Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Tasden

tayto lover wrote: »

Not a chance.
It will be at least 78% Yes.

Two members of my family are voting no for definite. Anybody outside the family would assume they'd vote yes as they have gay friends and family members. Others are not going to bother voting as they don't have an opinion either way. Only myself, my sister and our two cousins are definite yes votes in my family. It's not the given landslide some people are expecting.

tayto lover

Daith wrote: »

Really? I'm aiming for 51% myself.

It's not being discussed much because it's still months away.
Expect a surge of discussion, debates and newspaper articles after Christmas.

Daith

tayto lover wrote: »

It's not being discussed much because it's still months away.
Expect a surge of discussion, debates and newspaper articles after Christmas.

Yes and that still won't convince people to vote or vote yes.

eyescreamcone

Would the turnout be increased by throwing in a few other referenda on the same day?

Or would the YES message get diluted by asking other questions on the same day?

floggg

tayto lover wrote: »

Not a chance.
It will be at least 78% Yes.

That's assuming all sides turn out at the same rates.

They won't.

We know from nearly every referendum we have had, particualrly on social/moral type issues, that the "anti" side will mobilise in greater numbers than the pro side. No voters generally don't tend to be apathetic about their opposition to these things.

And asserting that this will be a slam dunk will do far more harm to the yes side than using the word homophobe ever will.

We don't need to win over undecideds to win this - we already have circa 70% of the public in favour, and there are few genuinely undecided voters left.

What we need to do is ensure that we get all our supporters out to vote. So it's very harmful to give the impression that this has been won already, as people reading it might stay at home on the day because they think their vote won't be needed.

eyescreamcone

Was Cuchullain gay?

Daith

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Would the turnout be increased by throwing in a few other referenda on the same day?

Or would the YES message get diluted by asking other questions on the same day?

I'm more inclined to think it would help. It won't be seen as just a gay thing.

VinLieger

Daith wrote: »

I'm more inclined to think it would help. It won't be seen as just a gay thing.

They are holding more on the same day problem is they are very low turnout issues like the voting age and age of the president

Doctor Jimbob

Bridge93 wrote: »

You'd swear it was an all day job to go vote. It really doesn't take that long at all and could influence the lives of some of our citizens forever. I just don't get this i won't vote stuff whichever side you are on. It's a bit selfish.

In fairness I can understand that it would be difficult for someone to motivate themselves to vote if they genuinely don't know anyone who would be affected by it. It might seem ridiculous to those of us who do, but the better option for dealing with said people is providing compelling reasons.

padd b1975

Bridge93 wrote: »

You'd swear it was an all day job to go vote. It really doesn't take that long at all and could influence the lives of some of our citizens forever. I just don't get this i won't vote stuff whichever side you are on. It's a bit selfish.

It's a perfectly valid option to abstain in a democratic vote.

You do know that.....don't you?

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid option to abstain in a democratic vote.

You do know that.....don't you?

Yes it's perfectly valid but it can also be lazy and selfish too. They're not mutually exclusive.

Not just for this referendum but for any vote.

floggg

tayto lover wrote: »

It's not being discussed much because it's still months away.
Expect a surge of discussion, debates and newspaper articles after Christmas.

Marriage Equality have been planning around generating turn out since the referendum was announced because they are all too aware that the danger complacency and apathy will cause. A low turn out is a real danger and could swing the day for the no side.

It is far from a given and it is going to be a real struggle to actually get the numbers out. And we need to constantly remind people of the need for them to come out on the day.

Annasopra

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I likely won't vote because there is close to 0% chance of the Yes side not winning. If it were going to be any way even semi close, I would vote yes. This one is done and dusted though

Its not done and dusted at all!!!!!! Do you not realise that lots of people like yourself could be saying the same thing and this will give a huge advantage to the no side.

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

Not a chance.
It will be at least 78% Yes.

It will 78% no if people keep making false yes predictions and demotivating the yes side to go out and vote!!!!

What do people not get about this?

1 Polls in referenda this far out never hold true
2 There is still a huge swathe of undecided voters
3 The vast majority of voters decide on a referendum question in the days leading upto it
5 Numerous referenda in this coubtry have shown there is always possibility for a last minute swing
6 If hundreds of thousands of yes voters keep saying "it will pass so my vote isnt needed" the yes vote just wont turn out.

Honestly polls are meaningless and should be ignored.

bb1234567

People have been promoting it a lot in the ucd campus, they are really urging young people to go and vote. Well Ill definitely be voting yes, as will my parents , and a few of my friends and I who live nearby have arranged to all go and vote together. Thats a definite 8 yes votes:)

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

I actually think you insult the intelligence of the undecideds thinking they could be swayed by the comments in response to the ignorant, bigoted nonsense being posted.


