Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

NIMAN

Anyone think that the YES or NO posters on the lamp posts might be collectors items of the future?

Was going to stash one of each in my shed!

Lyaiera

NIMAN wrote: »

Anyone think that the YES or NO posters on the lamp posts might be collectors items of the future?

Was going to stash one of each in my shed!

Pick up a few traffic cones while you're at it. Very stable market in traffic cones.

galljga1

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

This is going back to hordes of gays pillaging villages and stealing children. What nonsense.

galljga1

NIMAN wrote: »

Anyone think that the YES or NO posters on the lamp posts might be collectors items of the future?

Was going to stash one of each in my shed!

There are a few sheds full of them in various places.

Samaris

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

In this case, it doesn't actually matter what you view it as, the Constitution has viewed two married people as being a Family, children or not, and their home to be a "family home". This is not changed by the addition of the words to Article 41. A heterosexual couple who cannot produce children "as nature intended" are still a family.

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

Again, this is a definition that I'm afraid you made up.

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

See previous, plus is the marriage of an elderly couple who cannot produce children therefore "invalid" too?

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

Or occasionally from earlier relationships. Anyway, what's wrong with adoption and fostering? Are adoptive families no longer real families either? O.o

DDempsey wrote: »

And since those children and families are the essence of Article 41 "The Family"

Not neccessarily.

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

Yes has actually protected children in these families by making a "shared home" a "family home". Also, good heavens, no-one's going to come stealing your children. Or anyone's children.

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

There are many reasons for adopting and fostering, and indeed removing children from their natural parents. None of them have anything to do with gay people getting married. Also, given your remark about "laying claim to our children", I'm not convinced you're not afraid they don't have fangs and claws.

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry you had a rough time of it, but I'm also sorry that you would deny rights to others that could lead to other children being taken from the parents that raised them because of your fear. I hope you will come to see that your fears were unfounded in the years to come. At base, no change was made to adoption, non-existent surrogacy rights, or fostering by the change to Article 41.

floggg

Samaris wrote: »

In this case, it doesn't actually matter what you view it as, the Constitution has viewed two married people as being a Family, children or not, and their home to be a "family home". This is not changed by the addition of the words to Article 41. A heterosexual couple who cannot produce children "as nature intended" are still a family.



Again, this is a definition that I'm afraid you made up.


See previous, plus is the marriage of an elderly couple who cannot produce children therefore "invalid" too?


Or occasionally from earlier relationships. Anyway, what's wrong with adoption and fostering? Are adoptive families no longer real families either? O.o



Not neccessarily.


Yes has actually protected children in these families by making a "shared home" a "family home". Also, good heavens, no-one's going to come stealing your children. Or anyone's children.


There are many reasons for adopting and fostering, and indeed removing children from their natural parents. None of them have anything to do with gay people getting married. Also, given your remark about "laying claim to our children", I'm not convinced you're not afraid they don't have fangs and claws.



I'm sorry you had a rough time of it, but I'm also sorry that you would deny rights to others that could lead to other children being taken from the parents that raised them because of your fear. I hope you will come to see that your fears were unfounded in the years to come. At base, no change was made to adoption, non-existent surrogacy rights, or fostering by the change to Article 41.

Fair play for trying to rebut. I considered responding, but thought that it would be more productive to bang my head off the wall.

And most importantly, since my right to marry is now Constitutionally protected, I don't have to bother defending myself or my relationship to people who clearly don't understand what they are talking about any more.

That's the real freedom afforded by last weeks vote!!

osarusan

DDempsey wrote: »

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.

You're a bit late there. It's all over now.

Pumpkinseeds

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Are you just determined to feel oppressed? Maybe you should seek help for that persecution complex, I'd guess it takes up a large chunk of your life, although I get the impression from the tone of your post that you enjoy playing the victim.

Bannasidhe

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Are you just determined to feel oppressed? Maybe you should seek help for that persecution complex, I'd guess it takes up a large chunk of your life, although I get the impression from the tone of your post that you enjoy playing the victim.

A whole day to think of that comeback?

I take it you are disinclined to consider why when you think of homosexuality your first thought is sexual activity but would prefer to attack the person who pointed this out to you.

