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

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:26PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So that is your definition? So in the future marriage could mean anything. Would it not be necessary to use a new word to describe something that has become something else.

Give us an example of a new word. Please make it easier than 'marriage' because I think spell check is over worked.

RollieFingers · 18-05-2015 03:26PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

19 year old Yes canvasser threatened with a shotgun - was the person pointing the shotgun at them just expressing their opinion :mad:

Actually - there have been quite a few in this here thread who assumed that all Yes supporters posting here are gay... funnily enough they tended to be wrong every time.

That is absolutely unacceptable, I never said I liked the attitude of the No side either, hence I won't be voting!

VinLieger · 18-05-2015 03:26PM

nokiatom wrote: »

my belief is that kids should be reared in a male and female enviroment

Can we ask what you are basing these beliefs on?

endacl · 18-05-2015 03:27PM

nokiatom wrote: »

my belief is that kids should be reared in a male and female enviroment

Cool. Irrelevant to the referendum of course.

So, what do you think about the question on the ballot paper?

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:27PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Ergo traditions are wrong. It's kind of a leap don't you think?

The interesting thing about this response is that this isn't what flogg said at all. (S)He simply said that abandoning traditions can be good. That doesn't even mean it always is, so it sure as hell doesn't mean all traditions are wrong.

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:28PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I appreciate uncles, grandfathers and cousins play their part, but there are simply no substitutes for a mother and father.

So, if a man and woman have a child. He beats her and she throws him out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

Rephrase so the first is not sexist....So, if a woman and man have a child. She beats him and he throws her out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

VinLieger · 18-05-2015 03:28PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

That is absolutely unacceptable, I never said I liked the attitude of the No side either, hence I won't be voting!

You understand you are guilty of doing exactly what you are annoyed at the yes side for doing?

WoolyJumper · 18-05-2015 03:29PM

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.

This entire debate (not just you) has been about the kind of person I am. I (and all gay people) have been discussed on tv, radio, newspapers, public forums, the local shop like we are some theoretical idea, or some kind of "other" rather than human beings like everyone else. The no side can dress up their arguments however they like but essentially it comes down to they think my relationship is not good enough to be considered family. It's not good enough to be on par with theirs and they dont want me included in their club.

It doesn't take a lot of empathy to put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and imagine what the last few weeks have been like for us. Nor to imagine what it's like to grow up in society where you are the "other" Where people don't always consider you a person like them.

A yes vote will not impose anything on anyone. Just give validation to us and our relationships in society. That is important. Not everyone understands that it's important because they never had to fight for it. Gay people born into Ireland after 2015 will grow up with that validation from society and perhaps won't have to go through a long period where they question their worth and their ability to have loving relationships.

A no vote will impose a ban on marriage for ss couples. I will be personally devastated. It will feel like a rejection and it will be a reflection on how i am valued in society. I can't imagine what it will do to more vulnerable young gay people who are struggling with their sexuality.

Despite what Iona are trying to lead use to believe, a yes will have no cost for society, no cost for children, no cost for heterosexual marriage, no cost for the constitution but it will mean a great deal for gay people and their families and it will strengthen their rights and value in society. A no will be a devastating.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2015 03:29PM

nokiatom wrote: »

did you ever hear the expression '' that kid never had a fatherly figure growing up'' ?

Mostly I heard 'that kid's father is fond of the drink', or 'poor Mrs X living with that plaster' or '*whisper* Bessborough....'

Fatherly figure - you mean male role model?
Where is it written only a biological father can be a fatherly figure?

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:29PM

nokiatom wrote: »

my belief is that kids should be reared in a male and female enviroment

Thank you for the reply. Can I throw this at you then?

If a man and woman have a child. He beats her and she throws him out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

Rephrase so the first is not sexist....So, if a woman and man have a child. She beats him and he throws her out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:30PM

nokiatom wrote: »

did you ever hear the expression '' that kid never had a fatherly figure growing up'' ?

Strange that it isn't "that kid never had a father growing up". Also if the kid has 2 fathers then that won't be an issue. It's also strange how we never heard "that kid never had a motherly figure growing up". Why is that not a thing?

kylith · 18-05-2015 03:30PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So wife raping was a tradition?

Historically wives were their husbands chattels and some abused this position. Ergo traditions are wrong. It's kind of a leap don't you think?

Traditionally a man was deemed incapable of raping his wife. She was his chattel, as you say, so could not legally refuse to have sex with him.

This was seen (after too long imo), as unfair and unjust and, despite it meaning that traditional marriage would be redefined (much more so than the current referendum proposes) the law was changed to make marital rape an offence. Despite marriage having traditionally meant that a man could force sex on his wife it was changed. Therefore that something 'traditional' may be changed is no reason not to go changing things.

Not only that, but it's not even traditional that marriage has only been between a man and a woman. In fact the Christian church had a special sacrament for joining two men together.

seamus · 18-05-2015 03:30PM

Depressing topical in the light of arguments that children are best served by biological mothers and fathers and that young people are too flakey to be president:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-gets-17-years-for-75-charges-of-most-evil-rape-and-abuse-of-daughters-677616.html

Repeatedly beaten and raped by their biological father, and a biological mother who didn't participate, but supported her husband.

The eldest's teenage boyfriend saved her life by keeping a level head and taking exceptionally brave and mature actions in the face of horrifying circumstances.

How is this relevant? It's not. It's an anecdote. But I can guarantee that all of those girls would give their right arms to have never met their father. Children do not need a biological mother and father.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:31PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No I don't see.

Doing something because it's traditional does not make it right. Things should be defined as good or bad on their own merits, not on the merits of tradition.

Do you see now?

RollieFingers · 18-05-2015 03:31PM

VinLieger wrote: »

You understand you are guilty of doing exactly what you are annoyed at the yes side for doing?

Considering I haven't ripped any posters down, told anybody how they should vote nor labelled anyone as homophobes, no I don't?

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:32PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I appreciate uncles, grandfathers and cousins play their part, but there are simply no substitutes for a mother and father.

Tell that to all the people who grew up without one or the other and turned out completely fine. And will continue to do so for as long as the human race exists.

Also that still has nothing to do with the referendum.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:33PM

nokiatom wrote: »

my belief is that kids should be reared in a male and female enviroment

Irrelevant to the referendum. This will not change in any way how or where kids can be raised.

floggg · 18-05-2015 03:33PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So your position is there is no such thing as traditional marriage.

My position is that marriage has always been defined as a formal union of a man and woman, or men and women or a man and women. Be it in front of a high priest, a tribal leader, priest or witch doctor.

Thank you for clarifying that relationship abuse isn't the preserve of heterosexual relationships.

Except when it wasn't and included same sex marriages. Just because they were less common, doesn't mean they don't exist.

And nobody said it was the preseve of heterosexuals. We are just pointing out that every time you endorse traditional marriage you endorse narital rape and a whole host of other wrongs.

So if you wish to endorse "traditional marriage" as some form of ideal or desirable standard, know what you are endorsing.

VinLieger · 18-05-2015 03:35PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

Considering I haven't ripped any posters down, told anybody how they should vote nor labelled anyone as homophobes, no I don't?

You are basing your opinions of the whole yes side upon the actions of a few

endacl · 18-05-2015 03:35PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Tell that to all the people who grew up without one or the other and turned out completely fine. And will continue to do so for as long as the human race exists.

Also that still has nothing to do with the referendum.

I started living when my parents split and dad moved out. I was 16 at the time. I have never had a normal, affectionate, respectful, functioning relationship with him. I see him 3/4 times a year. More out of a sense of misplaced duty than anything else. I've turned out grand. I must say though, if he'd moved out ten years earlier I'd have turned out grander. And sooner.

BuilderPlumber · 18-05-2015 03:36PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

The attitude of some of the Yes side has made my mind up for me, I won't be voting in this referendum. I think it's unfair to label all of the No side as homophobes, just as I don't think anybody would claim that all Yes voters are homosexuals. Also the ripping down of No posters etc., just because you don't agree with their views, the No side are still entitled to their opinions.

When it boils down to it, pre referendum and election 'debates' can and do turn very nasty and personal. Personally, I am voting Yes because I believe in equality. But I have not watched much of the stuff on TV or in the papers. Trashy sensationalism from both sides just like we see for all elections and referendums.

From what I can see, both Panti and John Waters are examples of the worst of this. Both are paranoid and fear the other side and both are making themselves famous out of the issue. Both are being promoted in the media all the time. 2 sides of the one coin? Definitely.

