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

looking_around · 19-05-2015 08:38PM

martingriff wrote: »

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.

It is.
When you start off by telling someone they're wrong, it is.
if she said "I'm voting no, because it's against my beliefs and I'll tell you why."

THEN and only then, could I agree she wasn't forcing her views.

I'm here, for the conversation more so than the debate aspect of the forum.

Slicemeister · 19-05-2015 08:41PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Yes public position. Has he not got more access to express his personal opinions due to his place of employment than most others? It's abuse of his workplace imo.

You asked me whether I'd feel the same if he were wearing a crucifix no?

He shouldn't be wearing any Yes or No badge in those circumstances, keep it for his Tinder or grindr profile or wherever.

LookingFor · 19-05-2015 08:41PM

opiniated wrote: »

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

On the issue of surrogacy legislation and this constitutional change, others have shared more professional opinion - but...

...based on the CFR and the precedence around adoption etc., if the government introduces regulation/legislation it won't discriminate between parent couples regardless of the outcome of the marriage referendum.

Now, one can claim that that legislation could be challenged. However that would require going to court and making a case.

The No campaign's complaint in the event the ref passes is that...in the case of surrogacy legislation, it would have to go to court and make a case for discrimination. (It was, previously, the complaint that it would be 'impossible' to make such a case. Refcom has confirmed it would not be, the children's ref enshrines overriding protection of children's interests that an argument can be put forward on - if research/evidence etc. shows such an argument)

No case or law, however, can be made against surrogacy in general. Effective regulation of altruistic surrogacy/ahr is impossible really. You can't stop people having babies together - either heterosexual or gay couples with the help of a friend. Commercial surrogacy is another matter, and whether the ref passes or not, I think a group would have to come up with a persuasive case to challenge a lack of discrimination against same sex couples. Given that it's something they can do anyway via altruistic means, given that they can adopt as couples, given that there is no 'right to a mother and a father' as the no campaign once claimed etc. etc.

I think in either case it is A Good Thing that any case for discrimination should have go through the rigor of the courts rather than be out in the court of popular opinion. If people believe there is a strong case for discrimination in the interests of a child, that case can be made and won even if marref passes. If they're confident in the strength of that case, let them make it.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:41PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

The reason my post was about posters was because I was quoting a post about posters:rolleyes:.

BY THE WAY I AM VOTING YES you do not have to go with the condescending tone.

Yes of course the YES side has been threatened and posters taken down never mention they had not and I am horrified by that also. However I am also sick or everyone who is voting no been banded a homophobic or a bigot as I do not think they are they may be misguided in what they believe.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 08:43PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

Yes public position. Has he not got more access due to his place of employment than most others? It's abuse of his workplace imo.

You asked me whether I'd feel the same if he were wearing a crucifix no?

He shouldn't be wearing any Yes or No badge in those circumstances, keep it for his Tinder or grindr profile or wherever.

We will have to agree to disagree.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:43PM

looking_around wrote: »

It is.
When you start off by telling someone they're wrong, it is.
if she said "I'm voting no, because it's against my beliefs and I'll tell you why."

THEN and only then, could I agree she wasn't forcing her views.

I'm here, for the conversation more so than the debate aspect of the forum.

That is called debating

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 08:45PM

martingriff wrote: »

The reason my post was about posters was because I was quoting a post about posters:rolleyes:.

BY THE WAY I AM VOTING YES you do not have to go with the condescending tone.

Yes of course the YES side has been threatened and posters taken down never mention they had not and I am horrified by that also. However I am also sick or everyone who is voting no been banded a homophobic or a bigot as I do not think they are they may be misguided in what they believe.

I apologise.

I'm just so sick of hearing about the fecking No posters it's like a red rag to a bull at this point.

ronivek · 19-05-2015 08:46PM

martingriff wrote: »

That is called debating

Debating usually implies a certain standard of argument and a limited opportunity for people to constantly repeat the same tired old rubbish again and again.

This thread is more like a merry-go-round of hyperbole and thinly veiled bigotry. That bigotry works both ways by the way; there has been some pretty poor generalisations levelled at religious people also.

K4t · 19-05-2015 08:48PM

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.

Au contraire, you were on a private business premise. And his views and beliefs would only be impressed upon you if you allowed them be. Surely you'd be happy to see a business and/or its staff supporting marriage equality? I certainly would. If not, you could have exited the building. Freedom of choice its called. Like I would do if a business was advocating a No vote. *Shivers at the thought of getting lost and ending up at the Iona institute*

MessiHutz wrote: »

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.

It was in reference to your assertion that a Yes and No vote are on some kind of equal moral standing because we live in a democracy. Which is simply not true, and I felt I needed to expand upon that to explain why fully. Yes, it will be democracy in action if this is a No vote, but the very worst part of democracy. Yes, individuals are coming out in support of a No vote, as is their right. Suggesting that political parties are only advocating a Yes vote because it would be disastrous to not do so is simply speculation with no real evidence. Maybe it's because most people support marriage equality, including the political parties and most other non-religious professional organisations in the land?

looking_around · 19-05-2015 08:48PM

martingriff wrote: »

That is called debating

conversation
kɒnvəˈseɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

debate
dɪˈbeɪt/Submit
noun
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

Not the same
former is sharing of information, the latter is arguing about opposing views.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 08:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I apologise.

I'm just so sick of hearing about the fecking No posters it's like a red rag to a bull at this point.

TBH I've seen a lot of posters on the ground around my area both yes and no ones and they don't look like they were pulled down. It looks like whoever put them up did a piss poor job doing it.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:50PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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

If not it should be highlited more by people like yourself here. I must admit I do not dwell as long as I have today on these threads as I feel I have had enough of the debates to last me a long time. My original post was not meant to say that the no side has suffered more and if it does look that way it was not my attention. My issue with the post I say originally was the word bigot on the post as I fell that word and the homophobic work had been banished about too much by SOME on everyone and I think they should only be used for those that deserve it and there has been a few who have

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 08:50PM

gandalf wrote: »

TBH I've seen a lot of posters on the ground around my area both yes and no ones and they don't look like they were pulled down. It looks like whoever put them up did a piss poor job doing it.

I had to drive a gauntlet of them today and I did notice that who ever put up the Yes posters could have used a stepladder - they could have borrowed mine, sure I know where they all live like.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:52PM

looking_around wrote: »

conversation
kɒnvəˈseɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

debate
dɪˈbeɪt/Submit
noun
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

Not the same
former is sharing of information, the latter is arguing about opposing views.

Well I could say that sharing of information could be argued as sharing opposing views but we are getting into semantic here

K4t · 19-05-2015 08:53PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

It's abuse of his workplace imo.
.

Exactly. In your opinion. Because that's all it is. A lot, if not most other people would applaud the guy for wearing the badge, and his boss for allowing him to. Only you yourself can answer why it is such an issue for you, and why you felt the need to complain about it on an online forum.

Slicemeister · 19-05-2015 08:53PM

gandalf wrote: »

TBH I've seen a lot of posters on the ground around my area both yes and no ones and they don't look like they were pulled down. It looks like whoever put them up did a piss poor job doing it.

I saw two aul biddies up a wooden stepladder trying to put up a No poster last evening. They were holding on for dear life in the wind, that one instance caricatured the whole no campaign very well to me.

looking_around · 19-05-2015 08:53PM

martingriff wrote: »

Well I could say that sharing of information could be argued as sharing opposing views but we are getting into semantic here

could be, doesn't have to be.
though now we're well off topic.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:54PM

ronivek wrote: »

Debating usually implies a certain standard of argument and a limited opportunity for people to constantly repeat the same tired old rubbish again and again.

This thread is more like a merry-go-round of hyperbole and thinly veiled bigotry. That bigotry works both ways by the way; there has been some pretty poor generalisations levelled at religious people also.

I 100% agree. I am religious myself but I am voting yes

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 08:55PM

K4t wrote: »

Au contraire, you were on a private business premise. And his views and beliefs would only be impressed upon you if you allowed them be. Surely you'd be happy to see a business and/or its staff supporting marriage equality? I certainly would. If not, you could have exited the building. Freedom of choice its called. Like I would do if a business was advocating a No vote. *Shivers at the thought of getting lost and ending up at the Iona institute*

It was in reference to your assertion that a Yes and No vote are on some kind of equal moral standing because we live in a democracy. Which is simply not true, and I felt I needed to expand upon that to explain why fully. Yes, it will be democracy in action if this is a No vote, but the very worst part of democracy. Yes, individuals are coming out in support of a No vote, as is their right. Suggesting that political parties are only advocating a Yes vote because it would be disastrous to not do so is simply speculation with no real evidence. Maybe it's because most people support marriage equality, including the political parties and most other non-religious professional organisations in the land?

They are supporting it because it's a popular issue, that's why the opposition parties are getting in a hissy fit because they aren't the ones being given the chance to speak in the debates. If they were only interested in the issue they wouldn't care who was making the points as long as they were getting made.
Anyone think John Mcguiness supporting No could have any bearing on the result? He's ridiculously popular in Carlow-KK and pretty popular all over the country.

Penny Tration · 19-05-2015 08:55PM

My mam now believes the no posters she's seen, and is voting no

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:55PM

looking_around wrote: »

could be, doesn't have to be.
though now we're well off topic.

We can agree on that. Lets leave it there then.

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:56PM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

My mam now believes the no posters she's seen, and is voting no

Which ones?

martingriff · 19-05-2015 08:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I apologise.

I'm just so sick of hearing about the fecking No posters it's like a red rag to a bull at this point.

No worries mate no harrm

gandalf · 19-05-2015 09:01PM

http://i.imgur.com/KMRhWft.jpg

Slicemeister · 19-05-2015 09:03PM

K4t wrote: »

Exactly. In your opinion. Because that's all it is. A lot, if not most other people would applaud the guy for wearing the badge, and his boss for allowing him to. Only you yourself can answer why it is such an issue for you, and why you felt the need to complain about it on an online forum.

It is an issue for me. I can't wear my ACDC top to work and my earrings are a balls to get in and out every morning and evening. I couldn't give a fiddlers what way he votes, no need to shove it in my face.

KingBrian2 · 19-05-2015 09:05PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

A number of priests have come out in favour of the Yes side. Religion is not fully against equality for Same Sex couples. Some of the devotees are very much against them. I don't see how they can see this referendum as anti marriage. Same Sex couples want the joy and love that we all are entitled too.

Dimithy · 19-05-2015 09:05PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

It is an issue for me. I can't wear my ACDC top to work and my earrings are a balls to get in and out every morning and evening. I couldn't give a fiddlers what way he votes, no need to shove it in my face.

You should probably report it to his manager that he's specifically targeting you in a malicious manner with that badge that hes wearing.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 09:06PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

It is an issue for me. I can't wear my ACDC top to work and my earrings are a balls to get in and out every morning and evening. I couldn't give a fiddlers what way he votes, no need to shove it in my face.

Well get a job in that petrol station and stop being such a bitter person that you wish to restrict the freedom enjoyed by others simply because you don't enjoy it. Or better yet challenge your employers.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 09:10PM

Slicemeister wrote: »

It is an issue for me. I can't wear my ACDC top to work and my earrings are a balls to get in and out every morning and evening. I couldn't give a fiddlers what way he votes, no need to shove it in my face.

Vote with your wallet then and frequent another garage if it's such an affront to your personage. Personally I decide on where to purchase my petrol based on the cost, the convenience of getting to the garage and the efficiency of the staff. Not the appearance of the people working there.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 09:11PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Same Sex couples want the joy and love that we all are entitled too.

My long-term lesbian partner and I endorse this message.

:P

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

Comments