QuoteYeah but you're from Donegal, it's pretty much the default position on everything.Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Yes
No
Friend of mine is running this site tracking mentions of the referendum: http://prettynegative.com/
FWIW, I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls suggest - there's a large number of people who always vote, and will vote no - but I think it'll pass
Yeah but you're from Donegal, it's pretty much the default position on everything.
Voting no.
Won't be home to vote and am glad not to be, it's embarassing from a distance to listen to or watch or read both sides. Have seen very, very little No and would have expected more. Some of the Yes side behaviour has been disgusting - the labelling of anyone who is thinking of voting no as backward, sick, anti-gay etc is a very depressing turn and makes me ashamed of some campaigners. I am for full equality on this and believe that everyone should have the right ot be miserable. However some of the hypocrisy on the Yes side is really saddening. When a couple of journos who are trying to be as visible as possible are able to say "Children are better off with their Mother", yet then loudly shout that children need parents no matter what the sex, it makes me very nervous. Likewise some of the politicians mounting the bandwaggon.
One thing I've not seen, on any TV or radio or newspaper, is our minorities - Polish, Lithuanian, Nigerian, Protestant, Muslim. They've all had very little airing and I would love to know what they're thinking. This grouping is one that will make a difference, however I still think it'll be a big yes.
On the other referendum I'd vote No. I don't know why this is on the table at all.
I agree 100% mate. I'm voting Yes because I don't see why not. We have civil partnerships so why not upgrade it to marriage. I sure people have their views to vote No and I respect that. But the whole thing has turned into a 3rd year classroom debate!
GBC, this is exactly it. What I was disappointed most in was the attitude of genuinely intelligent people. Ger Gilroy called people who are voting no "slimy creeps" on the Irishman Abroad podcast. I was fully enjoying it until that point and then had to repeat what I'd heard. I know members of my family (quite religious) who will vote No. They're entitled to their view and why not. But this bullying/ridiculing tone being taken by even the ICCL and Mark Kelly, it's wrong. And if it were any other referendum non-Irish or Irish abroad would be ignored, and castigated for being involved. But this time, once they're for a Yes vote, they're welcomed with open arms. And all the time the country is sold short by a corrupt government. I guess we get what we deserve. The meeja blitz suits the powerbrokers like DOB perfectly!
But.....I'm still in favour of full and equal access to rights to marry.
Last edited by Spudulika; 13/05/2015 at 3:10 PM. Reason: But...
I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling no voters are backward or homophobic at all. I find the idea that somebody would vote against equal marriage rights to be completely abhorrent, and I'd hope a lot of people who do vote that way look back on it in years to come with a great deal of shame.
But the yes side are being accused of bullying, just for pointing that the No side are muddying the waters with things that aren't effected by the referendum. To the extent that the No side has accused officials pointing this out as being involved in a conspiracy. It's a key part of their campaign to try and accuse the yes side of silencing them.
I personally haven't heard a logical argument for voting no - most arguments are either irrelevant to the actual referendum and/or homophobic. And just because the homophobia is based on their religious beliefs, doesn't make it less homophobic.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Miserable as in those who commit to a same-sex marriage are condemning themselves to a life of misery? Surely I'm misreading you?
Can you shed some further light on this, Spud? I'm not sure what you mean or what the hypocrisy is without context.However some of the hypocrisy on the Yes side is really saddening. When a couple of journos who are trying to be as visible as possible are able to say "Children are better off with their Mother", yet then loudly shout that children need parents no matter what the sex, it makes me very nervous.
Have been trying to follow goings-on from across the water here, but obviously not hard enough; I wasn't even aware the other was happening. Personally, I think it should be reduced. Why not? There's no inherent or necessary reason as to why someone in their mid-20s couldn't do as competent a job as president as someone in their mid-30s, is there? It's only right to reduce, surely; under-35s are supposed to be equal and participatory citizens too. Estonia's prime minister, Taavi Rõivas, is presently the youngest leader in Europe having assumed office aged 34. The country hasn't fallen apart, has it?On the other referendum I'd vote No. I don't know why this is on the table at all.
I'd say that at least 90% of what I've heard from the No side is either religious based or plain homophobic.
I'm not sure if this image will work properly on here or will take up too much space, but I'll leave it here anyway: (Maybe some mods might be able to fix, otherwise here's a link: http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws....u0crkEahcg.png)
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
Spot on.