If I was to listen to either, I would be put off the Yes and No side. But we need to detach the issue at hand from these obnoxious personalities. I dislike both Panti and Waters, can see what they are doing (self promotion) and can make up my own mind to vote for the issue and not for or against the personalities.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:37PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

This entire debate (not just you) has been about the kind of person I am. I (and all gay people) have been discussed on tv, radio, newspapers, public forums, the local shop like we are some theoretical idea, or some kind of "other" rather than human beings like everyone else. The no side can dress up their arguments however they like but essentially it comes down to they think my relationship is not good enough to be considered family. It's not good enough to be on par with theirs and they dont want me included in their club.

It doesn't take a lot of empathy to put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and imagine what the last few weeks have been like for us. Nor to imagine what it's like to grow up in society where you are the "other" Where people don't always consider you a person like them.

A yes vote will not impose anything on anyone. Just give validation to us and our relationships in society. That is important. Not everyone understands that it's important because they never had to fight for it. Gay people born into Ireland after 2015 will grow up with that validation from society and perhaps won't have to go through a long period where they question their worth and their ability to have loving relationships.

A no vote will impose a ban on marriage for ss couples. I will be personally devastated. It will feel like a rejection and it will be a reflection on how i am valued in society. I can't imagine what it will do to more vulnerable young gay people who are struggling with their sexuality.

Despite what Iona are trying to lead use to believe, a yes will have no cost for society, no cost for children, no cost for heterosexual marriage, no cost for the constitution but it will mean a great deal for gay people and their families and it will strengthen their rights and value in society. A no will be a devastating.

A No vote is a vote for segregation. End of. every time I hear the civil partnership line brought up I think of those cases in America where African-Americans were told they could have a seat on the bus, just not the white persons seat on the bus. This is exactly the same thing and anyone who says differently is either lying or just doesn't understand the reality of the situation.

Vivisectus · 18-05-2015 03:37PM

I think a lot of the perceived militancy of the yes side comes from the shocked realization that a lot of attitudes to homosexuals that a lot of people got used to are now no longer uncontroversial.

If you are the kind of person who has nothing against gay people per se, but also feels that homosexuality is not exactly normal, who would not want their kids to be homosexual if it could be helped, who are uncomfortable about explaining the phenomenon to kids in schools and who, in general, are a little uneasy about giving homosexual relationships the same name as heterosexual marriages and who feel a little uncomfortable when they think of gay people raising kids, then chances are this attitude will go largely unchallenged by your peers. Chances are you would never have had to support these attitudes with any kind of reason: it will just be something the vast majority of people around you agree with without any sort of discussion or explanation being necessary.

I think most people who feel like this consider themselves to be pretty liberal already. After all, they aren't calling anyone any names, they aren't out there fag-bashing, they generally treat gay people with respect if they keep themselves to themselves. They have even allowed gay people to have civil unions!

I think the idea that these attitudes are considered by quite a lot of people to be a kind of low-grade homophobia is genuinely shocking to people who are not used to having to explain them. This is only to be expected: any privileged majority tends to experience any curbing or sharing of this privilege as unjust oppression.

Just like women pushing for equal treatment get called feminazies, black people get called uppity, now the yes-side are the gay lobby and the militant yes-side. Because the natural response when an attitude you take for granted is challenged is a sort of angered feeling of hurt and defensiveness.

If you are experiencing this - don't panic. It will be fine. You are not a bad person and no-one feels you are (except for that one guy, and seriously, he just needs to get a life!). It is just that those attitudes represent a sort of half-way point between the bad old days of rampant institutionalized homophobia and where we would ideally want to be at this stage.

Don't worry about it. Chances are that in 10 years time, you will feel that such an attitude is kinda off, and may have forgotten you ever felt that way.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 03:38PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Was just talking to a friend and her son was threatened with a shotgun while out canvassing for a Yes Vote - A SHOTGUN :eek:...

Same guy (19 year old rugby playing college student who is about as aggressive off the pitch as a cuddly toy) also had dogs set on him - he was on the footpath at the time.

Carrigaline in Cork (where he was born and raised) if anyone is interested.

Has this been reported to the Gardai? I haven't seen any details about it online.

