Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

Call Me Jimmy

hah I had an almost identical experience except I had to decide on the spot whether I was a dyke or not! Scary times

obplayer

It's spreading, even to the land on "No Poofters!".

https://twitter.com/billshortenmp/status/603102807885885440/photo/1

efb

Today at the Vatican:

Gay Agenda 62-38 Humanity

jank

sup_dude wrote: »

Can you point to any high profile Yes campaigner that called all No voters bigots? .....

Answering a questions with a question. Poor form as obviously you cannot answer the question at hand.

Therefore my points stands. However I will be polite and answer your question. Una Mullally would be one example of a Yes campaigner of that ilk.

Care to answer my question now?

jank

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Jank you did so in the context of the passage of the referendum. The inference was clear and frankly obviously intended. I truly believe in free speech and that means that the freedom to condemn enthusiastically and effusively the nonsense that people spout.

The only people who seek to constrain criticism are those who know they are wrong.

Eh, no, I was responding to a poster at hand, perhaps you should re-read the post and my contributions to this thread before you go down the 'anyone who doesn't 100% agree with me is a bigot' malarkey that is exactly what I am pointing out, although I must congratulate you on your mind reading ability, plenty of money in that.

jank

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Jank, the thing about living in a free society is while you are allowed any opinion you want, people are equally allowed to respond in any manner they see fit.

Correct, I agree. Ideas should be scrutinised by free and open debate. Shining a light on ideas is how people can really change their opinion about important topics. However, it can quickly seize to be a debate when the social media machine goes on the hunt. Lets not kid ourselves that those tweeting nonsense on both side actually want to debate anything and seek common ground on this issue or other issues.

MathDebater

A ghost is haunting Germany: the ghost of Catholic Ireland. Four days after Irish voters backed marriage equality, politicians of all persuasions here are demanding that Germany follow Ireland’s example and open civil marriage to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Behind these demands lies shock. Shock that ausgerechnet Irland – Ireland of all countries – could leapfrog Germany on this key social issue.

In many German minds, Ireland is perceived as the arch-Catholic conservative backwater that progress forgot. But the Yes vote has forced a rapid rethink of how Germany views Ireland – and how liberal Germany considers itself.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/german-politicians-demand-moves-to-follow-irish-referendum-1.2226873

Twenty years ago if you predicted this you would have been considered a bit of a head the ball. A lad with 'strange notions'. But here we are. The Irish people and their unanimous decision is being used to change social policy in Germany.

Twenty years ago we were in the middle of a sectarian tit for tat conflict, the Church held huge sway over the populace, homosexuality was just recently decriminalised and we had referendum to legislate for something as so basic as the right to divorce the person you fell out of love with.

Yet here we are today. We've experienced massive change in Irish society, most of it in just a decade or two. I think the Irish people deserve immense credit for that.

floggg

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you missed Floggg's point which is that as a gay man he had to go and ask people to grant him access to something that would have been automatic if he was straight. That was humiliating. As a lesbian I agree.

People were forced to knock on doors and discuss their lives with complete strangers just to ask for something that should never have been denied to a citizen in the first place.

He wasn't discussing the process - but bemoaning the fact that the process is necessary to force Ireland to abide by "The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past" 99 years after those word were spoken.

Actually, I was bemoaning the process. We are supposed to live in a liberal democracy with constitutional protections for minority rights. It should be up to the courts to vindicate and protect them, and to the legislature to give effect to them.

Are the courts and legislature infallible? Of course not - they are composed of mere mortals. They will not always make the right choices. But the constraints of the constitution, and its minority protection provisions, should limit their margin for error and means they are usually ahead of the masses.

It should not be in the power of the ordinary man in the streets to weigh up a minoritys rights or value - particularly in a manner which is free from the constraints of the minority protections of the constitution - which is essentially the case when you give them the power to right minority rights into or out of the constitution.

Where minority rights fall to be determine by popular vote, it means that either

(i) there has been an abdication of the duty of the legislature to act in the best interests of the nation as a whole and subject to the constraints of the constitution; or

(ii) the constitution itself, and the system based on it, was already flawed, unjust and unfit for purpose.

In this case, I feel it was the former.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

That sounds like like a licence to give abuse. I'd like to think different views would be respected in society.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not saying opinions can't be challenged, but they should be respected however strongly we disagree with them.

In my experience the people who whine about having their opinion respected are doing so because they expressed an opinion - and someone expressed a counter opinion - and they hate that.

All too often "Respect my opinion" means "Allow me to express mine while keeping your counter opinion silence". Time and time again on forums such as this the people whining "I have a right to my opinion" are actually whining that someone else got to express theirs too.

I respect people - I do not respect ideas or opinions. And I see no reason why I should. I can respect people while discussing and disagreeing with bad ideas. As a man greater than me once said "I respect you TOO much to NOT attempt to divest you of your ridiculous opinions".

floggg

jank wrote: »

No where did I say that debate has to be challenge free. Challenge away I say. Open ideas, critical thinking and debate is what we should be aiming for. However, all one has to do is look around you as see the direction of the cat calls. The internet and twitter has accelerated this process.
E.g. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marian-keyes-apologises-for-bigots-comment-about-roscommon-south-leitrim-1.2224256

One would think she would know better but hey, its all a laugh. Today in the western world the place where opinions are not actually challenged are Universities, ironically enough. It has started in the US and is creeping its way over here. Countless examples of PC dumbness where one cannot even read a book like say Huck-Finn without a 'mandatory' trigger warning, in case you know some poor precious 20 something soul jumps off a bridge after hearing a bad word.

As Colm O'Gorman said on the radio the other day, people need to cop on a bit when it comes to twitter comments. As he said, you make a negative comment on Niall Horan's hair and you are likely to hear far more vitriol than that.

I don't really use twitter that much, but I have also gotten abuse on it over the past few weeks for tweets supporting the yes side - including the whole burning in hell bit. There have been plenty of nasty things said about gay people generally, nd some yes campaigners specifically on there too.

The difference is, we haven't felt the need to cry about it in order to make us feel like victims. To be honest, coming from where the LGBT community has come from (and there is still away to go in terms of homophobia and Section 37 etc), twitter comments are like water off a ducks back.

floggg

marienbad wrote: »

I think most of us agree with this , but we had to deal with the situation in which we found ourselves . The alternative would have been never ending legal challenges .

Better to fight one nasty pitched battle and finish it for all time rather that a succession of small wars .

It wouldn't have. the alternative was legislation, followed by an Article 26 reference, and a definitive (and unchallengeable) Supreme Court ruling on its constitutionality.

floggg

sup_dude wrote: »

Unless the are bigotted. This is what I didn't get about this campaign. Yes, the terms were over used but the way some people were acting, you could not even call those who were bigotted and homophobic, bigotted and homophobic without claims of bullying and harrassment... I mean seriously, there have been people called all sorts of things such as paedophile and when you call them out for being homophobic (because, lets face it, anyone who accuses gay people of being paedophiles are homophobic), you're in the wrong. I'm getting a little bit sick of it to be honest.

This. If I recall correctly, I read on here somewhere that even Keith Mills admitted they were focusing on the image of two men raising a kid because they knew it made more people uncomfortable.

I.e. tapping into their latent prejudices and homophobia. And yet we couldn't even point that out.

jill_valentine

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not saying opinions can't be challenged, but they should be respected however strongly we disagree with them.

No's position was inherently disrespectful to us, something compounded by Quinn's treatment of it all as a game he failed to win. It wasn't a game to me, the people those posters talk about aren't hypothetical game pieces or opposing players - we were walking around past posters which tried to present us, personally, as hazards to children. The entire premise is that something bad will result from treating gay people equally to straight people. There is no version of that which isn't a personal **** you statement, no matter what elaborate word games they tried to wrap it in.

I can respect some people who voted no considering the volume of lies they were fed until that point, but I do not and do not have to respect their opinion that the concept of me simply marrying presents an urgent threat to society.

floggg

jank wrote: »

So, this would be a good example to see. Can you give me an example that any high profile no campaigner called gay people a paedophile? Give any high profile name, not some wagon in the backend of nowhere shouting at the trees.

This is the issue though. A no voter/campaigner who equates homosexuality to paedophilia would be of course deemed a bigot/homophobe BUT it would not be fair then to say that ALL no voters are therefore bigots. Its a fallacy (Fallacy of composition to be precise)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Let's not pretend that a campaign that was almost entirely based on the fear of two men raising a child, and some unspecified harm which would result, wasn't trying to tap into exactly those types of beliefs.

floggg

kunst nugget wrote: »

‘Look, the gays can marry, I'm cool with that but they're not taking me bleedin' Full Irish Breakfast!!!’

<Insert obligatory sausage joke here>

Baggy Trousers

Sorry if this was posted already.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-vatican-ireland-same-sex-20150526-story.html

A close aide to Pope Francis on Tuesday denounced Ireland's vote last week to legalize same-sex marriage, calling it a "defeat for humanity."

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, told reporters he was “deeply saddened” by the outcome of the Friday referendum in Ireland, in which many voters defied the Roman Catholic Church by favoring marriage for same-sex couples.

"The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelization,” Parolin was quoted as saying by Italian wire agency Ansa. “I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity."

Parolin appeared to be responding to the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, who told Irish broadcaster RTE after the vote, "We have to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities."

Although Francis made headlines in 2013 by saying “Who am I to judge,” when asked for his views on homosexuality, he has fiercely defended heterosexual marriage and traditional family values.

During his trip to the Philippines in January, Francis said the family was “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage.”

Church officials often see any moves to legitimize gay unions as automatically weakening of the status of the traditional family. The Vatican views homosexual acts as unnatural.

Stay classy Roman catholic church. It boggles the mind how these creeps still have such a hold on our citizens.

kunst nugget

floggg wrote: »

This. If I recall correctly, I read on here somewhere that even Keith Mills admitted they were focusing on the image of two men raising a kid because they knew it made more people uncomfortable.

I.e. tapping into their latent prejudices and homophobia. And yet we couldn't even point that out.

It is a weird one. During the divorce referendum, they were so concerned about fathers leaving with their 'Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy' tagline that I thought they'd be really happy with double the daddy! Turns out they're not…

What's really odd about the conservative campaigners in both the divorce and marriage equality referendums is that, considering their belief in having a mother and father kept together, they seem to have a pretty dim view of fathers. We seem to all be flakes who'll disappear in an instance and can't be trusted around kids according to their posters.

Not sure it is that they have a dim view on fathers. Or mothers. They simply have a dim view on anything that does not fit the "one man and one woman" narrative they rely on so heavily. They have a dim view of people in general. A narrative that is entirely based on the couple being greater than the sum of it's parts - and if anything is absent then that "greater good" can not be attained. Be it single parents - or same sex parents - they are unable to attain this "greater than the sum of it's parts" effect.

You would think my own relationship - where the children have one father - one mother - and an extra mother - would by their standards be even better again. But no - it too does not fit their narrative and therefore must be "bad" or "deficient" too. Why? Because - reasons.

It really is a top down - rather than bottom up - form of non-think. They have their narrative - and anything that does not fit it must be bad. They do not need to test if it is bad - fact check any arguments they spew out that it is bad - or map their tirades onto reality in any way. It is simply enough that a relationship does not fit the narrative - for them to just know by faith it has to be bad.

Going Strong

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure it is that they have a dim view on fathers. Or mothers. They simply have a dim view on anything that does not fit the "one man and one woman" narrative they rely on so heavily. They have a dim view of people in general. A narrative that is entirely based on the couple being greater than the sum of it's parts - and if anything is absent then that "greater good" can not be attained. Be it single parents - or same sex parents - they are unable to attain this "greater than the sum of it's parts" effect.

You would think my own relationship - where the children have one father - one mother - and an extra mother - would by their standards be even better again. But no - it too does not fit their narrative and therefore must be "bad" or "deficient" too. Why? Because - reasons.

It really is a top down - rather than bottom up - form of non-think. They have their narrative - and anything that does not fit it must be bad. They do not need to test if it is bad - fact check any arguments they spew out that it is bad - or map their tirades onto reality in any way. It is simply enough that a relationship does not fit the narrative - for them to just know by faith it has to be bad.

And it means that those in 'traditional' "A man Daddy and a lady Mummy who love each other very much so God put babies in Mummy's tummy" families must be held to this ideal as well no matter what. It's an ideological straightjacket for everyone else and to hell with individuality, personal experience, love, losing love, losing one another and a million and one other things that happen in life just because.

mickydoomsux

Going Strong wrote: »

And it means that those in 'traditional' "A man Daddy and a lady Mummy who love each other very much so God put babies in Mummy's tummy" families must be held to this ideal as well no matter what. It's an ideological straightjacket for everyone else and to hell with individuality, personal experience, love, losing love, losing one another and a million and one other things that happen in life just because.

People wouldn't have time for these things to happen in their lives if they simply prayed more and went to mass more often.

And stopped thinking.

Or doing anything at all that isn't allowed by their religion.

MintyMagnum

Where is Nell Mccafferty?

sjb25

Take a listen to this gobsh1te I'm in tears laughing at him

This is jim from cork who says all us young PAGEN yes voters are going to be killed by god over this I'm shaking Jim I'm shaking here

http://www.theslicedpan.com/nonsense/corks-96fm-caller-yes-vote/294482

Bannasidhe

MintyMagnum wrote: »

Where is Nell Mccafferty?

Why?
Does she owe you money?

Bannasidhe

sjb25 wrote: »

Take a listen to this gobsh1te I'm in tears laughing at him

This is jim from cork who says all us young PAGEN yes voters are going to be killed by god over this I'm shaking Jim I'm shaking here

http://www.theslicedpan.com/nonsense/corks-96fm-caller-yes-vote/294482

Morto for his family like.

VinLieger

MintyMagnum wrote: »

Where is Nell Mccafferty?

Jesus don't risk invoking her like that, its like awakening the kraken

P_1

sjb25 wrote: »

Take a listen to this gobsh1te I'm in tears laughing at him

This is jim from cork who says all us young PAGEN yes voters are going to be killed by god over this I'm shaking Jim I'm shaking here

http://www.theslicedpan.com/nonsense/corks-96fm-caller-yes-vote/294482

I feel sorry for him more than anything else. He appears to have been indoctrinated to a ridiculous philosophy.

Call Me Jimmy

Yea i don't know how any can get angry at him personally, he's a vessel for the crap that was planted in his mind. Could have been me if I was born 60 years ago, so I'm not intrinsically better than him (obviously)

TwoShedsJackson

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus don't risk invoking her like that, its like awakening the kraken

Nell McCafferty Nell McCafferty Nell McCafferty!!!!

*ggaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggggghhhhhhh*

kunst nugget

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yea i don't know how any can get angry at him personally, he's a vessel for the crap that was planted in his mind. Could have been me if I was born 60 years ago, so I'm not intrinsically better than him (obviously)

Bill Burr has a great bit about that in his latest show on Netflix -I'm sorry you feel that way - about the guy from Duck Dynasty making those homophobic comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kts4T-gkvdY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc3HiKQDPCQ

NSFW!

Bannasidhe

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Nell McCafferty Nell McCafferty Nell McCafferty!!!!

*ggaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggggghhhhhhh*

Nell is busy right now having a very public barney with Rory O Neill about signage to disabled toilets in Pantibar.

WoolyJumper

I'm in bits again

VinLieger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nell is busy right now having a very public barney with Rory O Neill about signage to disabled toilets in Pantibar.

Seriously???? Please tell me this isnt a joke :P

El Weirdo

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I'm in bits again

Just saw that on Facebook.

I didn't want to piss on anyone's parade by correcting them on the caption at the beginning.

Ireland wasn't the first country to put the issue of same sex marriage to a popular vote.

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nell is busy right now having a very public barney with Rory O Neill about signage to disabled toilets in Pantibar.

Hmm, I'll believe that when I see it. Although wouldn't put it past either of them :pac:

Aard

El Weirdo wrote: »

Just saw that on Facebook.

I didn't want to piss on anyone's parade by correcting them on the caption at the beginning.

Ireland wasn't the first country to put the issue of same sex marriage to a popular vote.

Do you know which country was? Surely, given every news report mentioned it, we're the first country to have *approved* it by popular vote?

Bannasidhe

VinLieger wrote: »

Seriously???? Please tell me this isnt a joke :P

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm, I'll believe that when I see it. Although wouldn't put it past either of them :pac:

Tis true.

It's been going on since Monday but escalated in the last 10 hours after Nell posted a comment on her FB page.

Nell Mc Cafferty

10 hrs · Edited ·
Memories of times past, when i used to accompany a friend with walking difficulties on holidays abroad. The first hour anywhere, after leaving her alone in the hotel room was invariably spent scouring restaurants and bars within reach, establishing if there were disabled- access toilets. Often there was no proper signage, and i did not have the local language. NOw i have entered the age cohort where bodies creak and fail, and I see and feel even more keenly how difficult it was for her. And i only have to deal with Irish places in this allegedly newly open, tolerant and inclusive society. I shall of course win. You can bet Panti's louboutins on it. Nell

Bannasidhe

El Weirdo wrote: »

Just saw that on Facebook.

I didn't want to piss on anyone's parade by correcting them on the caption at the beginning.

Ireland wasn't the first country to put the issue of same sex marriage to a popular vote.

Ireland was the first country to put the approval of SSM to public vote.

An Ciarraioch

Aard wrote: »

Do you know which country was? Surely, given every news report mentioned it, we're the first country to have *approved* it by popular vote?

Not a full country, but Maryland approved it by referendum, not sure how many other US states have done so.

WoolyJumper

El Weirdo wrote: »

Just saw that on Facebook.

I didn't want to piss on anyone's parade by correcting them on the caption at the beginning.

Ireland wasn't the first country to put the issue of same sex marriage to a popular vote.

Ireland was the first country to approve it by popular vote as far as I'm aware.
I know there was quiet a few countries that had a referendum to constitutional ban same sex marriage.

Are there countries that had a ref to approve it but it failed?

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ireland was the first country to put the approval of SSM to public vote.

This. To my knowledge, two countries have put the disapproval of SSM to public vote, which was passed. Will have to go look up which ones.

Edit: Can't find them now. Thought Croatia was one, but seems the referendum was shot down. Hard to find out :-(

efb

El Weirdo wrote: »

Just saw that on Facebook.

I didn't want to piss on anyone's parade by correcting them on the caption at the beginning.

Ireland wasn't the first country to put the issue of same sex marriage to a popular vote.

Allowing same sex marriage it was. The other countries was to ban it outright

Shrap

Here we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_constitutional_referendum,_2013

The proposed amendment to the constitution would define marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, which would create a constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage.

It passed 65.87% voted yes, 33.51% no

WoolyJumper

Shrap wrote: »

This. To my knowledge, two countries have put the disapproval of SSM to public vote, which was passed. Will have to go look up which ones.

Edit: Can't find them now. Thought Croatia was one, but seems the referendum was shot down. Hard to find out :-(

Yeah Croatia had a referendum to define marriage solely between a man and a woman, therefore banning ssm. It passed according to wikipedia.

Edit: you beat me to it

Shrap

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Edit: you beat me to it

Bannasidhe

Shrap wrote: »

This. To my knowledge, two countries have put the disapproval of SSM to public vote, which was passed. Will have to go look up which ones.

Edit: Can't find them now. Thought Croatia was one, but seems the referendum was shot down. Hard to find out :-(

Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia.

http://www.europeanmovement.ie/just-the-facts-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland-and-the-eu/

floggg

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure it is that they have a dim view on fathers. Or mothers. They simply have a dim view on anything that does not fit the "one man and one woman" narrative they rely on so heavily. They have a dim view of people in general. A narrative that is entirely based on the couple being greater than the sum of it's parts - and if anything is absent then that "greater good" can not be attained. Be it single parents - or same sex parents - they are unable to attain this "greater than the sum of it's parts" effect.

You would think my own relationship - where the children have one father - one mother - and an extra mother - would by their standards be even better again. But no - it too does not fit their narrative and therefore must be "bad" or "deficient" too. Why? Because - reasons.

It really is a top down - rather than bottom up - form of non-think. They have their narrative - and anything that does not fit it must be bad. They do not need to test if it is bad - fact check any arguments they spew out that it is bad - or map their tirades onto reality in any way. It is simply enough that a relationship does not fit the narrative - for them to just know by faith it has to be bad.

In fairness, does anybody think they were genuine in anything they said?

David Quinn who spent weeks telling us that it was going to be close and how there was a huge silent no vote comes out on Saturday morning and says "sure we never had a chance, didn't we do great to even get so close."

The continued insistence that surrogacy was relevant, even when all credible independent experts said it was not.

The sad attempt by Breda O'Brien to mischarachterise Mary McAleese's initial comments as some sort of personal attack or judgment on the no campaign and the quick brushing it under the carpet once she was laughed at.

These people didn't believe a word they said. The only thing that mattered to them was whether the electorate might.

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia.

http://www.europeanmovement.ie/just-the-facts-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland-and-the-eu/

Yeah, just found Slovakia. This wiki page makes fascinating reading actually, in the light of our own "mothers and fathers matter/Iona" groups. Seems Pope Francis took an unhealthy interest in the affairs of another country here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_same-sex_marriage_referendum,_2015

A referendum on banning same-sex marriage was held in Slovakia on 7 February 2015.[1][2] Critics claim the referendum was pushed by religious and conservative organisations,[3] aiming to block gay couples from gaining more rights.[4]

Despite conservative groups receiving the support of Pope Francis[5] and spending €110,000 on the campaign, the referendum failed with only 21.4% of citizens casting a vote.[6]

El Weirdo

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Ireland was the first country to approve it by popular vote as far as I'm aware.
I know there was quiet a few countries that had a referendum to constitutional ban same sex marriage.

Are there countries that had a ref to approve it but it failed?

But the video says we were the first to put the issue of SSM to a popular vote.

I'm just being pedantic. It was a nice video.

MrWalsh

El Weirdo wrote: »

But the video says we were the first to put the issue of SSM to a popular vote.

I'm just being pedantic. It was a nice video.

Can I be pedantic then - I still dont know which countries put approval of SSM to a popular vote where it failed?

thee glitz

I always believed SSM is an oxymoron.
While for SS partners being able to make the same legal commitments to each other as straight couples, it's not reeeally marriage.