Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

MathDebater

Kev W wrote: »

Could it be interpreted as anything less than homophobic?

The world is changing. For the better.

I went to school with 900 lads. They became professional boxers, soccer players, IT start ups, restraunters etc - but nobody felt it a right environment to come out in. Which is fcuking sad. I hope it's different for gay kids now and I hope Mr Greene is still being fabulous!

My son goes to playschool. I went to the same playschool at his age. It was homogenous as fcuk. Now when I pick him up I meet parents from all around the world and parents from every which background. Same sex partners are the norm for him. His mate has two same sex parents and he strikes it odd that anyone gives a bollix.

We're experiencing great change in this country.

MrWalsh

mach1982 wrote: »

I head of a taxi man who picked up two lesbians one night last week , and conversation got to the referendum , he said he was voting no , they ask him stop the car so they could get-out and were not going to pay. So he told them he would drop them off at the nearest Gaurda station , as it was his business. He did not discriminate against them he just saw them like any other fair.

If these people are real, they should have paid for as much of the service as they received.

Ive sat and listened to bigoted taxi men because the alternative was to pay to where I was and then get out on a lonely road with little chance of another taxi.

Taxi men should keep their opinions to themselves but thats another issue.

Kev W

MathDebater wrote: »

My son goes to playschool. I went to the same playschool at his age. It was homogenous as fcuk. Now when I pick him up I meet parents from all around the world and parents from every which background. Same sex partners are the norm for him. His mate has two same sex parents and he strikes it odd that anyone gives a bollix.

Wonderful. I really do love reading and hearing things like this, it gives me such hope.

galljga1

jank wrote: »

"Some people on the no side" is not that same as "pretend(ing) that a campaign that was almost entirely based on the fear of two men raising a child"

Again, this is a fallacy of composition. Some is not all or nearly all, yet many people put forward this argument its the 'reality'.

I asked someone else for a simple example of a high profile no campaigner comparing homosexuals to pedophiles in this referendum after they made that accusation. No example was forth coming even asking twice. I am genuinely interested to see if this did happen, I have not heard it but would welcome clarification.

I am not sure whether you regard the nutjob Burke family as high profile but they openly linked homosexuality to paedophilia, paederasty and íncest. Strangely, one of the them was a candidate in a recent election for equality officer at NUI Galway.

darkpagandeath

Why are we still talking about the referendum it's over it's done. There is no SSM anymore it's just Marrige.

floggg

mach1982 wrote: »

Once some hardcore YES side found out someone was voting no the blinkers came on and they got tunnel vision , would not listen and let them explain why they were voting no, they are not all homophobic bigots.

I head of a taxi man who picked up two lesbians one night last week , and conversation got to the referendum , he said he was voting no , they ask him stop the car so they could get-out and were not going to pay. So he told them he would drop them off at the nearest Gaurda station , as it was his business. He did not discriminate against them he just saw them like any other fair.

All that doesn't matter , the YES vote own, there nothing that can be done , it will happen and we can argue till the cows come home only time will tell if any of what the no side said will come to pass .Lets all just agree to disagree.

That would have been very wrong of that couple, assuming things happened as you described.

You heard one side of the story. The couple concerned have another.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Also, there's plenty of stories about arsehole no voters.

The only thing these stories prove is that people can be arseholes sometimes, regardless of their views.

Kev W

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why are we still talking about the referendum it's over it's done. There is no SSM anymore it's just Marrige.

I don't know, why are you still talking about it?

darkpagandeath

Kev W wrote: »

I don't know, why are you still talking about it?

Hard to point out why people are still talking about SSM without mentioning SSM......

Kev W

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hard to point out why people are still talking about SSM without mentioning SSM......

Why should it bother you that it's still being discussed? You have the option of not reading about it. The subject is in the thread title, I can't imagine you were all that surprised by the content.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hard to point out why people are still talking about SSM without mentioning SSM......

I thought it was some power-play kink thing. My bad.

Dimithy

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why are we still talking about the referendum it's over it's done. There is no SSM anymore it's just Marrige.

What I don't understand is why the No side are not talking more about it. Given their arguments against it, surely they should be making more of an effort now to prevent the dire consequences they have predicted?

Or did they not actually believe any of the reasons they gave for opposing a yes vote?