Not very enlightened.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A whole day to think of that comeback?

I take it you are disinclined to consider why when you think of homosexuality your first thought is sexual activity but would prefer to attack the person who pointed this out to you.

Not very enlightened.

In fairness now, the clue is in the identification - homosexual, as opposed to heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc...

I would think sexual activity would be the first perfectly normal thought when someone mentions their sexual orientation?

I don't agree with anyone who thinks it's acceptable to suggest that everyone is homophobic, or racist, or even "a little bit racist" for that matter. I think such sentiments are divisive, exclusionary, unhelpful and unnecessary, and actually detract from efforts to foster understanding among everyone in society.

Fortunately for society, for every misery peddler like Panti Bliss, there's a refreshingly positive perspective given by someone like Conchita Wurst -

Vivisectus

AH, but that is just a function of the word. In English, the standard term for gay person is homosexual, and people call this a sexual orientation.

But of course, that is not really what it is about. it is about who you fall in love with, are romantically attracted to. Being Hetero is not really defined by what sexual acts you enjoy either, now is it?

Properly speaking, the term should be Homophile: someone who loves the same gender, rather than someone who shags the same gender. It is in quite a few languages, including my native tongue.

One eyed Jack

Vivisectus wrote: »

AH, but that is just a function of the word. In English, the standard term for gay person is homosexual, and people call this a sexual orientation.

But of course, that is not really what it is about. it is about who you fall in love with, are romantically attracted to. Being Hetero is not really defined by what sexual acts you enjoy either, now is it?

Properly speaking, the term should be Homophile: someone who loves the same gender, rather than someone who shags the same gender. It is in quite a few languages, including my native tongue.

Yeah, I can't see that catching on any time soon :pac:

You'll have to excuse my inability to wrap my head around your semantics, but whatever way you spin it, the identifier is based upon a person's sexual orientation - who they have sex with, the sex of the person they have sex with, referred to in the english language at least as sexual activity.

Whatever else you choose to correlate with that identity is your own business really, but in order for people to understand each other, it's helpful to people's understanding your point of view if you share a common point of reference.

You want to come up with new words to describe commonly understood words and expect people to understand words that only mean something to you. That's not a very useful exercise really.

DDempsey

Homosexuality practised by consenting adults in private is no-one else's business but their own, same as any others' sexual activity. Overt sexual display in public by anyone is just plain rude.

Homosexuals can choose to ignore (or not) the concerns of other people (even the child-producing people) about the structure of "The Family" and any change as a result of this referendum. However the cat is now out of the bag, especially with regard to children, and, whatever homosexuals say now and their supporters believed when they voted for it, time will reveal the truth all round.

What homosexuals and their supporters choose to say now and how much consideration they show these concerns of other people (particularly the child-producing people) will, in time and more decisively than any secret ballot, determine whether they have gained more or less ground in society. Truly I wish for more ground in common. Since as well as before the referendum though, comments here and elsewhere seem keener on braying triumphalism than peacefully sharing what is claimed to be "equality". Marriage won't prevent just a different sort of social isolation and social division that no referendum can fix.

All of us inherited the pre-existing structure and therefore all of us risk any "unintended consequences" from changing it. For all of us it is still a "work in progress", not a "prize" winnable overnight and surely not at the expense of anyone else. If we are not all in this together and trying to make it work, it is not a game-change but only a name-change.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In fairness now, the clue is in the identification - homosexual, as opposed to heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc...

I would think sexual activity would be the first perfectly normal thought when someone mentions their sexual orientation?

I don't agree with anyone who thinks it's acceptable to suggest that everyone is homophobic, or racist, or even "a little bit racist" for that matter. I think such sentiments are divisive, exclusionary, unhelpful and unnecessary, and actually detract from efforts to foster understanding among everyone in society.

Fortunately for society, for every misery peddler like Panti Bliss, there's a refreshingly positive perspective given by someone like Conchita Wurst -

I don't have any problems with heterosexuals - I don't care who or how they shag.

And who or how they shag is all there is to being straight and as soon as I think of straight people all I think about is who and how they shag and I don't have a issue with reducing people down to being defined by an act of copulation even if they have never actually copulated.

Actually... I don't think about other people shagging at all so I tend not to use the act of shagging as my default setting when defining them.

I don't care if it's not acceptable to say that everyone is homophobic, or racist, or even "a little bit racist" as I happen to believe that pretending we aren't is sticking our head in the sand and that is never a good way to foster understanding among everyone in society.

As for Panti... you don't like her. We get it. Why the need to keep having a go? Did she laugh at your hair?

Vivisectus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, I can't see that catching on any time soon :pac:

You'll have to excuse my inability to wrap my head around your semantics, but whatever way you spin it, the identifier is based upon a person's sexual orientation - who they have sex with, the sex of the person they have sex with, referred to in the english language at least as sexual activity.

Whatever else you choose to correlate with that identity is your own business really, but in order for people to understand each other, it's helpful to people's understanding your point of view if you share a common point of reference.

You want to come up with new words to describe commonly understood words and expect people to understand words that only mean something to you. That's not a very useful exercise really.

I am proposing no such thing. I am merely saying that defining people by who they have sex with is silly, and that your statement that said "but it is in the word!" is neither here nor there. That is just the term that was chosen in English. Other languages do it in different ways.

Vivisectus

DDempsey wrote: »

Homosexuality practised by consenting adults in private is no-one else's business but their own, same as any others' sexual activity. Overt sexual display in public by anyone is just plain rude.

Homosexuals can choose to ignore (or not) the concerns of other people (even the child-producing people) about the structure of "The Family" and any change as a result of this referendum. However the cat is now out of the bag, especially with regard to children, and, whatever homosexuals say now and their supporters believed when they voted for it, time will reveal the truth all round.

What homosexuals and their supporters choose to say now and how much consideration they show these concerns of other people (particularly the child-producing people) will, in time and more decisively than any secret ballot, determine whether they have gained more or less ground in society. Truly I wish for more ground in common. Since as well as before the referendum though, comments here and elsewhere seem keener on braying triumphalism than peacefully sharing what is claimed to be "equality". Marriage won't prevent just a different sort of social isolation and social division that no referendum can fix.

All of us inherited the pre-existing structure and therefore all of us risk any "unintended consequences" from changing it. For all of us it is still a "work in progress", not a "prize" winnable overnight and surely not at the expense of anyone else. If we are not all in this together and trying to make it work, it is not a game-change but only a name-change.

It sounds like you are afraid that society is going to drastically change. I don't think you need to worry about that. Gay marriage has been a reality in the Netherlands for almost 15 years. And it works really well for the dutch: 85% are in favor, even more than favored it at the time this was instituted. So I think arguing from "unforeseen consequences" is a little silly. There is absolutely no evidence for it, so do not be afraid. Gaymageddon is not going to break out.

In fact, for you, nothing whatever has changed. You are still married, if you were before. Your "child-producing people" (weird thing to say) have not been influenced one little bit.

You and a lot of other people who opposed marriage equality are making it seem like gay people are required to accommodate your odd views somehow. But that is really not the case. You still do not seem to grasp that all your odd fear was as irrelevant then as it is now: all we have done is update our official treatment of relationships that were there all along.

Niemoj

I'm so proud to have voted in this!

CiDeRmAn

Wasn't it a nasty little comment by one poster here some time ago How could a child be homosexual and want to a have sex with boys.
Truth is I think that it is societies response to that orientation, as expressed purely sexually, that instills the fear that occupies a boy or girl who discovers they are attracted to their own gender.

The notion too that new words need to be generates to better describe homosexuality may have merit but it might too be unnecessary, given that the word Gay is in common use and seems to denote far more than the person you want to have sex with as well as, paradoxically, meaning far less, as it doesn't define the type of person you are be it nurse, firefighter, farmer or footballer.

The idea that new words are somehow too hard to introduce is untrue also, I have seen terms for all sorts of things change quite rapidly, particularly in areas like mental health and intellectual disability, two groups much maligned and who suffered under the use of pigeon holing and labeling.

Pumpkinseeds

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A whole day to think of that comeback?

I take it you are disinclined to consider why when you think of homosexuality your first thought is sexual activity but would prefer to attack the person who pointed this out to you.

Not very enlightened.

I didn't look at the thread yesterday, you must have a very empty life if you've been waiting for a response. Jeez, I actually pity you now, it must be awful to be such a bitter little person with such an empty life.



MOD: Take a few days off for repeatedly ignoring mod instruction to stop insulting people.

CiDeRmAn

Vivisectus wrote: »

It sounds like you are afraid that society is going to drastically change. I don't think you need to worry about that. Gay marriage has been a reality in the Netherlands for almost 15 years. And it works really well for the dutch: 85% are in favor, even more than favored it at the time this was instituted. So I think arguing from "unforeseen consequences" is a little silly. There is absolutely no evidence for it, so do not be afraid. Gaymageddon is not going to break out.

In fact, for you, nothing whatever has changed. You are still married, if you were before. Your "child-producing people" (weird thing to say) have not been influenced one little bit.

You and a lot of other people who opposed marriage equality are making it seem like gay people are required to accommodate your odd views somehow. But that is really not the case. You still do not seem to grasp that all your odd fear was as irrelevant then as it is now: all we have done is update our official treatment of relationships that were there all along.

I wouldn't be afraid at all of change as a result of this vote.
To be honest change is going to happen in society regardless, you can either stand against change or welcome it and try to shape it to the benefit of all.
A vote like this is going to herald change, and that's the point.
It'll change how people view sexuality, at the very least be having made it a topic of conversation in every home and workplace for the past two months.
It'll change how people see themselves, should they be LGBT or straight, and teach them not to be fearful of their sexuality being seen as the defining factor about them.
If there are questions to be asked about reproductive technologies and their application in this state then it's only hastening a conversation and debate that the citizens of this country were going to have to have regardless of the vote outcome.
Conservatism seems too preoccupied with slowing change, ignoring the reasons for change and instilling fear of that which is different.

StewartGriffin

Surely after last weeks landmark vote for equality this years LGBT Pride festival should now be opened to all? LGBTH Pride perhaps?

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't have any problems with heterosexuals - I don't care who or how they shag.

And who or how they shag is all there is to being straight and as soon as I think of straight people all I think about is who and how they shag and I don't have a issue with reducing people down to being defined by an act of copulation even if they have never actually copulated.

Nobody was reducing anyone down to just who they have sex with. The idea of homophobia is based upon homosexuality which is based upon sexual orientation. Terms that identify a person as homosexual or heterosexual literally are used to describe who that person has sex with - someone of the same sex. There's nothing inherently negative in acknowledging that basic fact. Whatever else, as I said to another poster, you or anyone else chooses to conflate with the words homosexual or heterosexual is indeed your own business.

Actually... I don't think about other people shagging at all so I tend not to use the act of shagging as my default setting when defining them.

Who does? I don't define a person by their sexual orientation either, I know there's far more to people than just who they have sex with, but there are people who do define themselves by their sexual orientation and they conflate all sorts of other ideas with that identity. Fine, that's their own business. I just don't happen to share their perspective. Sexual orientation - homosexuality, heterosexuality, is nothing more than an identifier of one aspect of a person, but it doesn't define the person as a whole.

I don't care if it's not acceptable to say that everyone is homophobic, or racist, or even "a little bit racist" as I happen to believe that pretending we aren't is sticking our head in the sand and that is never a good way to foster understanding among everyone in society.

Well if you don't care for other people's opinions, I'd call that the very definition of sticking your head in the sand, and you're right, that isn't a good way to foster understanding among everyone in society. Calling everyone in society homophobic or racist isn't just unacceptable, it's just bloody untrue, when by your own admission, only 16% of the population voted against marriage equality. That's 84% who have no aversion to homosexuality, and though I don't have the figures to prove it, I'd imagine similar numbers don't have any aversion to people of other ethnicities.

You won't be too long finding homophobia or racism though if you go looking for it, because you're actively going out of your way to find it. Who exactly is the person with the issue there then - the person who goes looking to be persecuted, or the person who they find to persecute them? In their search to be persecuted, they've ignored all the people who have no interest in persecuting them. Head in the sand much? I'd say head in the sand with blinkers on!

As for Panti... you don't like her. We get it. Why the need to keep having a go? Did she laugh at your hair?

Who's having a go? You're having a laugh surely? A public figure makes a fairly outlandish statement and they're supposed to be immune from criticism? You know that's not the way things work. You've pointed out yourself on numerous occasions that if someone has an opinion and they make a statement, they should expect to be challenged on that statement.

Panti Bliss is no different to any other public figure and isn't exempt from criticism. I'm not the person who keeps bringing her up either btw, it was pointed out to me earlier as though I had brought her up that my earlier opinion of her had nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't bring her into the discussion in the first place, and I didn't bring her into the discussion again here either.

Kalman

How bizarre it is, that a country like Ireland should pride itself on the rights of homosexuals.

Yet shamefully, its women have to leave these shores to seek an abortion.

galljga1

Kalman wrote: »

How bizarre it is, that a country like Ireland should pride itself on the rights of homosexuals.

This is a country that now allows same-sex marriage !!

Yet shamefully, Irish women have to leave these shores to seek an abortion.

Yeah, probably next on the list but not under the current govt.
There are a couple of threads open at the mo.

Shrap

Kalman wrote: »

How bizarre it is, that a country like Ireland should pride itself on the rights of homosexuals.

Yet shamefully, its women have to leave these shores to seek an abortion.

I think it possible to be proud of Ireland for the referendum result. However, as an Irish woman, although I can now pride myself on being from a country that has same sex marriage, I cannot pride myself on being from a country that sends it's women on a journey to another country when experiencing a crisis pregnancy and seeking an abortion.

I mean yes, this is a country of extreme contradictions in its constitution, but I believe we can pride ourselves on levelling one of them at least. There are any number more to go....

Put it to you this way: I am more proud of Ireland now than I ever have been before, but I am mightily ashamed of Ireland for our 8th amendment.

aloyisious

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Surely after last weeks landmark vote for equality this years LGBT Pride festival should now be opened to all? LGBTH Pride perhaps?

I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Pride has never banned or been closed to heterosexual people. Maybe that's the perspective you see from reading the papers or watching TV news and you might see things differently if you attend this years Dublin Festival, or one where you live. Pride attendance is made up of more than LGBT people. We do, as you've seen in the referendum vote, have family, friends and relations most of whom are straight.

Going into the make-up of LGBT people, it includes disabled, deaf, blind people etc, same as in the general populace.

StewartGriffin

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Pride has never banned or been closed to heterosexual people. Maybe that's the perspective you see from reading the papers or watching TV news and you might see things differently if you attend this years Dublin Festival, or one where you live. Pride attendance is made up of more than LGBT people. We do, as you've seen in the referendum vote, have family, friends and relations most of whom are straight.

Going into the make-up of LGBT people, it includes disabled, deaf, blind people etc, same as in the general populace.

Ok. But as far as I'm aware it's still called LGBT Pride, which by definition, does not include those who are not LGBT. How about calling it Irish Pride just for this year.

Cold War Kid

Kalman wrote: »

How bizarre it is, that a country like Ireland should pride itself on the rights of homosexuals.

Yet shamefully, its women have to leave these shores to seek an abortion.

Nah, not bizarre at all to be proud of one thing - it doesn't mean pride about everything.

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

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.

Again, you seem to be implying that we should not critise ideas openly. I have already clarified this.

By social cost I mean that people who would not be bigots/homophobes/racist keep their mouth shut instead of acting in fear of being labeled such. I see you conveniently ignored the Rotherham point I made. An independent Westminster investigation found that people in positions of authority turned a blind eye to systematic child abuse by a group as they did not want to ask the difficult questions in fear of being labeled as a racist which would have been a killer to their careers. This is the social cost I mentioned.

There were other issues as well highlighted in this report. 'Systems failure' as you will but if a society is neutered from helping people in-case some catch all accusation is leveled at them, then I think we can both agree it's something we should seriously look at and think twice before we issue a generic dog whistle.

Vivisectus wrote: »

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.

You talk of hyperbole when you simultaneously a) create a strawman argument b) engage in a logical fallacy and c) argue against points I have neither made nor implied.

How many times do I have to point out that all ideas should be debated, openly and respectfully. Need I remind you that it was you who suggested that debate should be more 'robust' as in 'lets got for the juggler'. This type of escalation is neither productive or warranted as it just polarises people even more. Live in a country that has that type of media for a few years and see what you think of it.

Oh and moral panic about being silenced, I had to chuckle at this.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article4456883.ece

The former prime minister of Qatar has denied claims that his country paid large bribes to win the right to host the 2022 World Cup and accused the west of racism, Islamophobia and bias against Arabs and the Gulf state.

Wow, the trifecta of terms used there. Must be a record for the former PM. I wonder how he feels about migrants in his own country dieing by the dozen.

Sepp Blatter tried the same stoke last year.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27762435

Qatar was chosen as host in December 2010 but corruption claims have prompted Fifa to begin an inquiry.
"There is a sort of storm against Fifa relating to the Qatar World Cup," Blatter said. "Sadly there's a great deal of discrimination and racism."

Right out of the dog-whistle playbook. Difficult questions being asked? Use the 'its racist to ask questions' card to in an effort to shut down legitimate debate. In this instance most can call it for what it is, but the fact they they used it speaks volumes on how sensitive the west are to such accusations.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Again, you seem to be implying that we should not critise ideas openly. I have already clarified this.

Your problem is that you seem all too happy to contradict yourself. On the one hand you want an open, straightforward debate. But you keep claiming that calling sneaky dog-whistle tactics homophobia means branding the entire no-side as homophobic.

You say that this leads to a "huge social cost", which now apparently can lead to the unimpeded operation of pedophilia rings because of runaway political correctness.

This huge social cost manifests itself so far by having your views criticized.

By social cost I mean that people who would not be bigots/homophobes/racist keep their mouth shut instead of acting in fear of being labeled such. I see you conveniently ignored the Rotherham point I made. An independent Westminster investigation found that people in positions of authority turned a blind eye to systematic child abuse by a group as they did not want to ask the difficult questions in fear of being labeled as a racist which would have been a killer to their careers. This is the social cost I mentioned.

Frankly, I had filed that under idiotically alarmist hyperbole, but if you want we can compare the cover-up of a pedophile ring that included politicians with the terrible plight of no-siders who had it pointed out to them that dragging in irrelevant issues around children is a dishonest low-grade homophobic dirty trick.

I mean, it is your hole. I you insist on digging it deeper that is fine by me.

There were other issues as well highlighted in this report. 'Systems failure' as you will but if a society is neutered from helping people in-case some catch all accusation is leveled at them, then I think we can both agree it's something we should seriously look at and think twice before we issue a generic dog whistle.

Maybe you should look up what "dog whistle" means first.

You talk of hyperbole when you simultaneously a) create a strawman argument b) engage in a logical fallacy and c) argue against points I have neither made nor implied.

Claims. You need to back that up or it doesn't mean much.

How many times do I have to point out that all ideas should be debated, openly and respectfully. Need I remind you that it was you who suggested that debate should be more 'robust' as in 'lets got for the juggler'. This type of escalation is neither productive or warranted as it just polarises people even more. Live in a country that has that type of media for a few years and see what you think of it.

Robust, sure. We need to be able to call the kind of dog-whistle tactics that the no side brought up homophobic - because it was. It was demonstrably for the purpose of allowing people to rationalize a no vote based on a low-grade aversion to gay people.

In stead, we saw law suits trying to limit what people could say on RTE right from the start, and continuous claims like yours about the wholesale branding of people, rather than arguments, as homophobic. But in reality we actually saw very little of that.

This is what you are getting your knickers in a twist about, with your "huge social cost" and dire warnings about rampant political correctness.

The rest I never said or implied. You are just resorting to making things up now.

Oh and moral panic about being silenced, I had to chuckle at this.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article4456883.ece


Wow, the trifecta of terms used there. Must be a record for the former PM. I wonder how he feels about migrants in his own country dieing by the dozen.

Sepp Blatter tried the same stoke last year.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27762435

None of this is to the point, and if anything, less whiny complaints about being silenced and more poking through efforts to confuse the matter would actually be good things here. But hey, you keep digging that hole.

Right out of the dog-whistle playbook. Difficult questions being asked? Use the 'its racist to ask questions' card to in an effort to shut down legitimate debate. In this instance most can call it for what it is, but the fact they they used it speaks volumes on how sensitive the west are to such accusations.

You still do not seem to understand what dog whistle speech is. Amusing as it is watching you try to apply it, I think you should look it up.

Kalman

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Nah, not bizarre at all to be proud of one thing - it doesn't mean pride about everything.

To others looking in, it does seem rather odd. Seemingly, women in Ireland have less rights then homosexuals >>>that I find bizarre.

Doctor Jimbob

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Ok. But as far as I'm aware it's still called LGBT Pride, which by definition, does not include those who are not LGBT. How about calling it Irish Pride just for this year.

People might get confused and think it's sponsored by bread though.

Shrap

Kalman wrote: »

To others looking in, it does seem rather odd. Seemingly, women in Ireland have less rights then homosexuals >>>that I find bizarre.

We all have equal rights to marry. It's a separate issue, obviously. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed, not just reworded. What is bizarre is that it was put in the constitution in the first place, and the history/timeline of that appallingly dictatorial move is well documented.

BTW, you are consistently coming here and "finding it bizarre" that we had a referendum on marriage equality, as if it can be equated with the 8th amendment - why? What are you trying to achieve? We've answered your initial question, quite clearly.

Maximus Alexander

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Surely after last weeks landmark vote for equality this years LGBT Pride festival should now be opened to all? LGBTH Pride perhaps?

Uhhh, straight people have always been welcome to go out and get involved in the festivities.

Kalman

Shrap wrote: »

We all have equal rights to marry. It's a separate issue, obviously. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed, not just reworded. What is bizarre is that it was put in the constitution in the first place, and the history/timeline of that appallingly dictatorial move is well documented.

BTW, you are consistently coming here and "finding it bizarre" that we had a referendum on marriage equality, as if it can be equated with the 8th amendment - why? What are you trying to achieve? We've answered your initial question, quite clearly.

BTW?

aloyisious

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Ok. But as far as I'm aware it's still called LGBT Pride, which by definition, does not include those who are not LGBT. How about calling it Irish Pride just for this year.

No, that would be taking it away from it's core as an LGBTQ Pride festival. It's all about NOT being ashamed of being n LGBTQ person. Besides which the use of Irish would be wrong. It's Dublin Pride, to distinct it from the other 2 local Pride/s held in Dublin in recent years and others around the country

aloyisious

Kalman wrote: »

BTW?

BTW = By The Way..

Kalman

Shrap wrote: »

We all have equal rights to marry. It's a separate issue, obviously. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed, not just reworded. What is bizarre is that it was put in the constitution in the first place, and the history/timeline of that appallingly dictatorial move is well documented.

BTW, you are consistently coming here and "finding it bizarre" that we had a referendum on marriage equality, as if it can be equated with the 8th amendment - why? What are you trying to achieve? We've answered your initial question, quite clearly.

"We have answered your initial question"[sic]>>Oh! I see, so you are speaking on behalf of others, do you not have a voice of your own?

I would have thought that was quite obvious. I'm referring to women's rights.

Shrap

Kalman wrote: »

How bizarre it is, that a country like Ireland should pride itself on the rights of homosexuals.

Yet shamefully, its women have to leave these shores to seek an abortion.

Your statements here have been addressed.

Kalman wrote: »

To others looking in, it does seem rather odd. Seemingly, women in Ireland have less rights then homosexuals >>>that I find bizarre.

Then you come back with an extremely similar issue, without at all addressing the answers you received.

Kalman wrote: »

"We have answered your initial question"[sic]>>Oh! I see, so you are speaking on behalf of others, do you not have a voice of your own?

I would have thought that was quite obvious. I'm referring to women's rights.

So rather than discuss your interpretation of and opinion on the answers you received, you'd rather focus on my use of the word "we". Women's rights and various abortion threads are in other areas of boards. This is the SSM Referendum Mega Thread Part 2.

Samaris

Also, it's annoying to have someone cropping up at a victory to whine "what about my rights?". Don't you find it irritating to have a MRA crop up and say "well, why aren't you feminists fighting for father's rights?" in a women's issues forum?

Let's show some grace here.

Cold War Kid

Kalman wrote: »

To others looking in, it does seem rather odd. Seemingly, women in Ireland have less rights then homosexuals >>>that I find bizarre.

Women and homosexuals as two separate groups - but homosexuals can be women?

Bannasidhe

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Women and homosexuals as two separate groups - but homosexuals can be women?

lesbian invisibility

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

Frankly, I had filed that under idiotically alarmist hyperbole, but if you want we can compare the cover-up of a pedophile ring that included politicians with the terrible plight of no-siders who had it pointed out to them that dragging in irrelevant issues around children is a dishonest low-grade homophobic dirty trick.

Nice strawman there. I see you are quite adapt at building them. Yet you cannot even argue against the basic point here so you glide over it. Do you deny that political correctness had nothing to do with what happened in Rotherham? It certainly appears you refuse to believe that independent Westminster report. In fact it seems you refuse to believe that Political Correctness is even a real thing.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Robust, sure. We need to be able to call the kind of dog-whistle tactics that the no side brought up homophobic - because it was. It was demonstrably for the purpose of allowing people to rationalize a no vote based on a low-grade aversion to gay people.

In stead, we saw law suits trying to limit what people could say on RTE right from the start, and continuous claims like yours about the wholesale branding of people, rather than arguments, as homophobic. But in reality we actually saw very little of that.

Number of things here. Libel laws in Ireland are overly tough, no issue with that. The DOB issue of late should make this clear. RTE has a public duty not to get sued and lose tax payers money. If you have a problem with this, then campaign for the libel laws to be softened, so people can call whomever they want a bigot, a homophobe or a tax cheat on the state broadcaster.

The tactics you describe were used on both sides as you admit but again you exaggerate your opponents contribution while glossing over your own sides. You cannot be partial in this argument, therefore you cannot be trusted to dictate what is or is not [insert term of endearment here]. Labels are just that a label. Fear mongering can be used by anyone to draw support and oppose the other wise. "War on women" to "War on Christmas".....
A lovely binary world where there is only black and white. With labels, you are either one or the other. You cannot be half or 1/4 a homophobe, hence why terms like this should be used with caution instead of used in a scatter gun way, just to demonise/mute the opponent.

Again, you were the person who wanted to make the debate more 'robust'. I just asked why? Why, after a win of 2-1 in favor did you want to escalate these types of debates, further when as it stands it was pretty bad. It seems your motivation is more about vengeance/hatred for the other side rather then the actual topics or social policies.

VinLieger

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Surely after last weeks landmark vote for equality this years LGBT Pride festival should now be opened to all? LGBTH Pride perhaps?

Huh? Its not like they seal town and only allow you in after a gay check.

I always attend it, nobody is stopping you if you arent gay. If enything its encouraged that everyone get involved and take part, its also a great chance for close minded people, maybe like yourself, to have a chance to meet some of "the gays" and find out they are just real normal people like everyone else

Hoop66

I think that thing that surprised me, and probably lots of other people, was just how fast society collapsed.

StewartGriffin

VinLieger wrote: »

a great chance for close minded people, maybe like yourself, to have a chance to meet some of "the gays" and find out they are just real normal people like everyone else

Wow, that is such a condescending statement, for both gays and straights.

"Roll up! Roll up! Come on down to the parade and see the Gays, they're just like plain normal folks!"

Actually, now I think of it I may have already met a few, maybe in the office, at family gatherings, at school, in the shop, on the street, in the pub.

traprunner

I stopped following this thread but it appeared at the top of Latest Posts. Has the sky fallen in yet? Has the apocalypse happened?

MrWalsh

traprunner wrote: »

I stopped following this thread but it appeared at the top of Latest Posts. Has the sky fallen in yet? Has the apocalypse happened?

Its not happening until September or thereabouts when the first "notice of intention to marry" are submitted. You can go back asleep for now.

traprunner

MrWalsh wrote: »

Its not happening until September or thereabouts when the first "notice of intention to marry" are submitted. You can go back asleep for now.

Give me a nudge when it all kicks off again please. It should be entertaining

MrWalsh

traprunner wrote: »

Give me a nudge when it all kicks off again please. It should be entertaining

Oh you should sign up to the "Protest Same Sex Marriage - Wont Someone Think of the Children" group to be kept fully up to date.