How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

marienbad · 15-02-2015 10:56pm

Zen65 wrote: »

It seems to me there's pages of point-scoring between members on the 'yes' side now in this thread. That's a pity. The issue of gaining public support for SSM would, on the face of it, appear to be a matter of much greater importance than nit-picking over the small stuff.

Winning the 'yes' vote is not going to be achieved by simply making a very good argument in favour of it. Having people nod and say 'oh yes, I agree' is too easy, and achieves nothing. What is needed is to mobilise the people who believe that SSM is a right to get up and vote on Referendum day.

Logic rarely motivates people. There has never been a charismatic leader who led the people with compelling logic. (Since this is AH let me use 'Star Trek' as a comparison to point out that Spock would not have led the Enterprise as successfully as Capt Kirk, as he simply could not establish rapport with people). Our common goal is to gain emotional buy-in and empathy from the majority for the plight of the minority. Only then will the laws be changed.

Every PR company who advertised a product used imagery to sell an idea, an emotion to prospective clients. Beauty products do not use ugly people to advertise their goods.

In the simplest of terms, this Referendum is a campaign; it is a call for people to vote for a change in law which, for the majority, will give them no benefit whatsoever. If 'yes' advocates want to mobilise that army of voters then it is important to keep those voters emotionally engaged, and that means thinking like a PR company.

We all know that there is a crisis in homelessness, but the numbers of people helping to solve that is very low. The truth is that we are more likely to help people if they look like us and dress like us, as this video experiment demonstrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPjUyVtTQw

Maintaining an emotional connection with the voter is not 'lying', it is simply highlighting the commonality that really exists between the majority of heterosexual people and the majority of homosexual people. While the greater goal is to gain the help of the majority to establish the rights of the minority, exploiting the important commonality in the human condition is more helpful than finding differences.

That is all very fine and dandy if you have the unlimited resources of a cosmetics corporation. But if you have finite resources then it is a different ballgame.

The yes side do have finite resources - so the question is where are they better spent . On pandering to a percentage of the population that may vote yes but are unlikely to do so. And opening yourself to the accusation of lying and insincerity and thus pissing off another segment of the population.

Or as we already have a large majority in our favour ensuring that we protect that majority and most of all getting them out to vote .

Concentrate on the arguments ,stay calm, and get our vote out . We do that and keep those poll numbers up and we win the day.

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 10:57pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Having a perfect poster picture isn't showing a commonality in my view.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying PR companies don't use ugly people, they use people that we believe are more like ourselves (which, paradoxically, is why they actually use people who are more attractive than the average punter).

WoolyJumper · 15-02-2015 10:57pm

Walshyn, to an extent I kind of understand what you are saying. But you fail to understand how much of a human issue this is. We are talking about real peoples lives. It's an incredibly emotive and personal issue. There is a lot of symbolism around passing of this referendum. It's about acceptance, equality, fairness. Getting a majority yes vote would send a clear message to lgb people in Ireland about how our society values us.

I don't think you appreciate how much on a day to day basis gay people have to "check themselves" as Panti put it. It's tiresome, its maddening sometimes. Everytime you meet someone new, it's a coming out experience. And still find coming out awkward and difficult. So I dont think you appreciate how offensive it is to say if you want to win the referendum you need to act a certain way, fit in more, hide aspects of yourself. Gay people are tired of that and its part of the overall problem.

Your correct that if all gay people acted a certain way we would win this much easier. But it's not reality, we don't all fit a certain description. It's not really sending anyone the right message to say you must behave in a certain way if you want to earn the right to marry.

Ave Sodalis · 15-02-2015 10:58pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Isn't it just swell then that due to your inability to comprehend quite simple analyses of human nature your opinion on the matter is of limited value.

It's actually through a bigger understanding of human nature that I found the problem in the first place.

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 10:59pm

marienbad wrote: »

Concentrate on the arguments ,stay calm, and get our vote out . We do that and keep those poll numbers up and we win the day.

+1 to this

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 10:59pm

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Walshyn, to an extent I kind of understand what you are saying. But you fail to understand how much of a human issue this is. We are talking about real peoples lives. It's an incredibly emotive and personal issue. There is a lot of symbolism around passing of this referendum. It's about acceptance, equality, fairness. Getting a majority yes vote would send a clear message to lgb people in Ireland about how our society values us.

