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

Not a NSA agent · 18-05-2015 12:53PM

Ah the no side, free speech for all, unless you say something I dont like then Im getting out the lawyers we can somehow afford.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 12:54PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Its similar with a number of members of LGBT groups who are campaigning against the referendum.

Really there are only a handful that I am aware of, with the most vocal of them not even sticking around to vote on Friday as he is buggering off to Vienna for the Eurovision.

floggg · 18-05-2015 12:55PM

nokiatom wrote: »

nature demonstrates to us that all offspring have a mother and father and its only natural that a child growing up learns from both.

No it doesn't. Lots of animals never even meet their parents. Sometimes the mother even eats the father after mating.

Also, marriage is an entirely unnatural institution (institutions are generally unnatural) - so an argument based on nature is really of no relevance to the referndum.*

Then again, as has been confirmed by the Referendum Commission, children also have no relevance to the debate.

* Heck, referenda are inherently unnatural themselves.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 12:57PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Ah the no side, free speech for all, unless you say something I dont like then Im getting out the lawyers we can somehow afford.

Actually the interesting situation is that a number of them are lawyers and obviously with access to the pizza money it is in their interest to be litigious and help to funnel the Yankee right wing moolah into the economy

(sure it was only resting in my account)

arayess · 18-05-2015 12:59PM

floggg wrote: »

The sad thing is that FF are the one party who needed to come out strong on this and show that they were changing as a party - that they were willing to take a stand for the common good and to do what was right, even if it cost them votes.

Instead, they have shown they are still motivated by the same short term view and self preservation that got us all into trouble the last time they were in government.

But while the country has learned their lessons from that disastrous period, FF hasn't.

So while I would have been open minded towards FF in the next election if they showed they had changed and learned lessons, it's clear that they haven't at all.

Much like the republican parties approach to immigration reform in the U.S., their short term approach and desire for self preservation is ultimately self defeating though.

They have allowed FG, who were the last party to actually endorse marriage equality, to lead the charge and position themselves as less socially conservative than FF.

Given the lack of trust they have on economic issues, they ceded the one area they could have to sell themselves on.

while you are correct - it's only fair to say that FF had the YES poster out long before (at least in Dublin) the other parties and very much on the ball.

Akrasia · 18-05-2015 01:01PM

nokiatom wrote: »

nature demonstrates to us that all offspring have a mother and father and its only natural that a child growing up learns from both.

Nature is full of all kinds of different methods of reproduction, including Sexual reproduction and Asexual reproduction

'Nature' doesn't care how we reproduce. Nature doesn't 'choose' the best method of reproduction, Nature doesn't 'know' anything.

Nature propagates generations through ruthless violent competition amongst individuals and species. Life in nature is full of pain and suffering and death.

Humans have managed to tame nature in many ways. We have taken wilderness and built a society where we have a space to nurture and love one another. There is nothing natural about marriage. In many animal species, rape is the dominant method of procreation. males compete to the death for the right to control all the available females. Humans have taken tens of thousands of years to reach the point in the 21st century, where rape is not an acceptable strategy to spread ones genes. We have created layers of institutions and structures to remove violence from personal relationships and allow us all to live in harmony with one another (to the extent that we do)

If you want to live according to nature, you're welcome to leave this place and set yourself up in a wilderness and fend for yourself. If you want to live in a society, then you need to stop your misguided love of your romantic idea of nature, and accept that we create the rules of our own society and we can choose to allow everyone equal status, or 'we' can deny gay people the rights that we demand for ourselves.

traprunner · 18-05-2015 01:01PM

nokiatom wrote: »

nature demonstrates to us that all offspring have a mother and father and its only natural that a child growing up learns from both.

A doe (female rabbit) usually eat their first litter (maybe up to 12 kits). Should a woman eat her first offspring too?

RobertKK · 18-05-2015 01:02PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion and I think it's safe to say most gay people consider their rights on the line, as well as their dignity and value in society. I'm not sure how I feel about the majority of people being able to impose their "ideals" about marriage and decide whether I can get married to the person I love or not. Especially when it will have absolutely no impact on their lives what so ever.

Anyway I'll keep smiling and nodding for the next four days while people continue to discuss the kind of person I am, what I should and should not be allowed to do, my ability to love, marry, my effect on society, children and whether im some kind of deviant or not. Just 4 more days.

I have not discussed or jumped to a conclusion what kind of person you are.

The marriage section of the constitution is in the family section, where it states marriage is the basis for a family.

Whether it is yes or no, whoever wins gets their ideals imposed.

Not a NSA agent · 18-05-2015 01:04PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not discussed or jumped to a conclusion what kind of person you are.

The marriage section of the constitution is in the family section, where it states marriage is the basis for a family.

Whether it is yes or no, whoever wins gets their ideals imposed.

