Yes
No
A Dublin taxi driver has his say on Australian ABC News. (This is fantastic!)
https://twitter.com/Duff_Nasty/statu...34040832581632
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
One thing I've noticed on Facebook is that almost all my friends, most of whom wouldn't be any degree political, have either simply highlighted that they have voted, or made personal comments to mark the occasion. It certainly seems to have struck a note for anyone under 40, so will be interesting to note the reactions tomorrow morning.
If we have any gays in the foot.ie village, good luck today, I hope this passes.
Should clarify the voting part. If it were any other topic I would vote No or refrain, because of the corruption that grows like cancer in the Irish government. I hope that's clear.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
As for a no vote being "inherently unreasonable", that is your opinion and nobody has a right to deny you that. All else, you can explain it to others who a) want to vote no, or b) who "need education".
Agree about resorting to spurious nonsense, both sides are guilty of this in varying degrees. I believe that it should be discussed in a proper manner with middle groudn sought, not ultimate victory. This is where we reduce ourselves to the level of well, god knows what.
Osarusan, what are the downsides for a No vote? When politicians and campaigners, from both sides, refuse to answer simple questions or go more and more shrill just to gain a moral higher ground, it destroys any good that can be gained. Equal downsides for both is that it will create further division and no matter what the result, there will be losers. The winners will not be those who should be cared for, but the scum in government who have further divided and conquered. Not a conspiracy, just a fact.
On the home to vote, shows just where we are in terms of mature nation. When there is a major reason to protest injustice and ongoing corruption and fleecing the citizens of the state, nothing. But this. Glorious!
Hope this passes so that the great and the good can tell us how wonderful we are and the next reason to "debate" is opened by the FG/Lab regime - or at least until after the Championship!
Last edited by Spudulika; 22/05/2015 at 3:56 PM. Reason: spelling
My own contribution to the #hometovote movement: https://twitter.com/tetsujin1979/sta...71114352738306
I do so love a good meme
It's a case of either/or though. One side seeks the option for recognition whilst the other side seeks to refuse the provision of such an option. Where can a middle ground be found in that?
I think this probably articulates some of the misgivings you have: http://www.judecollins.com/2015/05/t...-a-referendum/On the home to vote, shows just where we are in terms of mature nation. When there is a major reason to protest injustice and ongoing corruption and fleecing the citizens of the state, nothing. But this. Glorious!
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 22/05/2015 at 6:55 PM.
I think we are talking about different 'they's.
The Catholic church didn't support divorce, certainly. Bishop Flynn made some shameful threats. William Binchy scaremongered endlessly.
Here's one: that same sex couples are told that a majority of the voting public decided, for whatever reasons*, that giving them the right to civil marriage and the constitutional protection it provides was not something compelling enough to vote yes.
I can't even begin to imagine how painful that could be, and I can't think of any downside for a yes vote that comes remotely close to it.
*reasons: homophobia, the inability to understand that this referendum isn't about children, adoption or surrogacy, the idea that it is a legitimate response to perceived negative campaigning by the Yes side, and (the one that deserves a special place in hell) spiting the government.
Last edited by osarusan; 22/05/2015 at 7:37 PM.
Danny, interesting link, thanks! And for the middle ground, there was never a chance as it was never allowed. The whole procedure of bringing this to a vote was made in such a way that it was going to cause a sh!tstorm, plus the DOB and compliant FG meeja went to town getting people at each others throats. I really believe that Putin is learning from our headers, oh wait, actually one of the PR companies who advised/are advising FG actually advise the Kremlin. However these companies are typically international (like KPMG etc) so it's moot.
Osarusan, when "homophobic" is thrown into the mix, it becomes ridiculous. Especially when it is used to bully, insult and stigmatise, and very often in this case unfairly. It is the same as the "pro-choice/pro-abortion, anti-choice/pro-life". You of all people, as a purveyor of English as a 2nd language, would know the power of words, and this is huge. And saying that one side deserves a place in hell? Come on, this is the time of absolutism that destroys any chance of discussion and coming to an understanding.
Are you suggesting that I use the word carelessly? Plenty of people have been quite open about their homophobic reasons for voting no.And there are plenty of others whose homophobia is transparent to everybody but them ("I've nothing against gays, but i don't think they should be allowed to marry"), yet who will waffle on about being bullied or intimidated when they are called on their homophobia.
As a purveyor of English as a second language, I know a strawman when I see one, and I just saw one. Nowhere did I say one side deserves a place in hell, and there is no way you could have interpreted it as such.You of all people, as a purveyor of English as a 2nd language, would know the power of words, and this is huge. And saying that one side deserves a place in hell?
I said one reason deserves a special place in hell. The reason being something along the lines of: 'I've actually no problem with gay people marrying but the government are a shower of wankers so I'm voting no.' That, in my opinion, is extraordinarily stupid.
Last edited by osarusan; 22/05/2015 at 9:05 PM.
Crazy good turnout by all indications. No proper exit poll (don't know why) but you have to say it's looking good for "Yes".
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Spud who in this world would be pro abortion. Pro choice yes but I doubt they would be pro abortion. Pro abortion what is that. A demand for every woman to able their child.
Apparently Ireland will run dry off prosciutto tomorrow around 3 PM
Long Live King Kenny
Now that that's over, can we get a referendum on the blasphemy laws, or how are these things decided?
No, however the word has been used and misused so often in this mess of a situation that it lost its validity a long time ago. And claiming that "plenty of others whose homophobia is transparent to everybody but them" - come on, really? That's primary school stuff. And this is intimidation and the stifling of open debate. Put it alongside the immigration debate (for example) and throw in the word nazi/racist and it goes along with the anti-debate logic that many who earn their money/fame from talking down anyone with a point opposite to theirs need.
Osarusan, if you bring hell into it, you bring religion, and so you will pick and choose what you want to follow/believe. Which sits snugly alongside the wisted logic of many on both sides of the debate. And please, don't try to argue a hell point, it comes from your/our religious training and needs to be eradicated. If you said furnace, or dustbin, then it is less emotive and a long stride away from the nonsense fools on both sides are spouting.
Jinxy - it is the logical extension - which is illogical. When those who know better lecture about rights, and sneer at prolifers (or people who don't hold a strong opinion or just feel uneasy about abortion) - "anti-choice", it is a deliberate attempt at a wind up, like calling Rovers - Shams or Drogheda part of Louth (we all know it isn't). It is lowering the level of discourse. The exact same and worse is going on with the FG/Lab carnival, and in Russia, USA, UK.
If you are pro-Ukraine, you are a pro-nazi, US lapdog, hater of Russia. If you question(ed) the US-led invasion of a sovereign state you were an enemy of the people and coward. If one group wish for labels to be removed, using the same or worse against others to further their own agenda is like cutting off your fingers because you don't want to have to cute your nails each week (or once a year if you're from Cork).
Absolute rubbish of the highest order. Are you saying that there are no people out there who subconsciously hold homophobic views? People who say 'I've nothing against gays but i'm voting no because i don't think they should be raising children" but who still don't think they are homophobic. And to argue this is to intimidate and stifle debate. Total nonsense.
Spud, on this thread you've mentioned the factual arguments of the No side, you've mentioned the 'middle ground', and you've mentioned the 'downsides of a yes vote' but when anybody asks you to be specific about them, you haven't given any answer whatsoever.
Instead you come at the whole thing at some meta-level, with your ultra jaded and untra cycnical position on the whole system and discourse of politics and the 'meeja'. Why don't you give some specific answers for a change?
Last edited by osarusan; 23/05/2015 at 8:29 AM.
Are you claiming that there are? Flip sides, are there "heterophobic" people out there? We've all heard plenty of such rhetoric but wouldn't call it as it's a) supposed to be funny or b) going to leave you out on a limb. Just because people have voted No or hold beliefs opposite to ours does not mean they are wrong or homophobic. If you remember a boxing debate in Maynooth, it was not to prove that those who disapprove of boxing were wrong, just that they should accept the rights of others - and were in a real minority.
I am cynical, as are you from your posts, and I am jaded, as it is tiring to see such bile being spouted and packaged as public discourse. So trying to find something that will allow for people to find middle ground is difficult.
Factual arguments of both sides bear scrutiny, and some elements of changes that come into law are wider reaching effects.
And while your reading is that I've avoided questions, it's not fully true. By downsides of a yes/or no vote I will simply point to the fact that those who have used the most hateful and damaging rhetoric to date will see themselves as having "won". I hope that this is clear? If you believe this will not be the case, regardless of the result, then it is just that you hold different views and I will respect that. Hope my answers have been specific enough to meet your criteria :-)
Meta-level? Nice one, never thought of that.
Once again:
what are the factual points the No side have?
What is the middle ground you wish people would seek?
What are the downsides of a yes vote?
As I saw someone say, it's starting to look like there was more of a silent yes than a silent no. It seems many older people and those from rural backgrounds who were expected to be the silent no were terribly wronged.
Cry me a ****ing river. These people don't know the meaning of the word 'bullying.' They've raked over gay people's lives, questioned every aspect of their lives, contested their right to be treated equally as human beings, gay people who have been insulted, demonised and had the most disgusting aspersions cast upon their character not only over the past few weeks but for decades. If these people feel bullied - good. I hope it ****ing hurts, because it's absolutely nothing compared to the hurt they've caused gay and lesbian people.
This is a great day, I'm delighted and proud.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks