Sh*t the No Campaigners Say

Aard

It just highlights the lengths people will go to to protect their family in the absence of ssm.

Ash885

And it also highlights the daft mindsets of some people. Some of what I've heard over the course of this referendum really doesn't say much for decent common sense.

PopePalpatine

Another hit from the "Butthurt Dwellers for No" campaign: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95580138

Lawliet

A group of European politicians are claiming there's some sort of government and police conspiracy and people are being intimated into voting yes. The multinationals are in on it too, I can only assume the evil plan goes a bit like:

1. Achieve marriage equality
2. ????
3. PROFIT!!!

Ash885

Lawliet wrote: »

A group of European politicians are claiming there's some sort of government and police conspiracy and people are being intimated into voting yes. The multinationals are in on it too, I can only assume the evil plan goes a bit like:

1. Achieve marriage equality
2. ????
3. PROFIT!!!

An increase in public's happiness will surely mean more money spent. God we've all fallen for it!! :pac:

circadian

Lawliet wrote: »

A group of European politicians are claiming there's some sort of government and police conspiracy and people are being intimated into voting yes. The multinationals are in on it too, I can only assume the evil plan goes a bit like:

1. Achieve marriage equality
2. ????
3. PROFIT!!!

"It's a trap!!"

circadian

Ash885 wrote: »

Everything and anything posted on Keith Mills twitter. I don't follow him but when I need a good laugh I skim through some of his "thoughts" ^^ if some new gems crop up I'll post them on here.

Had a look for the first time.

I thought it was a parody account at first.

hdowney

I have now been told by a no mong on fb that the vote has EVERYTHING to do with religion and NOTHING to do with politics.

A VOTE. To CHANGE the CONSTITUTION. Has NOTHING to do with politics!!!!!!!

RainyDay

hdowney wrote: »

I have now been told by a no mong on fb that the vote has EVERYTHING to do with religion and NOTHING to do with politics.

A mong? Nice - says more about you than it does about him. Ironic that you choose language in an Equality debate that demeans people with intellectual disabilities.

Annasopra

Right folks Mong is an offensive term. Don't use it again.

Kermit.de.frog

The attitude of certain yes voters has driven people to vote no. This thread alone is presenting the yes side in a nasty, undesirable manner that does not go down well.

PopePalpatine

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The attitude of certain yes voters has driven people to vote no. This thread alone is presenting the yes side in a nasty, undesirable manner that does not go down well.

Says the guy who blamed bad parenting for people becoming LGBT.

Kermit.de.frog

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Says the guy who blamed bad parenting for people becoming LGBT.

And? That is my opinion.

One thing I won't do though is personally insult or degrade anybody regardless of their opinions which is exactly what threads like this intend to do to one side of the debate.

Where is the "sh*t the yes side say" thread?

PopePalpatine

You DID degrade people, by suggesting they became LGBT because their parents did a bad job!

NewCorkLad

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And? That is my opinion.

One thing I won't do though is personally insult or degrade anybody regardless of their opinions which is exactly what threads like this intend to do to one side of the debate.

Where is the "sh*t the yes side say" thread?

Ya because making a gross generalisation about a group of individuals, supported by no facts is grand, they should just get over themselves.

Kermit.de.frog

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You DID degrade people, by suggesting they became LGBT because their parents did a bad job!

Nonsense. You just can't take opinions on social issues if they don't measure up to your own. A lot of the yes side have been involved in a campaign of vilification of anyone who votes no and dares give their opinions.

PopePalpatine

Bigotry deserves vilification.

davidfitz22

I voted yes, but some of the attitudes here are sick, We live in a democracy anyone can vote they way they want.

Lawliet

I have to say I'm pretty suspicious of yes voters who are disgusted by the yes side but never mention the shady campaign the no side have run. Reeks a little of concern trolling.

hdowney

RainyDay wrote:

A mong? Nice - says more about you than it does about him. Ironic that you choose language in an Equality debate that demeans people with intellectual disabilities.

That was a genuine misspelling that I didn't cop and I do apologize. I was typing on my phone thru squint eyes with a migraine this morning and it was meant to say man. How it changed into that offensive word I'll never know other than the eyes and fat fingers. I honestly never meant for that word to be there and never copped that it was. I do seriously apologize.

RainyDay

hdowney wrote: »

That was a genuine misspelling that I didn't cop and I do apologize. I was typing on my phone thru squint eyes with a migraine this morning and it was meant to say man. How it changed into that offensive word I'll never know other than the eyes and fat fingers. I honestly never meant for that word to be there and never copped that it was. I do seriously apologize.

No problem, tks for clarification.

Kermit.de.frog

davidfitz22 wrote: »

I voted yes, but some of the attitudes here are sick, We live in a democracy anyone can vote they way they want.

This. Well said.

nc19

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

The attitude of certain yes voters has driven people to vote no. This thread alone is presenting the yes side in a nasty, undesirable manner that does not go down well.

If someone's attitude can change your supposed deep rooted beliefs then I'm not sure how deep those roots were.

Qualitymark

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The attitude of certain yes voters has driven people to vote no. This thread alone is presenting the yes side in a nasty, undesirable manner that does not go down well.

Anyone who would vote against giving people a right because they're in a huff at the attitude of people campaigning for it is simply not capable of voting on a serious issue.

wonderfulname

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And? That is my opinion.

One thing I won't do though is personally insult or degrade anybody regardless of their opinions which is exactly what threads like this intend to do to one side of the debate.

Where is the "sh*t the yes side say" thread?

Mod:
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's worth anything. Yours, re bad parenting, is grossly offensive, and is not acceptable on this forum.
This is the LGBT forum, a safe space, as per the forum charter. The past weeks of debate have been about us, personally. About our validity as parents, partners and members of society. Any fun anyone can find in what has been levied against us is more than welcome, and we have no obligation to provide room for those who campaign against our rights in that.

Back on topic peoples

Kermit.de.frog

wonderfulname wrote: »

The past weeks of debate have been about us, personally.

It is not only about you. It's been about this country, children, parents, family and all the rest. Most importantly it's about the constitution. You equate "no" to redefining marriage as someone campaigning against your rights. That is totally not true.

wonderfulname

wonderfulname wrote: »

Back on topic peoples

Any queries on that can be taken up via PM

LegacyUser

A friend of a friend was out canvassing, she was asked what age she was when she was "diagnosed".

And someone said she was probably only campaigning because she had a partner she wanted to marry, when she replied her partner had died some years ago they said "Ah. AIDS, was it?"

Fleawuss

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is not only about you. It's been about this country, children, parents, family and all the rest. Most importantly it's about the constitution. You equate "no" to redefining marriage as someone campaigning against your rights. That is totally not true.

We are either equal or not.

REXER

George Hook on Newstalk in April ranting about the fact that Foreign Multinationals in Ireland had come out in support of a yes vote and by doing so they were trying to influence Irish politics!

But then fully supporting the Catholic church (also a Foreign Multinational with its head office in the Vatican) that has been quite openly lobbying for a no vote for the whole duration of the run up to the referendum. So sad! :rolleyes:

MintyMagnum

Heard a chap yesterday saying if this was passed, it would mean a pedophile could marry a child, and a person could marry a corpse. WTF

wonderfulname

Mod: Some posts deleted for chit chat on moderation, it's a site wide policy to not discuss moderation on thread, once again, any issues or comments just PM.

Aard

Am I the only one who had a totally not-busy polling station? South Dublin alleged Yes-vote stronghold.

L1011

Aard wrote: »

Am I the only one who had a totally not-busy polling station? South Dublin alleged Yes-vote stronghold.

No queues in mine but half of most pages were marked off by the time we got there.

cloudatlas

It really annoyed me how the 'No' side used language/metaphors that were traditionally used by gay people to describe the state of affairs.

Breda O'Brian said at one point that she was being 'forced into the closet' or something to that affect with the word 'closet' used to describe what was happening to her. That angered me greatly. Also being told that they were 'silenced' when for years you couldn't move for the din of their voices, their campaign has been far far longer than they appreciate. Also the word 'victim' was bandied around and 'bullied'.

I don't condone cyber attacks on these people but what do they expect when gay people have been pushed and shoved around and wound up so tight that when they finally have a voice there is no tolerance for oppression.

Vojera

Oh! A gem I heard was that since the referendum was about giving a minority a way to express their love, why aren't we also having a referendum to allow female genital mutilation since the minority's of parents who do that love their children?

How do you even respond to that?

PopePalpatine

^ By any chance, was that John Waters? I don't want to go digging for quotes, gods only know what messed up shit I'd find.

Vojera

PopePalpatine wrote: »

^ By any chance, was that John Waters? I don't want to go digging for quotes, gods only know what messed up shit I'd find.

It wasn't, but who knows, it could easily have originated with him. I doubt this person was 'smart' enough to come up with that argument alone.

Qualitymark

Vojera wrote: »

Oh! A gem I heard was that since the referendum was about giving a minority a way to express their love, why aren't we also having a referendum to allow female genital mutilation since the minority's of parents who do that love their children?

How do you even respond to that?

It's just a straw man. You respond to it with "Back on topic, please."

Aard

I had a no voter try to engage me on the topic yesterday (just minding my own business waiting for a Dublin Bike!). When it emerged that I voted yes.... and was gay.... she starts justifying her no vote to me telling me all about this promiscuous gay lad she knew in Toronto and a host of irrelevant anecdotes. I don't know why I humoured/entertained her, but by the end of her spiel all I could think was how little I now care about these types of people. Hopefully my and thousands of others' lives will no longer be a topic of debate, and those who have misgivings can finally give it a rest!

ETA: Almost forgot. She also said she didn't like how bisexuals were left out of the Yes campaign, and that was another reason she voted no. I'm starting to think I was more loopy for talking to her for the ten minutes

KingBrian2

Say what you like about the no but they show up and vote more than what you can say about the spoilers. They show up just to mess. They have no excuses people were well informed before the vote regardless they showed and still managed to spoil their ballot. You walk in and x the correct box.

Aard

RTE said that a lot of people wrote messages on their ballots, including hateful words/phrases.

Also, vote spoiling is a perfectly legitimate way to cast one's vote. Most often as a way of protest for a variety of reasons.

jill_valentine

Aard wrote: »

RTE said that a lot of people wrote messages on their ballots, including hateful words/phrases.

Also, vote spoiling is a perfectly legitimate way to cast one's vote. Most often as a way of protest for a variety of reasons.

Who ever sees it except the tally people though? I don't really understand how it functions as a protest outside of their own heads. It seems about as effective to me as those mental stickers about how you don't have to pay any bill without a picture of a harp on it or whatever.

jill_valentine

Not a quote, but for me the highlight of the No campaign - and indeed, possibly the first 29 years of my life - was the Vote No oven mitt.

I have so many questions about that oven mitt.

Sparks43

Aard wrote: »

RTE said that a lot of people wrote messages on their ballots, including hateful words/phrases.

Also, vote spoiling is a perfectly legitimate way to cast one's vote. Most often as a way of protest for a variety of reasons.

Didn't see any of those messages in the Dublin count that I tallied at

Few messages on the other referendum like What's the point or worthless

All spoils were either both boxes crossed or none marked

Would love to see a none of the above option in future election's might stop people spoiling there vote

Had an amazing day yesterday and I'm proud that the country seen through the bs that the no side spouted

Got married 8 months ago to my wife and it was the happiest time in my life

I hope that all of the lgbt community have such happiness

Well done all you deserve this

Lawliet

I've heard reports of a few miraculous medals being thrown in ballot boxes across the country, you gotta love the aul ones

Vojera

Lawliet wrote: »

I've heard reports of a few miraculous medals being thrown in ballot boxes across the country, you gotta love the aul ones

Reminds me of this quote I saw over on the Christianity forum - maybe the medals worked, just not the way they thought!

galljga1 wrote: »

Many many masses were said in support of a no vote, probably none for a yes vote
Many many people prayed for a no vote, probably a huge amount less for a yes vote.
Yes vote prevailed. God is omnipotent. Logic would suggest that this is the will of God.

RainyDay

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Say what you like about the no but they show up and vote more than what you can say about the spoilers. They show up just to mess. They have no excuses people were well informed before the vote regardless they showed and still managed to spoil their ballot. You walk in and x the correct box.

Aard wrote: »

RTE said that a lot of people wrote messages on their ballots, including hateful words/phrases.

Also, vote spoiling is a perfectly legitimate way to cast one's vote. Most often as a way of protest for a variety of reasons.

I tallied six boxes on Saturday, and didn't see a single protest message for the marriage referendum. There was one 'wrong issue' message on a presidential paper. The level of spoilt votes was very low, just 1 or 2 per box.

Qualitymark

Lawliet wrote: »

I've heard reports of a few miraculous medals being thrown in ballot boxes across the country, you gotta love the aul ones

I did a tiny bit of canvassing, and didn't find that age made much difference. Most of the No voters I spoke to were middle-aged men; there was one elderly couple mourning that Ireland was changing too fast.

Many old people I spoke to said they intended to vote Yes, including one lady hooped over a walking frame who said she'd have to get help to vote as she was waiting for a cataract operation and couldn't see the ballot paper clearly.

So perhaps a little less of the light-hearted ageism.

Vojera

RainyDay wrote: »

I tallied six boxes on Saturday, and didn't see a single protest message for the marriage referendum. There was one 'wrong issue' message on a presidential paper. The level of spoilt votes was very low, just 1 or 2 per box.

For the first time in a vote of any kind (referendum or election) I saw a lot of posts on social media explaining to people how to not spoil their votes (essentially telling them not to write anything except for their X in one box). Do you think this contributed to the low spoil rate? Or do you think people just really wanted to be sure that their vote counted on this issue?