Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Icepick

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Being an illegible foreigner I don't have a dog in this fight. I am a bemused bystander. The local radio stations seem to be flooding us with yes slanted warm fuzzies. All the polls are overwhelmingly yes but yes campaigners who actially know what is happening are redoubling their efforts.
The children's referendum was a shoe in according to the polls but it only scraped by.
From an outside viewpoint I smell an agenda.
A friend of mine worked for the UK statistics dept in the 70s. His team was told to produce statistics that show it will be good for Britain to join the common market. Not a new problem.
I will go. The mother ship is calling.

Evidence for any of your wild claims?

ByfocalPhoto

Icepick wrote: »

Evidence for any of your wild claims?

The radio station bit is my perception which is not scientific at all. I will listen more critically and note positive, negative and neutral mentions. I may yet stand corrected.

The children's referendum is clear cut. The government at the time was firmly behind a yes vote.
A redC poll said 74% yes, 4% no and 22% undecided.
http://www.thejournal.ie/redc-poll-childrens-rights-referendum-642356-Oct2012/
The final result was 58/42
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1111/345129-counting-of-childrens-referendum-votes-begins/
Draw from that what you will.

The Brit Govt manufactured stats ?
I worked for three years with the guy it happened to. I heard him tell the story a few times through clenched teeth. Not a high point of his career.
It is not one of those "someone I heard about" stories. I heard it from the horses mouth. I could give you his name but won't for obvious reasons.

JONJO THE MISER

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

meglome

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

Bigots of all types make me pretty angry but attacking them in any way is completely wrong. I don't suppose they meant to hurt anyone if they were throwing eggs but still.

I am so tired of all the crap with every single referendum we have. They are never fought on the issues, especially by the no sides. They use any scaremongering tactics they can get away with. This is without doubt one of the simplest referenda we've ever voted on. Should gay people be allowed to legally marry. That's it. Not a single other thing. Nothing to do with adoption or anything else. Don't be tricked into a no vote when any right thinking person (with the facts) should be happy to vote Yes.

gravehold

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

Disgusting a yes voter on twitter was saying a 10 year shouldn't have been out on the campaign as if that makes ot better she was attacked and also the yes "equality" videos show pushing kids forward at the doors out campaigning


https://twitter.com/WhyonaInstitute/status/598569389840019458

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4We5pxR18Ro

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

Disgusting a yes voter on twitter was saying a 10 year shouldn't have been out on the campaign as if that makes ot better she was attacked and also the yes "equality" videos show pushing kids forward at the doors out campaigning

Agree or disagree with the question but it's hardly 'disgusting' to ask it. Total exaggeration.

gravehold

meglome wrote: »

Agree or disagree with the question but it's hardly 'disgusting' to ask it. Total exaggeration.

It's victim blaming the 10 year old, it's like saying why was that women out in the short dress when she got raped.

K-9

MrWalsh wrote: »

I dont remember the divorce referendum being so vitriolic myself. I remember when it passed my (now husband) came running down the aisle in the supermarket where we worked shouting "Divorce is in will you marry me!!!". (very romantic).

I remember even among my parents, my father was voting no, my mother was voting yes - doesnt take much brainpower to know who was afraid of being divorced eh??

This is nothing om Divorce and Abortion referenda in the 80s or 90s.

And I've modded Lisbon 1 and 2 and a seismic general election, never seen before in the state.

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

It's victim blaming the 10 year old, it's like saying why was that women out in the short dress when she got raped.

I didn't say I agreed with the question I just wasn't convinced it was disgusting. And it's harder to be sympathetic when you bring your ten year old out to help you spread lies and FUD. Bad parenting.

gravehold

meglome wrote: »

I didn't say I agreed with the question I just wasn't convinced it was disgusting. And it's harder to be sympathetic when you bring your ten year old out to help you spread lies and FUD. Bad parenting.

Yes yes it's ok to send kids to the hospital cause you disagree with their opinions. :rolleyes:

What's you opinion on the yes "equality" video of the where the parents? push the girl (looks around the same age) up at the door to spread their lies and fud?

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

Yes yes it's ok to send kids to the hospital cause you disagree with their opinions. :rolleyes:

What's you opinion on the yes "equality" video of the where the parents? push the girl (looks around the same age) up at the door to spread their lies and fud?

Just to make this clear I completely disagree with throwing eggs at these people.

Then you've lost me. What lies are spread in the video?

gravehold

meglome wrote: »

Just to make this clear I completely disagree with throwing eggs at these people.

Then you've lost me. What lies are spread in the video?

The woman in the video is seen pushing the young girl forward as the door opens, they are campaigning with the kid like you said was bad parenting. But you only seem to have a problem when the no side does it.

Yes side has fud and lies just as much as the no side.

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

The woman in the video is seen pushing the young girl forward as the door opens, they are campaigning with the kid like you said was bad parenting. But you only seem to have a problem when the no side does it.

Yes side has fud and lies just as much as the no side.

No that's not what I said at all. I said it was bad parenting to use your children to go out spreading lies and fear to people. Only the no side are doing this. The Yes side have used children to seek a Yes vote for more equality in our society. Imagine the horror of more equality, how will we get through it. I pity you if you can't see the difference.

gravehold

meglome wrote: »

No that's not what I said at all. I said it was bad parenting to use your children to go out spreading lies and fear to people. Only the no side are doing this. The Yes side have used children to seek a Yes vote for more equality in our society. Imagine the horror of more equality, how will we get through it. I pity you if you can't see the difference.

Both sides are using kids for lies and fear (as you put it), but it's ok when we do it.

That's some fine double think from the yes side.

Either both are wrong or neither or wrong.

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

Both sides are using kids for lies and fear (as you put it), but it's ok when we do it.

That's some fine double think from the yes side.

Either both are wrong or neither or wrong.

good grief man you really hear what you want to hear. I have clearly stated twice what I meant. I'm going to bed now and I'll take a quick glance in the mirror and be happy that I'm voting Yes for logical sound reasons.

What you're doing is like saying it's the same to send a child out to steal as it is to send a child out to pick up litter. The former is clearly wrong and the latter benefits society. They are not the same. I'll be delighted to benefit society with my Yes vote.

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

Both sides are using kids for lies and fear (as you put it), but it's ok when we do it.

I think we can drop this pretence now.

ByfocalPhoto

In a democracy you can express your opinion and you should not be in danger of being pelted. Thus the event should be safe for kids to attend.
I hope they throw the book at this moron for assault on a child.
I would imagine the top guys of the yes campaign will be very quick to condemn rhe incident as they should.
He obviously didn't think it through. Allergies aside throwing things at children has to be an own goal.

CramCycle

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

More yes supporters trying to silence debate and one of them assaulting no campaigners
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/girl-with-allergy-suffered-anaphylactic-shock-after-egg-pelted-at-no-campaigners-31220488.html

Youths pelted the eggs, not yes or no campaigners. They are at it in my area all the time. Gave my old flat mate a black eye and blinded a nurse in the past.

Can't really complain of bias with shoddy journalism like this.

Ozymandius2011

Of course I condemn the attack on the child with the egg as does the Yes campaign. Colm O Gorman said so yesterday. In my opinion it was a random act of thuggery and noone should use it for political advantage. There is no evidence of a link to the yes campaign.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

The woman in the video is seen pushing the young girl forward as the door opens, they are campaigning with the kid like you said was bad parenting. But you only seem to have a problem when the no side does it.

Yes side has fud and lies just as much as the no side.

1. What lies?
2. What is 'fud'?

traprunner

Has it been confirmed that the egg throwing youth was a yes campaigner?

