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

Cold War Kid · 23-05-2015 01:01AM

callaway92 wrote: »

When people say "equality for all" that should mean ages too.

Petty argument but frustrating if you have a clue.

Only if the lack of equality would be due to something they are born with and cannot change. Waiting until later to run for presidency isn't denying you, it's just postponing it.
It's very dishonest the way people are pretending someone would be qualified at 21. They'd be fine about it in relation to any other role, yet somehow an extremely senior civil service position, incorporating being a foreign diplomat - grand for a 21-year-old to run for it.

Lyaiera · 23-05-2015 01:01AM

JamboMac wrote: »

Anybody who voted no is dumb and homophobic.

Everyone I know who voted no is dumb and homophobic.

Ave Sodalis · 23-05-2015 01:02AM

JamboMac wrote: »

Ah the superiority complex of the yes voter nice to see once again.

Anybody who voted no is dumb and homophobic.

That's not what the poster said.

Also, can you answer the other questions please?

osarusan · 23-05-2015 01:02AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then why have any age limit?

18 would be fine with me.

osarusan · 23-05-2015 01:03AM

JamboMac wrote: »

Ah the superiority complex of the yes voter nice to see once again.

Anybody who voted no is dumb and homophobic.

check their posts....rightwing is at best an abstainer...not a yes voter.

MathDebater · 23-05-2015 01:07AM

traprunner wrote: »

I agree but the age can only change through referendum but I have a feeling it will pass. But then why discriminate against 18-21year olds? 18 is old enough to vote...

I voted yes twice but I doubt that the reducing the presedential age referendum will pass. The electorate aren't fools and a young candidate would have to be very impressive indeed to get elected. But they should be afforded the opportunity to run if they so wish.

Iwasfrozen · 23-05-2015 01:09AM

osarusan wrote: »

18 would be fine with me.

Then we're just arguing what the age limit should be.

I can't see anyone under 35 being elected anyway so it really doesn't matter.

Rightwing · 23-05-2015 01:09AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Everyone I know who voted no is dumb and homophobic.

That's blown up out of all proportion. I'd say that it applies to less than 1% of the population.

As for the dumb, it would depend on the yardstick, but the majority of the population would certainly fall into this category.

efb · 23-05-2015 01:10AM

I wonder when Keith Mills and Paddy Manning will realise they changed the locks at Iona Towers...

MathDebater · 23-05-2015 01:11AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Waiting until later to run for presidency isn't denying you, it's just postponing it.

Life doesn't work that way. If someone under the age of 34 feels that this is the best time for them to run for the presidency, then they should be allowed to throw their hat in the ring.

It's very dishonest the way people are pretending someone would be qualified at 21. They'd be fine about it in relation to any other role, yet somehow an extremely senior civil service position, incorporating being a foreign diplomat - grand for a 21-year-old to run for it.

What about someone in their late twenties, early to mid thirties?

Ave Sodalis · 23-05-2015 01:11AM

MathDebater wrote: »

I voted yes twice but I doubt that the reducing the presedential age referendum will pass. The electorate aren't fools and a young candidate would have to be very impressive indeed to get elected. But they should be afforded the opportunity to run if they so wish.

A little OT but it kinda reminds me a small bit of the No side for this referendum who don't agree with the thought of gay people. I think people are expecting a whole host of 21 year olds running for president, forgetting that they have a choice in who they vote in and that they're also excluding older people. Obviously not the exact same but there is a small parallel there, with some No voters on the SSM referendum expecting there to be gay marriages left, right and centre, forgetting that it's just leaving the choice there in case it can/wants to be used.

JamboMac · 23-05-2015 01:12AM

sup_dude wrote: »

That's not what the poster said.

Also, can you answer the other questions please?

I answered it, you obviously see no credence with it so I'm not going go around in circles.

Paramite Pie · 23-05-2015 01:13AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

On twitter, it's saying Donegal may have voted Yes.

Please let it be true and we can close those 'rural ireland blah blah blah' threads.

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.

I disagree. I heard some people say that gay movement started as a counter-culture movement and should have tried to propose something new or even break down marriage altogether (a bit out there!). Others would be fine with Civil Partnership extended to include the differences and enshrined in the constitution, although that is really just refusing to call a spade a spade.

And a lot of people have their hearts in the right place but just are coming from a very different mindset to ours. I'm gay and I've met plenty 'o homophobes, including ones who didn't realise it. I know which No voters are and aren't 'phobes when I speak to them.

Lyaiera · 23-05-2015 01:13AM

Rightwing wrote: »

That's blown up out of all proportion. I'd say that it applies to less than 1% of the population.

As for the dumb, it would depend on the yardstick, but the majority of the population would certainly fall into this category.

What? I know they're homophobic because they said, "I'm a homophobe and proud of it." And that informs me that they are incredibly dumb.

I don't know how you can argue with that.

wakka12 · 23-05-2015 01:14AM

Nervous about the results tbh..gonna be a long wait until 5pm tomorrow

After going into town though and seeing literally hundreds of people with yes badges and stickers on and lgbt flags and yes signs on every second building in the city centre I feel like it'll be a yes now.But only marginally, I bet my friend it'd be a 52% yes vote .

Ave Sodalis · 23-05-2015 01:14AM

JamboMac wrote: »

I answered it, you obviously see no credence with it so I'm not going go around in circles.

No, the question about how this relates to the grey area you see in the referendum that the Yes side are supposedly ignoring.

Rightwing · 23-05-2015 01:15AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

What? I know they're homophobic because they said, "I'm a homophobe and proud of it." And that informs me that they are incredibly dumb.

I don't know how you can argue with that.

Nothing more than a dumb wind-up. Said individuals wouldn't know if they were anti gay or not.

JamboMac · 23-05-2015 01:16AM

sup_dude wrote: »

No, the question about how this relates to the grey area you see in the referendum that the Yes side are supposedly ignoring.

If you can't make sense of it with highly educated brain then I'm not gonna explain it to you.

Lyaiera · 23-05-2015 01:18AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Nothing more than a dumb wind-up. Said individuals wouldn't know if they were anti gay or not.

Do you really think there aren't people out there who are proud of being homophobic?

traprunner · 23-05-2015 01:18AM

JamboMac wrote: »

If you can't make sense of it with highly educated brain then I'm not gonna explain it to you.

Don't blame the receiver. It is the senders job to ensure that the receiver will be able to understand the message.

Lyaiera · 23-05-2015 01:19AM

traprunner wrote: »

Don't blame the receiver. It is the senders job to ensure that the receiver will be able to understand the message.

Not at university level.

Wulfie · 23-05-2015 01:20AM

This whole vote was designed to split families, friends and the people who were baying for blueshirt blood early on in the year.
Women seem to think, if a man wants to take it up the arse and make a legal contract to keep taking and giving,that's lovely. A binding contract for anal servitude.
The presidential thing was to split the age gap.
A lad at work thought ,if he didn't vote ,it would be counted as a no vote. True.
The gays and sympathisers will have turned out in droves. I forgot to vote on my way home from work and got in there at 9.50.
I know my vote won't count for much,because I took the unpopular viewpoint.
I got a chanceto put my view to Simon Covney today at work. He then seemed to try and convince me to vote yes.
Anyway I spoke to him and his gorgeous redhead guide/security,for the best part of 10 minutes.
Better than silently fuming over this bulls hit nonsense.

Cold War Kid · 23-05-2015 01:20AM

MathDebater wrote: »

Life doesn't work that way. If someone under the age of 34 feels that this is the best time for them to run for the presidency, then they should be allowed to throw their hat in the ring.

What about someone in their late twenties, early to mid thirties?

Yeh that would be more realistic than 21. I know people are just saying to give 21-year-olds the option to run, and it doesn't mean the next president will therefore have to be 21, but I don't think that's cause for me to vote yes still though, as I think it's simply too young.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 01:20AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Not at university level.

That was a quick progression through primary school :eek:

Wulfie · 23-05-2015 01:21AM

This whole vote was designed to split families, friends and the people who were baying for blueshirt blood early on in the year.
Women seem to think, if a man wants to take it up the arse and make a legal contract to keep taking and giving,that's lovely. A binding contract for anal servitude.
The presidential thing was to split the age gap.
A lad at work thought ,if he didn't vote ,it would be counted as a no vote. True.
The gays and sympathisers will have turned out in droves. I forgot to vote on my way home from work and got in there at 9.50.
I know my vote won't count for much,because I took the unpopular viewpoint.
I got a chanceto put my view to Simon Covney today at work. He then seemed to try and convince me to vote yes.
Anyway I spoke to him and his gorgeous redhead guide/security,for the best part of 10 minutes.
Better than silently fuming over this bulls hit nonsense.

DaisyDLady · 23-05-2015 01:21AM

traprunner wrote: »

Don't blame the receiver. It is the senders job to ensure that the receiver will be able to understand the message.

No , Its the responsibility of Irish Citizens to care enough about there country, to go educate themselves and make informed decisions.

Ave Sodalis · 23-05-2015 01:21AM

JamboMac wrote: »

If you can't make sense of it with highly educated brain then I'm not gonna explain it to you.

Actually, I understand it perfectly. The answer is that it doesn't. It doesn't relate to it at all because the referendum has absolutely no baring on it, something which you practically admit yourself. So why on earth would people discuss something that has nothing to do with the topic? The referendum is more black and white than you think, if you're going to bring irrelevant topics into this "grey area"

traprunner · 23-05-2015 01:23AM

DaisyDLady wrote: »

No , Its the responsibility of Irish Citizens to care enough about there country, to go educate themselves and make informed decisions.

Hmmm...if you read over the posts you will see that you are agreeing with me. Although somehow are targeting it at the wrong person.

Rightwing · 23-05-2015 01:24AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Do you really think there aren't people out there who are proud of being homophobic?

A small minority are probably homophobic, whatever that even means at this stage.

The people you are thinking of, won't be homophobic after this election, they'll be against foreigners or whatever is in the next topical conversation.

Lyaiera · 23-05-2015 01:24AM

Rightwing wrote: »

A small minority are probably homophobic, whatever that even means at this stage.

The people you are thinking of, won't be homophobic after this election, they'll be against foreigners or whatever is in the next topical conversation.

You mean the person I know. Not the people I am thinking of.

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

Comments