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

_Redzer_ · 18-05-2015 11:02PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

No matter how many prats are on my side, I'm still leaning towards a Yes, but people need to realise that that stuff isn't helpful.

To be honest, fúck their religion. I'm not religious, so just because your faith has a problem with it, why should I have to conform to your beliefs?

This has nothing to do with religion, this is a civil issue, the churches aren't being forced to do anything, so it sickens my guts that they're campaigning so hard for a no. Horrible busybodies, and high time they get told to fúck off into their place and out of other people's lives!

mohawk · 18-05-2015 11:02PM

I know from taking to a few fellow parents that there is a lot of kids now asking their about the no posters. The questions don't relate to SSM but rather surrogacy and single parent families.

For a side so concerned with "protecting" children they didn't consider the children that would be reading their posters.

CaveCanem · 18-05-2015 11:02PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

No matter how many prats are on my side, I'm still leaning towards a Yes, but people need to realise that that stuff isn't helpful.

Just from wandering around the social media landscape in the last day or so, the amount of venomous and intolerant postings I have seen has really decreased (excepting some of the above), this is good news for the Yes side. There's far less preaching and evangelising from the 'so right-on we're practically shamans of righteousness' types. It seems to be moving to a phase of mobilising the vote instead of proving your cred. It's a pity incidents like that are still happening, there's lots of room to win people back to the solidly yes camp in the last week.

StewartGriffin · 18-05-2015 11:04PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

There is so much to add Robert. You could apologise for suggesting that I said I wanted anal sex as a five year old.

RobertKK didn't suggest anything about you wanting anal sex as a five year old.

Stay classy Jobbridge.

Maximus Alexander · 18-05-2015 11:04PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

No matter how many prats are on my side, I'm still leaning towards a Yes, but people need to realise that that stuff isn't helpful.

Plenty of it going both ways. There are dickheads everywhere. Take a look at the comments on any Independent article relating to the referendum if you'd like to see the true cesspit underbelly of the 'No side' for balance.

efb · 18-05-2015 11:06PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

No matter how many prats are on my side, I'm still leaning towards a Yes, but people need to realise that that stuff isn't helpful.

Facebook is full of that- have you seen the threads here. It doesn't appeal to adult reasoning and debate.

road_high · 18-05-2015 11:13PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

To be honest, fúck their religion. I'm not religious, so just because your faith has a problem with it, why should I have to conform to your beliefs?

This has nothing to do with religion, this is a civil issue, the churches aren't being forced to do anything, so it sickens my guts that they're campaigning so hard for a no. Horrible busybodies, and high time they get told to fúck off into their place and out of other people's lives!

Absolutely my feeling too. Religion is and should be a completely private personal matter. And should be respected as such.
BUT if you feel the need to actively campaign for a no vote so as to ram your "beliefs " down the rest of our throats all bets are off really. I too am sick tired of this religion belief stuff being used as an excuse. I live in a republic and am non religious so, why should I have to confirm to this? It's outrageous arrogance.

Shrap · 18-05-2015 11:21PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

RobertKK didn't suggest anything about you wanting anal sex as a five year old.

Stay classy Jobbridge.

No, he ASKED (thereby making the suggestion that it had been said by Jobbridge, which it hadn't)

"Are you really going to claim you wanted to have homosexual sex at five years of age?"

and denied belief of his own statement:

"I don't believe you wanted to have sex at 5 years of age"

, even though nobody but him had mentioned homosexual sex at 5 years of age.

So you keep on defending the indefensible Stewart, there's a good chap.

Y'know, this could just be let go if Robert had apologised and he and you didn't keep making out as if it wasn't said like it was said.

Anita Blow · 18-05-2015 11:23PM

Claire Byrne Live showing 72% of those who intend on voting will be voting Yes.

Very promising, but why is there such differences between the opinion polls?

Anita Blow · 18-05-2015 11:27PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you not see how that would be objectionable to people though? I don't agree with the lad being attacked for it, it solves nothing, but at the same time adding 'no hard feelings' on to the end doesn't change the fact that he's voicing his intent to vote in a way that discriminates against a minority.

I'd agree. People don't seem to realise that when you post a status on Facebook or tweet on Twitter it's like standing in front of the world with a megaphone and shouting your opinion. You purposely do so to get a response, so you can't be surprised when you do end up getting such a response especially for such an emotive topic.

StewartGriffin · 18-05-2015 11:29PM

Shrap wrote: »

No, he ASKED (thereby making the suggestion that it had been said by Jobbridge, which it hadn't)
and denied belief of his own statement:
, even though nobody but him had mentioned homosexual sex at 5 years of age.

So you keep on defending the indefensible Stewart, there's a good chap.

Y'know, this could just be let go if Robert had apologised and he and you didn't keep making out as if it wasn't said like it was said.

How does him saying he doesn't believe jb wanted sex equate with him accusing jb of wanting sex?

