[Laserspewpew]

(04-10-2015 03:18 AM)davyjose Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:08 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

Personally I am conflicted by this. I believe the Government should stay out of peoples lives as much as possible and this vote falls under that.

However I also believe that should this pass the SJW brigade will then use it to campaign for Gay Adoption of which I am vehemently against. A child should have the right to a mother and a father.

So, yeah as of now I am leaning towards a no vote purely on the basis of a Yes vote being seen as encouraging the SJW brigade.

And that's the dilemma.

Vote yes because I think people should be allowed do what they want so long as no one else is affected BUT side with the smug hipster "straight up for equality" fucks who clog up Wexford St/The Bernard Shaw on a weekend, or else vote no.

And as we know, it's not even a case of "siding" with the SJW's. These fucks will no doubt not stop with this either.

I dunno man, 'tis a tough one. I'm still leaning towards yes, but it's not set in stone certainly..

As opposed to siding with the Iona institute

[amity]

@Laserspewpew The Iona Institute have said some dumb things in the past, I'll grant you that.
And yes, their strong Catholic position on this doesn't sit well with a lot of modern, secular Irish people.
They came off badly in that whole 'Pantigate' nonsense with John Waters, but Rory 'O Neill is the mother of all attention whores and the media in Ireland love that guy, so they largely painted Iona/Waters as bigots and 'O Neill as the poor victim.
Don't swallow that narrative as it's largely BS.
'O Neill did receive some homophobic abuse it's true, but he made it out to be a lot worse than it actually was.
It was all about him getting as much attention as possible and elevating his celebrity status.
Even as an atheist, I have way more respect for Waters and Quinn than media whoring twerps like 'O Neill.
I've also read some of David Quinn's articles and to be fair, the guy's arguments are a lot more logical than most of the stuff the gay lobby and their SJW buddies come up with, which are full of emotional reasoning and straw man arguments.

[amity]

(04-10-2015 06:52 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

It is not a state interference issue. If you told them, "you can enjoy all the legal benefits of a married couple, but it will be called a 'civil union'", they wouldn't accept it. This is predominantly a definition hijacking issue. 'Marriage' is a word that has always labeled the concept of the social institution where one man and one woman commit to each other, for stable and effective child rearing. They dislike that this normality is denied to them by their nature, and instead of just accepting their nature, they demand that everyone else participates in their delusion of normality.

What the gays want is nothing to do with 'them being allowed to do what they want'. If it was, they would be satisfied with the term 'civil union'. But this isn't what they want - they want society to pretend that their relationship constitutes a 'marriage'.

This is not an individual rights question whatsoever, it is purely a cultural attack.

@Phoenix, you've nailed it. That's exactly what it's about.

[Parlay44]

Gay marriage is just trolling on the national level. Marriage implies morality. Which implies religion.
A moral gay couple is walking contradiction.

A married man is moral when he agrees to take care of a woman for giving him children. A married woman
is moral when she agrees to not take other cock besides her husbands and take care of the family.

Gays don't fit into either of those categories. They want to change the definition of marriage. It's trolling.

[JohnyBoi95]

This is one of those things that I would have assumed we would have already moved past.

Too many people have a vested interest in the most irrelevant of things.

[amity]

(04-10-2015 09:24 AM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  

This is one of those things that I would have assumed we would have already moved past.

Too many people have a vested interest in the most irrelevant of things.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why this vote will get passed.
Because at least 50% of people have exactly the same opinion as what you've just stated.
Interesting how you use the wording 'moving past' and 'irrelevant' on an issue which is anything but irrelevant.
No offence but this is the language of someone who has not reached a red-pill level of awareness.
Please have a read back of the thread and if you still think this issue is irrelevant, well, perhaps this forum is not the right place for you.

[JohnyBoi95]

(04-10-2015 09:45 AM)amity Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:24 AM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  

This is one of those things that I would have assumed we would have already moved past.

