[amity]

What I'm seeing, almost across the board, is that anyone who knows anyone gay/lesbian/trans at all, is going to vote 'Yes'.
And even if you haven't, well you've seen it in Coronation St. or Glee or some other shit, so therefore it must be normal.
Shame we have no Milo Yiannopoulus(or anyone even vaguely trendy or 'cool' or rebellious) here in Ireland on the 'No' side, who could appeal to younger people.
Their religion is the short attention span, quick fix culture we have now in the West.
They could give a fuck who marries who, they don't get it, and they also don't care that they don't get it as they're too busy watching 'Gogglebox' or some other shit.
Don't get me wrong, these are often good people, everyday people, probably a lot of them honourable people too and in a way, who am I to be criticising them.
But they're happy to just roll along with the mainstream narrative, and when you're not one of those people, it can be frustrating to see how many people just accept this for their lives.
They're perfectly happy to be told what to think.
It's that lazy, surface level, spoonfed, easy to digest, feelgood, SJW 'Equality überall' message that is so prevalent among urbanites and is ingrained in almost all media directed at the 15-45 demographic.
90% of people lap it up.
"Equality & Diversity for anyone and everyone and everything" is their mantra and anyone who doesn't jive with this, well "What's your problem man? Why don't you let people just be happy?"

Right, I'm done. Unless I see something I really have to comment on, I'll leave it at that.
Anyone in Ireland who's reading this, I'm not going to tell you how to vote, but a read of this thread will hopefully enlighten you and give you some direction.

[amity]

Here's a post I wrote about this topic.

[Stardustblaze]

I've had my account for a while and I've always have meant to start contributing instead of lurking and soaking down the wonderous advice this place has bestowed, so being an Irish person from birth, this thread is a good a time to start posting as any.

The advertisments going around the moment are saying "gra is the law" .
Gra is the Gaeilge (Irish Language) word for love.

The advertisements read like propaganda from the Ministry of Peace in 1984.
You must love or at least like everyone is the not so subtle message.

Ironically the people who say this (my younger brother for example who is about to finish a degree in community work, so you can imagine how he'll vote) are some of the some of the mean intellectually dishonest, cruel people you could meet, I love the guy because he's blood. We were brought up in a traditional household, very rural, but amazing in retrospect, I grew up fast, no internet in house until 2008.

I'be been wracking my brain, why does he not want the same thing for other children that we were so blessed to have, he's voting for something, he himself did not experience


I swear why do people in Arts courses and liberal arts, not take a courses in history and the cyclical state of human history and nature?

Basic questions would start to arise: if its so good, why has it not already happened and more importantly if it had happened in places like Ancient Rome and Greece, Where are all the great feminist and gay societies now? WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY? WHERE??!

I wish people would talk about these long range examples and predictions on Prime Time somenight, but when they do (if they ever do at all) people heads explode at the idea that human nature is timeless and has 99.9% chance of not been altered on a normal timespan, it's too depressing and pragmatic/nuanced a viewpoint.

The idea that that we're not the first generation to think of different ideas for living and that all this has happened before is too damn much for young people and they'll vote out of emotions and feelings rather than logic and reason. They'll want to give it a chance by voting yes. Why should they have to hurt a generation when a simple look at the thousands of years of recorded history could yield an answer that would save so much strife and trouble. The written word and the internet had made it so damn easy and yet they make it so damn hard by refusing to acknowledge simple truths.

A common saying from my brother and my like is "it's a different generation".
So human nature changes and wipes a total clean slate because 1 number moves on a calendar on the 31st December?

Its all incredibly disilliusioning as a 24 year old and sometimes I think I'm the freak.

[Phoenix]

I think a big part of it is that people don't think. At least not the bulk of them. People who gravitate to forums like this generally do think, because by thinking they detect something is wrong with society, and seek like-minded thinkers to discuss those matters with.

However, this has probably always been the case. The bottom section of society doesn't like to do too much thinking. It has only been in the era of democracy that this has become a problem. Those minorities with ulterior motives and bigger brains use their superior influencing abilities to herd the sheep in the direction they want.

In fact this is a good argumentative tactic with run-of-the-mill Leftists - when they parrot something, ask them 'did you discover this idea or was it given to you?'. I also like to follow up with "that my opinion is unpopular is no detriment to it's rightness, for repeating the ideas of those around you is effortless, whilst producing your own ideas from fundamental principles is not".

The problem is just constitution. A countries constitution is everything. Were there still Aristocratic upper-chambers to balance democratic lower-chambers, none of this stuff would see the light. Were there still strong constitutional devolution in Federations, it would be locally contained.

[amity]

Decent article from The Federalist on this debacle:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/20/irel...-marriage/

[DickDastardly]

delete

[amity]

@DickDastardly You're right man, it is gonna create a legal mess.
Bruce Arnold wrote about this a couple of months back but not many took him seriously.
Some lawyers have said as much (as what you've written) but a lot have said "it will have little or no legal repurcussions".
The reason why?
Kerchinngg! This amendment is good news for the legal profession as it means more work for them sorting out all sorts of legal clusterfucks caused by this.
The professions are well in with the Government, they look after each other, a symbiotic relationship, and so every party is pushing a 'Yes' vote.
And also of course to try and curry favour with the hipster/SJW/millenial/LGBT demographic which might help them get re-elected.

The almost 100% feminist support for this is partly cos they want to abolish or make null and void any references to women having 'duties in the home', like it does here in Article 41, cos in their silly little brains, this equals male oppression.
The feminists, more than any other group, want to destroy the (traditional) family, by whatever means possible.

[amity]

Had a bit of tete a tete with a 'Yes' supporter I know (in the 'Entertainment' industry) this morning.
And again, it was simply a case of 'Does not compute'.
The 'Equality' mantra is so ingrained in most of them that they simply cannot get their head around why anyone would be opposed to this motion (other than the simplistic answer that they might be homophobic/bigoted).
Part of me feels a little bit bad for making my opinion heard publicly on this, whether online or in real life.
I can see how I've upset some people on this, and these are for the most part, good people, albeit operating at a very blue pill level of awareness.
It really is akin to a form of brainwashing.
'Everyone is the same therefore we should treat everyone the same'.
That is their mantra, almost childlike in it's simplicity.
I think there is no talking to someone, when this idea is so completely invested in their psyche.
This whole issue has been a wake-up call, at times I got a bit too wrapped up in it, a bit negative.
But overall, I think it's important to challenge ideas that are just not well thought through, if it means even a handful of people have 'woken up' after reading my thoughts or hearing my voice on this, then that's got to be a good thing.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[H1N1]

(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.

This is an excellent post, but it goes further than that. This is how the Left do it - they change the meaning of words to further their agenda. My children's generation will grow up believing marriage means a union of man and woman, man and man, and woman and woman. And they will be right, because for the entirety of their lives that is what it will have meant. It won't seem wrong, or unusual to them.

This is the real power of language, and the real danger of fighting the Left fairly. Make no mistake, if you allow the meaning of words to be changed, you loose the capacity to hold contrary opinions or formulate dissenting arguments. Our children will not be able to argue against gay marriage, because it won't make any sense, the vocabulary they are exposed to day in and day out will preclude them from having contrary thoughts on the matter.

If the vocabulary doesn't exist, you cannot think the thoughts. This is what the Right need to wake up to. This is extremely invidious, and it is why victory by any means necessary must be the only guiding principle. Very soon people will not be capable of dissent, because the very means of voicing their dissent will be taken away from them. Our children will never know dissent is possible.

It is no use being reasonable, being reasonable is a losing position. I have no problem with the equality before the law aspect of two blokes getting hitched, and I know too many decent, generous gays to want to see them treated as second class citizens. But this is more important than feelings, it goes to the very core of our ability to dissent. Like a dripping tap on a stone, over time, this ability is worn away by a thousand tiny, otherwise innocuous victories. Do not shut your eyes to it.

[Phoenix]

Sure, but I just use the phrase 'its original meaning'. For instance, a while ago I used the word 'exploit' in terms of 'exploit the cheap local labour' with some business guy (who was also a weak douchebag who's girlfriend my mate was banging) and he immediately launched into a soft-voiced spiel about how it wasn't exploitation. I just said 'I meant it by its original meaning'. Same thing with the word 'discriminate'.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

This is unfurling the same way as it did in Croatia last year, only in our case the question was phrased in the opposite way:

"Are you in support of adding an article for the constitution that says that 'A marriage is an union between a man and a woman'? YES / NO"
(the result of this would still allow for same-sex civil unions, but they could never be called 'marriage')

There was a tremendous outrage campaign by the SJWs/feminists/LGBT activists, crucifying anyone supporting the measure as a bigot, taliban, religious fanatic, nazi, monster, hateful and so on. All the big Croatian media launched a coordinated campaign in the same vein, excluding and burying any dissenting voices.

Other than rhetoric, they also used all the standard SJW tactics, including witch hunts against any public people (for example, they went after our beloved athlete Blanka Vlašić who expressed her support for the measure, and got many advertising companies to cut sponsorships distance themselves from her). They also engaged in violence, burning the signature-collection stands of the measure's proponents.

While the public had been fairly divided at first, this fanatical attitude and aggression by the SJWs blew up in their faces and, despite dominating all the media, they lost the referendum badly. The measure passed by an overwhelming margin: 65% yes / 35% no.

The final result: SJWs receiving a massive bitchslap.



This won't mean anything in the long run, as the SJW still control all the media and institutions and are cramming more insane laws down our throats by the minute (often copying them directly from EU countries like Sweden and France), but it was very enjoyable watching SJWs commit suicide.

I'm not sure what the chances are for this to happen in Ireland, but don't lose heart. The SJW rhetoric is not winning them any points.

[Stardustblaze]

(05-21-2015 01:16 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

This is unfurling the same way as it did in Croatia last year, only in our case the question was phrased in the opposite way:

"Are you in support of adding an article for the constitution that says that 'A marriage is an union between a man and a woman'? YES / NO"
(the result of this would still allow for same-sex civil unions, but they could never be called 'marriage')

There was a tremendous outrage campaign by the SJWs/feminists/LGBT activists, crucifying anyone supporting the measure as a bigot, taliban, religious fanatic, nazi, monster, hateful and so on. All the big Croatian media launched a coordinated campaign in the same vein, excluding and burying any dissenting voices.

Other than rhetoric, they also used all the standard SJW tactics, including witch hunts against any public people (for example, they went after our beloved athlete Blanka Vlašić who expressed her support for the measure, and got many advertising companies to cut sponsorships distance themselves from her). They also engaged in violence, burning the signature-collection stands of the measure's proponents.

While the public had been fairly divided at first, this fanatical attitude and aggression by the SJWs blew up in their faces and, despite dominating all the media, they lost the referendum badly. The measure passed by an overwhelming margin: 65% yes / 35% no.

The final result: SJWs receiving a massive bitchslap.



This won't mean anything in the long run, as the SJW still control all the media and institutions and are cramming more insane laws down our throats by the minute (often copying them directly from EU countries like Sweden and France), but it was very enjoyable watching SJWs commit suicide.

I'm not sure what the chances are for this to happen in Ireland, but don't lose heart. The SJW rhetoric is not winning them any points.

Something else to consider:

No country has such an infantile/teething/breaking away/violent relationship with it's predominant religion in Ireland's case: Roman Catholisim. A lot of Jews in the USA, have no problem saying their Jewish as it's cultural or part of their culture. In Ireland, voting no is more often than not seen as a missed oppurtunity to fuck the church over.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[DickDastardly]

delete

[Stardustblaze]

(05-22-2015 05:56 AM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

We are also having a referendum on the age st which you are eligible to run for president. It is currently 35 but they want to lower it to 21.

The amazing thing is the amount of Yes for Equality Gay Marriage voters who are voting No on the Age Equality Presidential referendum.

The fucking hypocrisy. Yes to equality, except...


Fuck them. I voted No to both.

I never thought of it like this. LOL. Perfection.

[The Father]

(04-09-2015 08:18 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Davyjose, I also don't care what gay people do or want, but please vote no. I just can't stand the smugness of the SJW cunts.

That's exactly my view. Let them bugger each other all day long, if it make them happy. They spread disease, so I'm not keen on fucking any women who've been with bi-guys, but otherwise I just don't care. In fact, I think its humorous that if some guy wants to get poop on the end of his dick after a nice buggering session...god bless him!

It's the ENTITLEMENT and preachiness of the SJW's I cunt stand...

[Wutang]

(05-21-2015 11:17 AM)amity Wrote:  

Had a bit of tete a tete with a 'Yes' supporter I know (in the 'Entertainment' industry) this morning.
And again, it was simply a case of 'Does not compute'.

'Everyone is the same therefore we should treat everyone the same'.
That is their mantra, almost childlike in it's simplicity.

Once I understood that many people in the West view every sort of cultural and political issue through these lens and that this mantra is as much on as axiom to them as 1+1 = 2 a lot of their thought processes became much more clear to me. Every age has their sacred cows, values that people accept automatically as true and never actually think about why and how exactly these values came into thinking. The go to example is religion and many people, especially these SJW super pro-LGBT types would think this sort of thinking is exclusive to religion or to conservationism or to whatever coalition they dislike. These people would never consider that the claim “everyone is the same and therefore equal” could possibly be untrue or misguided and that even considering this notion would be some sort of thoughtcrime to them. They would not even have the self-awareness to realize that they are engaged in same sort of knee-jerk thinking that they accuse their opponents of.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[captndonk]

Marriage is 1970's style.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

That hamster is country-sized!!!

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

Who gives a shit? The less the government interferes and favors one group over another, the better.

If you don't support gay marriage, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Government should not be about social engineering. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, nothing more. For people who are religious, you are free to have a civil religious ceremony separate from the government legal one and give it whatever additional meaning you and your supreme being want.

Government should be minimal, aimed at maintaining order while maximizing each individual's freedom.

All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

Personally, I don't find homosexuality in any way appealing, but the far greater danger in my mind is having the government interfere in the private business of citizens. If the government gets to pick and choose who can enter into one type of legal contract, why not another type?

[Parlay44]

Rainbows Are Forming Over Ireland After The Same-Sex Marriage Vote

http://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/rain...hz#4ldqphz

[DickDastardly]

delete