There is a lot of 'Oh, I'm not homophobic, I just don't like the idea of two gay people getting married.'
I think there are a lot of people who have never connected these opinions with homophobia, and are shocked to hear themselves being described like that.
I have not heard a single argument against SSM that didn't have religion or homophobia at its roots.
My old college friend wrote this piece on her Facebook page some time ago and it's now being circulated to a wider audience. I think it's a very good depiction of what a yes vote means to real families http://letsmakehistory.ie/vote-yes-family/
Charlie, if you take such a stance then it's nothing wrong with No voters calling names back. If we are unable to respect the rights of those who don't hold the same views as us, then we do not deserve the right to discuss such matters or be allowed to take part in a democratic society.
Macy, you can disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe. I do not like UFC but I am not a UFC-phobe. I realise this is making light of the matter, but people are allowed to differ our opinions and feel able to do so. They are not demanding laws to outlaw or de-legalise anything, it is their rational human right to feel their own convictions. To denigrate this shows we are not mature enough as a nation for rational debate.
Danny, in picking apart my post you have kind of brought home the lack of perspective being shown in this whole deflection charade. And please don't think I'm disrespecting your question, I just realise that this whole mess is just that, a mess.
The "miserable" piece is a quote/joke taken from a far funnier person than any of us on here. Again, all should have equal access to such rights as marriage, divorce, abortion, access to public facilities and the legal system, equal parenting rights and many more. Though apart from divorce, we are sadly lacking in the rest, especially parenting rights. But we're a single topic nation so what do we do?
Hypocrisy - simple. 2 prominent journalists and one Minister (I can name her as she spoke on it, Frances Fitzgerald) replied to a request on enforcing single (and married) Father's rights that - "Children are better off with their Mother". One journalist added - "Besides, it's a family matter and has no place in public". When Alan Shatter brought up this matter he was slapped down. So hypocrisy, yes, it is alive and well.
For the Presidency, I am certain there are some mid-20 people who could do a good job, however I don't believe so. In one way we should be voting to simply scrap the Presidency, not mess about with the rules. I like what the Seanad can stand for, but President? From a legal point of view the President cannot stop a law or bad government, so what's the point?
http://www.thejournal.ie/navan-girl-...01821-May2015/
Shameful lack of tolerance..
Is it? I would've thought that's the very definition of a homophobe!
If people can't come up with logical, and relevant, arguments they are the ones failing the debate. Not the people pointing it out.
Until the full details come to light, who's to say it wasn't some random yob threw it? Certainly, Yes campaigners condemned the incident almost instantly.
"Yes" side can't win on the "I'm voting "No" but I'm not a homophobe" thing. If they say nothing, it's weak and a surrender and hands momentum and spotlight to "No" side (eg: that debate on Claire Byrne the other night). If they challenge, they get painted as intolerant, disrespectful, aggressive. Meanwhile, "No" campaigners are allowed to say the most outrageous, despicable things about LGBT people - some of them undeniable flat-out lies - and get nowhere near the same amount of scrutiny in regards perceived disrespect of opponents. It's maddening.
I have such little time for this "I have no problem with gay people but..." attitude. Give me a break. Of course you do. You can pretend the objections are all about adoption or surrogacy or every other imagined non-issue, but it all comes back to one thing.
As for the other referendum, I'm firmly of the belief that it is a suicide course for the remainder of the Constitutional Convention recommendations. They won't campaign for it or bother about it, and when it gets beaten out the door it'll be the perfect excuse to ignore everything else that came out of that glorified talking shop.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
The little scrots that egged my car last year must've know I was a yes voter. Bloody intolerant no voting thugs...
What's the difference?
Same-sex marital recognition is already outlawed; they're demanding the maintenance of a status quo that denies others legal rights and recognition based upon those others' sexual orientation. They might as well be demanding laws to outlaw or illegalise something. What's the difference in effect ultimately?They are not demanding laws to outlaw or de-legalise anything, it is their rational human right to feel their own convictions.
It is a rational human right to have convictions, but isn't it unreasonable when such convictions trespass into the private and harmless business of others? If you're going to acknowledge a legal familial relationship between an opposite-sex couple, there's no good reason to deny a same-sex couple that exact same recognition.
I think this George Bernard Shaw line is worth repeating:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Sorry, the joke went over my head; you were joking that marriage itself is a misery rather than seriously suggesting same-sex marriage specifically would be a source of misery for those who commit to it. I see that now and have since better informed myself.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks