Marriage Equality Referendum - how will you vote?

[GypsyBlackCat]

As I said the whole thing is getting childish. Most of us hoped it would be a fair and honest campaign but it's just turned into a slagging match.

My mother and my in-laws are in their mid-60s and are voting No. I find it offensive to call them homophobic, they come from a different generation and back ground. A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong. Some people just hold conservative views an/or their faith is important to them. It's like labeling everyone who votes Sinn Finn a terrorist sympathizer!!!!

Likewise, there is many on the Yes side that hold those views I said above. A lot of them don't want to offend anyone's religious beliefs or moral values and they do respect them. They just want to be treated the same as a hetrosexual couples. It's just a handful of goons who latch themselves on the next 'right on' cause that are making all the noise not the true Yes campaigners.

[Dodge]

My mother and my in-laws are in their mid-60s and are voting No. I find it offensive to call them homophobic, they come from a different generation and back ground. A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong

I don't want to make it personal about your folks but if the only reason someone is voting no is because they somehow fear/distrust/don't want to see gay weddings, then they pretty much are homophobes. You can't say "I've no problem with gay people but I don't think they should be married" and not give a reason.

What other word can you use?

[Charlie Darwin]

Why is it offensive to call them homophobic? I don't understand why people will proudly express homophobic views and then bristle when they're described as such. It might be difficult for them to reconcile their homophobic views with their self-image as fair-minded liberal people, but that's hardly everybody else's problem.

[osarusan]

A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong.
It's only wrong to label them backward or homophobic if their reasons for voting no aren't backward or homophobic.

What are their reasons for voting no?

If they 'come from a different generation and background',and still hold opinions from then, wouldn't 'backward' be an accurate way to describe their thinking?


It might be difficult for them to reconcile their homophobic views with their self-image as fair-minded liberal people, but that's hardly everybody else's problem.

Again, this is exactly what I think. There seems to be an idea that homophobia means spitting at homosexuals or beating them up on the street, but...voting against giving them equality...sure that's nothing.

[GypsyBlackCat]

I don't want to make it personal about your folks but if the only reason someone is voting no is because they somehow fear/distrust/don't want to see gay weddings, then they pretty much are homophobes. You can't say "I've no problem with gay people but I don't think they should be married" and not give a reason.

What other word can you use?

They come from a different generation, a generation that homosexuality wasn't the norm. Most of them don't hate gay people, they don't think that's it's natural. I'm not a Muslim, I don't like the Qu'ran and I don't care to much for it's teachings. I don't hate Muslims or fear them, I just don't accept their religion. Am I an Islamicphobe? A phobia is a hatred or fear of something. The last I checked they weren't going around in gangs and beating up gay people. And why do we need to put words and labels on people?

My point is that people are to busy shouting at the other side rather than engaging with them in civilized debate on the matter.

[GypsyBlackCat]

It's only wrong to label them backward or homophobic if their reasons for voting no aren't backward or homophobic.

What are their reasons for voting no?

If they 'come from a different generation and background',and still hold opinions from then, wouldn't 'backward' be an accurate way to describe their thinking?



Again, this is exactly what I think. There seems to be an idea that homophobia means spitting at homosexuals or beating them up on the street, but...voting against giving them equality...sure that's nothing.

They have nothing against gay people, they don't thinks it's natural. Either way they aren't to pushed if the Yes vote wins. Like most people they don't see the difference between civil partnerships and marriage. They don't fear or dislike gay people, don't agree with same sex marriage but they'll accept it and respect it if the Yes vote wins.

[nigel-harps1954]

Jesus didn't need a father...

Some would say he was the first artificially inseminated baby?

[dahamsta]

I can't find the "M" he is talking about - in my hand.

Check your hairline for three 6's, just to be sure.


Of course, they're entitled to hold opinions too. I'm a fully-grown adult and can handle people expressing negative opinions of me.

Football management or refereeing are not for you then, going out of your way to be offended is a requirement in these industries. You must also threaten football site administrators with unspecified "legal action" on a regular basis. Both are very time-consuming but important parts of the job, particularly for junior league managers, who spend more time at this side of the trade than actual management.

[GypsyBlackCat]

Jesus didn't need a father...

Some would say he was the first artificially inseminated baby?

Ishmael was Abraham's first son born to his handmaiden Hagar with the consent of his wife Sarah. Customs of that time dictated that, although Hagar was the birth mother, any child conceived would belong to Sarah and Abraham.

