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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by IsMiseSean
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/...cle1557500.ece
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sunday Times
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
I imagine he'll wait until the results from his constituency come in and then tell us he voted the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by IsMiseSean
The ultimate fence sitter is our Dev Og.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
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/stat...87521132113924
Further thoughts of mine on the referendum and the disingenuous 'no' campaign in blog form: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com...-the-children/
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I agree. Fair play. Shame them and expose the baloney. She's a victim here; not to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
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.
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
Anyone prepared to call it? I'll guess 60/40 Yes, with my own Kerry North constituency a narrow No.
Seeing as it is way down on the list of priorities of the vast majority and oddly "high" on the list of priorities of the FG/Labour regime, it'll pass. I always feel uneasy when this shower of scum push anything, especially without the regular passage of papers etc, but cannot see what is wrong with it. I personally have lots of questions about the knock on effect, but this doesn't seem to matter. Don't know anyone who will vote no, and if we're so desperate as a nation to be plamas'ed by "the watching world", it'll be 60/40 yes. People are too scared to question it let alone vote against it.
You are a weird dude Spud.
Says who? If people have unanswered questions/reservations, they're entitled to vote 'no'. What questions about the potential knock-on effects do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
There are plenty of people questioning it and being allowed to question it. Isn't the state broadcaster obliged to protect balance? I'm not necessarily saying I have a problem with the notion of media balance - it's important in a democracy - but you might even say that it provides the 'no' side with a disproportionately large voice considering their support is in the distinct minority. You can question the motion here and we can have a thorough discussion on your concerns. Nobody's going to ban you.Quote:
Don't know anyone who will vote no, and if we're so desperate as a nation to be plamas'ed by "the watching world", it'll be 60/40 yes. People are too scared to question it let alone vote against it.
Absolutely. It's why we keep seeing the same no advocates again and again - they're pretty much the only ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I know :-) Russia does that to a man, plus watching and listening and reading too much news! Here the news informs you! :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Danny, people who have reservations or questions are being made feel like they are somehow, don't know, homophobic for one. How many will vote yes and still have their gay jokes or be as ignorant about gay issues as before, or see gay people as inferior? Throwing out the "homophobic" thing is the same as "racist" or here - "western liberal", which I have happily managed to avoid as I see corruption on both sides of the fence.
And there is not a thorough discussion, and this is a problem. People who have strong religious beliefs and believe/feel that homosexuality is inherently wrong or at best misguided, may well be misguided themselves, but they are entitled to hold such beliefs so long as they do not use them to hate others. Yet instead there are all sorts of issues popping up instead of just talking about feelings, which this is largely about. Feelings, beliefs and respecting others.
One issue that bugs me no end, is that certain yes campaigners (one mentioned on here) has a good story, but has been sickening on twitter with her ridiculing anyone who dares raise an issue. Same with our civil rights bodies Apparently it is important to have equality and rights so long as it fits a bandwaggon agenda. For example certain civil rights bodies, dept foreign affairs and certain politicos all cry over a radicalised muslim who happens to be an Irish citizen, yet when a petition of more than a dozen abducted Irish children is presented to the same bodies they say "it's a family matter". Nice.
Gwan, admit it. You'd vote no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
The No side have yet to offer a compelling argument to vote no.
They cite children's rights though it is not covered in the referendum, surrogacy again no legislation in Ireland covers it, adoption again the adoption board state last week that homosexual can adopt and have adopted. The instance for denying a homosexual the right to adopt is only if the birth mother has expressed a wish for the child not to be adopted by a homosexual.
I really thought there would of been an intelligent discussion and debate on it and all I have seen is tit for tat crap. And the no side leading themselves from disaster to disaster.
We live in an age where we do not define people by their race, sexuality or religion. I like to believe that it's the content of someone character.
As far as I am concerned I don't believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it is a choice whether they come out or not of the closet so to speak. So bearing that in mind I don't believe it is right to deny them the opportunity to marry the partner they live and want to spend the rest of their lives with and also the if anything untoward were to happen to either that they would have a right under the constitution as legal next of kin.
It's a private ballot though. I mean, if people want to vote 'no', they can. If people otherwise hostile to homosexuality or people generally ignorant of LGBT issues wish to vote 'yes' and then return to type after their once-off gesture of good will, they're free to do that. They could also just vote 'no' and be consistent about it if they'd prefer. Either way, nobody will be preventing them from voting how they want to vote, whether it be 'yes' or 'no'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
What about using them to specifically deny upstanding others certain rights that are available to most of the population though? Surely you can appreciate why a gay person or advocate for LGBT rights might not be too sympathetic to such an intrusive and unreasonable position.Quote:
And there is not a thorough discussion, and this is a problem. People who have strong religious beliefs and believe/feel that homosexuality is inherently wrong or at best misguided, may well be misguided themselves, but they are entitled to hold such beliefs so long as they do not use them to hate others.
Ordinarily I would, especially with the corrupt shower of scum who are ruining the country further, or at best just abstain. But this time, no, I'd vote yes because I believe that everyone has the right to be married, even polygamy if it's proscribed in their faith (though why would anyone want more than 1 wife is beyond me). I see an equal amount of downsides for Yes and No, however I also live in hope that the mouthy lobby who are screaming everyone down now and making sure we're all equal, continue this and turnover the government. A kind of nouveau Rovers if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
This is the hypocrisy, once off gesture, consistent - we rot from the head down. An inconsistent and immoral government have divided and conquered, and the pressure on how to vote will press on a certain number, though the nonsense from both sides will probably mean these elements cancel each other out.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Sorry Danny, this cuts both ways. And both sides are permitted to have their own feelings and beliefs, it is in finding middle ground, which (largely) neither side of idiots are willing to give. The sneering, bullying attitude of some on the Yes side and their refusal to answer directly (Leo the lizard a case in point) and the inability to tell the truth from members of the No side (to express their feelings and not hide behind spurious arguments) means that there will be no coming together. Sadly we're getting further and further from maturity it's disheartening.
Why would you ordinarily vote 'no' if you believe everyone has the right to be married though? What would be the "ordinary" version of the present situation and why is this extraordinary so that you feel it more appropriate to vote 'yes'? And what do yo feel are the downsides to 'yes' passing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
I just think a 'no' vote on his particular occasion is an inherently unreasonable position; it's supporting a restriction of others' access to certain rights (rights to which most Irish citizens already have access) simply because one might not agree with a private choice an independent stranger wants to make. Where is your reasonable middle ground? The reason the 'no' side cannot express their true feelings and have to rely on disingenuous and spurious arguments is for the very reason that they'd be exposed as distinctly unreasonable and illiberal if they actually had to be honest for a change. Usually people resort to twisted bull**** when they're on shaky ground. Perfect example of it here from David Quinn on Newstalk yesterday: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-31238445.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
What are the downsides for a Yes vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Them gays can kiss and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Like others on here I have not at any point seen the No side raise a single argument that made any sense. Just the same old warnings that the sky will fall if it goes through. Lots of pretence that their views were not based on religion, a mask that fell away completely yesterday when the Iona chair basically spelled it out. I don't share the view that the Yes side was in any way bullying or arrogant. There were some incidents with posters and that egg incident was obviously very wrong, but in general the tone struck me as positive.
I think there is a very unfortunate tendency to use referendums to attack the government of the day rather than taking issues on their merits. Who the government is has nothing to do with an issue like this FFS.
The same fabric of society that they told us would be torn asunder 20 years ago if divorce was realised and again 5 years ago when the Civil Partnership Bill was enacted but is still intact now will be torn asunder this time! Can't you see?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
The #hometovote movement would bring a tear to a glass eye.
Actually they supported divorce, and civil partnership. They only opposed those at the time because of technical deficiencies of the legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Couple of absolute crackers of tweets in it, but my personal favourite that I've seen so far:Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
https://twitter.com/bazlyons/status/601521965929725952
Quote:
A lot of yes voters flying #hometovote but let's not discount the no voters walking across the water.
EDIT:
Just spotted another fantastic one:
Quote:
King of Iona 21 hours ago
Currently worrying that everyone coming #homeToVote could make the country up to 5% more gay.
I really liked this one: https://twitter.com/colmoregan/statu...09013013004288
Quote:
The #hometovote is like when you're watching The Hobbit and an army of elves you'd forgotten from earlier in the film arrive over a hill.