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

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2015 02:18PM

loveta wrote: »

Looking at the poll results on top of near 800 yes 200 no it looks as though its going to be a complete walk over. Do people on here think that will be the percentages on polling day??

No chance. If we get 60-40, I'll be delighted. If we get 50.3-49.7, as in the divorce referendum, it'll still be job done.

Because as with divorce, all opposition will disappear completely on Saturday, and no-one will admit voting No in 5 years time. The Iona crew have already forgotten they were against civil partnerships, and this'll be the same.

humanji · 19-05-2015 02:19PM

MOD: Bjork, don't post in this thread again. You're trolling at this stage and it's just getting silly.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:20PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Or to paraphrase:
My reason is that gays are a bit icky and make me uncomfortable but Im unwilling to say this. No other argument holds water having been shot down by impartial experts in all of the relevant fields and so i am unwilling to get into it....shudder...gays//////:eek:

I would just have went with M&FM's 'ewwwwww'.

loveta · 19-05-2015 02:22PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No chance. If we get 60-40, I'll be delighted. If we get 50.3-49.7, as in the divorce referendum, it'll still be job done.

Because as with divorce, all opposition will disappear completely on Saturday, and no-one will admit voting No in 5 years time. The Iona crew have already forgotten they were against civil partnerships, and this'll be the same.

what happens if it goes 50.3 no and 49.7 yes thats when the fun il start

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 02:22PM

bjork wrote: »

No I don't. I have issues with a third person being involved in the marriage as being the default position.

It's not the default position.

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

Default is two people getting married. With or without kids. A couple... two.

(Sorry, didn't see Mod post until now.)

Ghost Buster · 19-05-2015 02:24PM

loveta wrote: »

what happens if it goes 50.3 no and 49.7 yes thats when the fun il start

Then we'll know Ireland still has a long way to go to shrug off its theocracy-esque past.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:25PM

loveta wrote: »

what happens if it goes 50.3 no and 49.7 yes thats when the fun il start

Hopefully it would be asked again in a couple of years with stringent laws about what people can and can't say.

loveta · 19-05-2015 02:27PM

traprunner wrote: »

Hopefully it would be asked again in a couple of years with stringent laws about what people can and can't say.

you mean censorship??:eek:

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:27PM

loveta wrote: »

you mean censorship??:eek:

No I mean laws to stop either side telling lies or dragging in unrelated issues. It should be applicable to general and local elections too.

loveta · 19-05-2015 02:29PM

traprunner wrote: »

No I mean laws to stop either side telling lies or dragging in unrelated issues. It should be applicable to general and local elections too.

I would love to see how that would be enforced, "bob hope, and no hope" comes to mind

osarusan · 19-05-2015 02:30PM

traprunner wrote: »

No I mean laws to stop either side telling lies or dragging in unrelated issues. It should be applicable to general and local elections too.

I don't think it would ever be possible though.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:31PM

loveta wrote: »

I would love to see how that would be enforced, "bob hope, and no hope" comes to mind

It would be harder for elections because they will use the excuses "Europe" or "circumstances changed". While for referenda it should be easier.

captbarnacles · 19-05-2015 02:31PM

Paddypower have cut the no odds from 9/2 to 3-1

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:32PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

Paddypower have cut the no odds from 9/2 to 3-1

Too much money being put on No cutting the odds.

Election gambling should be banned to prevent it influencing the vote.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 02:33PM

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

rainbow kirby · 19-05-2015 02:34PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Then we'll know Ireland still has a long way to go to shrug off its theocracy-esque past.

I'd be interpreting it as a sign that there was something deeply wrong with Ireland and that I probably shouldn't consider moving home for a very long time to come.

loveta · 19-05-2015 02:34PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

Paddypower have cut the no odds from 9/2 to 3-1

i reckon if the vote was not for another couple of weeks no would walk it people are getting so sick of it at this stage

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:34PM

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think it would ever be possible though.

Banning everything apart from a group name and either 'yes' or 'no' on posters would be a start.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 02:35PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

What about my religious freedom to marry my partner?

ixoy · 19-05-2015 02:35PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

You know the Asher verdict is in a different country right? And that voting 'No' will have no effect on how discrimination law is handled here?

gandalf · 19-05-2015 02:35PM

Richard tea wrote: »

No offense but Im not getting into it.