If their sympathies lies with the poster spouting that crap, then they aren't that undecided.

I'm not insulting the intelligence of the undecided at all. I was talking about all those people who say they would support marriage equality, but then come referendum day they couldn't be bothered voting because they're sick of the two sides bickering at each other - voter apathy. I don't think anyone will be swayed either way by the "arguments", but I DO worry, like I said, that each time a 'yes' campaigner takes the bait and rises to negative comments from people who were always going to vote 'no' anyway, it doesn't do people campaigning for a 'yes' vote any favours.

My sympathies don't lie with anyone spouting crap, and that includes both people from the 'no' campaign spouting bigoted, ignorant crap, and people from the 'yes' campaign spouting bigoted, ignorant crap.

I can ignore the 'no' campaigns best efforts, but I do hold the 'yes' campaign to a higher standard of having dignity and respect for people who do not share their beliefs or opinions, and it's embarrassing for me personally when I see people in the 'yes' campaign calling people 'closet gays' and implying that if they're a priest they must be a pedophile. It's not so long ago that same slur was being associated with LGBT people, but some people have very short memories. Either that, or they really are just too blinded by their own hatred and prejudice to think that there are many religious people who actually support marriage equality, but they also feel targeted and excluded when they read the opinions of some people in the 'yes' campaign make vicious slurs against their religious beliefs.

This referendum isn't about religion, it's about human beings rights, and equal recognition for all citizens of Ireland in the Constitution, I'd prefer to see people argue the legalities than the moralities, and leave their personal grudges at the door if they're the very same people are talking about making progress in society and moving forward.

I've already stated my position that I am undecided until I see the wording of the referendum, and I'll wait and see what comes of the Children and Families bill before that, because the two are intrinsically linked, and if the wording of the referendum offers anything less than marriage equality, or there are any influences that I think might create a legal quagmire in the future with regard to LGBT families or their children that would not be faced were they not LGBT, then I will be voting no, and will begin campaigning again, rather than be merely 'satisfied' with some half-assed 'limbo-laws' that could mean in the future that LGBT people and their children were given the appearance of being treated equally, but some clause was sneaked into legislation that means they never were, only nobody saw it at the time.

keeponhurling

The only way it would swing to No at this stage would be if the Yes-side ran a very bad PR campaign.

Which is possible, as there is somewhat of a culture of abusing people who hold views other than Yes.

There are of course many voters who don't particularly care and would be leaning towards Yes, so as long as they aren't turned off, I think it'll pass

keeponhurling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see people in the 'yes' campaign calling people 'closet gays' and implying that if they're a priest they must be a pedophile. It's not so long ago that same slur was being associated with LGBT people, but some people have very short memories. Either that, or they really are just too blinded by their own hatred and prejudice to think that there are many religious people who actually support marriage equality, but they also feel targeted and excluded when they read the opinions of some people in the 'yes' campaign make vicious slurs against their religious beliefs.

This referendum isn't about religion, it's about human beings rights, and equal recognition for all citizens of Ireland in the Constitution, I'd prefer to see people argue the legalities than the moralities, and leave their personal grudges at the door if they're the very same people are talking about making progress in society and moving forward.

Well said.

jobbridge4life

keeponhurling wrote: »

Which is possible, as there is somewhat of a culture of abusing people who hold views other than Yes.

I look forward to the day when I don't have to worry about the hurt feelz of those who believe I deserve to be legally discriminated against. That believe my family deserve less protection. That day I pray for.

keeponhurling

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I look forward to the day when I don't have to worry about the hurt feelz of those who believe I deserve to be legally discriminated against. That believe my family deserve less protection. That day I pray for.

Exactly.
That sort of thing, putting words in people's mouths and thoughts in their heads to have a go at them. Not very endearing.
If the Yes side stick to positive arguments as to why people should vote Yes, it should be a comfortable win.

keeponhurling

I see in the UK now, the hetrosexuals are trying to make civil partnership more inclusive, i.e. for all people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30586950

I think it makes sense, hetrosexual couples can have all the legal rights, without having to participate in something with religious connotations.

Daith

keeponhurling wrote: »

I think it makes sense, hetrosexual couples can have all the legal rights, without having to participate in something with religious connotations.

Civil Marriage has no religious connection either.

In any case unless we remove the part about marriage having a special place and it can't be attacked, civil partnerships will not have the same rights here.

