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

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 08:02PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Nothing about it makes me mad, as I said I'm not even sure I'll vote No.
This is the first time I can vote apart from the ****ty council/european elections so I think it's fair enough I registered so I could discuss it? Or would you prefer I kept any views that are different to you to myself?

Not at all Messi, haven't I engaged with all the while? Quite unfair of you to suggest otherwise.

Now on the point of religious liberty Messi what of my religious liberty to marry my partner?

ThisRegard · 19-05-2015 08:03PM

I've seen some pretty stupid things said in reference to this referendum, but the claims by some that the letter is faked by the Yes side is astounding.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 08:04PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If you vote yes you are not restricting anyone from marrying who they wish (outside of the existing familial restrictions of course)

If you vote not you are codifying your vision of marriage and excluding those who may share a different view, even a religiously held view.

If you vote in Fine Gael you are excluding Fianna Fail (those with a different view) This is how democracy works. It's not forcing your views on anyone...

looking_around · 19-05-2015 08:04PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

????
How does that make sense?

because voting no, prevents people from marrying, a choice, that only affects those who want to get married currently but can't.

just because you have the right to vote no, doesn't mean you aren't forcing your beliefs on others, by doing so.

K4t · 19-05-2015 08:05PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

????
How does that make sense?

It's true in a sense. You can oppose marriage equality without voting No to prevent it being allowed, and giving others the right to marry someone of the same sex. A No vote attempts to enforce one's own ideals onto the rest of society; which is why it is obviously steeped in religious logic. And before you even try to argue it, equality is not an ideal to be enforced on a society, it is a right for all citizens. Which is why so many straight people are voting Yes, not out of any great love for gay or lesbian people, but because they value an equal and fair society. Apologies for the bullying.

LookingFor · 19-05-2015 08:05PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

????
How does that make sense?

Well, if we take it on a overall level rather than on an individual level, an overall No vote could be - not entirely unfairly imo - taken as a continued imposition on the agency of others in their lives (wrt marriage) based on the views of others. Views that, they would say, don't form a just cause for that imposition. On the flip side, a yes vote wouldn't impose any change on the freedom of others to conduct marriage.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 08:06PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not at all Messi, haven't I engaged with all the while? Quite unfair of you to suggest otherwise.

Now on the point of religious liberty Messi what of my religious liberty to marry my partner?

Quite unfair of you to slag me off for registering and getting involved.
I already answered that, that's the third time you asked go back and look. (Sorry if it was someone else I answered that exact question anyway)

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 08:08PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

If you vote in Fine Gael you are excluding Fianna Fail (those with a different view) This is how democracy works. It's not forcing your views on anyone...

That is entirely disingenuous comparison. I mean really I am sensing from your posts that you are more intelligent than that.

If by voting FG I was voting to prevent people from having a party called FF that would be an honest reflecton of what voting no means. Democracy should not mean the untrammeled will of majority of people on every matter.

osarusan · 19-05-2015 08:09PM

I think it could be argued that by voting yes you are forcing your belief on what the constitution should say on those who think otherwise. But no more so than voting no, obviously.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:11PM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Mate of mine was walking home from work through town with yes badges on his bag. He noticed someone was walking very close behind him but didn't take much notice as Dublin is busy in the evenings. Anyway when my mate got home he found that the guy had scribbled out his yes badges and wrote no on them! Great advertising for the no campaign and the type of bigot it attracts.

Unfortunatly the YES camp can not claim to be all high and mighty with this with lots of people taking down no posters and been proud of it can we call the bigots also. By the way I am voting yes

Ave Sodalis · 19-05-2015 08:13PM

martingriff wrote: »

Unfortunatly the YES camp can not claim to be all high and mighty with this with lots of people taking down no posters and been proud of it can we call the bigots also. By the way I am voting yes

A) this is not the Yes campaign and has been condemned by the Yes campaign

Yes posters have been defaced and removed also but there hasn't been a word about that

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 08:14PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

So you don't think it's unprofessional to wear it pushing a personal agenda?I know his employer very well but tbh won't mention it, life's too short.

Best keep his opinions for his private life and the polling booths imo.

It doesn't impact on the performance of his duties and he doesn't work for an employer who has to be seen to be impartial and unbiased so no - I don't think it's unprofessional.

Would you have a problem if he had been wear a noticeable crucifix? Could that not be considered as pushing a personal agenda?

matrim · 19-05-2015 08:14PM

martingriff wrote: »

Unfortunatly the YES camp can not claim to be all high and mighty with this with lots of people taking down no posters and been proud of it can we call the bigots also. By the way I am voting yes

The idea of highlighting things like this is to show that the no sides claims of bullying and silencing their democratic rights are not valid because there are idiots on both sides.

LookingFor · 19-05-2015 08:16PM

osarusan wrote: »

I think it could be argued that by voting yes you are forcing your belief on what the constitution should say on those who think otherwise. But no more so than voting no, obviously.

True, but what it actually means for people's lives - and their agency to conduct their citizenship and their lives - is quite different. One position on this maintains hurdles to equal agency there, one does not. So yes, one one level of 'what the constitution should say', one can argue about equal imposition from either side. On a practical level of citizenship and the lives of people, I don't think the impositions of each side are equal.

cruais · 19-05-2015 08:17PM

Driving home this evening, I was stuck in traffic outside the independent pizza restaurant beside Drumcondra train station.

Standing on the footpath and also on the island in the middle of the road where the No Brigade, appealing to pedestrians and people in traffic to vote no.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:18PM

looking_around wrote: »

She was when she was about to use the bible to quote being gay is wrong.

I believe anyone who votes no, is forcing their views on others.

It called having a discussion. Next time anyone does that you can say the word homosexual was not around when it was written and what did does words mean then and also Jesus had 1 commandment love everyone else as I love you

And people who vote yes aren't forcing their views

Just because they voice an opinion that is not the same as yours or mine does not mean they are forcing it on you

osarusan · 19-05-2015 08:18PM

LookingFor wrote: »

True, but what it actually means for people's lives - and their agency to conduct their citizenship and their lives - is quite different.

I agree completely with that.

K4t · 19-05-2015 08:20PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

If you vote in Fine Gael you are excluding Fianna Fail (those with a different view) This is how democracy works. It's not forcing your views on anyone...

Again, flawed logic, and shows exactly how well the No campaign has performed in accomplishing its goals. The fact is that the only reason a referendum is necessary is because of the necessity of amending the constitution to introduce (and hopefully enshrine) same-sex marriage into law. Otherwise it would simply be legislated for like in so many other countries which too value marriage equality. The reality is there was never any need for a No side or campaign in this referendum but rather for people to look at the wording of the referendum and the views of all the experts, and vote yes for marriage equality, or no to oppose it. Iona and other groups like the Catholic Church created a mass of arguments and red herrings in an effort to create a credible opposition to something that, by any rational and reasoned observer, does not require opposing, and managed to confuse much of the electorate in the process, which was their aim. Do you ever stop to wonder why ALL of the opposition to this referendum is coming from religiously conservative groups? Not one government organisation is opposing it, nor any of the political parties, nor any of the independent groups like the children's charities (ISPCC, Barnardos etc.) or the Law society of Ireland, or the Psychological society of Ireland and so on and on who are all advocating a yes vote. Is it all just groupthink as Iona would have you believe? Or perhaps Irish people are finally educated, enlightened and brave enough to move Ireland forward into a progressive society with a yes vote to marriage equality?

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:22PM

matrim wrote: »

The idea of highlighting things like this is to show that the no sides claims of bullying and silencing their democratic rights are not valid because there are idiots on both sides.

Never said it was I am just pointing out both sides do it and while I believe that the reasons for voting no as marriage is traditionally this or kids should be brought up by a mam and dad is wrong in my opinion they are not bigots. There are some real bigots and homophobic people in this county and it is to them the words should be used.

looking_around · 19-05-2015 08:22PM

martingriff wrote: »

It called having a discussion. Next time anyone does that you can say the word homosexual was not around when it was written and what did does words mean then and also Jesus had 1 commandment love everyone else as I love you

And people who vote yes aren't forcing their views

Just because they voice an opinion that is not the same as yours or mine does not mean they are forcing it on you

She had no place to start off by telling me I was wrong.

I simply said I'm voting yes. It was not her place to tell me I'm wrong. That is forcing her views.

I get it, people think equality is up to debate. I don't.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 08:24PM

martingriff wrote: »

Unfortunatly the YES camp can not claim to be all high and mighty with this with lots of people taking down no posters and been proud of it can we call the bigots also. By the way I am voting yes

Did you miss the last few weeks of the No campaign claiming they were the ones being 'bullied'?

Jayzuz - we are back to the posters... :rolleyes:

A Yes banner costing €1000 euro was stolen and damaged last week in Cork - the thieves eventually gave it back after they were identified on CCTV.
A young Yes Canvasser I know was threatened with a shotgun.
Una Mullally was sent a vile piece of hate mail.
Windows with Yes posters in them have been smashed.

I could go on and on but I doubt you want 'balance'

- If some posters being taken down is the worst thing the No side can complain of then they should count themselves lucky that the Yes side campaign with a bit more decency.

And before you mention the egg - the girl's mother was on the radio and she said it was one individual on a bike - no evidence they were a Yes supporter - and the egg happened to hit her daughter, it was not aimed at her plus no hospital treatment was required.

opiniated · 19-05-2015 08:24PM

Ironé wrote: »

More reason for us all to Vote Yes and show that same sex couples are normal and equal. And that future generations will grow up without these sort of prejudices.

Anita Blow wrote: »

Again though, this has nothing to do with the referendum. Gay people have been adopting since the early 90s. Furthermore there's many children of same-sex couples publicly advocating a yes vote who have stated they endured no such bullying.

If we're going to amend our constitution based on the potential for taunting in the primary school yard we should also ban ginger kids. Would be awful to deliberately bring a child into the world that may be slagged in school for their hair.