You know it doesn't but you are using it to attack him. Dirty debating tactic. Very dirty.

The_Minister · 18-05-2015 11:35PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you not see how that would be objectionable to people though? I don't agree with the lad being attacked for it, it solves nothing, but at the same time adding 'no hard feelings' on to the end doesn't change the fact that he's voicing his intent to vote in a way that discriminates against a minority.

Sorry, to be clear the 'no hard feelings' was my cynical reduction of what he said - he was far nicer about it.

frostyjacks · 18-05-2015 11:36PM

Shrap wrote: »

No, he ASKED (thereby making the suggestion that it had been said by Jobbridge, which it hadn't)
and denied belief of his own statement:
, even though nobody but him had mentioned homosexual sex at 5 years of age.

So you keep on defending the indefensible Stewart, there's a good chap.

Y'know, this could just be let go if Robert had apologised and he and you didn't keep making out as if it wasn't said like it was said.

Why don't you heed your own advice and let it go? Wish I never stumbled across this thread.

K4t · 18-05-2015 11:36PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Claire Byrne Live showing 72% of those who intend on voting will be voting Yes.

Very promising, but why is there such differences between the opinion polls?

Don't know but Varadkar was exceptional. Debunked the surrogacy issue with poise and really articulated the Yes message in a way that Minister Fitzgerald especially has struggled to do. Also got in a dinger before the end - "Decisions are made by those who turn up." Massive respect for the guy after tonight.

G_R · 18-05-2015 11:43PM

Mod: the RobertKK vs jobbridge4life discussion ends here.

K4t · 18-05-2015 11:53PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

No matter how many prats are on my side, I'm still leaning towards a Yes, but people need to realise that that stuff isn't helpful.

Your side is the side that is striving for equality and ending a discrimination which affects homosexuals in Ireland. Surely you can differentiate between any and all actions form your side and what your side stands for in relation to the referendum question? I mean, even the idea of sides is kind of redundant. People can be c**ts whether they support same-sex marriage or oppose it, whether they support equality or oppose it, whether they support Man Utd or Liverpool. People are people. You're voting for or against same sex marriage, not for a side.

Frank Bullitt · 19-05-2015 12:13AM

Any link to tonights debate?

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2015 12:15AM

K4t wrote: »

Your side is the side that is striving for equality and ending a discrimination which affects homosexuals in Ireland. Surely you can differentiate between any and all actions form your side and what your side stands for in relation to the referendum question? I mean, even the idea of sides is kind of redundant. People can be c**ts whether they support same-sex marriage or oppose it, whether they support equality or oppose it, whether they support Man Utd or Liverpool. People are people. You're voting for or against same sex marriage, not for a side.

I understand your point but I think anybody in a debate recognises the term side for what it is.

No poster is going to type "those supporting the referendum" and "those opposing the referendum" each time they refer to pro or anti.

Side is just shorthand, there is no need for being such a pedant.

Zen65 · 19-05-2015 12:22AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

So, if a child's father dies, that child becomes a second class citizen?

WoolyJumper · 19-05-2015 12:25AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Any link to tonights debate?

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10420805/

Just finished watching it there. Leo did a great job. It was much easier for both sides to get their points across in the interview format rather than the one on one debate.

K4t · 19-05-2015 12:36AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I understand your point but I think anybody in a debate recognises the term side for what it is.

No poster is going to type "those supporting the referendum" and "those opposing the referendum" each time they refer to pro or anti.

Side is just shorthand, there is no need for being such a pedant.

I wasn't being a pedant. I don't think you fully understand my point. Which is that a Yes vote should bear no correlation to the behaviour of the Yes side for someone who considers themselves a Yes voter. They're not voting yes for a side, they're voting yes for same sex marriage. Similarly, a No vote is not necessarily a vote for the No side, but simply a vote to prevent same-sex marriage. The behaviour of either side should really only affect the mind of the undecided voter, and even at that, it's the genuine arguments of either side that you'd hope they would take into account when deciding which way to vote.

Zen65 · 19-05-2015 12:39AM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

If he's a Christian I imagine that people are (rightly) irked that somebody would claim the "faith" card, when in reality the Christian religion is ambivalent about homosexuality. Leviticus condemns it, but also condemns a range of other practices (including eating any pork products, mixing cloths in a garment, and sowing two types of seed in a field) which should be sufficient for the book to be dismissed out of hand. It contains a lot of evil too - genocide and stoning. So why anybody would say "well all this other stuff is bolox but I like what he says about homosexual men" and not see that they had simply selected a single sentence which supported their prejudice?

The New Testament Gospels say nothing definitive about homosexuality, preferring instead to promote love and tolerance. So why did the man on FB claim that his faith asked him to vote NO? . . . Because that's what he wanted his faith to tell him.

Maximus Alexander · 19-05-2015 12:42AM

Zen65 wrote: »

If he's a Christian I imagine that people are (rightly) irked that somebody would claim the "faith" card, when in reality the Christian religion is ambivalent about homosexuality. Leviticus condemns it, but also condemns a range of other practices (including eating any pork products, mixing cloths in a garment, and sowing two types of seed in a field) which should be sufficient for the book to be dismissed out of hand. It contains a lot of evil too - genocide and stoning. So why anybody would say "well all this other stuff is bolox but I like what he says about homosexual men" and not see that they had simply selected a single sentence which supported their prejudice?

The New Testament Gospels say nothing definitive about homosexuality, preferring instead to promote love and tolerance. So why did the man on FB claim that his faith asked him to vote NO? . . . Because that's what he wanted his faith to tell him.

I've found myself liking a lot of your posts.

Sheldons Brain · 19-05-2015 12:42AM

Zen65 wrote: »

So, if a child's father dies, that child becomes a second class citizen?

No, but that child has suffered a loss, one they will regret for life.
Or do you like to sneer at bereaved children?

The behaviour of either side should really only affect the mind of the undecided voter, and even at that, it's the genuine arguments of either side that you'd hope they would take into account when deciding which way to vote.

The Constitution should not be changed trivially, the yes side have to make their case in a way which is proportionate to the importance of the decision, i.e. not by attempting to restrict debate. As David Norris would say, if in doubt vote NO.

osarusan · 19-05-2015 12:52AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No, but that child has suffered a loss, one they will regret for life.
Or do you like to sneer at bereaved children?

It was frostyjacks who said children without a mother and father were second class citizens.

Perhaps you should direct your strawman at that poster.

Zen65 · 19-05-2015 12:53AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Or do you like to sneer at bereaved children?

Of course not, that child was me!

But I'm not the one suggesting that without one of my parents I became a second class citizen!

K4t · 19-05-2015 12:53AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The Constitution should not be changed trivially, the yes side have to make their case in a way which is proportionate to the importance of the decision, i.e. not by attempting to restrict debate. As David Norris would say, if in doubt vote NO.

I don't know why you've directed that towards anything I said, as nobody could disagree with what you are saying. But I may as well reply:

Same-sex marriage is proportionate to allowing men and women to marry members of the same sex, and thus ending the discriminatory nature inherent in marriage in the constitution. The yes side have won myself and hopefully most people over with that argument. Who is attempting to restrict debate?

late · 19-05-2015 12:57AM

Those on the yes side telling us that the marriage of a man to a man or the marriage of a women to a women can be same as marriage of a man and a women are deluded. Marriage between a man and a women is the real deal and the way nature intended. No matter how much these deluded politicians on the yes side tells us a same sex marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a women, it is not or never can be or never will be seen equivalent, no matter how much we are been told it is.
Also the people will have no say if the yes win, when it comes to our politicians ligistating for surrogacy, there will again be a huge campaign from the yes side looking to allow surrogacy for same sex couples as they cant produce babies themselves. I believe we should not deliberately set out to produce children to be brought up without a mother and a father. This is sure to happen down the road if we vote yes. In special circumstances some children are reared by same sex couples, but we should not deliberately set out to make this the norm. Also it will be illegal for a teacher to tell children that marriage between man and a women is the ideal. If this law comes in it will cause more confusion for little children. Please think of the children and vote NO and don't be fooled by our politicians or those on the yes side. I am not anti gay or anything like that but this is a step too far especially for children as I have said above, so I will be voting NO.

Not a NSA agent · 19-05-2015 01:00AM

late wrote: »

Those on the yes side telling us that the marriage of a man to a man or the marriage of a women to a women can be same as marriage of a man and a women are deluded. Marriage between a man and a women is the real deal and the way nature intended. No matter how much these deluded politicians on the yes side tells us a same sex marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a women, it is not or never can be or never will be seen equivalent, no matter how much we are been told it is.
Also the people will have no say if the yes win, when it comes to our politicians ligistating for surrogacy, there will again be a huge campaign from the yes side looking to allow surrogacy for same sex couples as they cant produce babies themselves. I believe we should not deliberately set out to produce children to be brought up without a mother and a father. This is sure to happen down the road if we vote yes. In special circumstances some children are reared by same sex couples, but we should not deliberately set out to make this the norm. Also it will be illegal for a teacher to tell children that marriage between man and a women is the ideal. If this law comes in it will cause more confusion for little children. Please think of the children and vote NO and don't be fooled by our politicians or those on the yes side. I am not anti gay or anything like that but this is a step too far especially for children as I have said above, so I will be voting NO.

Vote no or we cant tell children gay couples are inferior?

Stop bullying me, I can make my own decisions without being accused of being deluded or unable to think for myself.

Maximus Alexander · 19-05-2015 01:02AM

late wrote: »

[Lots of anti-gay stuff]

I am not anti gay or anything like that but this is a step too far especially for children as I have said above, so I will be voting NO.

PMSL

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

Comments