The first surrogate?:p

[Dodge]

They come from a different generation, a generation that homosexuality wasn't the norm.
It's still a small percentage of the population (and I would guess it hasn't changed at all).


I'm not a Muslim, I don't like the Qu'ran and I don't care to much for it's teachings. I don't hate Muslims or fear them, I just don't accept their religion. Am I an Islamicphobe?
If you don't allow Muslims to marry, then yes you would be. Sounds like you're sectarian too.

[Charlie Darwin]

They have nothing against gay people, they don't thinks it's natural.
Which is blatently homophobic. As osarusan says, you don't need to lock up gays or spit on them in the street to be homophobic.

[DannyInvincible]

My mother and my in-laws are in their mid-60s and are voting No. I find it offensive to call them homophobic, they come from a different generation and back ground. A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong. Some people just hold conservative views an/or their faith is important to them. It's like labeling everyone who votes Sinn Finn a terrorist sympathizer!!!!

That'd be a rather loaded accusation. I have another analogy. I don't bring them up for reasons of whataboutery - I simply think of them as an effective modern Irish (or British!) means of demonstrating the fallacy in your point and simultaneously acknowledge both sides in the north can be as guilty of irrational hate as the other whilst doing so - but the Orange Order are institutionally anti-Catholic and Protestant-supremacist. That's not just me saying that; the likes of judges and respected academics have expressed so on the basis of the Order's explicitly sectarian philosophy. Loyalists shout in defence, "but that's our culture". It might be their culture, but it doesn't make the Order and their triumphalist provocations any less sectarian. Now, I'm not saying your elders intentionally wish hatred upon gay people, but whilst their disapproving views may be based upon traditions from yesteryear - indeed, they'll say, "but that's just my faith/tradition" - it doesn't make the opinions any less insulting to gay people. No matter what their generation or culture, if people haven't thought enough about the opinions they hold, so as to ensure they are circumspect and logical, it's not anyone else's fault.


They come from a different generation, a generation that homosexuality wasn't the norm. Most of them don't hate gay people, they don't think that's it's natural.

But that's just inherently insulting and homophobic. Ignorant, lazy or casually-formed opinions (and we can all be guilty of them considering we're only human), rather than explicit expressions of hatred, can be just as offensive. For gay people (also of nature, like every other human being in existence), being gay feels like and is the most natural thing in the world.


Either way they aren't to pushed if the Yes vote wins.

Clearly that couldn't be true if they intend on voting 'no' with the aim of preventing a win for 'yes'.


Like most people they don't see the difference between civil partnerships and marriage.

They should research the crucial differences (http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html) then before jumping to rash conclusions and making decisions of major significance to other people's lives and business on that basis.

[Macy]

Macy, you can disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe.


No, it is not the very definition.

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

[GypsyBlackCat]

It's still a small percentage of the population (and I would guess it hasn't changed at all).


If you don't allow Muslims to marry, then yes you would be. Sounds like you're sectarian too.

I real hope that last sentence was joke. Not agreeing with someone's religion isn't sectarian. Judging a person solely on their religion is sectarian. I don't judge anyone on their religion, race and sex but by their character.

[GypsyBlackCat]

That'd be a rather loaded accusation. I have another analogy. I don't bring them up for reasons of whataboutery - I simply think of them as an effective modern Irish (or British!) means of demonstrating the fallacy in your point and simultaneously acknowledge both sides in the north can be as guilty of irrational hate as the other whilst doing so - but the Orange Order are institutionally anti-Catholic and Protestant-supremacist. That's not just me saying that; the likes of judges and respected academics have expressed so on the basis of the Order's explicitly sectarian philosophy. Loyalists shout in defence, "but that's our culture". It might be their culture, but it doesn't make the Order and their triumphalist provocations any less sectarian. Now, I'm not saying your elders intentionally wish hatred upon gay people, but whilst their disapproving views may be based upon traditions from yesteryear - indeed, they'll say, "but that's just my faith/tradition" - it doesn't make the opinions any less insulting to gay people. No matter what their generation or culture, if people haven't thought enough about the opinions they hold, so as to ensure they are circumspect and logical, it's not anyone else's fault.



But that's just inherently insulting and homophobic. Ignorant, lazy and casually-formed opinions (and we can all be guilty of that considering we're only human), rather than explicit expressions of hatred, can be just as offensive. For gay people (also of nature, like every other human being in existence), being gay feels like and is the most natural thing in the world.



