GAA Player For No

at

Ger BrennanDublin GAA footballer Ger Brennan

“It seems like every celebrity and every group in the country is calling for a ‘Yes’ vote. Even the Gardaí have been used by the ‘Yes’ campaign to support the referendum proposal. I see all the ‘Vote No’ posters being ripped down and defaced all across Dublin without anyone in politics or in the media condemning it.

I very nearly decided not to write this piece. I know I’ll be targeted for it and labeled for it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut and not rock the boat. But I’m sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote ‘No’ you are homophobic. I know I’m not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting “No” because I don’t want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims that everybody is equal in dignity and it holds that marriage is a male-female union. I don’t think the Declaration of Human Rights is homophobic. I’m voting ‘No’.”

Dublin football star Ger Brennan: Why I’m voting No (Ger Brennan, Independent.ie)

Darren asks:

Doesn’t Ger Brennan teach Religion for a living? Not a mention of that here….

Meanwhile…

024d13bf097beeb92b4fab1667fe1055__20150513090927

Starina writes:

Ranelagh Bridge [Dublin 6] this morning: some seriously Orwellian thinking from the “no” side. the use of a heart is particularly disturbing.

Sponsored Link

Related posts:

Space Illuminati Slippery Slope Goodbye RTÉ No Fear

193 thoughts on “GAA Player For No”

  1. Jonotti

    Like anybody cares about the opinions of a man who spends his life kicking around a plastic ball. He should get out of the playground.

    1. Just sayin'

      Yeah, but Robbie Keane urging people to vote yes is worth media coverage? At least Brennan lives in the jurisdiction.

      1. The People's Hero

        That’s because he’s only good enough to play the Gaylick….. If there was a hint of pro footballer, he’d have been across the water in a flash…..

        1. budgie

          There is no professional setup in his chosen sport ‘across the water’ either. You’re an idiot.

          1. ThePeoplesHero

            Derp derrerr derp…. Silly little derp you are.

            Any sportster from this fair isle who’s got it to make it has to leave it….

    2. Ted

      As opposed to spending ones life on the lookout for a tighter bum on gaydar – a playground for STDs, STIs and destroyed lives. Vote NO to prevent them from destroying innocent lives!!

      6. ahjayzis

        Bitch PLEASE.

        My straight friends get WAAAY more bum on tinder than gaydar EVER sent my way :'(

        1. donkey_kong

          i don’t agree with his comments – but you can’t be serious.
          gaydar is mad for the riding. tinder some of the girls make you date them,.

          3. ahjayzis

            What I really mean is ‘buy me drinks and laugh at my jokes please I’M DESPREH’ :oD

      1. scottser

        ah ted knew that, but he changed it cos the thought of ‘hard leather’ was making him a little too moist.

  2. ahjayzis

    ” I am voting “No” because I don’t want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father.”

    Odd reason, since the Constitution makes no such point as it stands. Ref Commission chair skewered every single point of the No campaign on Newstalk Breakfast just now, listen back if you’re wondering.

    But still, sorry he feels silenced, the conservatism that dare not speak it’s name.

  5. Jess

    If you are denying two people rights based on the fact they’re homosexual, then you’re homophobic.

    If you think that this referendum is about raising children, then you’re either an fool or a liar.

    So take your pick

      3. Jane

        I really object to this call for universal tolerance of stupidity, mendacity and bigotry. There are just some arguments that can’t be allowed to go unanswered. It’s impossible to understand the point of view that a high profile gives his opinion sufficient weight to write an article in a national newspaper saying any ridiculous thing he feels like saying, but that nobody should be allowed to answer back on the basis that it’s his intolerant opinion and it must be tolerated on the basis that someone holds it rather than questioned.

        3. Nially

          +1 The “Stop being so intolerant of my intolerance! It’s my right to say and think what I like, uninformed by basis facts, but you’re not allowed to say anything back to me!” mindset is genuinely baffling.

    2. AlisonT

      Moronic comments like yours are the reason this will be rejected. Just because you claim the constitutional clause on the family has nothing to do with kids does not make it so. What it has nothing to do with is Love, the state has no place getting involved in love or even defining love.
      Your name calling just stifles debate, and as for the book burning fools who are taking down the No posters, they will cause a lot of people to turn away from the yes side.

      1. Seriously

        “Just because you claim the constitutional clause on the family has nothing to do with kids does not make it so.”

        Just because The Adoption Authority of Ireland, the Law Society of Ireland and all leading Children’s Charities claim the constitutional clause on the family has nothing to do with kids does not make it so.

        Fixed it for ya. I was unsure if you wanted me to a ‘God says…’

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          Also the constitution itself which doesn’t mention kids under family except in relation to divorce.

          1. AlisonT

            True, but if you follow that line of argument you could argue that the constitution does not need to be changed to allow for same sex marriage (which a lot of people do), therefore a no vote is that same as a yes vote.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            Well not exactly. The “family” doesn’t define what marriage is. But I’m fairly sure the only reason they are having a vote, rather than pushing it through, is because they are scared of Iona et al. Or it wouldn’t pass the Dail/Senate because people are scared of doing what is right.

        2. AlisonT

          You need to read the constitution for yourself. Most of these groups believe that the constitution does not actually ban same sex marriage yet here we are looking to change the constitution.
          Marriage was around long before the catholic church and has been between man and woman in almost all societies irregardless of whether they are religious or not. The great Ionian experimentalist 2500 years ago believed in marriage but had no time for deities. We will never win this referendum if people don’t know what they are looking for and keep claiming that it does not represent a major change. Be brave enough to ask people to change the definition of the family instead of pretending it is not an issue. Have some faith in your convictions and educate yourself.

      2. ahjayzis

        The independent referendum commission, the ISPCC, Barnardos, the Childrens Rights Alliance ALL disagree with you. A constitutional family doesn’t require kids to be a family, adoption procedure and AHR law (or lack thereof) are unaffected.

        So you’re either impugning people who devote their lives to protecting kids because you want to justify a vague prejudice to yourself, or you’re just dim as f*ck.

        Hint: When you’re backing the Roman Catholic Church over Barnardos and the ISPCC on kids rights – YOU are the danger to children.

      3. Jess

        Well everyone else has shown how you are wrong on the points about it being about children, so lets take your other statement.

        “the state has no place getting involved in love or even defining love.”

        I actually agree with you. But the state currently has a position on that, it has a position that there is a state recognised institution of marriage but it is only applicable to straight couples and actively stops gay couples from availing of that. What this referendum does is actually remove that obstacle, making marriage open to more of its citizens who are supposed to be equal. So surely you should be in favour of that no?

    3. Derval

      Jess, I agree with you, but…
      Ronan Mullen was more convincing than Simon Coveney on the debate on the Claire Byrne show the other night and he probably convinced a lot of people to vote No.

      1. Seriously

        If only Ronan cared as much about children when he was spokesman for the former Archbishop Desmond Connell….

      2. Owen

        I thought he was a better speaker, but he failed to have a solid point and just bangged on about children and the bible.

      3. Jess

        Being a convincing debater does not equal telling the truth. Ronan Mullen is more Callicles than Gorgias.

        This is the tactic that No side depend on. It takes one sentence to tell a lie, and several pages of evidence to disprove it. Therefore it is quicker to tell multiple lies, or the same lie multiple times because the truth will always be playing catch up.

        What the No side are saying are lies, there is no other word for it. They are not opinions, they are deliberate attempts at disinformation. Those lies are based on prejudice against homosexuals, known as homophobia, there is no other word for it.

        1. Joe the Lion

          Which is true

          but calling someone a liar is not the same as persuading someone that they are

          1. Jess

            Thats my point, in order to fully persuade someone that said person is lying you need to produce a lot of evidence and that can’t keep up with the speed of the lies. Its happening right now.

            Ronan Mullen says that this will affect children or adoption. To respond the yes side has to roll out constitutional lawyers, the ref commision, umpteen experts and reams of data to show that this is not in fact the case. In the mean time the lies have been repeated several times.

            It happened last time when the same people (Coir/youth defence/Iona) put up the Lisbon posters with ‘1.79? hr minimum wage’ on it. It was based on a quote from the labour court that they doctored to support this assertion, but when unaltered completely disproved their assertion. But in order to get that information across it required a press release from the Labour court that received small mention in the press.

            This is not democratic debate, this is college debating team debate. Its like its a sport to them where the truth doesn’t matter as long as you win.

        2. Derval

          I agree, but they were bloody brilliant at lying the other night and twisting everything to make it look like Coveney was twisting everything…
          and I don’t think the truth matters if enough people are convinced by the lies.
          Although he started off well and said a lot of good things – Coveney looked completely exasperated because Mullen was brilliant.
          for those undecided or leaning towards voting no – I’d say they were won over by Mullen.
          The Yes side really needs some very strong people to debate this issue on prime time RTE television.

          1. Odis

            It’s called an opinion not a lie. As in, that is what they believe.

            Extreme example: Ian Duncan Smith (UK Works and Pensions Minister)
            Cutting the welfare of the least fortunate in society, is helping them, by encouraging them to work.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            I wouldn’t use IDS as an example. He has the facts on his schemes which show they aren’t working. He just ignores the facts, as do the entire Tory government. That is lying to suit your opinion.

          3. Odis

            And that is precisely why I used IDS..
            He’s either a liar or an insane monster who believes his own BS.
            I’m going with the latter

      4. Jane

        I don’t agree. He was certainly a confident speaker, but his refutation of Geoffrey Shannon was disgraceful, in my opinion – the man knows what he’s talking about and to the best of my knowledge, has never before been accused of incompetence in his area. And his final summing up consisted entirely of restating issues which had already been refuted during the discussion. It was ridiculous.

        The only thing in his favour as an orator on the show was that he hasn’t the dignity to look humiliated to do what he does.

        1. Joe the Lion

          true, he looked weakest on that point, engaged in mere puffery and chest-beating – and Byrne let him away with it – scot-free

    1. newsjustin

      Why would he not thank them? That doesn’t mean he’s in favour of re-defining marriage.

  7. Drogg

    So Ger isn’t clever enough to understand what he is actually voting for, obviously he is the person to listen to.

    1. Drogg

      And I don’t really want to make a personal comment about someone but look how low his brow is, he is a step off being a Neolithic man.

      1. serf

        Classy. And you’re advocating an “open minded” viewpoint. I’m a Yes voter, but I’m increasingly uncomfortable with the cacophony of bile coming from the Yes side. If you want to win a debate, you should be capable of engaging in a reasoned argument.

        1. Jess

          A reasoned argument with what? If the No side were even being slightly truthful then you could engage rationally with them, but they’re not. They are attempting to win this by deceit, you cannot be reasonable about that.

        2. Drogg

          serf let me make this unequivocally clear I am not open minded when it comes to bigotry. Bigotry needs to be wiped from existence. I have debated all the no sides arguments multiple times but they are not willing to listen. I am going to go full Godwin on this, do you think that we should have been more open minded with Hitler and maybe debated his policies on the extermination of different groups of people?

      2. Drogg

        Ha ha no, I look like the missing link currently. In saying that I rock the half ape look.

  9. Grace

    Yeh it must be awful for him to live in such a hetro-normative country with a well funded No group, with No campaigners on every radio station and media publication, and no posters everywhere. Poor him, it must be so difficult to leave the house each day.

    As for the “I’m not homophobic if I vote no” idea- sure, you might not beat up on gay people, but you dislike them enough to think that they are not deserving of the same rights as you and you believe they will also be a danger to children. Without any evidence to back that up.

    Hmmmmmm is that not homophobic??

      1. Grace

        Basically it means living in a society where mainstream media, advertising, TV/film is overwhelmingly straight – Gay people are marginalized and discriminated against, and stereotypes abound.

        Whatever the outcome of this vote, these debates and discussions have moved gay rights in the country on massively – that genie wont be easily put back in the bottle!

      2. rotide

        Again, what country is NOT hetero-normative by the first part of that definition?

        We’ll be in a better place as soon as we get to a place where it’s accepted that homosexuality is not the norm in the same way that left-handedness or having red hair is not the norm.

  11. JimmytheHead

    Im voting No because the lord god our saviour came down from heaven and said unto me “blah blah kids rights etc just make up a load of crap and say that kids are losing out and they’ll believe whatever you want mate”

    god (small G) doesnt exist, heaven is a lie to keep naughty christians in place. Personally, I behave myself not because of a fear of hell and eternal damnation, but because its the right thing to do.

    Have faith in yourself.

    Peace out

  12. Clampers Outside!

    “It seems like every celebrity and every group…” seems to be the opening moan of all the ‘no’ side.

    Listen up, ‘no’ voters, that’s what happens when 76% (last time I checked) are saying they’ll vote ‘yes’. That, if it were the outcome would be an overwhelming majority and that’s why “it seems like….”.

    At least with this, it’s a voluntary majority and not some church imposed dictat. And yes it is, voluntary, and I’m tired of those on the telebox coming out with “the electorate is being intimidated” bullcrap. That’s total nonsense, the ‘push’ for a ‘yes’ vote is strong but it is in no way an “intimidation or bullying” on the scale the RCC has exorcised in this country for hundreds of years.

    I can’t wait for the 22nd and all this is over, and the opposition can STFU! …and the ‘yes’ sides tedium comes to an end.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      “I am voting “No” because I don’t want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father.”

      So… basically he doesn’t understand the referendum. Right.

      1. AlisonT

        Or you don’t understand the constitution. I want a yes vote but most of the yes arguments have nothing to do with constitutional law. The yes side should be able to put together an argument that has nothing to do with love or emotions because the state should not be legislating for such things.

        1. Grace

          Alison T the state has no problem legislating for and protecting straight people’s love and emotions. Why should the gays be treated different?

        2. ahjayzis

          We’re arguing for voters to vote for it – not for legislators to legislate on it, if we were you’d have a point.

          In normal human life, people get married for love – that’s what gay people want. People know marriage is what two people do when they love each other, not because they have X need for Y piece of legislation, it’s not

          It’s about hearts and minds, not the Kings Inns debating society.

        3. Don Pidgeoni

          How would it change the constitution anyway Alison? The “family” isn’t defined in the constitution

        4. Clampers Outside!

          Was that for me AlisonT? You make assumptions and ramble on about the ‘yes’ side using only love and emotions to make an argument.

          For why, I have no idea.

          One arguement is all I need. It’s called equal rights.
          And not the 160 legal differences between civil partnership and marriage, but equal. Hope that’s simple enough for you. No love, no emotions, just fact.

      2. Corvo

        And if anyone tried to explain it to him, he’d probably just complain about being bullied by the yes side

      1. Joe the Lion

        I’m sure some folks think it’s important to debate in every point but really it is a flawed tack

    3. Jones

      Opinion polls on this vote will be way off until the vote results are in. There are an awful lot of no voters out there who won’t voice their opinion under the assumption (and reality) that their opinion will be vilified – case in point these comments.

      It will be very tight but at least if it does end up being a ‘NO’ we will have another chance to vote when the referendum takes place again 12 months later until we get it right.

      I’m a Yes voter by the way, but I don’t like all the abuse the No side get. If someone wants to vote no who am I to chastise that.

      1. ahjayzis

        In your HOOP are you a Yes voter – we hear this EXACTY f**king comment about ten times a day, CONVINCED it came in a circular from Iona Towers.

        1. rotide

          What exactly did he say that makes him Iona?

          He’s right about the polls, look at the UK elections for proof of that

          1. ahjayzis

            What he’s saying is a carbon copy of the same post from the same faceless accounts all over the web – it’s a No trope, playing the victim, a clear strategy. Whether he’s bought into it wholesale or just going along for the ride is his own business, but I see through it.

          3. ahjayzis

            I don’t care what you are, I’m just pointing out an anonymous supposed Yes voter spouting almost word for word the campaign strategy of the No side. Odd innit?

        2. Jane

          Me too. This “I’m a yes voter but you’re not being nice enough to people who want to deny others equality and you’ll lose because of it” tone policing is wearing very thin at this stage.

          If you’re big enough and bigoted enough to deny rights to a marginalised group in society, at least have the courage of what you probably consider your convictions.

        3. Jones

          So just because I don’t get on my high horse when someone speaks their opinion I’m automatically a No voter. If that’s your opinion then perhaps do some more reading into fairness and reasoning etc.