Too many people have a vested interest in the most irrelevant of things.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why this vote will get passed.
Because at least 50% of people have exactly the same opinion as what you've just stated.
Interesting how you use the wording 'moving past' and 'irrelevant' on an issue which is anything but irrelevant.
No offence but this is the language of someone who has not reached a red-pill level of awareness.
Please have a read back of the thread and if you still think this issue is irrelevant, well, perhaps this forum is not the right place for you.

Why don't you educate me then? I'm mot claiming to be zen in all things red-pill.

I honestly do not see how homosexuals getting married is still something we are in contention about in 2015 and that is simply my opinion and a it's increasingly becoming the majority day by day.

Maybe you should consider your position on this and ask yourself why this bothers you so much.

[amity]

(04-10-2015 12:21 PM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:45 AM)amity Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:24 AM)JohnyBoi95 Wrote:  

This is one of those things that I would have assumed we would have already moved past.

Too many people have a vested interest in the most irrelevant of things.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why this vote will get passed.
Because at least 50% of people have exactly the same opinion as what you've just stated.
Interesting how you use the wording 'moving past' and 'irrelevant' on an issue which is anything but irrelevant.
No offence but this is the language of someone who has not reached a red-pill level of awareness.
Please have a read back of the thread and if you still think this issue is irrelevant, well, perhaps this forum is not the right place for you.

Why don't you educate me then? I'm mot claiming to be zen in all things red-pill.

I honestly do not see how homosexuals getting married is still something we are in contention about in 2015 and that is simply my opinion and a it's increasingly becoming the majority day by day.

Maybe you should consider your position on this and ask yourself why this bothers you so much.

Sorry if my reply was a bit antagonistic, I didn't mean it to be.
I appreciate you're a bit younger than myself and so probably haven't seen how society has changed over the last two decade, in some ways for the better, but in other ways, not.

I have zero problems with gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people.
I have a problem with how the narrative pushed onto people in western countries almost exclusively pushes the LGBT lifestyle and gay marriage as 'progress' and how this is completely natural and normal, and perhaps to you it is.

If you look back to my original few posts in this thread, you can see what my issue is with gay marriage.
There is a clamouring in the media and among SJWs (and indeed most women you'll come across I'll wager) to push the narrative that being homosexual is 'normal' and therefore, by extension, why wouldn't you allow gay marriage?
Anything else is surely just denying gay people happiness.
This is a very surface level of thinking and this is exactly how a lot of my sub 35 years old colleagues and friend think, because that's all they've known.
As another RVFer said to me once 'Tradition exists for a reason'.
It exists because it works and has worked for generations for the good of society.

Essentially, it's keeping people dumb, don't question it, just accept it.
Look up 'cultural hegemony', this is exactly what is happening in regard to the 'normalising' of something which, frankly, is not normal.

And yes, you're absolutely right, that gay marriage affects none of us negatively at all, in the short term.
However, as Parlay44, Phoenix, myself and one or two others already stated, once you accept that marriage can be redefined to mean 'whatever you want it to be', you're setting a dangerous precedent.
You're opening the door to future developments which do not augur well for society in the medium to long term.
Gay adoption is bound to come along in the not too distant future, once gay marriage gets the green light.
Then there's the Trans agenda, who knows what we'll see there.

As for something 'becoming the majority day by day', does that make it right? or good for us?
Sometimes yes, but often you'll find, if you scratch the surface, what's accepted by the majority is not always necessarily wise or good or clever or efficient.

I hope that helps.
I appreciate we're coming at this from different angles.
Regardless, it's always good to discuss these things, so long as people are open to debate, which, I find, most people on RVF are.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[Guitarman]

What was not made explicit in this article is the question of ; " is this a move towards full religious marriage or to a civil partnership??"

From the comments;

"I assume that the Irish have 'Civil Partnerships' which confers equality before the law in matters of the legal and social aspects of 'marriage' on the people.

The religious aspect of 'marriage' is NOT a matter for state interference, and the whole concept and purpose of a marriage ceremony was and is for a heterosexual couple to make their vows in public for the social and moral pressure this would create for the necessary stability for bringing up children."

I agree with that comment, in the UK this is the UKIP position. Yes to legally binding civil partnerships and no to interfering with religious policy of the church. As father Jack said "that would be an ecumenical matter".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptd_h0dF7NE

[DickDastardly]

delete

[Libertas]

Quote:

The vital principle of live-and-let-live has been replaced in recent years by a nauseating liberal orthodoxy which insists that anyone who dissents isn't just wrong, they must be painted as the enemy and destroyed.

This was the most crucial sentence and is the Year Zero mentality.

I think this is becoming more and more obvious to mainstream culture, even to other generations. GamerGate was really just the beginning.

[heavy]

(04-10-2015 06:52 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

It is not a state interference issue. If you told them, "you can enjoy all the legal benefits of a married couple, but it will be called a 'civil union'", they wouldn't accept it. This is predominantly a definition hijacking issue. 'Marriage' is a word that has always labeled the concept of the social institution where one man and one woman commit to each other, for stable and effective child rearing. They dislike that this normality is denied to them by their nature, and instead of just accepting their nature, they demand that everyone else participates in their delusion of normality.

What the gays want is nothing to do with 'them being allowed to do what they want'. If it was, they would be satisfied with the term 'civil union'. But this isn't what they want - they want society to pretend that their relationship constitutes a 'marriage'.

This is not an individual rights question whatsoever, it is purely a cultural attack.

I wanted to simply highlight part of this that were good, but the entire thing is pure gold.



The only thing I would add to the OP in response to these comments: "It's sad to see so many people so indoctrinated here" and "Needless to say, social media is a no-go for the most part if you're not fully down with 'Yes' crowd"...

In the U.S., less than a decade ago, it appeared based on mainstream media and social media that everyone wanted to allow same-sex marriage, yet when on the ballot, nearly all states shot down allowing homosexuals to marry. Even the citizens of California passed Proposal 8, the "California Marriage Protection Act", in 2008.

The point is, at least in the U.S. it's tough to know what people think until the shit hits the fan and they go to the voting booth and vote (especially on the conservative side).

[DickDastardly]

delete

[RexImperator]

In the U.S., I keep hearing comments in the media to the tune of, "isn't it amazing how just a few years ago a majority opposed gay marriage and now a majority support it?" What happened is that once it was clear it was unstoppable there was a big disincentive for those who opposed it to say anything anymore, since all that would happen would be to be called a bigot, etc.

Anyway, I tend agree with those who see it more as a symptom, not a cause.

[Atlantic]

It is going to pass, probably by a huge margin...

http://www.joe.ie/life-style/survey-huge...dum/493642

[DickDastardly]

delete

[amity]

(04-27-2015 05:16 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

The Irish media and all political parties are pushing for a Yes vote. I believe the polls reflect this in the sense that people are afraid to admit they are going to vote no due to the fear of being vilified and attacked by the "consensus".

I think it will be a lot closer in the day. But as it stands I think it will pass.

Almost everyone in the media is on board with this. Even economists like David McWilliams (who I thought would have had a more nuanced take on things, but sadly not).
I put my head above the parapet today and voiced my views online about this.
Some of my friends were unimpressed to say the least but thankfully nobody came out and blasted me for going againist the popular narrative.
Anyway I ended up having a discussion one guy, a 'Yes' supporter, and he seemed to not only be surprised and very disappointed by my point of view, but he also didn't understand that a person who wasn't a bigot or a homophobe could not be in favour of gay marrriage.
That's what struck me.
For him it literally was 'does not compute'.
Surely any intelligent right minded person would vote 'Yes'.
That is the level of indoctrination we're talking about here.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[amity]

(04-27-2015 05:50 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 05:38 PM)amity Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 05:16 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

The Irish media and all political parties are pushing for a Yes vote. I believe the polls reflect this in the sense that people are afraid to admit they are going to vote no due to the fear of being vilified and attacked by the "consensus".

I think it will be a lot closer in the day. But as it stands I think it will pass.

Almost everyone in the media is on board with this. Even economists like David McWilliams (who I thought would have had a more nuanced take on things, but sadly not).
I put my head above the parapet today and voiced my views online about this.
Some of my friends were unimpressed to say the least but thankfully nobody came out and blasted me for going againist the popular narrative.
Anyway I ended up having a discussion one guy, a 'Yes' supporter, and he seemed to not only be surprised and very disappointed by my point of view, but he also didn't understand that a person who wasn't a bigot or a homophobe could not be in favour of gay marrriage.
That's what struck me.
For him it literally was 'does not compute'.
Surely any intelligent right minded person would vote 'Yes'.
That is the level of indoctrination we're talking about here.

Yep, the intolerance to anyone who deviates from the Yes camp herd is truly manic.

Exhibit A: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/...74579.html

This is next level narcissism, combined with a pathological victim complex and a pretty unpleasant intolerance of anyone who doesn't subscribe to his worldview.
It's all about his feelings, nothing else. Zero awareness or empathy for anything other than what he wants.
Staggering, and he's not alone, this kind of view and this level of intolerance is fairly common in the 'Yes' camp.

Here's an interesting article from an American gay man who's self aware and not caught up in his own self importance. I doubt he could come out with this opinion in modern day Ireland, he'd be (metaphorically at least) lynched, disowned and ridiculed by the mob.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-g...-marriage/

[RedPillUK]

Isn't it unfair to Priests and Christians who don't agree with gay marriage, to allow gay marriage?
Aren't you then essentially forcing people to do things they don't agree with? and changing how people practise their religion?

thats my biggest problem with gay marriage.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[amity]

(04-29-2015 07:45 AM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

Religious marriage in theory will remain unaffected, as in priests and churches will not be required to cater to gay marriage.

It's basically recognising civil gay marriage as having the same equality under the law as religious marriage. Civil partnership is already legal.

Of course they could have elevated Civil Partnership to the same legal footing as Religious Marriage and kept the semantic distinction but no, the gay lobby want to redefine the word marriage to mean the union of two adults irrespective of gender.

It's using the law to redefine the meaning of a word under the pretence of equality.

Exactly.
Unfortunately most people in Ireland don't care about that and a significant proportion it seems don't have the mental capacity to understand why it's not a good thing to go around changing words and institutions "because...y'know...civil rights!"
Civil rights my ass, the civil rights line is a complete red herring (as you eluded to earlier), they wouldn't accept civil partnerships being on the same legal footing as marriage anyway.
Nope, we gonna change that word marriage....cuz.... Equality!!
This isn't the Deep South where black people were getting lynched just for being black less than a century ago.
Now those people could talk about civil rights, that was oppression.

I can't see any chance of this not going through, there's barely a celebrity name, public figure or politician who's not onboard with this.
That turncoat Kevin McGahern too! (I actually know him a little bit, we frequent the same pub sometimes!)
In fairness, this is pretty funny, and he does parody the 'Yes' side a little bit too, but mostly it's a gung-ho pisstake of anyone who's "intolerant" enough to vote 'No'! (the irony is completely lost on the chap! completely indoctrinated, like most in the media)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnPmtj_V...e=youtu.be

[DickDastardly]

delete

[Hyperion]

(04-14-2015 07:44 AM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

I've decided to vote no. Have also convinced the rest of my family. Phoenix was right, it's a cultural assault. Civil partnership is already legal here. They just want to redefine the meaning of marriage. It won't end there.

Good for you. Hopefully enough people make the sane decision.