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

Nonsense - it is very easy to introduce these dog-whistle arguments,

Correct, it is very easy to introduce them "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot #havesomeglitter" Debate won.

As you can see the above serves little purpose other then wasting bandwidth. If people are too lazy to look at ideas, critically analyse them, debate them openly, maturely, respectfully then that is their own issue.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If anything, this debate has shown us that we need to start making our debates a bit more robust. Currently it is very easy to exploit the general aversion to being seen as disrespectful.

More robust? Really? Its getting pretty bad with the internet/twiiter etc. and you want to make it worse? You want to inject American talk-show radio aggressiveness into the mainstream media discourse of day to day Irish politics and society? You do know the reaction to this right, it won't be pretty. I see a little bit of this on this side of the world and all you get is a more polarised media.

jank

galljga1 wrote: »

I am not sure whether you regard the nutjob Burke family as high profile but they openly linked homosexuality to paedophilia, paederasty and íncest. Strangely, one of the them was a candidate in a recent election for equality officer at NUI Galway.

Wasn't this like two years ago?

Daith

jank wrote: »

Wasn't this like two years ago?

No during this referendum too. Though do we discount peoples opinions because they didn't say it during a referendum debate?

Trent Houseboat

Daith wrote: »

No during this referendum too. Though do we discount peoples opinions because they didn't say it during a referendum debate?

Only if they're talking about how great civil partnership is.

darkpagandeath

Kev W wrote: »

Why should it bother you that it's still being discussed? You have the option of not reading about it. The subject is in the thread title, I can't imagine you were all that surprised by the content.

But this thread is about the Ref and not what happened after that's my point. The Ref passed, so there is not such thing in Ireland now as Same Sex Marriage. Was that not the whole point of the Ref ?

kunst nugget

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But this thread is about the Ref and not what happened after that's my point. The Ref passed, so there is not such thing in Ireland now as Same Sex Marriage. Was that not the whole point of the Ref ?

People are interested in talking about the aftermath of a pretty historic vote and their feelings in relation to the result. Seems like the most convenient place to discuss it on boards.

galljga1

jank wrote: »

Wasn't this like two years ago?

No, they are still doing it. Leopards...spots etc.

MathDebater

Kev W wrote: »

Wonderful. I really do love reading and hearing things like this, it gives me such hope.

The kids are more interested in football, their cartoons and how hard their teacher treats them.

'Gay' parents? They couldn't give a fcuk. Is mate xxxx ok and are his parents nice.

MathDebater

There are currently circa 8k kids in need of care. Will the couples that support IONA be taking them in?

I guarantee this. Kids in need of a loving home won't care much if their new parents are same sex.

aloyisious

I met a friend today going to an association once-a-month meeting. He know's I'm homo and was canvassng for a yes. He told me he'd voted No on both 34th & 35th Ref's just as a slapback protest at the Govt & politicians generally on how they'd messed up the country, and were pushing for a Yes so they'd get votes. He thought his protest vote was more important, even though one of his nieces is a lesbian with a same sex partner waiting for the chance to marry. it struck me that maybe more than a few votes might have been lost that way.

Edit... @jank. I doubt very much if you would get anyone from the No side prepared to stand up and publicly say "homos and paedophiles are one and the same" or something similar, let alone a High-profile No side person having the courage to do so. The odds are that their own side would disavow all knowledge of the statement (it's a personal statement). Their PR people would be running fast to avoid contamination and meltdown of their campaign.

The "better" way was chosen by them; make a statement that was within legal bounds, but enough to draw comment, and then claim they were being victimized "we are being accused of being homophobic". Something on the lines of "children get a better deal in life with opposite sex couples rather than same sex couples" was suffice to dangle out as bait, knowing that one of the high profile Yes side personalities was Colm O'Gorman, a man in a same sex partnership and raising children. Fortunately Colm was the better man for all that, better than the calibre of the people debating the opposite side to him, and he didn't go for the red herring on the hook dangled in front of him.

Red herrings of a similar nature pop up here every so often and are ignored by Yes siders, who've gotten used to them.

MathDebater

If you're voting on referendums purely based on the fact that you wanna gift the government a bloody nose, then you should not be voting.

aloyisious

MathDebater wrote: »

If you're voting on referendums purely based on the fact that you wanna gift the government a bloody nose, then you should not be voting.

Thought and said to him "the Gov't would just shrug it off, that it was a wasted vote", even if it was his to use as he saw fit. Was adult enough not to have a row in a moving car, just left him to consider my remark.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

I voted YES because I realised that my life would not be affected one iota by gay marriage whereas a no vote would have made several thousand of my fellow citizens miserable.Fairly straightforward.

What struck me during the referendum debate was peoples' fear of being branded 'homophobic'.I think most Irish straight people are like myself-low level,passive homophobes.

For example, my young lad comes out in fifteen years time.Is it going to change my relationship with him? Of course not,I love the bones of him.I'd cook his boyfriend dinner and let them spend the night under my roof.I'll proudly make a speech at their wedding....but I also know that some part of my brain will mutter ' bollocks anyway ' should that day ever arrive.
I honestly maintain this applies to the overwhelming majority of straight people in this country.It doesn't change the fact that I'd like Leo Varadker to be the next leader of a modern,progressive Ireland.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Catalina Howling Blood wrote: »

What struck me during the referendum debate was peoples' fear of being branded 'homophobic'.I think most Irish straight people are like myself-low level,passive homophobes.

Even gay people can have homophobic belief systems, and not just the overt kind like Paddy Manning or while in the closet. If we accepted we have these prejudices (on this and other issues) and tried to work on them instead of jumping to defensiveness or victimisation, we'd all be better off.

(wasn't accusing you of either of those things, Catalina Howling Blood, in case it wasn't clear! I think you're right to acknowledge how you'd feel, whether you want to get past those thoughts or not is your decision)

Maximus Alexander

Catalina Howling Blood wrote: »

What struck me during the referendum debate was peoples' fear of being branded 'homophobic'.I think most Irish straight people are like myself-low level,passive homophobes.

I wouldn't judge you for saying this, because I know what you mean and it's rare to see someone notice it and admit to it. We all have built in prejudices about something, or some trait or aspect of some group of people.

I wonder though - do you have any gay friends or family members, that you know of, at the moment? Because I think that's what makes the difference. It's easy to build up a prejudice about something you're not familiar with, or have little exposure to, everyone has these if they reflect on it honestly enough.

But it's a great thing to be able to recognise it in yourself, because that's the first step to ridding yourself of them. That's why this referendum passing was so important in my eyes, because for the Irish people to get together and say "Welcome aboard" to all of our LGBT brothers and sisters is a huge step towards removing that extra difficulty from their lives. Sure don't we all have enough struggle in our lives as it is?

Anyway, I'm rambling. Fair play to you is what I wanted to say.

Shrap

Catalina Howling Blood wrote: »

I voted YES because I realised that my life would not be affected one iota by gay marriage whereas a no vote would have made several thousand of my fellow citizens miserable.Fairly straightforward.

For example, my young lad comes out in fifteen years time.Is it going to change my relationship with him? Of course not,I love the bones of him.I'd cook his boyfriend dinner and let them spend the night under my roof.I'll proudly make a speech at their wedding

It doesn't change the fact that I'd like Leo Varadker to be the next leader of a modern,progressive Ireland.

Ha, sorry now Catalina Howling Blood, but help me out here because I'm not able to spot what part of your thinking is at all homophobic, even on a low level!

But like the other posters were saying, I do think too that we all have some prejudice, or slight phobia of some sort in us and it's up to us to recognise that and tackle it head-on, because we know it's not right-thinking/rational. Looks to me like you do and you have tackled it. I'm not sure you can even class yourself as a low-level homophobe if you have overridden your reserve about gay people to the extent above.

Bannasidhe

Shrap wrote: »

Ha, sorry now sheaP, but help me out here because I'm not able to spot what part of your thinking is at all homophobic, even on a low level!

But like the other posters were saying, I do think too that we all have some prejudice, or slight phobia of some sort in us and it's up to us to recognise that and tackle it head-on, because we know it's not right-thinking/rational. Looks to me like you do and you have tackled it. I'm not sure you can even class yourself as a low-level homophobe if you have overridden your reserve about gay people to the extent above.

It always amazed me that the people who get their knickers in a twist at being called homophobic seemed to have missed an important part of Panti's Noble Call which is we are all homophobic to some extent. It's impossible not to have taken some of that on board when you grow up in a homophobic society. The very act of checking one's self is homophobic.
The question is do we have enough self realisation to recognise it for what it is and make an effort to stop doing it or do we rejoice in it and act like the problem is with the people who make us uncomfortable rather then with our own discomfort.

Do we reject or embrace the aversion?

floggg

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It always amazed me that the people who get their knickers in a twist at being called homophobic seemed to have missed an important part of Panti's Noble Call which is we are all homophobic to some extent. It's impossible not to have taken some of that on board when you grow up in a homophobic society. The very act of checking one's self is homophobic.
The question is do we have enough self realisation to recognise it for what it is and make an effort to stop doing it or do we rejoice in it and act like the problem is with the people who make us uncomfortable rather then with our own discomfort.

Do we reject or embrace the aversion?

Indeed.

Leaving homophobia aside, while I consider myself a pretty liberal and accepting, I will admit to having various prejudices against other groups and minorities.

For example, I cringe every time I think about that time I mistook the doctor for a receptionist just because she was a young woman. I would never do that to a guy.

Now, I don't consider myself sexist (if anything I would say I'm a feminist). But I know I can be sexist in how I think sometimes.

I also believe in the full equality of the races. And yet I labour under many prejudices and biases against people of various races, some (relatively) benign, some less so.

So again, while I don't believe I am a racist, I do have racist views or thought sometimes.

I don't think that makes me a bad person. If anything, I think the fact I am willing to identify and own my prejudices, and to try and leave them behind, makes me a better person.

And if I am challenged on certain comments or ways of thinking, while my first instinct might be to defend myself I try to acknowledge my wrong and try to learn from it.

It's a shame there are others who can't get past their first instinct.

kunst nugget

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It always amazed me that the people who get their knickers in a twist at being called homophobic seemed to have missed an important part of Panti's Noble Call which is we are all homophobic to some extent. It's impossible not to have taken some of that on board when you grow up in a homophobic society.

I think it's because people don't like their intolerance being pointed out to them. I'll hold my hands up and say I probably had some shítty attitudes in school but I hung around with a couple of gay people in college in the mid 90s, went to the George with them and tagged along to some of the gay nights up in Dublin like HAM and Powderbubble (still one of the greatest nights ever ran in Dublin imo) and never really looked back in terms of any issues of acceptance or 'tolerance' although probably as prone as anyone to underlying issues from growing up in a homophobic society. But maybe it was different because I was young, hung around with an arty crew due to the course I was doing and was open to new experiences. There was definitely people in my age group that would never have dreamt of going near a gay bar and would have thought of it all as very seedy but I guess I learnt that people are just people no matter where you go - gay, straight, whatever. But over the years, most of those people's attitudes have changed and softened and acceptance has spread to the point where we had that historic result last week.

I did recently read an article in the Irish Times by Eamonn Coughlan talking about why he was in favour of marriage equality. The article was frank and honest about his son coming out and how he struggled to come to terms with it but how he was able to accept it when he saw how much happier his son now was. Probably a pretty standard reaction from most parents of Eamonn's age imo but the comments on facebook were pretty much all just variations of 'What do you mean you had to come to terms with it, asshole!' That really bothered me reading them because it displays a real intolerance of the notion that some people might have to journey to get to the point of acceptance - that doesn't make them bad people, it's more a reflection of the society they grew up in. I think that's when I finally gave up on reading the comments under articles…

Ash.J.Williams

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It always amazed me that the people who get their knickers in a twist at being called homophobic seemed to have missed an important part of Panti's Noble Call which is we are all homophobic to some extent. It's impossible not to have taken some of that on board when you grow up in a homophobic society. The very act of checking one's self is homophobic.
The question is do we have enough self realisation to recognise it for what it is and make an effort to stop doing it or do we rejoice in it and act like the problem is with the people who make us uncomfortable rather then with our own discomfort.

Do we reject or embrace the aversion?

Good point, it's like the fact that many people are a little racist, but they are aware that racism is ilegal so they keep it to themselves, that is how homophobia will be hopefully from now on. (i guess)

kunst nugget

Vivisectus

jank wrote:

Correct, it is very easy to introduce them "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot #havesomeglitter" Debate won.

That of course is not an example of dogwhistle speech as it states something outright. What you are now trying to do is pretend that the thing you do not like, which seems to be no voters getting called on homophobia, is the same as the thing I do not like, which is using dog-whistle speech combined with confusing a debate by bringing up irrelevancies. But they are two very different things, and your attempt to equate them is dishonest.

Yes voters did not use irrelevant issues to cloud the issue, and did not introduce dog-whistle arguments to help rationalize some kind of low-grade bigotry.

jank wrote:

More robust? Really? Its getting pretty bad with the internet/twiiter etc. and you want to make it worse? You want to inject American talk-show radio aggressiveness into the mainstream media discourse of day to day Irish politics and society? You do know the reaction to this right, it won't be pretty. I see a little bit of this on this side of the world and all you get is a more polarised media.

If people use hyperbolic strawman arguments like you are doing now, we should call them on it, as I am doing now. If people advocate bigotry, like the Ionians demonstrably do for example, then we should call them on it. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by claims of victimization, silencing, and such - all that simply inhibits a frank and forthright debate.

If people don't like to be called homophobes and bigots, then they should stop advocating homophobia and bigotry. They should not be allowed to simply change the rules so it is suddenly not allowed to call them that anymore.

Annasopra

Reiver wrote: »

I remember in school that ******, bastard, ****, bollocks were all easily interchangeable as terms of affection and acceptance among the lads in my year. They're enjoying the chance to eff and blind while away from their parents.

And gay was used interchangeably with lame. Not as homosexual. Queer we actually used in its original meaning.

Yeh. No. That is böllox.

I considered suicide at the age of 13 because of that so called "affection"

Annasopra

MintyMagnum wrote: »

Where is Nell Mccafferty?

She verbally abused me a week before the referendum.

jobbridge4life

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

She verbally abused me a week before the referendum.

?

Ghost Buster

Shrap wrote: »

Ha, sorry now sheaP, but help me out here because I'm not able to spot what part of your thinking is at all homophobic, even on a low level!

But like the other posters were saying, I do think too that we all have some prejudice, or slight phobia of some sort in us and it's up to us to recognise that and tackle it head-on, because we know it's not right-thinking/rational. Looks to me like you do and you have tackled it. I'm not sure you can even class yourself as a low-level homophobe if you have overridden your reserve about gay people to the extent above.

I think its a little like the way you, to quote Panti, check yourself when you drive by a Garda car and feel a little guilty.
Im atheist of a few decades now but still feel just a little like i have to be subservient around priests.
I was actively involved in the Irish Anti Aparteid movement back in the day but am often a wee bit uncomfortable around black people for no reason i can describe.
I Voted YES, work in theater which is gay central but feel awkward discussing gay topics around gays.

I think its possibly an awareness that you are around a minority and not sure what to say or how to behave.

Pumpkinseeds

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It always amazed me that the people who get their knickers in a twist at being called homophobic seemed to have missed an important part of Panti's Noble Call which is we are all homophobic to some extent. It's impossible not to have taken some of that on board when you grow up in a homophobic society. The very act of checking one's self is homophobic.
The question is do we have enough self realisation to recognise it for what it is and make an effort to stop doing it or do we rejoice in it and act like the problem is with the people who make us uncomfortable rather then with our own discomfort.

Do we reject or embrace the aversion?

I disagree, I've got no homophobic views. It's a bit patronising to tar everyone with the same brush. Of course I have a few petty prejudices to different things in life and some people, that's just human nature, but I've never been homophobic to any degree, in all honesty, whatever sexual activities go on between consenting adults, so long as it doesn't involve animals or kids is none of my business and doesn't interest me.

wakka12

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I disagree, I've got no homophobic views. It's a bit patronising to tar everyone with the same brush. Of course I have a few petty prejudices to different things in life and some people, that's just human nature, but I've never been homophobic to any degree, in all honesty, whatever sexual activities go on between consenting adults, so long as it doesn't involve animals or kids is none of my business and doesn't interest me.

You don't have to be calling people fags to be homophobic, like it or not the churches teachings about homosexuality stem entirely from most of humanities originally homophobic opinions on homosexuality during a less enlightened time in human history. Just because we follow those homophobic beliefs today as part of a religion doesn't mean the opinions are any less homophobic.

Vivisectus

Ruth Bader Ginsberg has a very insightful comment a while back. She said that Same Sex marriage would be unthinkable for the longest time, as a marriage was an essentially unequal relationship that involved the transfer of power over one of the participants from one head of a household to another.

Same-sex marriages cannot happen in such a case - how do you decide who gets the power?

It is one of those insights that seem to obvious in retrospect, but it had never occurred to me to think of it that way. What a wonderfully incisive mind she has.

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

That of course is not an example of dogwhistle speech as it states something outright.

Correct, a better example would be the Marian Keys tweet I posted earlier, labelling an entire country and their resident a bunch of bigots and doing so deliberately to 'get a laugh'. Don't pretend one side is holier then thou, there is plenty of $hite, cat calling, dog whistling on both sides to go around. Naturally you have skin in the game so you will of course exaggerate your opponents wrong doing while skimming over your own side. Hence the problem at hand.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If people use hyperbolic strawman arguments like you are doing now, we should call them on it, as I am doing now. If people advocate bigotry, like the Ionians demonstrably do for example, then we should call them on it. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by claims of victimization, silencing, and such - all that simply inhibits a frank and forthright debate.

If people don't like to be called homophobes and bigots, then they should stop advocating homophobia and bigotry. They should not be allowed to simply change the rules so it is suddenly not allowed to call them that anymore.

Perhaps you should come back down for air after getting up on that high horse. Believe me, I see it every day here in OZ where arguments are much more 'robust' as you say then in Ireland. It is actually a very good quality Ireland has, it affords everyone respect and generally people are polite and do not shout down the opponent, call them names in an effort to demonise them. Australians can be as blunt as **** which rubs a lot of insecure Irish backpackers the wrong way. Once you get over that a grow some thick skin you get used to it. However, in political discourse it is anything but pretty. It is not as bad as America but not too far off it in some cases. Be careful what you wish for wishing for people to be more 'robust' in their debate. Once its gone, its gone.

As an aside,as we see people would rather be silent then peep their heads over the parapet. Being labeled a racist/bigot/homophobe carries huge social cost, especially when used in such an expansive and scatter gun way. These words have really lost their meaning as they are used so often, often without purpose or reason. Rotherham would be a good example of state officials ignoring sex abuse rather then being labeled a racist. When people like yourself gets to define what these terms are, then its a very easy way to shut people up from a debate even though they may have very good reasons to hold a certain view that would not be [insert label here]. All we get then is some kind of collective group think. You can then wave good bye to individuality which ironically is much of what this referendum was about.

Pumpkinseeds

wakka12 wrote: »

You don't have to be calling people fags to be homophobic, like it or not the churches teachings about homosexuality stem entirely from most of humanities originally homophobic opinions on homosexuality during a less enlightened time in human history. Just because we follow those homophobic beliefs today as part of a religion doesn't mean the opinions are any less homophobic.

Yeah, still not sure how this makes me homophobic as I don't follow church teachings. I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions I don't need to be spoon fed on how to think by the church or anyone else.

Bannasidhe

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I disagree, I've got no homophobic views. It's a bit patronising to tar everyone with the same brush. Of course I have a few petty prejudices to different things in life and some people, that's just human nature, but I've never been homophobic to any degree, in all honesty, whatever sexual activities go on between consenting adults, so long as it doesn't involve animals or kids is none of my business and doesn't interest me.

Good for you. No doubt you will ascend to Nirvana shortly as you are so amazingly enlightened... although you might want to consider why you went straight to sexual activity when describing what doesn't bother you...

Homosexuality =/= all about the shagging.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Correct, a better example would be the Marian Keys tweet I posted earlier, labelling an entire country and their resident a bunch of bigots and doing so deliberately to 'get a laugh'. Don't pretend one side is holier then thou, there is plenty of $hite, cat calling, dog whistling on both sides to go around. Naturally you have skin in the game so you will of course exaggerate your opponents wrong doing while skimming over your own side. Hence the problem at hand.

Still not the same thing. And that is still not what dog whistle speech is, which the yes side simply did not do at all. Your argument seems to have degenerated into "yes siders said mean things too!" followed by an unsubstantiated accusation of bias.

But that is neither here nor there.

Perhaps you should come back down for air after getting up on that high horse. Believe me, I see it every day here in OZ where arguments are much more 'robust' as you say then in Ireland. It is actually a very good quality Ireland has, it affords everyone respect and generally people are polite and do not shout down the opponent, call them names in an effort to demonise them. Australians can be as blunt as **** which rubs a lot of insecure Irish backpackers the wrong way. Once you get over that a grow some thick skin you get used to it. However, in political discourse it is anything but pretty. It is not as bad as America but not too far off it in some cases. Be careful what you wish for wishing for people to be more 'robust' in their debate. Once its gone, its gone.

And of course I neither advocate disrespect (of people) or anything of the kind. Just that we must not forget to call a spade a spade, especially if people are trying to use sneaky dishonest tactics.

As an aside,as we see people would rather be silent then peep their heads over the parapet. Being labeled a racist/bigot/homophobe carries huge social cost, especially when used in such an expansive and scatter gun way.

And by "huge social cost" you of course mean "people might criticize their opinion". And then you sneak in the claim that there was some sort of broad stroke labeling going in, in stead of an analysis of arguments that turned out to be kind of homophobic.

These words have really lost their meaning as they are used so often, often without purpose or reason. Rotherham would be a good example of state officials ignoring sex abuse rather then being labeled a racist. When people like yourself gets to define what these terms are, then its a very easy way to shut people up from a debate even though they may have very good reasons to hold a certain view that would not be [insert label here]. All we get then is some kind of collective group think. You can then wave good bye to individuality which ironically is much of what this referendum was about.

I guess in your world, explaining to someone how segregation is racist is somehow bad for free speech and individuality and leads to a situation where there is nothing but "groupthink" - after all, think of the social cost! That poor segregationist is practically being oppressed!

You seem to be channeling Waters - weird hyperbole, bizarre speculation and a sort of moral panic about being silenced, ironically in long-winded rambling paragraph after paragraph.

wakka12

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Yeah, still not sure how this makes me homophobic as I don't follow church teachings. I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions I don't need to be spoon fed on how to think by the church or anyone else.

Sorry I didn't mean you specifically, Ive just heard a lot of people say their opinions of gay marriage aren't homophobic due to it being against their religion/something to do with their religious beliefs and so that must mean its not homophobic. And it pisses me off

Samaris

I canvassed for the Yes side, so I shall make my biases known immediately

What I saw from both sides gave a far more negative account of the No side, in all truth.

I saw a woman shove leaflets at someone and tell them to keep the filth out of her house. A fellow canvasser in Co. Cork was met with a crucifix (!) and shouting that a vote for Yes was a vote for sodomites. I had a bloody dog set on me at one stage.

On the internet, I certainly saw a far wider variety of insults from the No side. Now, from the Yes side, I saw plenty of accusations of homophobia and bigotry, which I don't agree with, but I will say that the upsurge in those comments was in the last few, fraught, weeks. Fairly constantly throughout, I saw things like "Against God", "against Nature", "******s", "lol, I want to marry a tree!" and other such diatribes. And above all, we ALL saw those posters. Before we forget, this is the breakdown of posters that were hanging over us for everyone to read for weeks:

Yes.
Yes to Equality
"Yes - Because marriage matters"
"I am your son/daughter/neighbour/etc - Vote Yes"
"End Inquality, take the first step by voting Yes!" ("Radical Yes Vote", whatever group that was)
"Discrimination damages Lives - Vote Yes"

No.
"Children Deserve a Father and a Mother - Vote No!" (Regardless of this vote not being about adoption)
"Surrogacy? She needs her mother for more than nine months, Vote No" (Regardless of this vote not being about surrogacy)
"We already have Civil Partnerships, Don't redefine marriage"
"Two Men Can't Replace a Mother's Love - Vote No" (Again with the children.)
"Protect the Children - Jimmy Saville, Harris and Glitter all propogated Gay Marriage - Vote NO" (Loony fringe group, just to be clear. Also manages to be incorrect on all points)

Which of those sets of posters were more brutal, aggressive and hard to live with? Which spread more lies?

Yeah well. We won. Equality won. But the people that made **** up to deny others their rights should be thoroughly ashamed.

wakka12

Samaris wrote: »

I canvassed for the Yes side, so I shall make my biases known immediately

What I saw from both sides gave a far more negative account of the No side, in all truth.

I saw a woman shove leaflets at someone and tell them to keep the filth out of her house. A fellow canvasser in Co. Cork was met with a crucifix (!) and shouting that a vote for Yes was a vote for sodomites. I had a bloody dog set on me at one stage.

On the internet, I certainly saw a far wider variety of insults from the No side. Now, from the Yes side, I saw plenty of accusations of homophobia and bigotry, which I don't agree with, but I will say that the upsurge in those comments was in the last few, fraught, weeks. Fairly constantly throughout, I saw things like "Against God", "against Nature", "******s", "lol, I want to marry a tree!" and other such diatribes. And above all, we ALL saw those posters. Before we forget, this is the breakdown of posters that were hanging over us for everyone to read for weeks:

Yes.
Yes to Equality
"Yes - Because marriage matters"
"I am your son/daughter/neighbour/etc - Vote Yes"
"End Inquality, take the first step by voting Yes!" ("Radical Yes Vote", whatever group that was)
"Discrimination damages Lives - Vote Yes"

No.
"Children Deserve a Father and a Mother - Vote No!" (Regardless of this vote not being about adoption)
"Surrogacy? She needs her mother for more than nine months, Vote No" (Regardless of this vote not being about surrogacy)
"We already have Civil Partnerships, Don't redefine marriage"
"Two Men Can't Replace a Mother's Love - Vote No" (Again with the children.)
"Protect the Children - Jimmy Saville, Harris and Glitter all propogated Gay Marriage - Vote NO" (Loony fringe group, just to be clear. Also manages to be incorrect on all points)

Which of those sets of posters were more brutal, aggressive and hard to live with? Which spread more lies?

Yeah well. We won. Equality won. But the people that made **** up to deny others their rights should be thoroughly ashamed.

They didn't have a strong enough argument to persuade people so they resorted to lying and misinforming simple as that

Pumpkinseeds

wakka12 wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mean you specifically, Ive just heard a lot of people say their opinions of gay marriage aren't homophobic due to it being against their religion/something to do with their religious beliefs and so that must mean its not homophobic. And it pisses me off

No worries, I voted Yes. I believe that gay people should have all of the rights and protections under the law as straight people.

DDempsey

Seems pointless talking to people who only want to confuse and misinterpret the views that do not suit them so redefine and reinterpret them.

This referendum about changing the wording of Article 41 "The Family was to remove the specification as to the sex of the two parties to marriage. Whilst you view that as "equality" I view it as not changing it as marriage, not changing it as between two parties and certainly not from being about The Family - and that means as far as The Family including children can still only be where the two parties in the marriage can as nature intended produce their own child/ren.

Ergo - two men or two women can call themselves married but they still cannot still not be party to " The (married) Family" when they don't have any child/ren as nature intended. We (heterosexual and homosexual) who voted no did so for legitimate concerns that marriage by same-sex couples can't and doesn't equal The Family in its truest sense.

What we oppose is more the conflation of marriage of "two people" of the same sex - and no possibility of conceiving children and creating a family - with "two people" of opposite sex and every possibility of conceiving children and creating a family.

In the run-up to the referendum same-sex couples and their supporters have referred often to their children and families, though referring to children and families who are actually those of same-sex couples and acquired only by Fostering, Adopting or Surrogacy deals.

And since those children and families are the essence of Article 41 "The Family" they are as much if not more due longer and better consideration than they have been allowed in the course of this referendum. Rather than full consideration they - all our children's interests - have been pushed aside in the rush to "equality" for a small minority of adults, who it is not at all clear will settle for "marriage" without eventually laying claim to our children.

I do not fear gay people but I do fear the motivations of anyone - State, functionaries or non-parents - who seek for any reason to have children moved away from their natural parent/s and families.

Personal experience informed my voting no: after my husband deserted us I mamaged to stave off some who sought to replace me in my small son's affections and then the authorities who tried to take him by Forced Adoption only the Family Court returned him to me (so now I have my adult grandchildren too). I have no religious. political or other affiliations, only a very strong conviction that we all need to have and know our natural famiy and origins. We (straight and gay people) all need those - to know where we came from and who we are - and till we (adults and children) are all guaranteed those I have to vote no. Marriage is one thing - Family is something more. That is all I have to say.

Lyaiera

DDempsey wrote: »

Rather than full consideration they - all our children's interests - have been pushed aside in the rush to "equality" for a small minority of adults, who it is not at all clear will settle for "marriage" without eventually laying claim to our children.

I don't think anyone wants your kids.