I don't think you appreciate how much on a day to day basis gay people have to "check themselves" as Panti put it. It's tiresome, its maddening sometimes. Everytime you meet someone new, it's a coming out experience. And still find coming out awkward and difficult. So I dont think you appreciate how offensive it is to say if you want to win the referendum you need to act a certain way, fit in more, hide aspects of yourself. Gay people are tired of that and its part of the overall problem.

Your correct that if all gay people acted a certain way we would win this much easier. But it's not reality, we don't all fit a certain description. It's not really sending anyone the right message to say you must behave in a certain way if you want to earn the right to marry.

So you agree with me, it's just that my view is offensive.

So you agree with me.

Bannasidhe · 15-02-2015 11:00pm

K4t wrote: »

Some interesting points. Thank you. I guess my point is that I still don't view you any differently under the law as a human being, even if the law does right now. And I guess walshy93's view is that people don't really have any interest in your culture or want to know about it, and that shoving it in their faces might hurt your campaign in a country like Ireland, where beneath the surface there are several sinister layers. This is of course about gay rights, but imo, the campaign would strengthen even more if people saw gays as simply themselves, and understood that this is a vote for equal rights, it is a vote for everyone's rights. And the only vote to guarantee that is YES.

That is a part of it, sure, but to say it is solely about that is to do the gay community and the people of Ireland a disservice. And imo that kind of attitude will not strengthen your campaign. Making it a solely gay issue could if anything encourage YES voters to stay at home, to leave it to the gays, or unfortunately to be put off by actively going out of their way to support what they see simply as gay rights, and not equal rights.

That highlighted bit - 'shoving it in their faces' - I don't think you realise how unbelievably offensive that is.

I have straight culture 'shoved in my face' everyday of my life.
50 years of straight, white, Irish, Catholic culture. Shoved. in. my. face.

But ohh poor pookies might be afeard of the not straight, not white, not Irish, not Catholics shoving their cultures in people's faces. Seriously - Ireland needs more diversity shoved in it's face, not less.

No tolerance of diversity brought us the Laundries, the Industrial Schools, and all the horrors of the past - but we, who were excluded for so long, should now subdue that very culture that gave us strength and a place to belong because the 'straights' don't like it (oh, they like it well enough when it's George Michael or Freddie Mercury or Graham Norton or Ellen deGeneres or Paul O'Grady or Larry Greyson or Frankie Howerd but heavens forfend it's 'shoved in their faces' when they are buying their Alexander McQueen knockoffs in a Mary Portes boutique or contemplating buying a faux Eileen Grey chair to put under their framed Warhol print)

I hear what every woman wants constantly from the radio and TV - guess what - I never ever wanted any of those things. Am I less of a woman because I don't want xxx make-up or xxx shoes or xxxx ohmergaawd to catch the bouquet?

Is it make up and hairdos and dresses and waxed bits that decide who is a 'real' woman? Is female identity so shallow?

Is a queen less of a man than Paul O Connell because he isn't built like a brick S'ithouse?

Let me tell you - it takes real courage and strength of character to be a feminine man mincing down Dame Street. It takes a real man to sashy through Dublin in size 13 heels, a beehive hairdo and a full evening dress. A man who isn't cowered into conforming to other's expectations.

Are we being offered our rights as long as we abandon our culture?

Must we pretend it doesn't exist?

That we are really just straight with a kink?

No.

We're here.
we're Queer.

Get used to it.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 11:00pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because you're emotionally invested in the debate to the point where you can't climb down even the slightest bit or else you'll lose a whole whack of self-respect.

This from the guy who snapped and called someone a disingenuous twat earlier for something they didn't say.

Ave Sodalis · 15-02-2015 11:02pm

Zen65 wrote: »

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying PR companies don't use ugly people, they use people that we believe are more like ourselves (which, paradoxically, is why they actually use people who are more attractive than the average punter).

But you also have to bare in mind that there will be a lot of young people that aren't entirely comfortable with their sexuality just yet during this time. I mean, yeah, it's a political debate but like I said, there needs to be a balance during it because this is also can have very negative consequences on the people who the referendum is trying to promote. The way I see it is that walshyn's posts don't have that balance and the no side will be doing enough damage.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:02pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

This from the guy who snapped and called someone a disingenuous twat earlier for something they didn't say.

I called him a disingenuous twat for being disingenuous, which is a common trait of the twat.

Am I being counselled in restraint by the resident attack dog?

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 11:04pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

I called him a disingenuous twat for being disingenuous, which is a common trait of the twat.