Obviously it was a very "compelling" and "strong" reason as you are unable to back up your "on the road to Damascus" type decision with any actual substance :rolleyes:

Forgive me if I say that I believe you were always a no vote.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 02:35PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

You mean the case that happened in a whole different country (that doesn't have SSM)?

traprunner · 19-05-2015 02:36PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with this referendum. Also, it was in a different jurisdiction. That is just bizarre.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 02:37PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

So you champion religious freedom by denying equality and freedom of choice to others. How very Christian of you :rolleyes:

Dimithy · 19-05-2015 02:38PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

The reason it is a relevant and live issue is because the government had an open goal with the recent legislation to clear this up before the referendum, it would have buried the issue there and then.

However they chose not to, which suggests they feel the majority of people would not approve the referendum if they knew in advance how they intend to deal with surrogacy,or what the result will actually allow them to do. They created this doubt themselves, and if you doubt the referendum will have only positive consequences, you have to question your vote.

As was mentioned by Leo Varadkar yesterday, even if there was legislation already in place dealing with surrogacy, it would still be used as an argument for a no vote. The fact that adoption is being used is proof of that.

He also said that there is a bill in the works to deal with surrogacy, and that commercial surrogacy will not be allowed in Ireland.

Its also quite amusing the pattern that this debate has taken. It seem that as soon as a new argument is raised by the no side, Its being picked up and run with.

"I'm being bullied by the yes side so I'm voting no"
"I am also being bullied, and that's the reason i was voting no all along even before i knew that i was being bullied. Its not the other reasons that i mentioned earlier anymore."

"I don't like the way the yes side is being funded by Americans. We need to protect our democracy. That's why I'm voting no"
"Yea, I'm voting no for that reason now, even though i was voting no before i knew about this at all. And as soon as the next reason to vote no comes along I will agree with that too"

Maximus Alexander · 19-05-2015 02:39PM

I've decided to vote no, and I think I've actually come up with a cogent argument to support my position, so bear with me guys.

You see, NASA are investigating this thing called the EmDrive. Now, it appears to break Newton's Third Law, which means in all likelihood it will turn out that it doesn't work. But so far, it has passed every test they've put it through.

I know you're already wondering what this has to do with SSM, but just hang in there. If it turns out that the EmDrive works, then we could literally have flying cars like the ones in the Fifth Element some time inside the next decade. Now, I don't know about you, but I think the idea of flying cars is as terrifying as it is awesome.

Imagine if the crap you see going on on our roads, day in, day out, was happening in the air instead? The death toll would be unimaginable. I'm a firm believer that men are too reckless on the roads, while women are too cautious and indecisive. Both of these things lead to accidents, and that will only get worse when we have flying cars. Imagine how many children would be killed on our roads skies?

Now the thing about heterosexual marriage is you have men and women balancing each other out on the roads. Married couples often travel together in the same car, so the testosterone and oestrogen sort of cancel each other out. It's very scientific and I won't go into too much detail, but straight marriage makes the roads much safer.

Now I'm not anti-gay or anything, but the idea of two men driving around in flying cars just sounds disastrous to me. They'd be crashing into children and schools and hospitals and everything, and it would really just be a murder free-for-all. So that's why I'll be voting no on Friday and I hope you will too. xxx

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 02:41PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

The reason it is a relevant and live issue is because the government had an open goal with the recent legislation to clear this up before the referendum, it would have buried the issue there and then.

However they chose not to, which suggests they feel the majority of people would not approve the referendum if they knew in advance how they intend to deal with surrogacy,or what the result will actually allow them to do. They created this doubt themselves, and if you doubt the referendum will have only positive consequences, you have to question your vote.

That's conspiracy theory stuff I'm afraid. The two things are no related. End of. Legislating for surrogacy is a complicated and tough matter and not something that can or should be turned around quickly. Especially for something that it isn't even related to.

Dimithy · 19-05-2015 02:41PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

I'm voting yes because I watched Game of Thrones yesterday.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 02:41PM

ixoy wrote: »

You know the Asher verdict is in a different country right? And that voting 'No' will have no effect on how discrimination law is handled here?

I know that but it's still a shocking result to me and seeing as the majority of the Yes side down here would support that verdict I feel I can't go along with that. It won't have an effect on discrimination law but it will encourage people not to feel that practicing their religion will have them landed in front of a judge...

VinLieger · 19-05-2015 02:41PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

So religious freedoms trump equality and its okay to discriminate but only if its on religious grounds?

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

Comments