Would either of you (or anyone else, for that matter), care to address any of the other issues I've raised?

Slicemeister · 19-05-2015 08:26PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It doesn't impact on the performance of his duties and he doesn't work for an employer who has to be seen to be impartial and unbiased so no - I don't think it's unprofessional.

Would you have a problem if he had been wear a noticeable crucifix? Could that not be considered as pushing a personal agenda?

If he had been unprofessional on the performance of his duties I wouldn't have attributed it to his Yes Badge(or No Badge if it were the case).
Where he was unprofessional was in using his public position to impress his views and beliefs on others. That's the crux of his unprofessional behaviour.

To the second part of your question I've yet to see a referendum on whether Jesus was real or not. So in that respect it's a moot question. Why bring religion into it?

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2015 08:27PM

opiniated wrote: »

That's not very tolerant of you, is it?

No. I don't have to tolerate this bigoted nonsense.

You got a problem with that?

Merces · 19-05-2015 08:27PM

Voting No is illogical. Here's why.

Reasons why people will vote "No":

1:They believe they will burn in hell so out of fear and self interest will vote No. (This a decision not predicated by logic. )
2: "Gay sex is ick"y. (Not based on logic)
3: Marriage should be between a man and a woman because it should. (Circular reasoning. Again not logical.)
4: "It's not natural" ( Anything that occurs in the Universe is natural. Even if it was natural does not necessarily mean good. Anti-biotics would be considered unnatural and cancer and tsunami's would be considered natural. Again this reason is not logical. )
5: Adoption. (The No side have played on this card to the max' in order to confuse people and create ambiguity and fear via lies and red herrings. LGBT people can already adopt. The referendum is not about adoption. Again not a logical reason to vote no.)

So if you want LGBT people to remain second class citizens just like the blacks in the deep south during the Jim Crow law era then vote no. If you believe in equality vote yes. There is no logical reason to vote no, hence it is logical to vote yes.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 08:28PM

K4t wrote: »

Again, flawed logic, and shows exactly how well the No campaign has performed in accomplishing its goals. The fact is that the only reason a referendum is necessary is because of the necessity of amending the constitution to introduce (and hopefully enshrine) same-sex marriage into law. Otherwise it would simply be legislated for like in so many other countries which too value marriage equality. The reality is there was never any need for a No side or campaign in this referendum but rather for people to look at the wording of the referendum and the views of all the experts, and vote yes for marriage equality, or no to oppose it. Iona and other groups like the Catholic Church created a mass of arguments and red herrings in an effort to create a credible opposition to something that, by any rational and reasoned observer, does not require opposing, and managed to confuse much of the electorate in the process, which was their aim. Do you ever stop to wonder why ALL of the opposition to this referendum is coming from religiously conservative groups? Not one government organisation is opposing it, nor any of the political parties, nor any of the independent groups like the children's charities (ISPCC, Barnardos etc.) or the Law society of Ireland, or the Psychological society of Ireland and so on and on who are all advocating a yes vote. Is it all just groupthink as Iona would have you believe? Or perhaps Irish people are finally educated, enlightened and brave enough to move Ireland forward into a progressive society with a yes vote to marriage equality?

I'm not involved in any campaign were having a discussion so if I made a bad point there is no need to associate it with the No campaign..
Not one Party is opposing it because it would be disastrous for them to do so. Individuals are coming out in support of a No vote though. John Mcguinesss of Fianna Fail came out this evening supporting a No vote for example.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:28PM

sup_dude wrote: »

A) this is not the Yes campaign and has been condemned by the Yes campaign

Yes posters have been defaced and removed also but there hasn't been a word about that

Been on a number of different threads here (can not remember them specifically) but it has been talk about.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 08:31PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

If he had been unprofessional on the performance of his duties I wouldn't have attributed it to his Yes Badge(or No Badge if it were the case).
Where he was unprofessional was in using his public position to impress his views and beliefs on others. That's the crux of his unprofessional behaviour.

To the second part of your question I've yet to see a referendum on whether Jesus was real or not. So in that respect it's a moot question. Why bring religion into it?

He is a til operator in a petrol station not a parish priest advocating a No vote from the pulpit . 'public position' - seriously?

He is also a person an entitled to express his opinion.

Speaking of priests and pulpits - I'm not the one who brought religion into this - the religious did that.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 08:33PM

martingriff wrote: »

Been on a number of different threads here (can not remember them specifically) but it has been talk about.

Not nearly to the same extent. Not even nearly. Nor has the extrordinary abuse faced by yes campaigners.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:34PM

looking_around wrote: »

She had no place to start off by telling me I was wrong.

I simply said I'm voting yes. It was not her place to tell me I'm wrong. That is forcing her views.

I get it, people think equality is up to debate. I don't.

No its not I agree it is an aggressive way to start a debate but its not forcing there views on you.

Why are you on a forum for debating if you think it should not be debated. Maybe you or I are forcing or views on them.

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

Comments