Clearly that couldn't be true if they intend on voting 'no' with the aim of preventing a win for 'yes'.



They should research the crucial difference then before jumping to rash conclusions and making decisions of major significance to other people's lives and business on that basis.

I agree with a lot you say. I'm just pointing out the faults on both side (badly I might add!!). We seem to quick to lump people into one group. I could have used the line I've heard from the 'No' campaign (or some of them) that you can't be a Christian and gay. That isn't their place to judge. It might go against their faith, but as you said, it might feel natural.

If it was up to me we wouldn't have a referendum as I think the Government should have past the same-sex marriage bill a long time ago. And they should have made it clear that it's civil marriage not religious marriage they are looking to change. In 2015 it isn't hard to have a grown up referendum on the subject. Both sides should have being able to put their points across and debate the subject and let the people decide. Instead it has become a farce!!

End of rant!:p

[Mr A]

The real crux of a lot of the opposition is in my opinion discomfort or even disgust at the idea of two men having sex. I have yet to hear a No side campaigner who doesn't always mention the two man couple first, adding or two women often as an afterthought. In many cases there's almost a weird fixation there.

[osarusan]

two women .

But sure that's niiiiiiiiiiice.

[Dodge]

I real hope that last sentence was joke. Not agreeing with someone's religion isn't sectarian. Judging a person solely on their religion is sectarian. I don't judge anyone on their religion, race and sex but by their character.

You said you don't like a religion. You can call it whatever you like.

Anyway, we're off topic here.

Back to your parents not wanting wanting gays to marry...

[DannyInvincible]

I agree with a lot you say. I'm just pointing out the faults on both side (badly I might add!!). We seem to quick to lump people into one group. I could have used the line I've heard from the 'No' campaign (or some of them) that you can't be a Christian and gay. That isn't their place to judge. It might go against their faith, but as you said, it might feel natural.

Not only feels natural; it is natural.


If it was up to me we wouldn't have a referendum as I think the Government should have past the same-sex marriage bill a long time ago.

Indeed, perhaps it's a cop-out seeing as the Constitution (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article41) doesn't actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thereby possibly already leaving open the possibility of recognising same-sex unions in law. There's the somewhat out-dated mention of the perceived role of woman and mothers in article 41, of course - so some would argue otherwise and, indeed, the judicial interpretation to date seems to view constitutional marriage as being of an opposite-sex nature - but it doesn't exactly say they are essential components of a family (the're just possibilities deemed worthy of explicit protection and, indeed, there's obviously no obligation imposed upon any wife to become a mother so as to be recognised as a part of a family), so I personally see no reason as to why the Constitution's definition of the family can't already include same-sex couples.

[GypsyBlackCat]

You said you don't like a religion. You can call it whatever you like.

Anyway, we're off topic here.

Back to your parents not wanting wanting gays to marry...

I should have said disagreeing with a Islam. Not liking a religion isn't sectarian. If that's the case then all atheists are sectarian and we should lock up Ricky Gervais for making jokes about the Bible?!

[GypsyBlackCat]

Not only feels natural; it is natural.



Indeed, perhaps it's a cop-out seeing as the Constitution (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article41) doesn't actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thereby possibly already leaving open the possibility of recognising same-sex unions in law. There's the somewhat out-dated mention of the perceived role of woman and mothers in article 41, of course - so some would argue otherwise and, indeed, the judicial interpretation to date seems to view constitutional marriage as being of an opposite-sex nature - but it doesn't exactly say they are essential components of a family (the're just possibilities deemed worthy of explicit protection and, indeed, there's obviously no obligation imposed upon any wife to become a mother), so I personally see no reason as to why the Constitution's definition of the family can't already include same-sex couples.

Well said.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you and me think it's natural or not. If it's natural and normal to a individual then it's no one else business!

[Dodge]

I should have said disagreeing with a Islam. Not liking a religion isn't sectarian. If that's the case then all atheists are sectarian and we should lock up Ricky Gervais for making jokes about the Bible?!

He should be locked up for being a ****ing eejit, but "not liking" one religion is quite different to not believing in organised religion.

[SkStu]

Get a life Jews!

[culloty82]

The key question seems to be whether the 18-30s have registered and will vote?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seismic-shift-needed-for-no-side-to-carry-referendum-1.2214674

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'm against the way the yes proponents are forcing their views on others. They were in Penney's the other day handing leaflets to everyone in the shop and badgering customers and employees. People should be given the space to make up their own minds on the issue.