Annasopra

We need some violins

kunst nugget

keeponhurling wrote: »

The only way it would swing to No at this stage would be if the Yes-side ran a very bad PR campaign.

Which is possible, as there is somewhat of a culture of abusing people who hold views other than Yes.

There are of course many voters who don't particularly care and would be leaning towards Yes, so as long as they aren't turned off, I think it'll pass

I think this is pretty simplistic view of it. The Yes side running a bad PR campaign is not going to be the be all and end all of it. The No campaign will be preying on the fears of people with unsubstantiated claims about the ill effects of same sex marriage on society which will be very hard to fight against. Just look at the problems that exists today with the MMR vaccine even though it's been proven conclusively to have no link to autism. Also, the notion that the No side can be free to say whatever they like, no matter how underhand, and yet if the Yes side are seen to not be all sweetness and light, they'll be crucified for it and people will vote against them because of it- that to me seems slightly insane.

Another big problem that is happening is the No side calling foul when their motives for voting no are called into question.

'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!'

'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research'

'STOP ATTACKING ME!!!'

Grayson

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think this is pretty simplistic view of it. The Yes side running a bad PR campaign is not going to be the be all and end all of it. The No campaign will be preying on the fears of people with unsubstantiated claims about the ill effects of same sex marriage on society which will be very hard to fight against. Just look at the problems that exists today with the MMR vaccine even though it's been proven conclusively to have no link to autism. Also, the notion that the No side can be free to say whatever they like, no matter how underhand, and yet if the Yes side are seen to not be all sweetness and light, they'll be crucified for it and people will vote against them because of it- that to me seems slightly insane.

Another big problem that is happening is the No side calling foul when their motives for voting no are called into question.

'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!'

'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research'

'STOP ATTACKING ME!!!'

The no campaign will be very similar to the No campaign against divorce

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/category/divorce/

They were all about "Hello Divorce, bye bye daddy"

Ironically the top bit here "Do you want to deprive people of a life long marriage?" Is the reason many will vote yes.
http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/nodiv86a.jpg

Just to add, there's a letter from Michael D on the first link:)

keeponhurling

kunst nugget wrote: »

'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!'

'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research'

'

I would say a better answer would be
"You're entitled to your view, but I think it would actually be better for children if you vote Yes, because of <insert reasonable argument(s) here>."

Daith

keeponhurling wrote: »

I would say a better answer would be
"You're entitled to your view, but I think it would actually be better for children if you vote Yes, because of <insert reasonable argument(s) here>."

No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.

Damn, sarcasm gone. I'm fully gay and my fully gay cousin and his boyf are happily raising a fully happy child.

kunst nugget

Daith wrote: »

No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.

Why?

ZiabR

Just a thought, why is there not a poll on this thread?

Will you be voting in the referendum?

Yes:
No:

Would also be nice to see how many would be voting Yes Vs No?

Daith

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why?

I don't really. It's just the general answer you get.

keeponhurling

logik wrote: »

Just a thought, why is there not a poll on this thread?

Will you be voting in the referendum?

Yes:
No:

Would also be nice to see how many would be voting Yes Vs No?

maybe 3 options

Yes:
No:
Undecided:

or 5 options, splitting Yes/No into definitely Yes/No, probably Yes/No

endacl

Daith wrote: »

No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.

Don't raise a child with a another man, so. Creepiness avoided and problem solved.

endacl

I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

*analogy ends*

This debate is fcucking stupid.

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

*analogy ends*

This debate is fcucking stupid.

Well played.

keeponhurling

endacl wrote: »

I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

*analogy ends*

This debate is fcucking stupid.

Well, if you are in a debate trying to convince people, the other people might be making arguments to support their view (and generally it's easier to persuade people not to make changes),

and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.

Magico Gonzalez

endacl wrote: »

I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

*analogy ends*

This debate is fcucking stupid.

The important question is whether your rogan josh consumption:

1. Made Baby Jesus Cry
2. Did Not Make Baby Jesus Cry

Let's get to the crux of the matter here.

Daith

keeponhurling wrote: »

and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.

The No have no arguments at all. Not one. Yet it's the Yes side who constantly have to do persuade people?

You either vote yes for equality or you vote no for inequality.

One eyed Jack

endacl wrote: »

Don't raise a child with a another man, so. Creepiness avoided and problem solved.

It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for.

You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!).


Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

kylith

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

The important question is whether your rogan josh consumption:

1. Made Baby Jesus Cry
2. Did Not Make Baby Jesus Cry

Let's get to the crux of the matter here.

Yes, sure rogan josh has been around forever but is it natural?

endacl

keeponhurling wrote: »

Well, if you are in a debate trying to convince people, the other people might be making arguments to support their view (and generally it's easier to persuade people not to make changes),

and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.

I know. I agree. Conversation doesn't shift prejudice though. Experience does.

It's the fact that the debate is happening at all that I find stupid.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

The referendum has nothing to do with children though regardless if it fails or passes.

Magico Gonzalez

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for.

You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!).


Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

Once you have an actual serious point to make, rather than muddying the waters with irrelevant and poorly illustrated examples we'll have the string quartet pack up and the silly jokes will stop.

You don't though, so,...YAY.

fran17

david75 wrote: »

As usual, your posting is barely legible for being so utterly nonsensical but I'll meet it at its own level. Just for you.

I think you're about to discover it is the view of Ireland's people that they do support gay marriage and they will elect to at last shake off that last hypocritical grasp of a church long since made irellevant and finally be rid of the hateful claptrap of the churches self obsessed and self aggrandising splinter group, them four lonely sad clowns in Iona. I just wonder about what will be the next target for your irrelevant and outdated view once the referendum passes and Ireland's people let their unwillingness to be controlled by such a hateful few be known.
You're not allowed dismiss other religions anymore, or assume superiority over people of different belief(or skin Colour) anymore (wouldn't be very Christian of you if you did).

So where for you next? Are you married? Would any sane woman have you with such a view? The priesthood maybe? You have nobody left to hate, but yourself. And Like most self repressed self loathing closet cases you'll find the closet you've built for yourself is one you revere but despise. You very clearly are a closeted gay. Stop being obsessed with hating gay lifestyle and gay sex, start by loving your life and living it and go have the sex you really want to have. You'll be glad you did(unless you're the priest in which case leave those kids alone)


MOD: Take a few days off.

Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.

david75 wrote: »

Forgot to answer your question. Yep. We'll be having kids. As will thousands of gay couples.


All that's really changed is that they'll be brought up to respect faith but ignore hate. Oh wait. That's the same as being Christian. Well I guess you need to go back to Jesus and his main message.
Love one another.

I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

The referendum has nothing to do with children though regardless if it fails or passes.

Perhaps not from your perspective, and that's fair enough, but from my perspective it certainly does, and not in a moralising "won't somebody think of the children" sort of way, as I've already established that anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc, is capable of raising a child to be a healthy and mature and well-rounded adult, but if this referendum fails, then because of the children and families bill, those children are considered members of a 'de facto' family (see the EHCR Austria decision), and are not then offered the equal status as those children in heterosexual marriages, thereby only offered what I would consider legally the same sub-standard status that LGBT people are currently subjected to.

Magico Gonzalez

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps not from your perspective, and that's fair enough, but from my perspective it certainly does, and not in a moralising "won't somebody think of the children" sort of way, as I've already established that anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc, is capable of raising a child to be a healthy and mature and well-rounded adult, but if this referendum fails, then because of the children and families bill, those children are considered members of a 'de facto' family (see the EHCR Austria decision), and are not then offered the equal status as those children in heterosexual marriages, thereby only offered what I would consider legally the same sub-standard status that LGBT people are currently subjected to.

Another good reason to vote yes then?

Doctor Jimbob

fran17 wrote: »

Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.

Which of course we never see happening on the 'No' side.

I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

Yes, it's almost as if these things should be judged on a case to case basis rather than grouping people based solely on their sexuality. You're so, so close to getting the point here it's actually amazing you still manage to miss it.

raze_them_all_

Let the gays be miserable in marriage I say!

One eyed Jack

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Once you have an actual serious point to make, rather than muddying the waters with irrelevant and poorly illustrated examples we'll have the string quartet pack up and the silly jokes will stop.

You don't though, so,...YAY.

Oh please, don't stop making jokes about people's lives on my account, sure you'll get no thanks for that, I couldn't care less about your peurile attempts at ridicule tbh, you're hardly the first, but be careful using the word "we" as if every person who is an advocate for marriage equality agrees with you behaving like an immature prick.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

No the ability of gay couples to adopt has nothing to do with this referendum. It has been explained dozens of times already.

If the referendum fails, gay couples will still be able to adopt

The only question is whether two people regardless of sexuality can marry.

One eyed Jack

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Another good reason to vote yes then?

How can you vote 'yes' or 'no' based on wording you haven't even seen yet? That's my point - as much as I'm an advocate for marriage equality, I'd like to see what I'm being asked to vote on first before I make my decision so that we're not left in some legal quagmire 20 years from now.