two heterosexual men or women can marry each other if #MarRef passes, what will marriage then be?"

Checkmate Yes voters!

Ohh Ohh I know this one.......


.
.
.
.
.

Marriage

:rolleyes:

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am going to vote no now that this has been brought to to my attention. This is vitally important! I am printing flyers now so that I can start handing them out tomorrow to warn everyone that this could be about to occur!

God can you imagine how fun the parties the "bleeding knuckles brigade" are having at the moment thinking up obscure "red herrings" to throw out for this referendum.

Some of the latest ones sound like they were formulated towards the end of the night after a few too many glasses of sherry

gandalf wrote: »

God can you imagine how fun the parties the "bleeding knuckles brigade" are having at the moment thinking up obscure "red herrings" to throw out for this referendum.

Some of the latest ones sound like they were formulated towards the end of the night after a few too many glasses of sherry

LGBT couples being able to call their house 'the family home' will cause your house to devalue!

Toads will fall from the sky on Saturday.

There will be an ice cream shortage this summer.

Discodog wrote: »

I am amazed that, especially after the comments from the referendum commission, that the No campaign are still allowed to use surrogacy, children etc on their posters.

The posters that refer to a man not being able to give the love of a mother is a gross insult to thousands of single parent families. If a wife dies does it mean that a husband isn't capable of showing love to his children ?

It's because they don't care about the facts, and never have.

It's just that the can't say what they really think, so need some sort of sham argument to hide behind. Occasionally, they let the mask slip though:

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.” 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.

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

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

There is, quite literally, no argument against gay marriage. What else are the homophobes supposed to put on their posters, if not these kinds of lies? "Vote NO because Gays are icky", probably wouldn't win too many votes.

This referendum will be carried by more than 2 to 1. Ten years from now, when we are living in a country where gay marriage is an everyday event, and the sky hasn't fallen on our heads, 80% of of the 300-350k or so people who will vote no will be embarrassed to admit it in polite company.

I wish, but it won't be anywhere near that wide a margin.

From my experience on the doors, this will be tight - and I have been canvassing in Dublin and surrounding areas which are more liberal than other places.

If people don't show up, we will lose. So please don't think this is done, and please get out and vote! Those who don't vote are handing victory to the over-represented minority.

gk5000 wrote: »

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?

How pathetically insecure heterosexuals must be about marriage. If the simple fact that my relationship would be seen as equal to theirs would damage a heterosexual marriage, how horrendously insecure and fragile their relationship must be.

If you only value marriage because other relationships are seen as inferior, you have no business marrying.