Is Justin Bieber a yes campaigner? http://www.sundayworld.com/style/showbiz/justin-bieber-has-completed-most-of-probation-for-egg-throwing
Is this woman a yes campaigner? http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/crime/neighbour-hit-in-row-over-egg-throwing-1-7226252
What about this crowd? http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Egg-thrown-David-Cameron-protestors-greet-Prime/story-26439678-detail/story.html
And these youths/teens? http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/cache-county-sheriff-s-office-seeking-egg-throwing-teens/article_36976474-e3cb-11e4-a63c-5344ba7c3cd7.html

Egg throwing is wrong and definitely not nice but it could just be a random attack that just happens and not necessarily targeted at the no campaigners. Potentially just wrong place wrong time.

I hope the girl recovers and they someday find a cure because egg is a tough thing to avoid in foods and it must be horrible living with it.

ByfocalPhoto

The youth was certainly a yes supporter making a point very poorly.
No actual yes or no campaign would condone that sort of behaviour because it is horrible strategy.

traprunner

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

The youth was certainly a yes supporter making a point very poorly.

Where is the evidence to back it up?

Either way he is an idiot.

frostyjacks

traprunner wrote: »

Egg throwing is wrong and definitely not nice but it could just be a random attack that just happens and not necessarily targeted at the no campaigners. Potentially just wrong place wrong time.

I hope the girl recovers and they someday find a cure because egg is a tough thing to avoid in foods and it must be horrible living with it.

Wrong place, wrong time? You could argue that if she was standing outside a nightclub at chucking out time. This was outside a shopping centre in broad daylight. She has every right to feel safe there.

ByfocalPhoto

traprunner wrote:

Where is the evidence to back it up?

I hear he is all over twitter trying to justify himself. I will try and find his tweets and see if they betray a slight bias.

Ozymandius2011

frostyjacks wrote: »

Wrong place, wrong time? You could argue that if she was standing outside a nightclub at chucking out time. This was outside a shopping centre in broad daylight. She has every right to feel safe there.

Sure but in a highly charged political campaign I think its questionable. They appear to be adopting the tactics of Manif pour Tous, the group which marched against marriage in France, who were always bringing their children to demonstrations with them despite warnings from the government about security. I think the reason rightwing groups do this is because of their obsession with fertility as the sole purpose for marriage. So if you believe in marriage for love and don't want children, then in Iona's eyes yours is not a real family.

SireOfSeth

frostyjacks wrote: »

Wrong place, wrong time? You could argue that if she was standing outside a nightclub at chucking out time. This was outside a shopping centre in broad daylight. She has every right to feel safe there.

Wow! Talk about missing his point. Of course she has every right to be there and feel safe. But as far as we are aware the Gardai haven't ascertained whether it was related to the referendum or a hatred of little girls or...

frostyjacks

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Wow! Talk about missing his point. Of course she has every right to be there and feel safe. But as far as we are aware the Gardai haven't ascertained whether it was related to the referendum or a hatred of little girls or...

I got the point exactly. They suggested it was somehow wrong for a daughter to be with her mother in a public place during the day. That is complete nonsense. Should we all live in fear now?

traprunner

frostyjacks wrote: »

Wrong place, wrong time? You could argue that if she was standing outside a nightclub at chucking out time. This was outside a shopping centre in broad daylight. She has every right to feel safe there.

Wouldn't you agree that Amanda Brunker was probably standing in the wrong place at the wrong time when a seagull pooped on her head? (Lucky it didn't get into her eyes)

Amanda had every right to feel safe there as it was not outside a nightclub at chucking out time (whatever chucking out time has to do with anything here.)

http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/a-seagull-s-in-my-hair-disaster-for-amanda-brunker-on-vip-style-awards-red-carpet-31170873.html

traprunner

frostyjacks wrote: »

I got the point exactly. They suggested it was somehow wrong for a daughter to be with her mother in a public place during the day. That is complete nonsense. Should we all live in fear now?

No...you most certainly did not get the point! I know because I was the one making it. No where did I state that she shouldn't have been there. My point was that it could have been a random egg throwing and not a planned one to target the no side.

SireOfSeth

frostyjacks wrote: »

I got the point exactly. They suggested it was somehow wrong for a daughter to be with her mother in a public place during the day. That is complete nonsense. Should we all live in fear now?

You were replying to traprunner's post...

traprunner wrote: »

Egg throwing is wrong and definitely not nice but it could just be a random attack that just happens and not necessarily targeted at the no campaigners. Potentially just wrong place wrong time.

I hope the girl recovers and they someday find a cure because egg is a tough thing to avoid in foods and it must be horrible living with it.

I don't see anywhere where he suggested it was somehow wrong for a daughter to be with her mother in a public place during the day.

seamus

Very first thing the "No" side did was attempt to use this little girl's medical emergency as a chance to take a swipe at the "Yes" side. That's pretty pathetic.

Like a bunch of teenagers on bikes throwing eggs were part of the yes campaign :rolleyes:

Not really any level David Quinn's side won't stoop to.

ByfocalPhoto

I get the strangest feeling that if someone threw an egg at a yes rally this same group would have no problem ascribing political motivation.
Colm O'Gorman who I hold in the highest regard condemned the action in the strongest terms on twitter #marref . I have never blamed the yes campaign. To try to say it wasn't politically motivate however is a bridge too far.

frostyjacks

traprunner wrote: »

Wouldn't you agree that Amanda Brunker was probably standing in the wrong place at the wrong time when a seagull pooped on her head? (Lucky it didn't get into her eyes)

Amanda had every right to feel safe there as it was not outside a nightclub at chucking out time (whatever chucking out time has to do with anything here.)

http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/a-seagull-s-in-my-hair-disaster-for-amanda-brunker-on-vip-style-awards-red-carpet-31170873.html

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Where should the little girl have been? Alone in the car? Told to go off on her own for a while?

traprunner

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Where should the little girl have been? Alone in the car? Told to go off on her own for a while?

Still missing or twisting the point.

SireOfSeth

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I get the strangest feeling that if someone threw an egg at a yes rally this same group would have no problem ascribing political motivation.
Colm O'Gorman who I hold in the highest regard condemned the action in the strongest terms on twitter #marref . I have never blamed the yes campaign. To try to say it wasn't politically motivate however is a bridge too far.

You obviously have some facts that the rest of us aren't privy to.

southstar

Just consider Paddy Manning if you are ever in doubt as to whether being gay is a choice or not.

gravehold

southstar wrote: »

Just consider Paddy Manning if you are ever in doubt as to whether being gay is a choice or not.

Don't get your logic

CramCycle

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I hear he is all over twitter trying to justify himself. I will try and find his tweets and see if they betray a slight bias.

Good, hopefully it will be easier to identify him and get the Gardai to pick him up. There were a bunch of prats doing this around UCD for years (or multiple groups of prats), constantly heard reports of people getting black eyes and severe bruising as they used to pelt people while driving past at speed.

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I get the strangest feeling that if someone threw an egg at a yes rally this same group would have no problem ascribing political motivation.
Colm O'Gorman who I hold in the highest regard condemned the action in the strongest terms on twitter #marref . I have never blamed the yes campaign. To try to say it wasn't politically motivate however is a bridge too far.

Some young scrote egged a child, regardless of the yes or no side, the person should get someone like Jim Brannigan to correct their behaviour. I won't condone it either way, but to say it was political rather than an idiot looking for an excuse to be stupid is too far.

galljga1

southstar wrote: »

Just consider Paddy Manning if you are ever in doubt as to whether being gay is a choice or not.

You've lost me with that one.

Penn

Regardless of whether or not the guy who threw the egg was doing so to support a Yes vote or not, it's inexcusable. I really, really, really hate to agree with Paddy Manning on pretty much anything, but I saw a comment from him about it which I agreed with. He said that even though they couldn't have known the girl was allergic to eggs, they knew she was a 10 year old girl.

Even if there were no children there, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

Arseholes are arseholes. Whether they're a Yes or a No voter, they're arseholes.

ByfocalPhoto

Colm O'Gorman tweeted the following and I wholeheartedly agree.
"Throwing an egg at anyone, most especially a child, is despicable. Totally unacceptable. Don't care who you are or what you support"
I am happy to make that the last word on the subject.

Ash.J.Williams

i couldn't imagine an adult doing a drive by egg throw on a bike.

meglome

seamus wrote: »

Very first thing the "No" side did was attempt to use this little girl's medical emergency as a chance to take a swipe at the "Yes" side. That's pretty pathetic.

Like a bunch of teenagers on bikes throwing eggs were part of the yes campaign :rolleyes:

Not really any level David Quinn's side won't stoop to.

I've been egged in Dublin a few times by teenagers and above. There are flats on Dominic Street where there were consistently egg marks all over the pavements outside so you knew to keep your eyes open.

It could have been a yes voter but from my experience I think it's likely to be some teenagers. It would have been far better if the story made it clear that they didn't actually know who threw the egg rather than blame it on yes voters.

southstar

Paddy Manning despite some rather hyterical pleas to the contrary always strikes me as a man who would be much happier if he were straight...he will consort with people who I suspect would happily recriminalize homosexuality if they ever got a sniff that this might ever again became even a marginally respectable position to hold.Im sure hes been referred to as an Uncle Tom before, and I concur with that, not because I dont think he has a right to disagree with gay marriage but because of the collateral damage he is willing to cause with his overblown boorish ego. He knows well he gives a pass for the real homophobes to come out of their closet and into the debate.He shrieks on about the rights of free speech being threatened by the yes side,,,this is the con trick of the year...if you want to hear free speech almost bordering hate speech towards the yes side tune into some of the talk radio shows ...admittedly those at the @lower 'end of the spectrum.As i gay man I cannot relate to that man in any way. and why I think Manning personifies the fact that nobody chooses their sexuality.

gravehold

southstar wrote: »

Paddy Manning despite some rather hyterical pleas to the contrary always strikes me as a man who would be much happier if he were straight...he will consort with people who I suspect would happily recriminalize homosexuality if they ever got a sniff that this might ever again became even a marginally respectable position to hold.Im sure hes been referred to as an Uncle Tom before, and I concur with that, not because I dont think he has a right to disagree with gay marriage but because of the collateral damage he is willing to cause with his overblown boorish ego. He knows well he gives a pass for the real homophobes to come out of their closet and into the debate.He shrieks on about the rights of free speech being threatened by the yes side,,,this is the con trick of the year...if you want to hear free speech almost bordering hate speech towards the yes side tune into some of the talk radio shows ...admittedly those at the @lower 'end of the spectrum.As i gay man I cannot relate to that man in any way. and why I think Manning personifies the fact that nobody chooses their sexuality.

He is a libertarian that disagrees with marraige, where did you get he dislikes gay people I never once got that impression?

He has a right to campaign for an outcome that suits his political ideals, just cause yours are different doesn't make his any less valid.

meglome

gravehold wrote: »

He has a right to campaign for an outcome that suits his political ideals, just cause yours are different doesn't make his any less valid.

You're absolutely correct about the bolded part. What actually makes Paddy Manning and his chums views less valid are the many and myriad unrelated things they're using to justify their position. They are making stuff up plain and simple.

gravehold

meglome wrote: »

You're absolutely correct about the bolded part. What actually makes Paddy Mannings' and his chums views less valid are the many and myriad unrelated things they're using to justify their position. They are making stuff up plain and simple.

He is not making anything up and has said his reason he is voting no and is against marriage

jobbridge4life

gravehold wrote: »

He is not making anything up and has said his reason he is voting no and is against marriage

They are the referendum commission and the adoption authority have already made that crystal clear to all but the wilfully blind.

gravehold

jobbridge4life wrote: »

They are the referendum commission and the adoption authority have already made that crystal clear to all but the wilfully blind.

What qoutes of paddy mannong do you have of him lying.