Anyone from the yes side that I've heard speak or debate on the issue has being completely discourteous and arrogant towards the person speaking from the other side.

This, also, rankles me.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Going to vote yes. When it first came out that we were going to vote on this about a year and a half ago my initial reaction was that I would vote no. Though the more I thought about it the more I didn't see any logic in it.
The arguments from the no don't make any sense and they keep bringing up aspects that bear no relevance to the campaign. Also the more I hear them talk the more convinced that I am that yes is the correct decision.
One no campaigner called to my door the other night and literally apart her saying it was unnaturally and they could not procreate without a 3rd party involved. I pointed out that I know many a childless marriages and is their marriage diluted because they don't by choice or by circumstance not have any children. She was speechless and then the "everything needs a father and a mother". I did inform her that I am a single parent, that my 2 year old hasn't seen her mother since she was 6 months. She did look aghast but I told her my preference was to vote yes.

It doesn't wash with me either that people use " different generation " lark. It is unacceptable to call someone a ****** or a yid even more so to think of them as lesser than us and it is certainly unacceptable to deny a couple of the same sex the right to get married

[DannyInvincible]

I'm against the way the yes proponents are forcing their views on others. They were in Penney's the other day handing leaflets to everyone in the shop and badgering customers and employees. People should be given the space to make up their own minds on the issue.

Anyone from the yes side that I've heard speak or debate on the issue has being completely discourteous and arrogant towards the person speaking from the other side.

This, also, rankles me.

Whilst wrong, forcing one's views upon others is not inherent to the 'yes' campaign or vote, however, is it? It's a practical shortcoming and disappointing to see if it occurs (I don't doubt that it does), but the over-riding philosophy behind 'yes' is theoretically one of tolerance (despite the practical intolerance of what you've witnessed) and respect for diversity. In what way were they badgering customers and employess, by the way? Were they actually doing anything more than simply handing out leaflets and making a short statement of support to by-passers?

On the other hand, forcing your views onto other people's personal lives, even when it has no impact upon your life whatsoever, is inherent to the 'no' case; it is essentially what a 'no' vote encompasses as it would directly impinge and enforce discrimination upon a certain section of Irish society and their access to a set of rights available to most if they ever wish to avail of them.

You're surely not voting 'no' because of campaigning methods of the 'yes' side you've witnessed?

I'm not sure your portrayal is entirely accurate anyway, as if it is the only way the 'yes' side have been getting their points across. I watched the debate on the 'Late Late' and another on 'Prime Time' last week; I didn't see anything that out-of-order really from either side. The respective views were expressed respectfully. I'm not in Ireland, granted, so I've not got that sort-of-intuitive or passing feel you get when you are in the country for what's being said around the community, in the local papers, on the radio phone-ins and on the day-to-day news broadcasts.

[NeverFeltBetter]

The only people I've seen peddling the "People should be free to make up their own minds" are "No" supporters. It's the classic response to being an apparent minority, to claim that the other side campaigning and trying to convince voters to their way of thinking is somehow immoral. Everyone is making up their own mind.

[IsMiseSean]

I'm against the way the yes proponents are forcing their views on others. They were in Penney's the other day handing leaflets to everyone in the shop and badgering customers and employees. People should be given the space to make up their own minds on the issue.

That's nonsense...
The same can be said about the No campaign. I've had No leaflets handed to me in Shopping Centres in Galway. Priests/Bishops up & down the country badgered people at masses today to vote No.
The whole point of a campaign is to push your side of the argument.

[DannyInvincible]

An old tutor of mine completely debunks inaccurate claims by an old lecturer (as well as the likes of the Iona Institute and the 'no' camp generally) that the marriage amendment will affect children, surrogacy and religious freedom: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/will-marriage-amendment-affect-children-surrogacy-and-religious-freedom-1.2214358


...

This referendum, if passed, would have two effects. Most obviously, gay people could get married. Related to this, the Oireachtas would no longer be able, solely on the ground that they are of the same sex, to discriminate against gay couples.

Change vs continuity

However, the Oireachtas would retain its power to legislate to protect the best interests of children; and the courts would still have to decide on the basis of each child’s best interests. Such legislation and decisions would be constitutional even if unfavourable to same-sex couples. The Oireachtas would keep the same broad power to regulate or prohibit surrogacy. And freedom of religious conscience – always strongly protected by the courts – would remain unaffected. It is for each voter to decide whether this combination of change and continuity is desirable.

Well worth reading the entire article; he sets out the facts with great clarity. I'm surprised William Binchy, a very highly-esteemed family law professor, amongst other specialisms, has been adding serious academic weight, by virtue of his standing rather than his intellectual contribution, to the most popular and misleading arguments in favour of a 'yes' vote.

I understand that the Minister for Justice and the Chairman of the Referendum Commission have both stated that marriage won't actually be redefined by the passing of the referendum proposal either, which is in line with my own thinking on the matter, but it make you wonder why a referendum and proposed constitutional amendment are necessary at all in order to introduce marital equality when the likelihood is that fully viable and constitutional legislation could be tabled tomorrow to recognise marital rights for same-sex couples if someone wanted to propose it.

[osarusan]

I'm surprised William Binchy, a very highly-esteemed family law professor, amongst other specialisms, has been adding serious academic weight, by virtue of his standing rather than his intellectual contribution, to the most popular and misleading arguments in favour of a 'yes' vote.

Are you surprised? That is exactly what he has been doing for years - at least since his involvement in the constitutional ban abortion in 1983.

[Spudulika]

The first good discussion I heard was on the Marian show this weekend, Jerry Buttimer was brilliant and concise, as was the No campaigner. Both of them spoke politely, clearly and I believe that much of this was down to the polls results from the weekend.

I don't buy the polls that it is close, it should be a landslide for the Yes campaign as just from questioning family and friends, it's 18-5 in favour. And these are folks who always go out and vote.

What is embarassing is the nonsense - "Let's send a signal to the world of how progressive we are." What a load of sh!te. We were plamased with the same "Aren't ye great paying the bank bills." etc. This type of FG/Labour mindless rhetoric is going to turn people away from voting yes! The shrill yes eejits also forget this, that this is politics, and by keeping it local and calm, and relevant, it will pass at a canter. Ursula Halligan's coming out again (all for the cause) showed this as people began thinking different, same with Leo the lizard. But a quality, and really emotional pair were Una Mulally (as much of a mouth as she is) and Jerry Buttimer. Their stories are relevant to all families and if you wouldn't run out and vote yes after hearing/reading them, you'd have a heart of stone.

[Macy]

What is embarassing is the nonsense - "Let's send a signal to the world of how progressive we are." What a load of sh!te. We were plamased with the same "Aren't ye great paying the bank bills." etc. This type of FG/Labour mindless rhetoric is going to turn people away from voting yes!
I don't know how it is effecting voters, but I think I will find it embarrasing as an Irish Citizen, if a majority of the voters vote this one down to be honest. It will show us a backward country, imo. Nothing wrong with this being pointed out, and it's possible effect on our international standing. The world actually is watching!

I do think it will be close - the Yes voters have to get out and vote for starters. It's no good queues of young people to register, if they don't actually vote. The one saving grace of the No campaigns muddying of the waters tactic is that we'll get a fairly quick re-run if it does fall, on the basis of the confusion caused by their misinformation.

[DannyInvincible]

I don't know how it is effecting voters, but I think I will find it embarrasing as an Irish Citizen, if a majority of the voters vote this one down to be honest. It will show us a backward country, imo. Nothing wrong with this being pointed out, and it's possible effect on our international standing. The world actually is watching!

We were one of the first nations to elect an openly gay statesman in Senator David Norris back in 1987 and I believe one of the first, if not the first, to elect female members of parliament and a cabinet minister. Our courts do have a good reputation for generally protecting minority rights, but I do think a 'no' vote would do damage to our reputation across Europe at the very least. Not that fear of shame is why we should be passing this, mind.

[DannyInvincible]

That's nonsense...
The same can be said about the No campaign. I've had No leaflets handed to me in Shopping Centres in Galway. Priests/Bishops up & down the country badgered people at masses today to vote No.
The whole point of a campaign is to push your side of the argument.

Exactly.

And, if there are people over-stepping the mark and trying to push things down people's throats, it's worth acknowledging you'll get idiots on both sides.

See here for just one example of unsavoury behaviour from 'no' voters: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/Sport/article1557500.ece


DONEGAL star Eamon McGee has revealed he received hate mail as a result of his support for a Yes vote in next Friday’s marriage equality referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

The All-Ireland winner, who will anchor down Donegal’s defence today as they face the first challenge to their Ulster title against Tyrone, initially expressed his support for a Yes vote having been invited to a Yes Equality ‘Pledge to Vote’ campaign launch at Letterkenny IT in February.

“There’s been letters to the house with no names on them saying that I’m going to hell and leading the people of Ireland to hell, all this off-the-wall stuff,” says McGee. “Obviously, you’d prefer it didn’t happen but I feel I’m doing the right thing.”

It's important for people to make their decision based upon the arguments and not on the perceived tactics used by some campaigners on a particular side. The latter would be just incredibly petty and idiotic.

[culloty82]

So, John McGuinness will vote No, and it would seem that Eamon O'Cuiv is leaning that way - will FF lurch to the right if there is a shock result, and the by-election is lost?

[Macy]

So, John McGuinness will vote No, and it would seem that Eamon O'Cuiv is leaning that way - will FF lurch to the right if there is a shock result, and the by-election is lost?
Isn't that where their membership base is these days? Old, conservative, Catholic fundamentalist?

[culloty82]

True, but Martin was at least keeping them in the centre, and they won't break out of the 20% bracket by sticking solely with the over-fifties!

[IsMiseSean]

So, John McGuinness will vote No, and it would seem that Eamon O'Cuiv is leaning that way - will FF lurch to the right if there is a shock result, and the by-election is lost?

Has O'Cuiv given any indication on which way he'll be voting? So far he has refused to comment when asked by the Galway Independent & the Journal.

[Charlie Darwin]

Has O'Cuiv given any indication on which way he'll be voting? So far he has refused to comment when asked by the Galway Independent & the Journal.
I imagine he'll wait until the results from his constituency come in and then tell us he voted the same way.

[IsMiseSean]

I imagine he'll wait until the results from his constituency come in and then tell us he voted the same way.

The ultimate fence sitter is our Dev Og.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Anytime I hear or remember "No" voters complaining about intolerance during the campaign, I'm going to think of this tweet: https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/600687521132113924

[DannyInvincible]

Further thoughts of mine on the referendum and the disingenuous 'no' campaign in blog form: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children/

[nigel-harps1954]

Got a good laugh from this video, highlighting just how ridiculous the discrimination can be. Hailo taxis are running free pre-booked services to the polling stations. Fair play to them.

903397949704178

[culloty82]

Also, the USI really seem to have played a blinder with their voter registration drive - the result might be the same in any case, but it could tip the balance in some of the rural constituencies.

[dahamsta]

Anytime I hear or remember "No" voters complaining about intolerance during the campaign, I'm going to think of this tweet: https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/600687521132113924

I don't have a problem with Una, but she knows damned well she's just feeding the trolls with this. It's attention wh*ring.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I think she's absolutely trying to draw attention, and more power to her, considering how the "No" side have managed to create this fantastical perception among many that they are a bullied minority.

[DannyInvincible]

I think she's absolutely trying to draw attention, and more power to her, considering how the "No" side have managed to create this fantastical perception among many that they are a bullied minority.

I agree. Fair play. Shame them and expose the baloney. She's a victim here; not to blame.

[dahamsta]

There's a big difference between saying she's attention whoring and saying she's to blame, I absolutely did not say the latter and your attempt to paint it that way is obnoxious.

And there's a big difference between drawing attention and looking for attention. She hasn't exposed anyone, only an ignorant minority that we're all already aware of. If she had exposed the person responsible, that would be another matter entirely.

These people WANT her to post their bile on the web, it's exactly what they're trying to achieve, and Una is media-savvy enough to know this.

Seriously, you're on Foot.ie, land of the troll. I'm surprised you're unable to recognise one.

[DannyInvincible]

Sincerest apologies, Adam. I should have said "not in the wrong for attention-whoring" rather than relying on a brevity and carelessness that misrepresented your point. Sorry. I was in no way judging you negatively, nor would I suggest you were trying to pin her up as a baddy here/portray her sense of victimisation as invalid. I maybe tried to make my point sound like more of a snappy soundbite than I should have.

I completely see your point, but I say if she wants to "attention-whore" when victimised, let her. Nothing wrong with that. What she was subjected to was wrong; expose it and expose it again, even if many of us are already aware of the shameful nature of it. It's a difficult question; do you try and challenge the bullsh*t, thereby possibly giving the troll oxygen or validation, or do you ignore them and let their ideas fester and potentially influence naive impressionables? Unfortunately, that question causes me greater struggles than it does you. :o