Only one side is trying to prevent one type of family from existing.

A yes will allow people to make their own choices of who they marry. A no vote limits peoples freedom of such a choice.

aloyisious · 18-05-2015 01:09PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Religious marriage isn't legally recognised in Ireland. Whether one marries in a church or registry office only the state has the power to legally recognise marriage.

Civil marriage is not defined in the constitution.

True enough on civil marriage in the constitution. I'm not going to be sidelined from my question into a red herring debate by what's in your first sentence.

@RobertKK and other No Voters on the marriage issue: Do you believe that marriage as understood within the constraints of the RC religion must define what is written into our constitution in reference to what a family consists of?

DARK-KNIGHT · 18-05-2015 01:12PM

If the country votes no to equal rights on the day I am ashamed to be Irish.........

Its not about families it has nothing to do with families in my opinion its about two people who love each other wanting to commit to each other in front of friends and family... how in the name of god can people vote no? and tbh if anyone brings the kids need a dad and mam argument in thats pathetic and embarrassing. Im a married man 32 2 kids soon to be 3

and I cant think of any reason why every irish citizen shouldnt have the right to marriage.

Imagine telling an Irish citizen you cant marry that person that you love because they are the same sex but you can marry someone you cant stand and end up divorced because of the fact that they are what god intended....

I really hope this vote passes..... If one of my kids tells me they are lesbian or gay in years to come why shouldnt they have the same rights as anyone else

Akrasia · 18-05-2015 01:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not discussed or jumped to a conclusion what kind of person you are.

The marriage section of the constitution is in the family section, where it states marriage is the basis for a family.

Whether it is yes or no, whoever wins gets their ideals imposed.

Who cares that its in the family section?
Thats where its supposed to be.
A gay married couple will be a family, whether they have kids or not.

A straight married couple are a family, whether they have kids or not.

If my brother marries a man, then I will add his husband to our family, he would be my brother in law, and he would be equally as much a part of our extended family, as if my brother married a woman and I gained a sister in law

This obsession by the no side with the fact that the definition of family might be affected is just another indication that you are homophobic and want to deny gay people the right to have a family of their own.

It's sickening.

aloyisious · 18-05-2015 01:19PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think the truth is that is that many members of FF, FG and SF have reservations about changing the constitution. Just because the leadership of an organisation are in favour of something doesnt mean that all the members of that organisation are also in favour of it.
Its similar with a number of members of LGBT groups who are campaigning against the referendum.

I've googled for the LGBT groups who are campaigning against the referendum and can't find any. Can you post details of the LGBT groups please? I know Paddy Manning and Keith Mills are against the referendum but as members of one or other of the Vote No groups opposing the referendum, and not LGBT groups.

walkingshadow · 18-05-2015 01:23PM

Whats the deal with a gay person being against gay marriage?

traprunner · 18-05-2015 01:26PM

walkingshadow wrote: »

Whats the deal with a gay person being against gay marriage?

Could it be money? As the old saying goes, everyone has a price.

Not a NSA agent · 18-05-2015 01:27PM

walkingshadow wrote: »

Whats the deal with a gay person being against gay marriage?

A lot of them appear to just be against marriage in general. Thats just from my experience though. I havent come across a lot of them to really have much of a sample size.

Kiwi in IE · 18-05-2015 01:29PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

George hook debate on it from 4.30 on newstalk, I'm not sure what way he's voting now but he seemed to stand up for the no side since the Vincent brown show. He's going to be towing the party line saying yes but listening to him on the radio since he seems to have a lot of sympathy with what's happened the no side.

This attitude (not you drunk monkey the 'sympathy for the no side') makes me want to get sick! What has 'happened' to them? A few posters got torn down and their campaign slogans were called out for the nonsense they are? Poor babies!

But worse is the fact that there is anyone in this country, who is moronic enough to fall for this bull****! The manipulative spin and lies from Iona, mothers and fathers matter (are they even separate entities) and friends, has been quite gobsmacking. But the fact that there are numerous people who are apparently stupid enough to have fallen for this tactic is truly frightening. I have said before and I maintain this, there should be an IQ test before first enrolling to vote after coming of age. A certain level of intelligence is needed to be able to make decisions that affect the entire country.

Those voting no for reasons they have thought about related to the referendum, I completely and utterly disagree with them, I think they are completely wrong, that they are hindering progress, and that voting no is unkind, because neither outcome will affect them, but I respect their right to have an opinion that dramatically differs from mine. However those who are voting no only because they 'feel sorry' for the no campaign or have fallen for the spin, lies and manipulation are braindead morons who are probably delighted to be given prepackaged excuses for their homophobia.

DARK-KNIGHT · 18-05-2015 01:30PM

walkingshadow wrote: »

Whats the deal with a gay person being against gay marriage?

maybe a bitter relationship they feel they cant commit and wanna be horrible to those that have found the right person

Akrasia · 18-05-2015 01:30PM

traprunner wrote: »

Could it be money? As the old saying goes, everyone has a price.

It could be any number of wierd psychological conditions.

There were no shortage of women campaigning against allowing women to vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States#Women_against_suffrage

There are contrarians in every area of discourse, If yer man manning wants to campaign against the right to marry, he's perfectly entitled to. He's probably not winning many friends though, even the people who he is campaigning with probably don't respect him for it.

PopePalpatine · 18-05-2015 01:32PM

I wonder if "Paddy Manning" will become the Hiberno-English translation for "Uncle Tom".

Shrap wrote: »

*COUGH, SPLUTTER* Thanks, keyboard now covered in coffee

Pull the other one mate. And here's a little interactive connectivity map that is quite fun and educational for all - missing a number of connections that even I know of, but still a good start.
http://bocktherobber.com/godsquad/godsquad.html

Wow, I had no idea Bertie Ahern could be counted as part of the God Squad.

Then again, I think I remember him being particularly venomous when referring to Joe Higgins as "godless", and his Fianna Failures had that 2002 referendum to overturn the X Case.

walkingshadow · 18-05-2015 01:32PM

I suppose I'm referring mainly to that guy Keith Mills, a gay man actively campaigning for a no vote. You would think that as a gay man, he would have more empathy and understanding for the significance of this vote as opposed to us, straight voters.

RobertKK · 18-05-2015 01:35PM

ixoy wrote: »

There's the problem that can lead to the tyranny of the majority. It's the sort of thinking that would have led to bans on interracial marriage persisting if it was left to common votes everywhere.

It is the same process which we elect our politicians.

It is a new one when democracy is 'the problem that can lead to the tyranny of the majority.'.

floggg · 18-05-2015 01:35PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You looking to be sued for defamation of your last statement, which you did not retract or apologise for? . You can't hide behind the Internet, you know.

Hi John/Breda

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2015 01:36PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

A lot of them appear to just be against marriage in general. Thats just from my experience though. I havent come across a lot of them to really have much of a sample size.

There are members of the LGBT community who don't like the idea as they feel it is hetero-normative... most of them decided to abstain as they didn't feel they had to right to deny others. Funnily enough a friend of mine who was privately (as in all her friends knew) against the whole thing is so incensed by the tactics of the No side that she is not only voting Yes now, she is canvassing and firing off brilliant letters to newspapers.

jobbridge4life · 18-05-2015 01:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the same process which we elect our politicians.

It is a new one when democracy is 'the problem that can lead to the tyranny of the majority.'.

It isn't a remotely new concept. You might want to ask the Catholic population up the North, or black populations in the southern United States post Reconstruction.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 01:36PM

aloyisious wrote: »

True enough on civil marriage in the constitution. I'm not going to be sidelined from my question into a red herring debate by what's in your first sentence.

@RobertKK and other No Voters on the marriage issue: Do you believe that marriage as understood within the constraints of the RC religion must define what is written into our constitution in reference to what a family consists of?

It's a ridiculous question. Nobody has argued that the RC church or any other church should define what marriage is in our constitution. It doesn't now and we are not being asked to vote for it on Friday.

floggg · 18-05-2015 01:37PM

aloyisious wrote: »

@RobertKK and other Pro-No posters here: Do you believe that marriage within the constraints of religion must absolutely define what Civil Marriage is written into our constitution as?

Hardly - because then they would have to support a ban on inter-faith marriages, non-religious marriages, non-christian marriages and even marriages where the woman is actually be an equal partner in the marriage rather than a subservient baby maker and labourer.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 01:37PM

walkingshadow wrote: »

I suppose I'm referring mainly to that guy Keith Mills, a gay man actively campaigning for a no vote. You would think that as a gay man, he would have more empathy and understanding for the significance of this vote as opposed to us, straight voters.

He's the lad fecking off to the Eurovision and missing the vote.

floggg · 18-05-2015 01:39PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think the truth is that is that many members of FF, FG and SF have reservations about changing the constitution. Just because the leadership of an organisation are in favour of something doesnt mean that all the members of that organisation are also in favour of it.
Its similar with a number of members of LGBT groups who are campaigning against the referendum.

Paddy and Keith aren't even a group, never mind groupS.

Anyway, I think one of them has quite all that nonsense because the Eurovision is on.

Shows you how seriously he believes in the cause.

floggg · 18-05-2015 01:40PM

arayess wrote: »

while you are correct - it's only fair to say that FF had the YES poster out long before (at least in Dublin) the other parties and very much on the ball.

And where are the Yes politicans from FF?

Averil could really do with some help.

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

Comments