RollieFingers · 18-05-2015 03:40PM

VinLieger wrote: »

You are basing your opinions of the whole yes side upon the actions of a few

Guilty as charged! The attitudes of some of the Yes side have annoyed me and thus I won't be voting, I don't see what's wrong with that!

osarusan · 18-05-2015 03:40PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

That is absolutely unacceptable, I never said I liked the attitude of the No side either, hence I won't be voting!

I'd hope that you'd put the behaviour of both sides into the background, and look at the issue itself - do you want to extend the constitutional protection of civil marriage to same-sex couples - if you do, please vote yes.

Please don't punish same sex couples because of the actions of some on the campaign.

WoolyJumper · 18-05-2015 03:41PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

The attitude of some of the Yes side has made my mind up for me, I won't be voting in this referendum. I think it's unfair to label all of the No side as homophobes, just as I don't think anybody would claim that all Yes voters are homosexuals. Also the ripping down of No posters etc., just because you don't agree with their views, the No side are still entitled to their opinions.

All I can say is consider what a yes vote will mean to some of your fellow citizens (including myself) and how devastating a no vote would be. To our value and self esteem. Don't let petty grievances with either side get in the way of how you were going to vote. If the yes side were behaving badly, its because so much is at stake for them. I don't no what the no sides excuse it.

RollieFingers · 18-05-2015 03:42PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

All I can say is consider what a yes vote will mean to some of your fellow citizens (including myself) and how devastating a no vote would be. To our value and self esteem. Don't let petty grievances with either side get in the way of how you were going to vote. If the yes side were behaving badly, its because so much is at stake for them. I don't no what the no sides excuse it.

I'm not voting No!

ixoy · 18-05-2015 03:44PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

I'm not voting No!

But you're not voting "Yes" either, so we're just trying to appeal to you on that ground: A Yes win will make an awful lot of people finally begin to feel more accepted after a long history of having a pretty crap time of it.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:44PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

I think a lot of the perceived militancy of the yes side comes from the shocked realization that a lot of attitudes to homosexuals that a lot of people got used to are now no longer uncontroversial.

If you are the kind of person who has nothing against gay people per se, but also feels that homosexuality is not exactly normal, who would not want their kids to be homosexual if it could be helped, who are uncomfortable about explaining the phenomenon to kids in schools and who, in general, are a little uneasy about giving homosexual relationships the same name as heterosexual marriages and who feel a little uncomfortable when they think of gay people raising kids, then chances are this attitude will go largely unchallenged by your peers. Chances are you would never have had to support these attitudes with any kind of reason: it will just be something the vast majority of people around you agree with without any sort of discussion or explanation being necessary.

I think most people who feel like this consider themselves to be pretty liberal already. After all, they aren't calling anyone any names, they aren't out there fag-bashing, they generally treat gay people with respect if they keep themselves to themselves. They have even allowed gay people to have civil unions!

I think the idea that these attitudes are considered by quite a lot of people to be a kind of low-grade homophobia is genuinely shocking to people who are not used to having to explain them. This is only to be expected: any privileged majority tends to experience any curbing or sharing of this privilege as unjust oppression.

Just like women pushing for equal treatment get called feminazies, black people get called uppity, now the yes-side are the gay lobby and the militant yes-side. Because the natural response when an attitude you take for granted is challenged is a sort of angered feeling of hurt and defensiveness.

If you are experiencing this - don't panic. It will be fine. You are not a bad person and no-one feels you are (except for that one guy, and seriously, he just needs to get a life!). It is just that those attitudes represent a sort of half-way point between the bad old days of rampant institutionalized homophobia and where we would ideally want to be at this stage.

Don't worry about it. Chances are that in 10 years time, you will feel that such an attitude is kinda off, and may have forgotten you ever felt that way.

A lot of sense in this. I've heard people who want to vote No say they are doing it because they are old fashioned, but when questioned on the logic behind it they simply can't explain it other than to say marriage should be between a man and a woman. And if you ask why they start to get angry. I think there is a lot of people who don't think they are acting in a bigoted manner even though they are. You don't have to actively display homophobia to be a bigot. In fact more often than not the worst kind of bigotry is the silently accepted stuff like this. And challenging people on it forces it to the surface and can be quite difficult to deal with.

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

Comments