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

TwoShedsJackson · 22-05-2015 03:08PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Exactly in public most people will say yes because its safe. In private some pf those "yes" will become no. The benefit of not being pestered or judged by people.

And the drawbacks of being hypocrites who don't seem to be able to justify their position without sounding like a bigot.

galljga1 · 22-05-2015 03:08PM

I bought a tent recently as my son wants to go camping. I actually pitched it inside this morning and he is playing away inside it. I am currently wearing a salmon pink t-shirt and have voted yes. Is this a camp day, or what?

Baggy Trousers · 22-05-2015 03:09PM

The Adversary wrote: »

If anyone is bored, I've been playing a game for the last 20 minutes which is highly enjoyable. Go down to the polling station, sit outside and try to guess on appearance if someone is a Yes or a No voter

I was alone in the polling station but as I leaving a cranky/angry/impatient looking man came in. Immediately I jumped to the conclusion that he was a No voter!

StewartGriffin · 22-05-2015 03:10PM

The Adversary wrote: »

If anyone is bored, I've been playing a game for the last 20 minutes which is highly enjoyable. Go down to the polling station, sit outside and try to guess on appearance if someone is a Yes or a No voter

Are you sure you're not just becoming a Hobo?

Adamantium · 22-05-2015 03:10PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can people not get married without being bothered?

But they decide to bother us with a national referendum? Even though it has apparently nothing to do with us? A private matter right? Who cares what people do in the bedroom, let's bring it to a referendum.

Isn't it unfair to Priests and Christians who don't agree with gay marriage, to allow gay marriage?
Aren't you then essentially forcing people to do things they don't agree with? and changing how people practise their religion?

A lot of bothering there.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

A quote from it:

If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.

Vivisectus · 22-05-2015 03:11PM

Isn't it unfair to Priests and Christians who don't agree with gay marriage, to allow gay marriage?

Not unless you force them to marry a gay person.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 03:11PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Is this a camp day, or what?

The excitement is in tents!

galljga1 · 22-05-2015 03:13PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I love that one of my UK friends just sent this to me and the others going to her eurovision party tomorrow night:

So, now she's asked for ideas on rainbow themed food or drink and I'm stumped. Any ideas?

There is a bakery up north with some great cake designs. If she gets her order in now, they will deliver tomorrow. They do a fantastic Bert and Ernie cake.

PopePalpatine · 22-05-2015 03:13PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Exactly in public most people will say yes because its safe. In private some pf those "yes" will become no. The benefit of not being pestered or judged by people.

What's to say that in some social circles (e.g. over-65s, who were the only age group to show a majority No vote according to RedC) that some people are unwilling to say they'd vote Yes?

whatismyname · 22-05-2015 03:14PM

galljga1 wrote: »

There is a bakery up north with some great cake designs. If she gets her order in now, they will deliver tomorrow. They do a fantastic Bert and Ernie cake.

I'd imagine getting it on a flight in time to the UK may be tricky

Bannasidhe · 22-05-2015 03:15PM

MathDebater wrote: »

I voted yes at 7.45 am. I'm not your 'bogeyman'. Are you happy with large amounts of people returning to the state to commit electoral fraud?

I'm not in the habit of saying people are guilty of committing a crime until it has been proven in a court of law.

Not a NSA agent · 22-05-2015 03:15PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Not unless you force them to marry a gay person.

Dont let them make priests marry. Vote no

PopePalpatine · 22-05-2015 03:16PM

Adamantium wrote: »

But they decide to bother us with a national referendum? Even though it has apparently nothing to do with us? A private matter right? Who cares what people do in the bedroom, let's bring it to a referendum.

Isn't it unfair to Priests and Christians who don't agree with gay marriage, to allow gay marriage?
Aren't you then essentially forcing people to do things they don't agree with? and changing how people practise their religion?

A lot of bothering there.

Was it unfair to Christians who didn't agree with divorce, to allow divorce? Was it unfair to men who didn't agree with women being allowed to vote, to allow women to vote?

galljga1 · 22-05-2015 03:16PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Are you sure you're not just becoming a Hobo?

When I glanced at this post, my brain automatically translated the last word to homo. Too long on this thread.

traprunner · 22-05-2015 03:16PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I love that one of my UK friends just sent this to me and the others going to her eurovision party tomorrow night:

So, now she's asked for ideas on rainbow themed food or drink and I'm stumped. Any ideas?

Glitter bombs is all that is needed.

fr336 · 22-05-2015 03:17PM

Sorry, just peeking in from England - how will the results work? Is there a definite time for them tomorrow?

CaveCanem · 22-05-2015 03:18PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What's to say that in some social circles (e.g. over-65s, who were the only age group to show a majority No vote according to RedC) that some people are unwilling to say they'd vote Yes?

Not to pollsters though, maybe to other older people but not anonymous people I think. A lot of people would be afraid to say they are voting no, even to anonymous people, in case they are asked to justify it. People are in general naturally inclined not to enter arguments with strangers so this might motivate people to say they are voting yes as the easy way out. The only answer they have to give if asked why is 'for equality'.

TwoShedsJackson · 22-05-2015 03:20PM

fr336 wrote: »

Sorry, just peeking in from England - how will the results work? Is there a definite time for them tomorrow?

They start counting about 9 a.m. I think, result expected in the evening - 5-6 p.m. maybe.

mrkiscool2 · 22-05-2015 03:20PM

Adamantium wrote: »

But they decide to bother us with a national referendum? Even though it has apparently nothing to do with us? A private matter right? Who cares what people do in the bedroom, let's bring it to a referendum.