          1. Drogg

            Ok then can we see your evidence? Because there have been multiple polls from multiple organisations that all have the Yes vote above 75% so where is your evidence of this hidden No vote.

          3. rotide

            Multiple polls had labour a point ahead of the tories last week Drogg.

            Jones is saying the same effect is at play here and it probably is.

          4. Drogg

            But you have no evidence. You guys are working off speculation and an election in a different country. Do you have anything but anecdotal evidence. Also only at one stage did a poll put labour ahead of the Tories in the UK over an extended period of polling the Tories where consistently in the lead. The polling in Ireland has been going since about 12 months before we where even given a date for the referendum and the results have all come back that the Yes vote will be above 75%. So I will stick to the evidence for debate material instead of the speculation of others.

        4. Gav D

          Its all over reddit, thejournal and boards.ie too. There very much appears to be an approved hymnsheet to sing from.

      2. d4n

        Is there some abuse you can think of, or anything the yes side has claimed that’s factually incorrect? ‘You’re lying’ might be rude but that’s the most trivial part of the statement.

  13. 评论员

    How Much? They should know an international airport is going to charge at least that.
    Should have read the price list first.

  14. manolo

    The proposed constitutional change is to remove inequality and nothing to do with children.

    This reasoning to support a no vote is similar to trying to justify banning the speeches from bigots from printing because they hurt the monkeys that live in the trees from which the newspapers are made.

  16. Corvo

    In starting to get a bit sick of the “look how brave I am for voting no” attitude.

    1. Jones

      Well then perhaps take off your rainbow tinted glasses because there are very few public no voters

          1. JimmytheHead

            Im sorry that you feel like society doesnt approve of your way of living, im sure its not your fault. You were probably born that way.

            Sound familiar?

          2. Jones

            Jimmy I’m voting yes. It’s just really starting to p**s me off that there’s now online lynching for having a different opinion.

          3. Don Pidgeoni

            This is hardly a “lynching” Jones, you are over-reacting to most comments on here questioning his massively flawed and incorrect reasoning behind his decision. That is not bullying.

          4. JimmytheHead

            Lynching? Well at least its online and not physical abuse in person like most homosexuals get on a daily basis. If only there was some form of legislation we could pass to make them feel more equal…

          5. rotide

            Most homosexuals recieve physical abuse on a daily basis?

            What are you babbling about?

            There is plenty of legislation in place to prevent this already. Stop making things up.

          6. Mani

            How terrible for you to feel so bullied. Maybe you could bear it though in an effort to make up for the decades of overt and covert harassment and brutality against homosexuals? I mean, gay men and women were attacked, killed, ostracised etc, but you feel ‘bullied’ about which way to vote.

            I feel for ya bro.

          8. rotide

            The existence of homophobia will continue despite you typing the first thing to cross your mind or just making stuff up because it sounds good.

  17. donkey_kong

    how dare me make his opinon known? Is fine when fellas like colin farrell, cian healy and robbie keane do it cos they’re on “our” side.
    Damn him and his bog ball playing ways…

    1. Starina

      it’s his right to make his opinion known – but it’s our right to call out his BS, too.

      1. Drogg

        And broadsheet made loads of news out of the Donegal player saying he was voting yes and of the Gaelic players association saying they where supporting a Yes vote. So don’t put all “bog-ball” players as you called them, in with this muppet.

    2. illuminati16

      I love the idiotic contradictions from some of the yes side…. all for fairness , equality, no to discrimination yet post discriminating comments like ‘bog baller’ ‘rural idiots voting no’….. laughable irony

  19. Helvick

    He is perfectly entitled to his opinion but I don’t think he is entitled to his own facts.

    Marriage is _not_ described as a male-female anything anywhere in the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.
    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    The relevant article is:
    Article 16.
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    This makes no claim that a marriage must involve a man and a woman. It states that men can get married and women can get married, and nothing more than that. If you choose to add to that you are making stuff up.

    Motherhood does get a special mention ( Article 25) but not in the context of marriage, in fact it specifically states that marriage is not relevant.
    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      Was just about to go look this up, sure sounded fishy to me.

      Vote no if you want but don’t conflate issues or make things up to support what is a weak argument against SSM.

  20. Stash

    So all this proves is that Ger Brennan doesn’t understand the UDHR or the purpose of this referendum.

    The paragraph in the UDHR he is clearly referrring to is;

    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    For more than a decade, this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle and many countries have responded by bringing their domestic laws into line with this principle in a range of spheres including partnership rights.

    On his understanding of the referendum he says;

    “I am voting “No” because I don’t want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father.”

    This is just ludicrous and doesn’t even make sense. The proposed constitutional change is to remove inequality and nothing to do with children.

    Finally, on his assertion that he isn’t homophobic. He clearly thinks gay people are undeserving of equal status in marriage than straight people and thinks that gay parents present some form of danger to children beyond straight children. Well the dictionary defines a homophobe as;

    homophobe
    Pronunciation: /ˈhɒməfəʊb/ /ˈhəʊməfəʊb/
    Definition of homophobe in English:
    noun
    A person with an extreme or irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people:

    Looks like he’s wrong on that point too!

  21. Mick

    As if the GAA needed another reason to be (mis?)labeled as backwards conservative neanderthals

    1. Ultach

      Hang on, hang on. I have loads of issues with the GAA which I won’t bore you with, but put down your tar brush. Would you extrapolate this particular fella’s views to similarly criticise all Dublin GAAers as a group? All sportsmen? All sportspeople? All men? Anyone who apparently gels their brown hair and has a Desperate Dan type chin?

  22. Deli

    He is dead right that there is a lot of people saying nothing on this as its easier. Only the mad few with strong onions either side are expressing them on multimedia or door to door. Its the silent middle that will make or break this referendum. And after spending some time in Cork recently I was hearing a lot of No’s. This is going to be a lot closer than everybody thinks. Good Luck…..

    1. Deli

      He is dead right that there is a lot of people saying nothing on this as its easier. Only the mad few with strong opinions either side are expressing them on multimedia or door to door. Its the silent middle that will make or break this referendum. And after spending some time in Cork recently I was hearing a lot of No’s. This is going to be a lot closer than everybody thinks. Good Luck…..

    2. Stash

      What is it you think he is right about Deli? The fact that this referendum has nothing to do with defining a constitutional family, or child protection. Or maybe the fact that the UNDHR doesn’t discriminate at all on sexual orientation. Or maybe you just think that discriminating on the basis of sexuality is fine and not homophobic?

      1. ReproBertie

        Maybe re-read Deli’s first sentence as it seems to answer your question.

        “He is dead right that there is a lot of people saying nothing on this as its easier.”

      2. Odis

        Its not about facts Stash.
        It might be to you. It might not be for others. In the end most people will vote yes or no, based on their personal feelings.

  23. Gary

    “The Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims that everybody is equal in dignity and it holds that marriage is a male-female union. ”

    It says:

    “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”

    It doesn’t say that the married couple have to be of the opposite or same sex. Just that only men and women, not children, should be able to marry.

  24. Robert

    He betrayed his partisan position when he said the Gardaí have been “used by the yes campaign”

  25. Nugget

    School Chaplain and AIG sponsored amateur sportsperson says vote No. Biggest Dublin Football controversy since that fella avoided a prison sentence for a horrific assault because he was a Dub football. Up the Dubs, Up the Dubs, Up Dubs. Hill 16 says No.

  26. 15 cents

    – “everyone seems to be voting yes. so im going to vote no, for reasons that have nothing to do with the referendum. . . now we could argue about it, or you could watch me hit some zingers!”

    – “zingers! zingers! zingers!”

      1. Mani

        Not reaallly.

        I mean, One can be alright about them gays, as long as they don’t move in next door, or my son or daughter isn’t one or they don’t want to be married like us straights.

        1. newsjustin

          Or one can be totally fine with everyone, gay or straight, but not want to redefine marriage.

          1. Mani

            You see, that’s the thing. If you’re the kind of person who has an issue with the redefining of marriage….I really don’t know what to say to you. If that’s genuinely a thing that causes you mental anguish…….god/buddha/john barnes help you. We have the ability to redefine things that have become outdated, be it legalising homosexuality, segregation etc. Redefining marriage isn’t a gateway drug to men and women fupping donkey’s on Stephen’s Green, it’ll make a minority of people happy (until they realise that marriage equality is an oxymoron, Heyo!) instead. Christ, when was the last time you had the chance to do that at the ballot box? Anyway, teh internets is no place for swaying opinion. Enjoy living in the past. Apparently Moro’s were much bigger and a pint was less expensive there.

          2. Joe the Lion

            Mani I remember when a package of Tayto Crisps was only 10p

            10P I tell ya!

            the liberal eliteys have redefined the price of a package of Tayto

    2. Stash

      That’s all very well, but his statement today indicates otherwise. He is happy to discriminate against gay folks on the basis of their sexuality. So much so that he seems to thing that those same gay folk are somehow a danger to their children.

  28. Anyways

    Ger, you had your publicity stunt for saying fair play girlfriends, boyfriends at the end of that match and now you are voting no. Im sorry Im not criticising you openly now for voting no, but I am for being a hypocrite and you should have not created the sense you were a gay ally like that id you disagreed with marriage equality. I thought you were better than that.

    1. rotide

      Publicity stunt? That always seemed pretty genuine to me.

      Actually this is a good point of debate. I assume it’s most peoples point of view here that it is impossible to be a gay rights advocate and be against gay marriage for ‘marriage’ reasons rather than ‘gay’ reasons. If he , no matter how wrongly, vehemently believes that gay marriage will hurt childrens rights, should he choose gay rights over childrens rights?

      3. Jane

        *If he , no matter how wrongly, vehemently believes that gay marriage will hurt childrens rights, should he choose gay rights over childrens rights?*

        Well, I think we all have a duty to inform ourselves. I think if you’re advocating a point of view in public, you really do have a responsibility to be accruate and truthful. There is no accurate or truthful argument that gay rights in any way harm children and actually, it really does depend on living in a society which has often been hostile to gay people on the basis that they were considered a threat to children. I think that accepting that it’s a stright up choice between children’s rights and gay rights with no evidence to support this is a tacit acceptance of this bigotry.

        Of course, the atmosphere exists these days whereby it’s not socially acceptable to advance this argument, so some of the No side have found ways of accessing this dog whistle more discreetly – in my opinion it’s an odious tactic.

      4. d4n

        ‘If he, no matter how wrongly, vehemently believes that gay marriage will hurt childrens rights, should he choose gay rights over childrens rights?’
        What a ridiculous question. If you’re going to vote on matters that hugely affect the lives of others, then you’ve at least the obligation to research the subject up for vote.
        So what he, and everyone else should do, is research the readily available data, and then form their opinion, and then vote in line with it, or not vote. Certainly he shouldn’t be advising others on how to vote while clearly demonstrating that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
        This guy has either failed to inform himself on the actual topic, and is so dumb he actually believes what he’s saying, despite it’s blatant factual incorrectness, or, he’s lying.
        Those are the only options here.

  30. JimmytheHead

    Can we all just agree on one thing?

    God does not exist. Ramblings in the bible are not a valid excuse to discriminate against anyone, ever.

    Ok?

  31. Rachel M

    I would be perfectly in favour of Ger Brennan expressing his opinion regarding a No vote if I felt that he was truly expressing his OWN opinion.

    If you read that article, and compare it to the writings of Breda O’Brien and David Quinn it is clear to see that he has become yet another mouthpiece for the Iona Institute. I just heard him speaking on Pat Kenny, and it was obvious that the Ger Brennan on the radio would not be able to express himself the way he has done in the article.

    The points he addressed in the article are the exact same, word for word, as what Breda and David have been saying for the last few weeks. The sentence structure and words used are an exact match.

  32. Opa!

    Sorry but when you base your vote around fundamental misunderstanding of the motion you will get that addressed. The guy is also working off a religious fervour, its just a shame to base your opinion not on the facts.

  34. Hazelnuts

    This claim from Brennan about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just incorrect. The article he is misrepresenting states that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” The emphasis here is on the “full age” of those getting married, i.e. that marriage can only be contracted between adults. It doesn’t say that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, just that men and women can marry. It goes on to mention equal rights as to marriage – that’s clearly violated by a No vote – and equal rights as to its dissolution – also, clearly violated by the difference in dissolution of a civil partnership and a civil marriage. Check yourself Ger, the No side needs to stop cynically using human rights as an excuse to violate people’s human rights.

  35. Garthicus

    The comments section in the Indo (I know, I know) under the article are overwhelmingly supportive (at a glance). I really really hope the people who want to vote yes actually get out and vote on the day.

    1. Supercrazyprices

      Every single No voter will vote. Not every Yes voter will. That is the danger and I think this will be very very close on the day.

      People are starting to change their minds.

      The Yes campaign need to tone down on the bitchiness and name calling. They’re coming across as very nasty individuals.

  36. Supercrazyprices

    Getting a bit Nazi like here.

    Some people are entitled to vote No. Rounding on them like a pack of rabid dogs makes the Yes campaign look very unequal and fascist. It will turn people against the Yes vote.

    (I’m voting Yes before you all lynch me).

      1. Jane

        Indeed. It’s funny to say we’re like nazis when the actual nazis included gay people in their rounding up and eliminating plans whereas all we want is for them to live in freedom and equality.

    2. d4n

      Yeah calling people out for lying to help impose their bigoted views on everyone is very similar to killing people because you’re a bigot. Totes.

    3. Henry

      Oh for god’s sake, knock it off with the overplayed persecution complex. You’re not being attacked and lynched, you’re being disagreed with. The No side is allowed to express their opinion and the Yes side is allowed to disagree and argue with that opinion. Freedom of speech and the right to disagree isn’t only something that applies the the No side. All this hyper-sensitive pearl clutching and playing the victim is just a manipulation tactic from the No side to stop the Yes side from disagreeing with them. Y’know – to stop them from doing the very thing they’re accusing the Yes side of doing to them.

  37. Shanz

    I hate the Catholic Church, I like Ireland and want to see it move forward, and I think the gays are grand, so I’m voting yes.
    Or at least, I would if I lived in Ireland and so could vote. But I suppose thast a whole other story.

    1. Daz

      Cop on Luke, or I’ll have Matthew, Mark and John pin you down and flog you like it’s an Opus Dei pyjama party.

  39. Greally

    What the UN Declaration of Human Rights actually says:
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    It does not prescribe that men have to marry women, but that all have the right to marry and to found a family.

    Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (see Article 16).

    1. curmudgeon

      So what, If you’ve never even played at county level nobody cares boyo. You’ve probably never even held the Sam.

  40. curmudgeon

    At first I was thinking who is this kid and why the hell should I listen to him, but then I read that he’s a GAA superstar. I mean whoa, I better cop myself on and take notes.

  41. Ppads

    I wonder did Mr Brennan ask his team m8’s permission before referring to his sexuality in that acceptance speech or did he just out him? As pointed out by others, there are holes and untruths in his piece but it is the sort of thing that is pitched at people who already have issues with gay people and are just looking for an excuse. In fact, that just about sums up the entire no campaign so far.

  42. Jpkealy

    When other GAA players and sports people announced publicly that they wanted to redefine marriage they were warmly welcomed and treated as having great courage and insight. This young man says he doesn’t think marriage should be redefined and he is treated to a bigoted barrage of comment on his job and his physical appearance . Are there no logical arguments as to why marriage should be redefined that can be put in response to his reasonable assertions?

    1. St. John Smythe

      I think many people just take umbrage at the fact that he totally misquotes and takes of of context the authoritative source he is attempting to shoehorn into his argument so as to gain it some respectability.

  43. AJ

    Ger Misquoted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It does not state anywhere in the UDHR.

    Last paragrah from Ger: “The Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims that everybody is equal in dignity and it holds that marriage is a male-female union. I don’t think the Declaration of Human Rights is homophobic. I’m voting ‘No’.”

    Well Ger it actually states:

    “Article 16.
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

    Miss representing the UDHR for your own personal opinion is pretty low and poor journalism, most people won’t read the UDHR to check, and he is trying to power phrase something of stature to make his argument,

    No ger I don’t think the Declaration of Human Rights is homophobic either. So why are you voting No Again ??

  44. Conor

    Ger, the UN declaration on Human Rights states: “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. ”

    It doesn’t say only men to women. It says men and women. That can be man to woman, woman to man, man to man or woman to woman.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie