Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1135136138140141327

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


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

    Should the wife's uncle be worried about his health and longevity chances?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    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".

    Now doesn't that just apply to those of us who have a (social or otherwise) conscience?


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    gandalf wrote: »
    Well that's what happens when one side has a big slice of American fundamentalist pizza funds to work with ;)
    Indeed. But apparently it's the tiny funding of GLEN that's the interference. I'm honestly surprised that there's not more questions being raised about this.

    Then again they're probably afraid of the Iona institute, with a level of financial transparency and litigious mind set that the Church of Scientology would admire.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Re the debates between both sides over the airwaves via RTE, I think there is only one left to go, the one with Alex White for labour taking the Yes side, on Tuesday next. I know some of the independent radio stations will have their own debates live on air as well. Tomorrow morning at 1030 Dave Thomas (Yes) and Brendan O'Regan (No) will be on East Coast FM with Declan Meehan adjuticating.

    It's the one reported in the papers as being at the centre of a FG/Labour row over Govt representation, Leo or Alex? Some-how I can see the No side capitalizing on the row, with it being mentioned by the No-sider (when the live debate start's) to unsettle the O/P for the listeners.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    ixoy wrote: »
    Indeed. But apparently it's the tiny funding of GLEN that's the interference. I'm honestly surprised that there's not more questions being raised about this.

    Then again they're probably afraid of the Iona institute, with a level of financial transparency and litigious mind set that the Church of Scientology would admire.

    Oh join the club, there is a very very very juicy award winning story for a good journalist with balls here. It will probably take one to come over from the UK or US thought to really have a good dig. Most of the people who call themselves journalists in Ireland spend their time regurgitating press releases.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 73 ✭✭Roger Buck


    Whether you're voting yes or no, what John Waters writes in today's Sunday Independent poses grave question for the future of democracy in Ireland.

    IMHO, if even 10% of what he reports is true, that future looks scary indeed.

    Please note that what I am bolding is not about whether one should one vote yes or no … it's about the impossibility of democracy in conditions like this

    Some extracts follow. I don't find long posts easy to read in this forum, so I've added some white space plus some bolding in red.

    "Last Monday evening I was scheduled to launch a magazine for the transition year students in a school down West. …

    On Monday afternoon, my car broke down, so, in the tow truck to the car hospital, I called the school principal to see if someone might come and collect me.

    She was relieved to hear that I was close at hand and promised to dispatch a posse. Then she ventured something else: earlier in the day, she had received calls from activists on the Yes side in the same-sex marriage referendum asking her why the hell was I being allowed to speak in the school. Did she not know what "that fellow stands for"?

    The principal told them I had been invited as a journalist to speak at the launch of a school magazine. It was a private gathering - nothing to do with the referendum.

    Unappeased, the callers intimated that they might have something to say if the event went ahead. The principal, determined not to be intimidated, told them she would have to call the gardai if any attempt was made to disrupt the launch.

    As the event kicked off at 7.30, I scanned the audience for the hate-filled faces I've lately learned to recognise. But the event passed off peacefully and, afterwards, discussing the episode with the principal, she asked me not to identify the school in anything I might write about it.

    This is what we have come to by virtue of the unaccountable surrender of our political class and media to perhaps the ugliest lobby group to cast its shadow over Irish life in the years of our independence.

    Held to ransom by a tiny indigenous minority with global muscle, we are enjoined to reach a sabotaging hand into our Constitution, and anyone who dissents becomes an instant public hate figure.

    My family and I have been living this for 16 months, since I was attacked, without basis or evidence, by a drag queen on a TV talk show.

    In all my years observing and writing about the political life of Ireland, I have never encountered anything like the venom of the baying mob that descended on me afterwards, or the duplicity and cowardice of media people who joined in.

    What I have observed over this past 16 months has chilled me to the quick, and alerted me to the fragility of our democracy.

    This is Ireland 2015 - an Ireland where reason is alien, where the truth fears to speak its name in the face of hatred, demonisation and lies, and our supposedly free press not merely averts its gaze but runs, when it can, with the mob, offering a sullen tokenism in lieu of its responsibility to provide a free and fair forum for public debate.

    The lobby behind the same-sex marriage amendment includes elements that are nasty, out of control and indifferent to democratic values.

    I admit I almost chickened out of being involved in the campaign. To be truthful, same-sex marriage wouldn't figure in a list of 100,000 matters I might propose as of pressing concern to Irish society now. But do I need this hassle in my life? No. Does my family need it? Emphatically, no. Is anything worth the kind of abuse and disruption of the past 16 months?

    Now, there's a different class of question. And the answer - in this context at least - can only be yes. Gradually, as the hurt and confusion percolated through my psyche, it began to occur to me that the consequences of failing to stand against what was happening might be fatal for our freedoms in the most intimate and sacred contexts.

    So this is why "this fellow" has, as it were, come out. With Kathy Sinnott and Gerry Fahey, I launched First Families First, to blow the whistle and draw the public's attention to the potentially lethal implications of the amendment.

    For the past three weeks, I have been participating in media debates and addressing public meetings. I am so glad I found my bottle. Now that I'm out, I feel free. I still get attacked, but I no longer care - there's too much at stake.

    I met a man the other day who confided his belief that, in pushing this amendment, Enda Kenny had provoked in Irish society a "mental civil war", which will have ramifications of their type just as serious as the Civil War of 93 years ago. He may be correct.

    The stories I've come across of intimidation and hate-mongering are for me unprecedented in over 30 years writing about Irish life and politics.

    I met men whose daughters begged them not to let anyone know they were thinking of voting No, lest they, the children, be ostracised by their peers.

    We in First Families First have had no need of funding, but that's just as well, since the few people who came to us offering small donations were all agitated to ensure that there was no possibility of their gesture being made public. …

    There are countless examples of illegality and blackguardism: the tearing down of No posters, the gloating YouTube video boasting of this usurping of the democratic process, the egg-throwing, the harassing of a hotel in Galway until it cancelled an anti-amendment meeting.

    This has been the most comprehensive betrayal of democratic principles by an establishment in living memory.

    ...

    Whereas the scars of this ugly campaign may acquire a superficial healing in time, the deep tissue damage to our most fundamental protections will persist until some saner generation, perhaps chastened by disaster, grows to sense in this Republic.

    The amendment has been sold through the misuse of words, especially "equality". The Irish Constitution already provides that all citizens should be equal before the law, allowing for different treatment by virtue of difference of capacity and function.

    But equality has become a blackmail word, which in this revolting campaign has been employed with extreme prejudice to compel people to abandon not just their own most precious rights and protections but also those of their children's children.



    Almost nobody - including many an intimidated nodding Yesser - is ready for what a Yes is likely to mean, so that, in time, the consequences flowing from a Yes would create a climate of antagonism towards gay people far worse than anything conjured up in the lurid imaginations of LGBT lobbyists.

    A Yes would also be a green light to any group of bullyboys in Irish society with an agenda to peddle. In this campaign, the blueprint has been written, refined and road-tested, setting out how, by threatening, demonising, intimidating, and smearing you can have your way.

    There will be other consequences too: a new climate of prohibition concerning certain forms of thought and speech, an Orwellian revisionism directed at texts and records bearing witness to old ideas.

    And if you think this extreme, ask yourself: who among our political class is likely to resist? The fingers of one hand will prove more than adequate to the task of enumerating them.

    There have been a number of recent moments in Irish life when we looked back at calamities of the past - institutional abuse, clerical sex abuse, banking madness - and asked in incredulity: "Did nobody see this disaster coming?" "Why did nobody blow the whistle?"

    This, above all, is why I have decided to come out. Ultimately, I wanted to make sure that, if there is a Yes vote on Friday, a record of my dissent will be left behind.

    When posterity looks to see who spoke out when this grotesque attack on human freedoms was being mounted, my name will at least be listed among the whistle-blowers.

    I do not want my as yet unborn grandchildren to accuse me and to find myself unable to speak with clarity of what I did in the war.

    Sunday Independent

    Full article here: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/land-scarred-by-mental-civil-war-31228708.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭SummerSummit


    OMG my eyes


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    I think the bit where "reason is alien", coming from Waters, is where I decided it's funnier than anything the Waterford Whisperer News could write.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    John Waters self assumed messiah and able to dish it out but not take it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 73 ✭✭Roger Buck


    Again, my main point in posting John Water's piece above is not to advocate yes or no, but to say that things really do look out of control.

    Personally, I disagree with the yes voters, but I know there are many of them who believe that a yes vote is the most noble and humane vote.

    I respect their opinion - and I hope there are all kinds of yes voters willing to stand up and say: you don't for fight even the noblest of causes with tactics like these ...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    In this campaign, the blueprint has been written, refined and road-tested, setting out how, by threatening, demonising, intimidating, and smearing you can have your way.

    Meh, this vote is tame. Hardly the first campaign ever with a bit of bullying

    The Yanks could teach us something about shady tactics. Sure it was Irish Americans behind a lot of that :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,084 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Typical john waters unintelligible waffling bundled with an overuse of his thesaurus and a severe persecution complex


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,899 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    OMG my eyes

    Seen John Waters name and that was warning enough not to waste 5 mins of my life reading on. I guess the jist is some kind of conspiracy theory going on.
    Jesus wept.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Roger Buck wrote: »
    Again, my main point in posting the above is not to advocate yes or no, but to say that things really do look out of control.

    John Waters is certainly out of control in the rhetoric department. I read that earlier and nearly coughed up a lung.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,899 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    Roger Buck wrote: »

    Personally, I disagree with the yes voters
    ...

    Shocker!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Roger Buck wrote: »
    Again, my main point in posting John Water's piece above is not to advocate yes or no, but to say that things really do look out of control.

    Personally, I disagree with the yes voters, but I know there are many of them who believe that a yes vote is the most noble and humane vote.

    I respect their opinion - and I hope there are all kinds of yes voters willing to stand up and say: you don't for fight even the noblest of causes with tactics like these ...

    To be honest he is a hypocrite of the highest order. That behaviour is wrong but it is understandable given the absolutely pile of fear, uncertainty and deception being peddled by the no side and Mr Waters is smack bang in the middle of that.

    I'd have sympathy if he acknowledged this but he hasn't and from my perspective fighting to influence something as important as a referendum in Ireland based on a pack of lies is a far bigger danger to democracy in this country. Unfortunately ego driven pseudo journalists like this man are a blight on this country.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Roger Buck wrote: »
    you don't for fight even the noblest of causes with tactics like these ...
    No you don't and shouldn't be vicious in your response - doesn't serve anyone any good. But Waters is so incredibly one-sided in all of this. It's laughable he gives out about democracy in a democratic vote. Ironic he talks about freedom of thought whilst trying to shut down greater freedoms for citizens.

    Great how he ignores all the wrong actions from the No side (banner torn down, people threatened and spat upon, etc).

    And Orwellian nightmare? No Waters, it's actually what a democracy is: People free to give opinions on you. Of course he'd prefer we return to a semi-theocratic state where the Church tells everyone what to do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    road_high wrote: »
    Seen John Waters name and that was warning enough not to waste 5 mins of my life reading on. I guess the jist is some kind of conspiracy theory going on.
    Jesus wept.

    Probably says something about being silenced in his published article.

    Wasnt he the one who attempted to sue RTE?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    ixoy wrote: »
    No you don't and shouldn't be vicious in your response - doesn't serve anyone any good.

    Perhaps you're right and my response was as vicious as I felt given the level of disaster/catastrophe/thousands of family tragedies that the odious man is predicting will happen if SSM is allowed. Sometimes we have to vent. In that respect, it gave me some good.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    gandalf wrote: »
    To be honest he is a hypocrite of the highest order. That behaviour is wrong but it is understandable given the absolutely pile of fear, uncertainty and deception being peddled by the no side and Mr Waters is smack bang in the middle of that.

    I found the article to be devoid of any substance, other than his increasing paranoia. If a calamity is about to befall the state, should he not have given some kind of a clue as to what / how / why that's going to happen?

    The school parents were right to voice concern. It is absolutely unacceptable for a NO campaigner (or a YES campaigner) to be invited to speak in a school environment if the topic is going to relate in any way to the referendum, but doubly so if there is not somebody present to outline the opposing view.

    Why should he think he would be exempt from such rational thinking?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Roger Buck wrote: »
    This, above all, is why I have decided to come out. Ultimately, I wanted to make sure that, if there is a Yes vote on Friday, a record of my dissent will be left behind.

    When posterity looks to see who spoke out when this grotesque attack on human freedoms was being mounted, my name will at least be listed among the whistle-blowers.

    I do not want my as yet unborn grandchildren to accuse me and to find myself unable to speak with clarity of what I did in the war.

    Gripping stuff. Almost as inspiring as the time Mr. Waters compared himself to Václav Havel, one of the leaders of the Velvet Revolution which overthrew the communist regime in Czechoslovakia,when justifying not paying a parking ticket in Dun Laoighre....

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-meaning-of-my-wheatfield-experience-is-that-sometimes-we-must-just-say-no-1.1517638

    Mr. Waters, may the prose that flows from your fingertips always be as purple as Prince's rain.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭matrim


    It's lovely how it's now suddenly an attack on democracy when it's against his side of the debate but when gay people are being attacked on the street, when people risk losing their jobs because of their sexuality, when schools are cancelling anti-homophobic bullying workshops, when yes banners are being torn down and murals defaced (beside the bernard shaw), when businesses being threatened and when people are being spat on it isn't an attack on democracy.

    Have some of the yes side overreacted in their campaign? Yes, but to say it's any worse than what the No side have done over the years is ridiculous. When people are calling you disorded or questioning your parenting ability because you are gay, it is going to upset people. The same way that waters himself is saying he's upset because of people calling him a bigot. If he wants to talk about a hurt psyce because of hateful speech he should read Ursula Halligan's story during the week


    He also talks about a global mussel but it looks to me like most of the global mussel (i.e. money) is giong to the No side.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Roger Buck wrote: »
    Again, my main point in posting John Water's piece above is not to advocate yes or no, but to say that things really do look out of control.

    Personally, I disagree with the yes voters, but I know there are many of them who believe that a yes vote is the most noble and humane vote.

    I respect their opinion - and I hope there are all kinds of yes voters willing to stand up and say: you don't for fight even the noblest of causes with tactics like these ...

    Roger: it's my honest opinion that John Waters has become so embroiled in the fight for fathers rights (due to his own personal circumstances) that he see's anyone else being given the right to marriage under the constitution as being given something he has lost - free access to their children. This, unfortunately, now includes gay people in the near future. IMHO, he has become embroiled in the SSM debate solely on that front.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I'm watching Minister Fitzgerald and Tom Finegan debating the issue now and I have to say that Tom is watching his step, though he has told one giant lie tonight, that the CP Act gives exactly the same rights to homosexual couples that Civil Marriage does.

    Edit: the week in politics programme on RTE TV 1


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,895 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Roger: it's my honest opinion that John Waters has become so embroiled in the fight for fathers rights (due to his own personal circumstances) that he see's anyone else being given the right to marriage under the constitution as being given something he has lost - free access to their children. This, unfortunately, now includes gay people in the near future. IMHO, he has become embroiled in the SSM debate solely on that front.

    Yeah, I agree with this.

    He was basically called on just that on prime time a couple of weeks ago - after him saying his piece about rights, the presenter felt compelled to ask him 'are you advocating a no vote becase of the issue of fathers' rights (or words to that effect)?' He said no and went off on another tangent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭elfy4eva


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Roger: it's my honest opinion that John Waters has become so embroiled in the fight for fathers rights (due to his own personal circumstances) that he see's anyone else being given the right to marriage under the constitution as being given something he has lost - free access to their children. This, unfortunately, now includes gay people in the near future. IMHO, he has become embroiled in the SSM debate solely on that front.

    I think he's more a Katie Hopkins, it suits him and his career to be controversial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Roger Buck wrote: »
    Again, my main point in posting John Water's piece above is not to advocate yes or no, but to say that things really do look out of control.

    Personally, I disagree with the yes voters, but I know there are many of them who believe that a yes vote is the most noble and humane vote.

    I respect their opinion - and I hope there are all kinds of yes voters willing to stand up and say: you don't for fight even the noblest of causes with tactics like these ...

    We are coming to the end of an intense 6 weeks campaign and the list of grievances that he has come up with are -

    - tearing down posters (which has happened both sides ) and which has been totally condemned by all in the official Yes campaign

    - a confrontation over a talk show over which the national broadcaster caved in on foot of legal threats and awarded Mr. Waters & Co substantial damages, for the emotional trauma I presume .

    - an egg throwing incident totally unconnected with the Yes campaign , but which was nevertheless utterly condemned by them .

    - the harassing of a Galway hotel over which there are conflicting views , but lets let it stand as he describes it.

    - phone calls made to a school principal at which he was due to speak .

    Correct me if I am wrong but these are the sum total of what Mr. Waters endorses as a mental civil war just as serious a that of 93 years ago . Our very democracy itself is under threat .

    Meanwhile he sees no cause to mention -

    - the constant threat of legal action hanging over broadcasters

    - the unofficial No posters comparing LGBT community to bulls and horses and other animals

    -the anonymous threats to business displaying Yes posters .

    - the anonymous threats to that D.J judged to be too favourable to the Yes campaign

    - the appalling obscene grilling given to the Yes advocate by his No opponent demanding graphic description of his sexual practices live on local radio.

    - the dog whistle politics constantly employed by David Quinn and others on twitter facebook etc

    - the blatantly deceitful poster campaign run by the No side from day 1.


    He sees none of the above as a threat to our democracy ! A democracy by the way that has survived the Blueshirts/IRA/PIRA/FF/the bankers/the troika/ and a multiplicity of other threats but is in danger of imminent demise because an unaffiliated thug threw an egg ! Where is Alexander Pope when you need him .

    Spare me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    John also claims that anyone voting yes is either caving in to bullying or just doing the "cool" vote. Then complains about demonising and a lack of freedom.

    The yes side arent the ones claiming that having gay parents is damaging to children or reducing the freedom of others. When it comes to the 22nd people can vote as they wish privately. Nobody is being forced one way or the other unlike preventing people to have the freedom to get married.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    matrim wrote: »
    He also talks about a global mussel but it looks to me like most of the global mussel (i.e. money) is giong to the No side.

    Is there any concrete proof of large American donations for the no side? Surely political funding should be transparent.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    elfy4eva wrote: »
    I think he's more a Katie Hopkins, it suits him and his career to be controversial.

    I wouldn't equate his campaign for father's rights with the sort of right-wing nonsense peddled by Hopkins. I'd say he's annoyed that most other journalists are afraid to get involved.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement