SSM why are you voting no?

bob50

My Point is the PC consensus could next think the voting age of 18 is too high lets lower it to 15 another idea you cant differentiate between a girl or boy they are just persons

L1011

bob50 wrote: »

My Point is the PC consensus could next think the voting age of 18 is too high lets lower it to 15 another idea you cant differentiate between a girl or boy they are just persons

The first would require a referendum - like the previous adjustment to the age. The latter I can't figure out what the hell you mean...

Bannasidhe

bob50 wrote: »

My Point is the PC consensus could next think the voting age of 18 is too high lets lower it to 15 another idea you cant differentiate between a girl or boy they are just persons

We were talking about Referendums and changes to the Constitution - the people get to decide - do you have a better way of doing it?

United Chester Men

bob50 wrote: »

What i mean is "by way of whim of so few" Theres a media / political cosy consenus that want to make changes to our constitution and refer it to the people using their liberal thinking i.e D4 Types and then we can show off to the world And i really wonder whats next on their agenda

Oh Bob....................!!

Billy86

traprunner wrote: »

If the constitution is amended it is not at the whim of a few. It's because the majority want it amended.

I... wouldn't bother.

traprunner

bob50 wrote: »

What i mean is "by way of whim of so few" Theres a media / political cosy consenus that want to make changes to our constitution and refer it to the people using their liberal thinking i.e D4 Types and then we can show off to the world And i really wonder whats next on their agenda

Aww you poor culchie! People in the big smoke are more progressive than you. Maybe you should go to the big schmoke and see if you start to become more progressive too.

traprunner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I really have to go to D4 to see what all the fuss is about...

Work there and it's quite a nice area but I'm not sure if you could handle the people. Far too liberal and PC and progressive and not stuck in pointless tradition :P

traprunner

Billy86 wrote: »

I... wouldn't bother.

Did you mean to quote me? If so, please explain why you would ignore the majority.

Billy86

traprunner wrote: »

Did you mean to quote me? If so, please explain why you would ignore the majority.

I wouldnt bother entertaining the guy you were. Waste of time.

paleoperson

traprunner wrote: »

If the constitution is amended it is not at the whim of a few. It's because the majority want it amended.

The majority of people who vote on it. Most people have no incentive to vote if they perceive something as slight damage to the constitution. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe in future we should have it so a referendum would need an absolute majority out of both voters and non-voters, that'd put a fair few "progressives" back a bit.

traprunner

Billy86 wrote: »

I wouldnt bother entertaining the guy you were. Waste of time.

Cheers I suspect that I've met a number of different aliases of his in the last couple of weeks. Some are still posting now in different threads.

traprunner

paleoperson wrote: »

The majority of people who vote on it. Most people have no incentive to vote if they perceive something as slight damage to the constitution. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe in future we should have it so a referendum would need an absolute majority out of both voters and non-voters, that'd put a fair few "progressives" back a bit.

Go for it. There is your next battle. Start canvassing to get it raised as an issue.

marienbad

paleoperson wrote: »

The majority of people who vote on it. Most people have no incentive to vote if they perceive something as slight damage to the constitution. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe in future we should have it so a referendum would need an absolute majority out of both voters and non-voters, that'd put a fair few "progressives" back a bit.

Why change now ? Because it looks like you lost one ?

United Chester Men

paleoperson wrote: »

The majority of people who vote on it. Most people have no incentive to vote if they perceive something as slight damage to the constitution. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe in future we should have it so a referendum would need an absolute majority out of both voters and non-voters, that'd put a fair few "progressives" back a bit.

But isn't that the point?? the fact that a slight change to a living document like the Constitution ( that has given, with its most important Article, the right to the people who abide by it the right to amend it to suit society as it develops through time) , may have no impact really on some, so as not enticing them to vote either way. Whereas it offers those who feel it will have an impact on them, whether they vote no or yes, the opportunity to contest its current status or to contest a proposed change.

The Constitution is NOT a contract. It is, as I said a living document that is open for change. It was drawn up a almost a century ago when religious faculties CONTROLLED Ireland, when homosexual activity was illegal, when women and non white people were second class citizens and when the concept of a family was more of an "arrangement" rather than a partnership built on love and genuine desire to spend your life and children with your spouse.

If you think that if the drafters of the Constitution were alive now would compose the exact same language/script/beliefs were they alive today you are sadly mistaken. The 1937 constitution is a powerful and commendable piece of legislation but it is by no means perfect and the logic of people who say that because it is a piece of history, it should stay is laughable.

marco_polo

paleoperson wrote: »

The majority of people who vote on it. Most people have no incentive to vote if they perceive something as slight damage to the constitution. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe in future we should have it so a referendum would need an absolute majority out of both voters and non-voters, that'd put a fair few "progressives" back a bit.

For all its faults the Irish constitution gives citizens a level of direct democracy that few other countries citizens get. If a section of the population cannot be bothered to excercise that right then that is their loss.

Besides the method of changing the constitution via simple majority vote is enshrined in the document so it would itself require a referendum to change.

Sheldons Brain

United Chester Men wrote: »

when the concept of a family was more of an "arrangement" rather than a partnership built on love and genuine desire to spend your life and children with your spouse.

This is complete bollix. People loved each other in 1937 just as much as they do today.

United Chester Men

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is complete bollix. People loved each other in 1937 just as much as they do today.

If you are so into the past and you "history" maybe do a bit of research on the culture of family and marriage over 80 years ago. On the whole it was a completely different arrangement for most couples. If you don't recognise that the majority of marriages were out of convenience/arrangement.

the Famine was a major factor in this societal habit. yes they may have grown to love their spouse ad yes there was a lot of marriages borne out of compatability, love and friendship but if you know anything about Ireland in late 19th/ early 20th century you will know that marital bonds developed a lot differently than they do today.

United Chester Men

Read these extracts by KH Connell who was a professor and expert of Irish society in that time period..

"Before the Famine, then, it was not unreasonable for peasant sons
and daughters, while still young adults, to feel that they could, at
will, transform themselves into husbands or wives the first move
towards marriage was their own But during the Famine, and in the
following years, children commonly lost this initiative to their fathers
A marriage came to be heralded by commercial rather than biological
advances , and until the two fathers concerned had completed their
negotiations their children remained unmarried Any clash of will
between fathers and sons was incidental to this shift of the source of
decision After the Famine, as before, it was customary for a couple
to marry only when assured of adequate land—land, that is, sufficient
to promise the support of a new family Before the Famine " adequacy
" had been finely defined none had long to spend looking for
his few acres But afterwards tenants (and landlords even more so)
had lost their faith m tiny holdings And for reasons more compelling,
if farms were to be made viable, they had also to be made
larger We must digress now from the transformation of the mstitutution
of marriage to seek the causes of the consolidation of holdings
which underlay it. from 'Marriage m Ireland after the Famine' : The
Diffusion of the Match
By K H CONNELL, Queen's University"


"Family loyalty, even at a personal loss, and small families, both were
inherent in the make-up of the match, and both were cultivated m
men and women reared to feel distaste for marriage more liberally
arranged Just as these characteristics, and the form of marriage that
fostered them, had been instruments of self-preservation m families
that had faimed m a large way before the Famine, so, later on, when
the ordinary peasant played the role of substantial farmer (however
unconvmcmgly to the spectator) he, too, was inclined to welcome the
arranged marriage for its defence of a way of life more worthy of
preservation than any he had known from 'Marriage m Ireland after the Famine' : The
Diffusion of the Match
By K H CONNELL, Queen's University"


Then you have the concept of the "payment of the dowry"

[URL="http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/4266/jssisiVolXVIXPart4_82103.pdf?
sequence=1"]http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/4266/jssisiVolXVIXPart4_82103.pdf?sequence=1[/URL]

The concept of love in a marriage was different back then. And people getting married young was a norm, often before they hit 19/20. so many knew no different. It was just a way of life.

So if you want to sit in the front of the class and spout on about "our tradition" and "Irelands history" maybe educate yourself in it!

Irelandcool

Kept on seeing this one ad on youtube and other websites where a guy claiming to be gay says his voting no. I am sick to death of this, at least there is an option to skip it. Am I the only one who got this. (tbh I didn't see much yes votes on the internet but plenty on streets apart from the areas at knock and churches).

marienbad

Irelandcool wrote: »

Kept on seeing this one ad on youtube and other websites where a guy claiming to be gay says his voting no. I am sick to death of this, at least there is an option to skip it. Am I the only one who got this. (tbh I didn't see much yes votes on the internet but plenty on streets apart from the areas at knock and churches).

Yeah I saw it too. on a poetry website of all things, Keith Mills , by the time I was finished browsing the site I could recite his spiel my self ' this vote for me is like coming out for the second time .....blah blah ''. I really felt like punching him back into the closet, God forgive me ,which he can't as I don't believe in him or Mr Mills .

Gael23

chenwc wrote: »

I voted no today just because the politicians ask me to vote yes.

People like you make my blood boil

Bannasidhe

traprunner wrote: »

Work there and it's quite a nice area but I'm not sure if you could handle the people. Far too liberal and PC and progressive and not stuck in pointless tradition :P

Meh - I spent 10 years living in Dalston... :cool:

Bannasidhe

paleoperson wrote: »

The majority of people who vote on it. Most people have no incentive to vote if they perceive something as slight damage to the constitution. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe in future we should have it so a referendum would need an absolute majority out of both voters and non-voters, that'd put a fair few "progressives" back a bit.

Worst. Concession. speech. Ever.

Big C

so glad I voted NO. Listening to alan ****ter mehall martin etc saying how great we are, same arseholes screw us every chance they get, so glad to say i didn't vote the same as them. (glad the ref was passed)

Penny Tration

Big C wrote: »

so glad I voted NO. Listening to alan ****ter mehall martin etc saying how great we are, same arseholes screw us every chance they get, so glad to say i didn't vote the same as them. (glad the ref was passed)

You're glad you didn't vote the way they wanted,but are glad the referendum passed?

Couldn't have just spoiled your vote?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Black Menorca wrote: »

Repealing the 8th.

Gird your loins for that one as they will be coming out all guns a-blazing.

If this result gives the political establishment the courage to confront the abortion issue it will be a positive outcome.

And the result looks like it will be convincing. The size of the turnout, and the margin of victory, means the result can't be taken lightly. More people turned out than we've seen in some elections, which means the people wanted the opportunity to express a view on this issue, The secret 'No' that we suspected was out there is actually a 'Yes'.

This is politically a very significant outcome. A party that can connect to this vote will do well for itself.

galljga1

Big C wrote: »

so glad I voted NO. Listening to alan ****ter mehall martin etc saying how great we are, same arseholes screw us every chance they get, so glad to say i didn't vote the same as them. (glad the ref was passed)

Does anyone else find it amusing that Shatter's name is censored?

Black Menorca

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If this result gives the political establishment the courage to confront the abortion issue it will be a positive outcome.

And the result looks like it will be convincing. The size of the turnout, and the margin of victory, means the result can't be taken lightly. More people turned out than we've seen in some elections, which means the people wanted the opportunity to express a view on this issue, The secret 'No' that we suspected was out there is actually a 'Yes'.

This is politically a very significant outcome. A party that can connect to this vote will do well for itself.

I'd be careful in making a correlation between this Yes vote and a support for liberalising abortion.

The abortion industry will put all their might behind it as we're the last bastion of resistance to their evil trade.

But it will be one heck of a battle.

stefanovich

galljga1 wrote: »

Does anyone else find it amusing that Shatter's name is censored?

He obviously deliberately misspelled the name out of disrespect.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'd be careful in making a correlation between this Yes vote and a support for liberalising abortion.

The abortion industry will put all their might behind it as we're the last bastion of resistance to their evil trade.

But it will be one heck of a battle. Will make this campaign in the ha'penny place.

Especially with all the US money that would flow into the prolife campaign...

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Especially with all the US money that would flow into the prolife campaign...

We'll need every penny/cent we can get.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'd be careful in making a correlation between this Yes vote and a support for liberalising abortion.