Isn't it unfair to Priests and Christians who don't agree with gay marriage, to allow gay marriage?
Aren't you then essentially forcing people to do things they don't agree with? and changing how people practise their religion?

A lot of bothering there.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

A quote from it:

It's because any change to the constitution has to be done by way of referendum. We have to remember the constitution was written in the 1940s, where the Church was seen as the be-all and end-all. I hate the way people can't grasp this. I am not going to apologise for people who were ruled by fear from a institution based on corruption and greed. Nor should our politicians or any person in the state. This is more than just giving same-sex couples the right to marry, it's a way for the people of Ireland to show one of the most marginalised groups in the history of our state that we stand by them and we support them for who they are, that they are no different to anyone else in this country. I think that's pretty awesome. A lot of my friends in the LGBT community feel the same way. Obviously if it's a No vote then we have a lot of soul-searching to do as a society as we are basically saying we don't think you are equal.

EDIT: Didn't read the post properly, I thought you were just asking why we need a popular vote on the matter. This won't affect any religion, this is about giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

pmasterson95 · 22-05-2015 03:21PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

And the drawbacks of being hypocrites who don't seem to be able to justify their position without sounding like a bigot.

Yeah not hypocritical to be saying that. Sure it wouldnt be in the spirit of equality if the yes side were to label those different to them as bigots. Sure dont they say everyone is the same and equal?

If any side can be called hypocrites its the yes. What with there constant labelling of people.

CaveCanem · 22-05-2015 03:22PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Was it unfair to Christians who didn't agree with divorce, to allow divorce? Was it unfair to men who didn't agree with women being allowed to vote, to allow women to vote?

The number of women who joined groups opposing voting rights for women were almost as large, or were even larger, than those who joined groups advocating rights to vote.

Not a NSA agent · 22-05-2015 03:23PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yeah not hypocritical to be saying that. Sure it wouldnt be in the spirit of equality if the yes side were to label those different to them as bigots. Sure dont they say everyone is the same and equal?

If any side can be called hypocrites its the yes. What with there constant labelling of people.

I dont know, the whole we should be able to do what we want without judgement was a bit hypocritical from the no side.

PopePalpatine · 22-05-2015 03:23PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yeah not hypocritical to be saying that. Sure it wouldnt be in the spirit of equality if the yes side were to label those different to them as bigots. Sure dont they say everyone is the same and equal?

If any side can be called hypocrites its the yes. What with there constant labelling of people.

I'd say the KKK must be kicking themselves right now for not thinking of playing the victim card during the 1960s. Then again, must of the Klan were inbred, so I guess allowances could be made for them.

TwoShedsJackson · 22-05-2015 03:24PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yeah not hypocritical to be saying that. Sure it wouldnt be in the spirit of equality if the yes side were to label those different to them as bigots. Sure dont they say everyone is the same and equal?

If any side can be called hypocrites its the yes. What with there constant labelling of people.

If someone is asked in a poll what way they're voting, and they lie, they're a liar. And most likely a bigot as there has not been one non-bigoted reason for voting No put forward so far.

Why would someone lie? For a quiet life? Then they're a coward and a hypocrite. If you want to vote No, by all means do so, but at least have the courage of your convictions!

SafeSurfer · 22-05-2015 03:24PM

sdanseo wrote: »

I notice a featured advert on Youtube at the minute is a video specifically aimed at swaying voters towards a particular side (in the interest of fairness I won't say which side). This isn't illegal, but with the video having more than half a million views you think Google would have some cop on.

Yeah it's way over the top. Hopefully cost them some votes.
http://youtu.be/2IAJFCxAP_Y

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 03:25PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

We have to remember the constitution was written in the 1940s,

Enacted in 1937, actually.

mrkiscool2 · 22-05-2015 03:26PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Enacted in 1937, actually.

Sorry, my facts were slightly off. The rest of the post stands though.

galljga1 · 22-05-2015 03:26PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yeah not hypocritical to be saying that. Sure it wouldnt be in the spirit of equality if the yes side were to label those different to them as bigots. Sure dont they say everyone is the same and equal?

If any side can be called hypocrites its the yes. What with there constant labelling of people.

That's a very bigoted attitude.

Vote yes.

traprunner · 22-05-2015 03:26PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yeah not hypocritical to be saying that. Sure it wouldnt be in the spirit of equality if the yes side were to label those different to them as bigots. Sure dont they say everyone is the same and equal?

If any side can be called hypocrites its the yes. What with there constant labelling of people.

Does anyone else find this post weirdly ironic? pmasterson95 complains about labelling of people and then labels the Yes side 'hypocrites'.

Egginacup · 22-05-2015 03:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

One can argue, each side is trying to impose their values.

I don't think you could argue that at all. One side is promoting restrictions on people. The other side is promoting the lifting of restrictions on people.

There was a time when women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't intermarry. Jews / Catholics weren't allowed to own businesses. And this is not thousands of years ago either.

The same arguments tabled then by the promoters of restrictions are surfacing now. All about impinging on people's goddamn "culture" or set of fuckin "values". This is the kind of rhetoric used when you can't come up with a single good reason why you want to impose prejudicial restrictions on a section of society.

They trot out this "marriage should be between a man and a woman" credo yet cherrypick the bits of the ancient text that are comfortable and conveniently ignore the bits that might cause a bit of discomfort.

If there was a referendum to instate stoning to death of all who worked on the Sabbath, as written in the Bible, how many of these "no" camp would be screaming about values being imposed upon them?

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

Comments