Am I being counselled in restraint by the resident attack dog?

I amn't advising restraint, you are. Whilst losing your **** left right and centre.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:04pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That highlighted bit - 'shoving it in their faces' - I don't think you realise how unbelievably offensive that is.

I have straight culture 'shoved in my face' everyday of my life.
50 years of straight, white, Irish, Catholic culture. Shoved. in. my. face.

But ohh poor pookies might be afeard of the not straight, not white, not Irish, not Catholics shoving their cultures in people's faces. Seriously - Ireland needs more diversity shoved in it's face, not less.

No tolerance of diversity brought us the Laundries, the Industrial Schools, and all the horrors of the past - but we, who were excluded for so long, should now subdue that very culture that gave us strength and a place to belong because the 'straights' don't like it (oh, they like it well enough when it's George Michael or Freddie Mercury or Graham Norton or Ellen deGeneres or Paul O'Grady or Larry Greyson or Frankie Howerd but heavens forfend it's 'shoved in their faces' when they are buying their Alexander McQueen knockoffs in a Mary Portes boutique or contemplating buying a faux Eileen Grey chair to put under their framed Warhol print)

I hear what every woman wants constantly from the radio and TV - guess what - I never ever wanted any of those things. Am I less of a woman because I don't want xxx make-up or xxx shoes or xxxx ohmergaawd to catch the bouquet?

Is it make up and hairdos and dresses and waxed bits that decide who is a 'real' woman? Is female identity so shallow?

Is a queen less of a man than Paul O Connell because he isn't built like a brick S'ithouse?

Let me tell you - it takes real courage and strength of character to be a feminine man mincing down Dame Street. It takes a real man to sashy through Dublin in size 13 heels, a beehive hairdo and a full evening dress. A man who isn't cowered into conforming to other's expectations.

Are we being offered our rights as long as we abandon our culture?

Must we pretend it doesn't exist?

That we are really just straight with a kink?

No.

We're here.
we're Queer.

Get used to it.

RAAAAAWWWWWWWRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:05pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

I amn't advising restraint, you are. Whilst losing your **** left right and centre.

I'm not advising restraint. I know that's not possible for you. I'm just pointing out that you're emotionally invested in this debate and its getting in the way of your already diminished capacity for reason.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 11:12pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm not advising restraint. I know that's not possible for you. I'm just pointing out that you're emotionally invested in this debate and its getting in the way of your already diminished capacity for reason.

You are the one responding to whole paragraphs of posters discussing their views on the topic with rawr.

Tell you what, I'll stop pointing out what a hypocrite you are, and you can tell us about your grand point again.

Tell me about the yes side putting on a good face, try not to freak out and call anyone a twat.

WoolyJumper · 15-02-2015 11:12pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

So you agree with me, it's just that my view is offensive.

So you agree with me.

Yeah I agree, I just don't think it's right, nor do i feel its the right way to win.

What's with snarky reply though? I wasn't rude to you.

Ave Sodalis · 15-02-2015 11:15pm

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Yeah I agree, I just don't think it's right, nor do i feel its the right way to win.

What's with snarky reply though? I wasn't rude to you.

The poster has been doing that to everyone. I've tried to get them to explain what I see as a pretty big flaw in their argument but was constantly met with those sorts of replies until the last one there where they called me an idiot (to put it nicely) for not fully agreeing with them.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:17pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

You are the one responding to whole paragraphs of posters discussing their views on the topic with rawr.

Tell you what, I'll stop pointing out what a hypocrite you are, and you can tell us about your grand point again.

Tell me about the yes side putting on a good face, try not to freak out and call anyone a twat.

If you don't understand, you won't understand.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:18pm

sup_dude wrote: »

The poster has been doing that to everyone. I've tried to get them to explain what I see as a pretty big flaw in their argument but was constantly met with those sorts of replies until the last one there where they called me an idiot (to put it nicely) for not fully agreeing with them.

I'm sorry sweetie. There's no such thing as a stupid question.

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 11:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously - Ireland needs more diversity shoved in it's face, not less.

Brilliant post, Bannasidhe.

I agree with the points you make, but worry that those points are really separate from the issue of the referendum on SSM. Yes, Ireland (and most of the world) has very backward views about many aspects of humanity, these being mostly a product of our catholic ancestry. Those views are changing though, as the influence of the churches has declined greatly and we get more exposure to wider cultures. There is a great deal to be gained from diversity, but shoving diversity into the faces of the Irish is far less effective than simply allowing diverse cultures to integrate into the Irish cultures peacefully.

If we want same-sex relations to be seen on a fully equal footing we must firstly remove the prohibition on marriage. This will not solve all of those issues that you describe so powerfully in your post, but it will be another step towards integration and understanding, and that has to be good. There is no panacea for the plight of minorities whether be they cultural, linguistic, religious, sexual or racial minorities. We can encourage people to move forward at the pace they can manage.

If you're old enough to remember Larry Grayson then you've already seen a lot of change

Ave Sodalis · 15-02-2015 11:19pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm sorry sweetie. There's no such thing as a stupid question.

My questions were very valid and were made after a considerable amount of thought on your posts.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:19pm

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Yeah I agree, I just don't think it's right, nor do i feel its the right way to win.

What's with snarky reply though? I wasn't rude to you.

All that matters is that the argument is solid. Whether it's 'right' (subjective) or not is irrelevant to me.

I wasn't being snarky, mate.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:20pm

sup_dude wrote: »

My questions were very valid and were made after a considerable amount of thought on your posts.

Nah.

Ave Sodalis · 15-02-2015 11:22pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

All that matters is that the argument is solid. Whether it's 'right' (subjective) or not is irrelevant to me.

What you're suggesting will probably work, nobody is disputing that. What people are disputing is its methods. Holding people at gun point and demanding they vote yes would also probably work. The cost to the gay community however, for your approach, is too high to be considered a valid Yes approach.

Lyaiera · 15-02-2015 11:25pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

All that matters is that the argument is solid. Whether it's 'right' (subjective) or not is irrelevant to me.

I wasn't being snarky, mate.

The amount the Yes side win by is irrelevant, once the Yes vote is the majority. People in favour of a Yes vote will be more motivated to actually go out and vote if they feel the campaign is a true campaign for equality, and honest. To be an honest campaign the campaign must reflect the true diversity of LGB people. The people who support equal marriage will be enthused by this and more likely to vote. The no voters and don't know voters are irrelevant.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:27pm

sup_dude wrote: »

What you're suggesting will probably work, nobody is disputing that. What people are disputing is its methods. Holding people at gun point and demanding they vote yes would also probably work. The cost to the gay community however, for your approach, is too high to be considered a valid Yes approach.

I would argue that the costs incurred over the next 3 months is negligible in comparison to the gains that can be made after the referendum is successful.

B_Wayne · 15-02-2015 11:27pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

RAAAAAWWWWWWWRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Think you've showed up your own ability to debate throughout this topic. Well explained post and you respond with that. Gay people that conform to a certain specific bizarro standard is what you want and I think it'd be a terribly dishonest and insulting thing to do.

Ave Sodalis · 15-02-2015 11:28pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

I would argue that the costs incurred over the next 3 months is negligible in comparison to the gains that can be made after the referendum is successful.

Except the biggest threat to the Yes side is people not bothering to vote, not that there isn't enough people who agree with it and there's a need to change people's minds.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:29pm

Lyaiera wrote: »

The amount the Yes side win by is irrelevant, once the Yes vote is the majority. People in favour of a Yes vote will be more motivated to actually go out and vote if they feel the campaign is a true campaign for equality, and honest. To be an honest campaign the campaign must reflect the true diversity of LGB people. The people who support equal marriage will be enthused by this and more likely to vote. The no voters and don't know voters are irrelevant.

I don't think that would be the average person's version of an honest campaign.

WoolyJumper · 15-02-2015 11:31pm

sup_dude wrote: »

What you're suggesting will probably work, nobody is disputing that. What people are disputing is its methods. Holding people at gun point and demanding they vote yes would also probably work. The cost to the gay community however, for your approach, is too high to be considered a valid Yes approach.

Unfortunately this whole voting on gay marriage is damaging to gay people and many families outside traditional marriage. All these debates and peoples opinions on your life are hard to listen too. And i'm fine with who I am. I can't image how difficult the next few months will be for more vulnerable LGBT people.

The stuff people are coming out with is not only offensive to gay people but any family and any child that is out side normal, man woman marriage. Let's hope it won't be all for nothing.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 11:31pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Except the biggest threat to the Yes side is people not bothering to vote, not that there isn't enough people who agree with it and there's a need to change people's minds.

Yeah, that's why making gay people out to be just like straight people will be a deciding factor in whether people decide to take the time to vote. If they feel they've nothing in common they may not summon the motivation.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments