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

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

New account, 8 posts all about the referendum, most of them stating how scared he is of ridicule from the yes side.


Seems legit.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The only risk here was that turnout would be low, and complacency or apathy would let the No side sneak a 51% win.

But turnout is at General Election levels - it'll be a clear 60-40 win for Yes.

222233 wrote: »

Voted! Hoping to see Ireland have moved on from the stone age when the results are in tomorrow!

namloc1980 wrote: »

Stone age? We're the first country in the world to put this question to its citizens. Ireland is trailblazing on this!

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

I would of love to of voted no today because marriage to me is stupidity, but I voted yes, if they want to get married let them, not as if they are trying to get married to me

sup_dude wrote: »

That's what I mean though. In your experience, you found nice No campaigners. In my experience, I found verbally abusive No campaigners. Two tried to physically stop me, and started yelling about how I couldn't be that f-ing busy. Another seen I was wearing a Yes badge on my bag and proceeded to tell me about how I'm going to hell for support the act of Satan and stuff. So there's nice and not nice in both campaigns. To say that the Yes were terrible alone is just seeing what you want to see. I wasn't suggesting you had an agenda at all, I'm just pointing out that your experience isn't necessarily universal.

My name is URL wrote: »

Well hopefully you're right, but I doubt that very much

78% yes?... just don't see that being the case at all

There'll be 10% or less in the difference I'd say.

mk1000 wrote: »

This referendum is ideologically driven, rather than being of practical consequence. The neo-liberal ideology being expressed in the push for this referendum is that of gender-neutrality; the idea that there is no real difference between men and women, or that the differences are merely superficial. A common analogy used by the yes side is equating the disapproval of same-sex marriages with that of mixed-race marriages. This conflation clearly indicates a strong belief that sexual and romantic attraction is person-to-person based, and is not, or at least not exclusively based on gender. I would hold this is not the case; that sexual attraction is indeed based solely on the attraction to and from opposing sexes, feminine seeking masculine and visa versa. A man who is attracted to men is predominantly feminine psychologically although biologically male, and visa versa.

On this basis, one can see how discrimination against same-sex marriage could carry some justification, or is at least not necessarily mere bigotry as is being evidently depicted in the media output throughout this campaign. As marriage is currently defined in the constitution (being between a man and a woman) it is certainly discriminatory. However, discrimination according to the dictionary is twofold in definition; "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." and "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.".

The prevalent myth in modern, western society is that each individual, his/her mind is functioning independently and not inherently connected with and part of a system of constant inter-relations with other minds. It is from this view that certain values are disregarded and others encouraged, namely the importance of upholding and protecting our social institutions, such as marriage.

What really strikes me is the degree to which people proclaim their belief in 'equality'; that everyone must believe that all human beings are equal, all the while the basic activity of humans within society seems to be the unrelenting pursuit of differential advantage. If one person is earning x amount, the next will want y, a greater amount, and will be happy as long as this is so. It's as if the moral ideals we hold are far more advanced than the reality which our actions reflect.

This is not at all an argument for or against passing the referendum, but rather I am trying to convey how the whole charade that has surrounded the campaign for gay marriage is a clear reflection of the ideology of modern society, which in my view is full of contradictions.

mk1000 wrote: »

This referendum is ideologically driven, rather than being of practical consequence. The neo-liberal ideology being expressed in the push for this referendum is that of gender-neutrality; the idea that there is no real difference between men and women, or that the differences are merely superficial. A common analogy used by the yes side is equating the disapproval of same-sex marriages with that of mixed-race marriages. This conflation clearly indicates a strong belief that sexual and romantic attraction is person-to-person based, and is not, or at least not exclusively based on gender. I would hold this is not the case; that sexual attraction is indeed based solely on the attraction to and from opposing sexes, feminine seeking masculine and visa versa. A man who is attracted to men is predominantly feminine psychologically although biologically male, and visa versa.

On this basis, one can see how discrimination against same-sex marriage could carry some justification

or is at least not necessarily mere bigotry as is being evidently depicted in the media output throughout this campaign. As marriage is currently defined in the constitution (being between a man and a woman) it is certainly discriminatory. However, discrimination according to the dictionary is twofold in definition; "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." and "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.".

The prevalent myth in modern, western society is that each individual, his/her mind is functioning independently and not inherently connected with and part of a system of constant inter-relations with other minds. It is from this view that certain values are disregarded and others encouraged, namely the importance of upholding and protecting our social institutions, such as marriage.

What really strikes me is the degree to which people proclaim their belief in 'equality'; that everyone must believe that all human beings are equal, all the while the basic activity of humans within society seems to be the unrelenting pursuit of differential advantage. If one person is earning x amount, the next will want y, a greater amount, and will be happy as long as this is so. It's as if the moral ideals we hold are far more advanced than the reality which our actions reflect.