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

ronivek · 17-05-2015 09:00PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Intelligent people don't like being told what to do. The dumb & paupers are far more likely to be persuaded.

Any guesses why this chap will be voting 'No'?

Maybe for similar reasons to his belief that working class areas are full of 'dumb & paupers' and the more wealthy areas inexplicably have all the intelligent people.

A viewpoint shared by many more 'No' voters than will admit it; I'm afraid.

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 09:00PM

floggg wrote: »

what a truly horrid post.

Just living up to his username though

road_high · 17-05-2015 09:01PM

Zen65 wrote: »

The middle-aged middle classes are often the ones who feel most threatened by change in society, and find greatest comfort in exclusiveness. Their children are less likely to be that way though.

Yep. I'm alright Jack so anyone else be damned.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 09:04PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Intelligent people don't like being told what to do. The dumb & paupers are far more likely to be persuaded.

Anyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Who are the bullies again?

mikemac1 · 17-05-2015 09:05PM

When this is all over maybe someone will examine the amount of foreign money that's been spent here. Both sides received funding, it influences people and it's not always easy to trace

Not welcome tbh

hotmail.com · 17-05-2015 09:11PM

Dana has called for a No vote. That's it I'm changing my vote!

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 09:18PM

Zen65 wrote: »

It does not. That restriction is in statute (legislation). It is not being changed by the current referendum.

The constitution does not refer to legislation; legislation refers to the constitution. Perhaps you should read about how our Constitution works?

You have entirely missed my point. Current legislation forbids me from marrying my wife's auntie. Once the referendum is passed there is no legislation preventing me from marrying my wife's uncle. That is a fact.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb · 17-05-2015 09:18PM

floggg wrote: »

No, its not. Because that's no a genuine concern. That myth has been debunked by the Referendum Commission and others.

Anybody repeating it at this stage is engaging in intentional deception and mistruths.

You honestly believe this issue won't raise its head after the referendum is passed?

road_high · 17-05-2015 09:19PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Dana has called for a No vote. That's it I'm changing my vote!

Is she? All sweetness and light but when the RCC dogma calls she'll dig her heels in with the rest of the "Christians".
She's been an electoral failure thankfully last few times so that's some evidence of there being a god I suppose!

Rightwing · 17-05-2015 09:21PM

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Ah now. No need for that.

Okay, my apologies. Wasn't intended to be a slight on anyone.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 09:21PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You have entirely missed my point. Current legislation forbids me from marrying my wife's auntie. Once the referendum is passed there is no legislation preventing me from marrying my wife's uncle. That is a fact.

Ok. Is this meant to be a problem? Will men be killing their wives so they can elope with their wife's uncle?

hotmail.com · 17-05-2015 09:25PM

road_high wrote: »

Is she? All sweetness and light but when the RCC dogma calls she'll dig her heels in with the rest of the "Christians".
She's been an electoral failure thankfully last few times so that's some evidence of there being a god I suppose!

I'm surprised she hasn't come out on the No side earlier. Her reasoning has to be founded in religion.

The funny thing is a lot of No side won't mention religion.

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 09:27PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You have entirely missed my point. Current legislation forbids me from marrying my wife's auntie. Once the referendum is passed there is no legislation preventing me from marrying my wife's uncle. That is a fact.

Untrue.

The Referendum Commission responded to this bit of nonsense already.

Q. This question arises from a point made by the No side. Would close relatives of the same sex be allowed to marry? In other words, would the criteria be any different for same-sex marriage compared to opposite-sex marriage?
A. No. The proposal is that marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex. The important words there are “in accordance with law”.
There are prohibited degrees of relationships, as they are legally defined, in relation to close relatives. They apply to married persons. They apply at the moment to civil partners as well. Clearly, a same-sex married couple would be in precisely the same position as an opposite-sex married couple.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 09:30PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Untrue.

The Referendum Commission responded to this bit of nonsense already.

What you are saying is dont kill the wife?

Damn you gays, keeping me away from my true love.

silverfeather · 17-05-2015 09:30PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Untrue.

The Referendum Commission responded to this bit of nonsense already.

I am glad to see them knock some sense into the no side.

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 09:37PM

silverfeather wrote: »

I am glad to see them knock some sense into the no side.

They show no signs of having any additional sense.

Moreover despite much of the NO arguments being proven incorrect they continue to repeat it!

road_high · 17-05-2015 09:37PM

silverfeather wrote: »

I am glad to see them knock some sense into the no side.

Won't happen. No matter how much they hear it they'll still have the same "fears". The REAL reasons though are so often founded ultimately in a stone age hang up re gay sex and relationships. Just too cowardly to admit though.
If you have/had a fulfilling sex life of your own and secure with your own sexuality, it's mind-numbing silly as to why anyone's else's life/relationship would bother you. But that's still the case among many in 2015 Ireland.

mrsoundie · 17-05-2015 09:39PM

I have to say, that listening to Dr Tom Finegan and Ronan Mullen are well drilled in every debate and interview. If you get a chance listen to them, every debate and interview, they stick to the script every time, the same points, the same delaying tactics. When they are asked for an answer to a question, the same response is to divert, redirect and eventually ignore the question.

The yes side and anyone looking at a campaign in the future, would do well do study them in detail.

These two boyos are by far the heavy hitters in their campaign, although this week has not began yet and we await, their next onslaught.

K4t · 17-05-2015 09:52PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Moreover despite much of the NO arguments being proven incorrect they continue to repeat it!

Keep getting down on your knees and eventually you'll begin to pray - Keep repeating lies as the truth and eventually the lies will become the truth in the minds of the weak and easily lead. The irony is obviously that Iona has complained of groupthink and of being silenced. This has become a nightmare that even Orwell himself could hardly have imagined.

Also, if I was a betting man (which I am), I'd be putting a punt on a No vote gay away.

K4t · 17-05-2015 09:57PM

mrsoundie wrote: »

I have to say, that listening to Dr Tom Finegan and Ronan Mullen are well drilled in every debate and interview.

I want an interviewer to ask them one question, very simply, are they in favour of same-sex marriage in general, ignoring the referendum in Ireland and the constitutional change(s) it potentially involves. As straightforward a yes/no question as there is. I know Claire Byrne did ask R0nÁn this question but he evaded it and she never called him on it unfortunately.

road_high · 17-05-2015 09:59PM

mrsoundie wrote: »

I have to say, that listening to Dr Tom Finegan and Ronan Mullen are well drilled in every debate and interview. If you get a chance listen to them, every debate and interview, they stick to the script every time, the same points, the same delaying tactics. When they are asked for an answer to a question, the same response is to divert, redirect and eventually ignore the question.

The yes side and anyone looking at a campaign in the future, would do well do study them in detail.

These two boyos are by far the heavy hitters in their campaign, although this week has not began yet and we await, their next onslaught.

Trouble is they have been involved in numerous campaigns to stifle social progress. The Yes side aren't as seasoned as these loons and they can play the system to their advantage.
Lot of the Yes argument of love just isn't enough in the face of the torrent of ".let's think of the children" and gets completely lost.

abff · 17-05-2015 10:03PM

I don't know if this point has been made before, but there's a big difference between being asked to vote in a referendum and being asked to vote on who won a debate.

In a debate, it's about deciding which side made the best job of presenting their side of the argument. In a referendum, it's about how you feel about the issues being considered and whether your views have been changed by the arguments advanced by both sides. It's NOT about who made their argument most cogently or who annoyed you the least.

I despair when I see people saying that they have changed their mind about how they are going to vote because some point that someone made has annoyed them so much that they feel they have to vote for the other side. Seriously? If that's how your moral compass works, you really need to take a step back and decide if that's how you want to live your life.

mrsoundie · 17-05-2015 10:04PM

road_high wrote: »

Trouble is they have been involved in numerous campaigns to stifle social progress. The Yes side aren't as seasoned as these loons and they can play the system to their advantage.
Lot of the Yes argument of love just isn't enough in the face of the torrent of ".let's think of the children" and gets completely lost.

Exactly, and the thing is the Yes or socially progress, will always be trailing.

ixoy · 17-05-2015 10:05PM

Came home and saw yet more No posters up, this time in nice primary colours with "Vote No - Use Your Conscience". Charming: if you vote "Yes" then it's not a conscientious decision.
If the poster was honest it would have just said "Vote and Use Your Conscience".

diddley · 17-05-2015 10:21PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Dana has called for a No vote. That's it I'm changing my vote!

Link?

floggg · 17-05-2015 10:27PM

Cruz Hot Trapdoor wrote: »

You honestly believe this issue won't raise its head after the referendum is passed?

It will raise its head regardless of whether or not the referendum passes. It is a matter which must be legislated for irrespective of the result - and which won't be affected by the result.

road_high · 17-05-2015 10:27PM

diddley wrote: »

Link?

I googled and found nothing. Maybe it's Dana International doing a Paddy Manning?

PopePalpatine · 17-05-2015 10:28PM

Shure no-one listens to Dana. :pac:

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 10:32PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

People can of course have children but this relates to marriage...cohabiting couples do not have the same rights as those who are married

Now that's a revelation. One thing I like about the CP Act is that some (and some is the operative word) of the rights and privileges passed on from civil marriage to CP's, were in turn passed on to unmarried cohabiting couples.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 10:35PM

ixoy wrote: »

Came home and saw yet more No posters up, this time in nice primary colours with "Vote No - Use Your Conscience". Charming: if you vote "Yes" then it's not a conscientious decision.
If the poster was honest it would have just said "Vote and Use Your Conscience".

Well that's what happens when one side has a big slice of American fundamentalist pizza funds to work with

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

Comments