The abortion industry will put all their might behind it as we're the last bastion of resistance to their evil trade.

But it will be one heck of a battle.

We'll just make it a public service then, simples!

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

We'll just make it a public service then, simples!

Demanding doctors whose job is to protect life, to kill unborn babies?

How will that one work then?

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

Demanding doctors whose job is to protect life, to kill unborn babies?

How will that one work then?

I'd politely state that this is new thread worthy...

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd politely state that this is new thread worthy...

I agree. It is for another day, no another year or 5 more like.

X has been legislated for and we're still abortion free thank God.

United Chester Men

Big C wrote: »

so glad I voted NO. Listening to alan ****ter mehall martin etc saying how great we are, same arseholes screw us every chance they get, so glad to say i didn't vote the same as them. (glad the ref was passed)

HAHA!! This seems to be a growing mantra by No voters............."I voted NO because the politicians voted YES"!!!!!!!!!!! What a ridiculous childish excuse...........!! Show what respect all these so called "constitutionally proud individuals" have when they are seemingly only voting one way because certain individuals are voting another way!!!!

United Chester Men

On a side note, this result could have a great effect on Dublin nightlife/tourism etc. Dublin could have a bit of a San Francisco/Amsterdam effect where a vibe has developed of a "gay friendly" city. Obviously it won't change things to such an effect as to "camp" up the city but I guarantee you there will be more gay bars/festivals in the next few years. Can only improve the tourism aspect to give us a bit more identity than shamrocks and guiness..

mark_79

Shamrocks, Guiness and bumming then?

United Chester Men

mark_79 wrote: »

Shamrocks, Guiness and bumming then?

If thats what you are into Mark! Go for it, darling! have a good night!

Black Menorca

mark_79 wrote: »

Shamrocks, Guiness and bumming then?

As a No voter, I distance myself from such childish remarks.

Get yourself some self respect.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

As a No voter, I distance myself from such childish remarks.

Get yourself some self respect.

Kettle

Pot

Pink

meath12

it's sad to think so many people were bullied and manipulated by the yes campaign into voting yes and were told wrongly that this change in the constitution would not affect children. If the yes voters had actually done all the relevant research instead of basing their vote purely on emotion and jumping on the yes bandwagon they would've realised the fact that it will affect children.

United Chester Men

meath12 wrote: »

it's sad to think so many people were bullied and manipulated by the yes campaign into voting yes and were told wrongly that this change in the constitution would not affect children. If the yes voters had actually done all the relevant research instead of basing their vote purely on emotion and jumping on the yes bandwagon they would've realised the fact that it will affect children.

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn



How about the many children that will grow up gay..................

Actually, don't bother answering that, enjoy your night.

Not a NSA agent

meath12 wrote: »

it's sad to think so many people were bullied and manipulated by the yes campaign into voting yes and were told wrongly that this change in the constitution would not affect children. If the yes voters had actually done all the relevant research instead of basing their vote purely on emotion and jumping on the yes bandwagon they would've realised the fact that it will affect children.

Funny how it was just a bunch of religious fringe groups claiming that.

Nobody was bullied, it was a private ballot.

meath12

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Funny how it was just a bunch of religious fringe groups claiming that.

Nobody was bullied, it was a private ballot.

there was plenty of bullying and pressuring from the yes campaign long before the referendum took place, people were lead to believe that there would be absolutely no effect what so ever on children which is a blatant lie. any person on social networking sites were getting attacked and abused when they admitted they would be voting no, which is unfair as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have no problem with people voting yes as it is their own opinion but they should know what effects this decision will have on everyone including children. it is wrong that a lot of yes campaigners voted yes because they were fooled into thinking that the only people who would be affected by this are gay couples, which is untrue.

Not a NSA agent

meath12 wrote: »

there was plenty of bullying and pressuring from the yes campaign long before the referendum took place, people were lead to believe that there would be absolutely no effect what so ever on children which is a blatant lie. any person on social networking sites were getting attacked and abused when they admitted they would be voting no, which is unfair as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have no problem with people voting yes as it is their own opinion but they should know what effects this decision will have on everyone including children. it is wrong that a lot of yes campaigners voted yes because they were fooled into thinking that the only people who would be affected by this are gay couples, which is untrue.

Well if the no side was a little less vague people might have listened to them.

United Chester Men

meath12 wrote: »

there was plenty of bullying and pressuring from the yes campaign long before the referendum took place, people were lead to believe that there would be absolutely no effect what so ever on children which is a blatant lie. any person on social networking sites were getting attacked and abused when they admitted they would be voting no, which is unfair as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have no problem with people voting yes as it is their own opinion but they should know what effects this decision will have on everyone including children. it is wrong that a lot of yes campaigners voted yes because they were fooled into thinking that the only people who would be affected by this are gay couples, which is untrue.

oh sh1t. Think I didn't vote right then??????????????? I like that you think your opinion is 100% right and that yes voters were gullible, brainwashed m0rons!

The positive effects of the result today far far far outweigh whatever negatives effects you think there will be. What in gods name do you think will happen if a same sex couple, who were previously entitled to adopt a child, will now do to the same child that they are officially a family. How will the child be affected if the adoption boards assess their credentials as parents and see that they are a functioning, happy couple who have the mental capacity, love, stability and dedication to raise the child effectively.

Yes there will be some same sex couple not fit to raise a child, under adoption, but equally there are many many hetrosexual couples not fit to raise their kids. Only difference is the latter don't have to go through a series of checks and balances to ensure they are fit for a family. Whereas same sex couples do.

Come back with some empiracal research which backs up your statement definitively before condescending others calling them gullible and brainwashed into voting, effectively.

johnnyskeleton

Mod: Voting is over folks. If we're going to go over all the same ground again Im just going to lock the thread.

Bannasidhe

meath12 wrote: »

it's sad to think so many people were bullied and manipulated by the yes campaign into voting yes and were told wrongly that this change in the constitution would not affect children. If the yes voters had actually done all the relevant research instead of basing their vote purely on emotion and jumping on the yes bandwagon they would've realised the fact that it will affect children.

Official Top Secret Memo from LGBT HQ (Gay atrium division)

They can't get us now, we're in the Constitution!

meath12

United Chester Men wrote: »

oh sh1t. Think I didn't vote right then??????????????? I like that you think your opinion is 100% right and that yes voters were gullible, brainwashed m0rons!

The positive effects of the result today far far far outweigh whatever negatives effects you think there will be. What in gods name do you think will happen if a same sex couple, who were previously entitled to adopt a child, will now do to the same child that they are officially a family. How will the child be affected if the adoption boards assess their credentials as parents and see that they are a functioning, happy couple who have the mental capacity, love, stability and dedication to raise the child effectively.

Yes there will be some same sex couple not fit to raise a child, under adoption, but equally there are many many hetrosexual couples not fit to raise their kids. Only difference is the latter don't have to go through a series of checks and balances to ensure they are fit for a family. Whereas same sex couples do.

Come back with some empiracal research which backs up your statement definitively before condescending others calling them gullible and brainwashed into voting, effectively.

I didn't say the yes voters were any of those things so do you mind not putting words in my mouth, the thing I'm saying is that a lot of people believed that children were not going to be affected by the referendum and I think that if some knew that they will be affected they may have voted no. Your point about me thinking that a gay couple would not be able to look after a child is invalid because I'm not of that opinion at all, despite many yes voters thinking that all no voters are homophobic, I am not infact one of my best friends is a gay man. I have no doubt that there are many gay couples out there who would make wonderful parents however my fear is for the child being picked on in school for having two mams or two dads, many young children do not know the concept of being gay and they will not understand why that one child in a class does not have a mother and a father like everyone else, this could have big effects on the child making him/ her feel inferior to all the other children because they do not have a mother and father like everyone else which I don't think Is fair that a child should have to deal with that issue all because they were adopted into a married couple of the same sex, and before anyone says that gay couples were able to adopt without being married, we all know that it is very hard to be able to adopt, unmarried people whether gay or straight find it very hard to be selected as good candidates to adopt, gay couples trying to adopt when they are married will have a much greater chance of being able to adopt