Marriage Equality Referendum

[LeRouxIsPHat]

They're entitled to their opinions, they just shouldn't be entitled to talk about them in a referendum that has nothing to do with them.

[Dave Cahill]

but those voting No are as entitled to their opinion as the those voting yes.

Its not an opinion though if its incorrect in fact. Its delusion.

In your opinion. To a lot of people God is fact, personally I think it a delusion and that is my opinion. Might be right, might be wrong but I guess I will find out eventually. Until then it remains my opinion and I feel entitled to express it.

An opinion based in known error is delusion. It has no validity. Any argument on the basis of it has no validity. Any statement made on the basis of it is a lie because the person making the statement knows it to be wrong.


Edit: Should have stated the 'known error' part previously

[The Doc]

Or to put it another way... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not entitled to their own "facts".

The problem I have with the no campaign to date is that they have peddled opinion as fact. In actual fact they could have opened up a discussion about discomfort around same sex marriages or even a discussion about separating religious unions from civil unions and it would have been a lot more interesting.

But going with the argument of " every child needs their mother" when these c**ts were auctioning babies from the laundries and are still preventing full access to data is just not factual.

"Child first" posters from folks who move kiddy fiddlers around the country and then protect the data just doesn't hold up I'm afraid.

[IanD]

Great article here. Really takes apart the whole arguement about the unchanging hollowed institution of marriage.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/finta ... -1.2217299


Funnily I remember the Divorce referendum and all the ''Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy'' posters and stickers. Same cr@p peddled then as now with the think of the kids line.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Or to put it another way... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not entitled to their own "facts".

The problem I have with the no campaign to date is that they have peddled opinion as fact.

Classic example of this is in one of the mother's and father's videos I watched. They had a pie chart showing that 92% of people believe a child should have a mother and father (or something along those lines anyway)...now that's fine, but I guarantee they were trying to give people the impression that that equated to a FACT that it was therefore the best way to raise a child.

[johng]

I remember voting in both divorce referenda and all 5 abortion ones. The further back you go the worse they were.

[The Doc]

Great article here. Really takes apart the whole arguement about the unchanging hollowed institution of marriage.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/finta ... -1.2217299


Funnily I remember the Divorce referendum and all the ''Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy'' posters and stickers. Same cr@p peddled then as now with the think of the kids line.

Funny... Just shared that article elsewhere. I think it is a lovely concise piece of writing... Not often a fan of his tbh but I think its a great piece

[Grumpy Old Man]

A Hedge on the way to the Polling Station in Goatstown.

With neighbours like that...

[Oldschool]

Interesting that so far 22 posters have voted yes and two have voted no and a lot of the usual posters have opted not to vote.
I doubt the real referendum will be anywhere near close to that kind of breakdown.
However a low poll would be very much to the benefit of a yes vote as the yes voters are likely to be more committed.

The real problem I see with this referendum is the lack of separation of secular marriage from church marriage.
Church marriage was to all intents and purposes designed to encourage procreation and the family unit in the biological sense.
The church's main problem with same sex marriage is that it doesn't meet that criteria and it would appear that other "church" married people have the same problem. Sure you can argue that with the advances of technology etc it is or will soon be possible for same sex partners to procreate but I doubt that this is at the forefront of most peoples thinking on the issue.
Had the church taken copyright on the use of the word Marriage to describe their version of marriage then the state would now have to refer to secular marriage by some other word or phrase and then there would be no problem or certainly less of a problem.

The main and a very strong motivation to vote yes would be for the very personal and intimate sakes of young people (in particular).
Issues of suicide and depression being to the forefront.
The motivation to vote no is more complex and less tangible but seems also to be very emotional.
And as usual the longer the debate has gone on, the confusion, spin and insults etc have increased.
At this point in time and for what it's worth I haven't made up my own mind on which way to vote.
I have also been surprised, quite frankly, at some of the people I know who have said they are voting No and feel quite strongly about it.
They are well educated, thought out and mild mannered and in touch with modern day society and have actually canvassed on the doorsteps.

The good news tho' is that Mrs School will be voting Yes, primarily based on reasons of humanity.
I definitely won't vote No but I'm not sure I'll vote Yes either which may explain the low turnout in Avenger's poll to date.
If I don't vote it will be the first time I have failed to vote in a referendum since I was able to do so.
There is still a lot to play for in the next couple of days and that is a good thing because the harder the fight the more worthy the cause.

[domhnallj]

I haven't voted because I don't have a vote otherwise I would stick my oar in.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) a recent paper on changing attitudes to same-sex marriage (published in Science no less (Science 12 December 2014: Vol. 346 no. 6215 pp. 1366-1369 ) has just been retracted because one of the authors fabricated his data (not once but also in their replication).

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/20/a ... ere-faked/

[olaf the fat]

I might be wrong here, but does the constitution really need to change, from memory it currently does not define marriage as only between a man and a women but simply as marriage.
As the constitution does confer equal rights on all citizens a simple law change could have over ruled previous court rulings - with no hue and cry.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I might be wrong here, but does the constitution really need to change, from memory it currently does not define marriage as only between a man and a women but simply as marriage.
As the constitution does confer equal rights on all citizens a simple law change could have over ruled previous court rulings - with no hue and cry.

That's already been brought up and I could be wrong but I think the problem is that it could be changed again then. Well that's definitely A problem, but not sure if there are others.

[olaf the fat]

I might be wrong here, but does the constitution really need to change, from memory it currently does not define marriage as only between a man and a women but simply as marriage.
As the constitution does confer equal rights on all citizens a simple law change could have over ruled previous court rulings - with no hue and cry.

That's already been brought up and I could be wrong but I think the problem is that it could be changed again then. Well that's definitely A problem, but not sure if there are others.

But we don't have a good record on accepting the results of referendums either

The yes nazi's have nearly pushed me into voting no. At this late stage I have nearly gone from certainly voting yes to undecided. There is equal amounts of muddled facts or completely wrong soundbites on each side, so much so its hard to get back to reality of it. Whilst I agree everybody is entitled to get married, (wait till you get there, and see how rosie it is!) everybody is entitled to an opinion or a question as well.

DC said its not an opinion if its based on a known error - how can you know if its an error if you dont drill through and question the facts? or is it just first come, best dressed in the enlightenment department?


BTW, in an discussion with somebody else, we both agreed if you did vote No you might have to lie about it.

Anyway, Ulster and Glasgow wont miss you for ten minutes this evening - get out and vote.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I think people voting no might have to ask themselves if they're afraid of what other people think of their opinion, or if they're afraid of it themselves.

[Dave Cahill]

I think people voting no might have to ask themselves if they're afraid of what other people think of their opinion, or if they're afraid of it themselves.

He shoots, he scores!

[Oldschool]

I think people voting no might have to ask themselves if they're afraid of what other people think of their opinion, or if they're afraid of it themselves.

It could just as easily be argued that people voting yes might have to ask themselves if they're afraid of what other people think of their opinion, or if they're afraid of it themselves.
People have a right to vote whichever way they want without snide remarks being passed about it.
It's a secret ballot for exactly that reason.

[offshorerules]

Precisely.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

There was nothing snide about what I said.

Of course people can vote no but regardless of which side you're on you should be able to justify it and do so with conviction. If you can't then you have to ask yourself why. Personally I think the bullying idea is nonsense for the most part.

[domhnallj]

There was nothing snide about what I said.

Of course people can vote no but regardless of which side you're on you should be able to justify it and do so with conviction. If you can't then you have to ask yourself why. Personally I think the bullying idea is nonsense for the most part.

Surely it is the side that wishes to change the document that should forward the argument?

[paddyor]

Had the church taken copyright on the use of the word Marriage to describe their version of marriage then the state would now have to refer to secular marriage by some other word or phrase and then there would be no problem or certainly less of a problem.

Which church? Marriage predates most religions.