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

YurOK2 wrote: »

I can't get my head around people saying "I was going to vote this way but then the other side were too vocal and annoyed me so I changed my mind". It sounds spiteful.

...or even "scripted"?

thejournal.ie still down. First casualty of the coming apocalypse.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So it's all finally over thankfully. On my own story, I always was in the yes camp but my opinion was quite soft since the proposal didn't effect me or anyone I was close to. Over the course of the campaign I became increasingly disillusioned with the yes side. I found the way they presented their arguments preachy and condescending - particularly the videos of the grannies. While yes had the better arguments, their attitude of shouting down and dismissing the alternative viewpoint, rather than engage and convince the voter lost me. While I was never going to vote no, I had resolved to abstain. I felt I couldn't have my vote claimed by the yes campaign, up until two days ago.

While I still feel the same about the way yes ran their campaign, I did have a rethink about my approach. I opted to vote and vote yes in the end. While it will gall me that yes will think that this is vindication of their approach, I felt the good in the proposal should outweigh my own personal disillusionment with them.

Personally I was always in the Yes camp, since I have gay friends. Even if I didn't know anyone who is gay, I doubt I could find myself agreeing with likes of Quinn, Waters et al.

Just watching the debates (specifically The Late Late Show) exposed the distractions and lies from the No side. Red herrings abounded. Chairman of the Referendum Commission, Judge Kevin Cross (impartial) explained how this referendum was about same-sex marriage and not surrogacy and adoption.

I was reminded of when Obama became president. There was a whole swathe of disgruntled folks who called him every name bar ni**er (Santorum came close). They said he wasn't born in America, he was a communist, he was gay etc. They knew that in this day and age, the 'n' word wouldn't be tolerated (intolerant liberalism*), so they threw every other slur at him.

The No campaign tried to make it about children, but we all know that they can't stand 'queers'. They shudder at the mere mention of the word gay. One No voter told me that all gay men are paedophiles. He wasn't even joking and of course he goes to mass every single week. There's a campaign I cannot get behind.

* Kevin Myers used that term in an article.

silverfeather wrote: »

Marriage is happy!

Are you married?

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I disagree. I think there were people, particularly older generations, who voted no because of a staunch belief in what marriage is and should always be. This feeds homophobia for sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are homophobic. My parents may have voted no (they won't be telling me) and they do not hate gay people. It's lacking empathy (because they didn't put themselves in the shoes of gay people being told they shouldn't have marriage rights; instead they only considered how *they* feel about marriage) but I don't think it's always purely homophobia.

Ah, that's why I said the reason was homophobic, not the person! I don't believe that all the people who voted no dislike or hate gay people. Those beliefs about marriage come from homophobic roots in religion and culture, etc.
I firmly believe that there was no reason to vote no that wasn't rooted in homophobia. I spoke to so many people at their doors and on the streets of Ireland this month and not one reason from a person or the no campaign itself couldn't be traced back to homophobia.

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I'm just going to say it: if you voted no, your reason was homophobic. Not one single no argument wasn't rooted in homophobia. No exceptions.

And if you voted no because the yes side "bullied" you by canvassing more than the no side or "annoyed" you by talking about the referendum too much, you're a spanner. Seriously.

God it feels good to get that out.

The new problem.

K4t wrote: »

Atheist Ireland were complaining about Bibles in the polling stations too. To be honest, even as an anti-theist, it's trivial stuff. A book is a book, it may as well be the hobbit.

I was a bit surprised to one one in my polling station too, though I shouldn't have been. (I remember once having to decline a bible in court when swearing in as a witness ).

Yes, they are works of fiction, but they are also reminders of the oppression that has been brought to bear on our country through the undue power exerted by the RCC here. For balance there should have been a portrait of Oscar Wilde so we could remember the ordeal he had to endure for loving somebody with the love that dare not speak its name.

LordSutch wrote: »

Brothers being allowed to marry their sisters?

Or man and woman, you never know?

I think empathy is the biggest part, I don't think the vast majority of no voters would be homophobic. My parents would be the exact type that would be soft yes voters and may have been swayed to the no side arguments re: children had they not known I was gay.

It's very easy to dehumanise gay people when they are some distant group which you don't have any connection to. Since you don't know them, all you have to judge them by is that one common trait that you do know, which is their orientation. And because that orientation differs from the norm you get a bit defensive and don't like it. But when my parents (for example) look at me, they don't see a gay son. They see the kid they raised who constantly had is head in books, someone whose worked hard through school and college and is generally a good person who hasn't got into trouble. So they see the whole person, and the whole person in front of them is more than fit to be a parent.
I'll be a good parent because I'll raise my child the exact same way they raised me.