Shame On You

at

ad

Ross writes:

Ad printed in the Dundalk Argus is causing a bit of a stir on social media locally. Most people are pretty shocked with the bluntness of the message, prior to this there has been no sign of a no campaign in Dundalk that I’ve seen, can’t even recall seeing a No poster. Up until now it’s all been really positive stuff from the Yes side.

gRBBp_V6yrdRwO57QMDgZtmx7ac_6QXJEVF0iHwXmlbt4WOMOWckV_4gexZcKbq1qAbmAccRyxNM6zG8ULnTiC-VuN3JqXKwMZaTyJ5lBQaGfhZq7cG5Mf-LhXwyH33kLsavIKgOe4mBI5DFbKQd7KqHjVsISNo3dGN5vNRZZy7aYapsdgc3BW9Wxlb4OvPWaUcjDFNx32oIwDaJeucqDca2zIL

Alan Daly adds:

It’s also in the Meath Chronicle and the Anglo Celt….

78 thoughts on “Shame On You

  1. Davey T

    jaysus the paranoia of the No campaign is getting ridiculous

    Ive a few hours drive on the day of the referendum to get to the polling station, but will be putting the foot down to get my vote in. How shameful would it be if the “no side” won. What Id be afraid of is that anyone who is leaning towards “no” for marriage equality will feel strongly about it (generally, discrimination brings up strong emotions) whereas the vast majority of people (id imagine) who would vote yes would be apathetic about it given the perceived huge yes support. Get out and vote people, lets show we are a mature, open minded nation where equal means equal!!

      1. Clampers Outside!

        But it’s the ‘no’ side who have done this in the past, done the shaming.

        It’s a ‘no’ hand as far as I am concerned. There’s no logic to a ‘yes’ voter doing it, none.

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          I was reading a study about the outcomes of kids of gay couples. They are only worse where the kids feel they are being judged for having two dads/mums, something that I doubt is included in anything Iona puts out based on them.

  2. scottser

    well, that’s the lowest i’ve seen yet from the no side. unless anyone knows of the yes side accusing children of being homophobic?

      1. zackersetu

        Well that’s it people … Let’s pack up and go home. IT IS LOST!!!

        One Dublin GAA player has said he is voting no (for reasons completely unrelated to the referendum by the by). If only all the major political parties, the law society , countless figureheads, celebrities, trusted and respected children’s charities, the Gaelic Players Association and the Women’s Gaelic Players Association (and many many more influencers) would come out in support of a yes vote to counter the arguments of this brave lone soldier…. WHAT ARE WE TO DO!!!!! Oh yes the tide has turned!!!

        (You sir …are an idiot!!)

      2. Don Pidgeoni

        “It’s the gay couples who just want to get married I feel sorry for. bandwagon jumpers have run an awful campaign.”

        Applies to the lies the No side, yes?

        1. Sadface

          If the only reason you vote no is because a minority (in your opinion) have ran a negative campaign,you are a moron..

          There is no but..

      3. dan

        The most important thing about that child is that it’s fictional. I don’t know of any kids from gay parents who think this. You expect more of them really, since they do exist, and it’s allegedly such a terrible life for them.

  3. lois

    there are posters like that up around Stephens green this morning don’t think they where there yesterday

  4. Jon

    Can just make out the address on the bottom of the ad. Sir John Rogersons Quay. That’s were ‘Mothers and Fathers Matter’ are based.

  5. chris

    If we want to get blunt, how about a ‘Yes’ poster campaign, with a picture of a gay couple and a priest, and the question “Which is more likely to rape little boys?”

    1. Ronan

      What a ridiculous comment! Are you insinuating that gay men are likely to rape little boys however priests are more likely?! Disgusting.

      1. chris

        Don’t put words in my mouth, Ronán.
        I guess you are not aware of the ‘studies’ that Iona constantly refer to, that tell us that gay couples abuse children.
        Just because I don’t agree with Iona is no reason to not listen to what they are saying…

    2. ahjayzis

      I’d prefer one with the ISPCC and Catholic church logos and the tagline: Who do you trust on children’s rights?

  6. wearnicehats

    This is fair enough. The entire Yes campaign has been “done deal – if you don’t agree you should be ashamed of yourself”. There are a lot of people out there with legitimate reservations who feel they are being beaten into submission. The irony is that there is very little equality in this debate on equality. Come on – abuse me for my opinion so….

    1. Gav D

      Honestly, I’ve yet to hear a legitimate reservation. I’d be delighted to hear one all the same.

      1. wearnicehats

        oh dear. The reasons are legitimate to THEM. Don’t you see? – The fact you don’t agree with them isn’t the point. I said 3 weeks ago that a yes campaign should be explaining to potential No voters why they should vote yes, alleviating any fears they may have rather than just painting rainbows on everything and telling people they are either YES or SCUM. The yes side didn’t really do that very well on Prime Time debate on Monday, for instance.

        1. Stephanenny

          Coveney was killed answering all of Mullen’s lies. Absolutely killed. And there are literally hundreds of people canvassing throughout Ireland doing exactly what you’ve just suggested there.

          The no side are spreading all these red herrings on purpose, so that we spend our time reassuring fears that they have manufactured in order to get a yes vote. Personally I don’t think people are that easily fooled. I think most people who will be fooled by it are already looking for an excuse to vote no so they don’t have to closely examine why they want to vote no. It’s very hard to admit to yourself that you’re prejudiced but we all are to some degree. I don’t think it makes you a bad person because we are influenced by the society we are raised in. But it’s acting according to those prejudices that makes you a bigot.

        2. scottser

          so the no side can pass off lies as fact, build the most ridiculous strawmen and yet receive no criticism from you? you just don’t like the way the yes campaign does its business? fine – go and vote no if you want, try and justify it any way you want but you’ll still be in the wrong.

        1. Stephanenny

          No, they’re illegitimate because they’re factually, demonstrably, provably incorrect. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s fact.

          If I say the sky is green it’s not a legitimate opinion, it’s objectively incorrect. Facts are not subject to our opinions. They either are facts or they aren’t.

          1. newsjustin

            That’s nonsense.

            It’s undeniable that the proposed constitutional change affects the constitutional standing of the family. It’s the section on the family!!

            This may be a great thing…..but at least admit it.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            How can it news when the family isn’t defined? How can you be against something changing when you aren’t sure what the thing being changed even is?

        2. Don Pidgeoni

          No, they are illegitimate because they are based on a flawed understanding of the constitution

          “All legislation is derived from the Constitution and its principles. So it seems pretty clear that if we redefine marriage and the family by making marriage genderless we will be denying that there is any special value in a child having both a mother and a father.”

          Nope. The constitution doesn’t define marriage or family. The proposed change makes no mention of the value of having any type of parent.

          “We will be denying that children have any kind of a legal right to a mother and father where possible, like when it comes to laws relating to adoption and surrogacy.”

          Nope – also conveniently ignores whether have a kid without a family is better than having a kid who is adopted by two loving men/women. Also, the wording of the referendum is not about adoption or surrogacy. If you have concerns about that law, talk to that law.

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

          Nope, it does no such thing.

  7. Tonyc

    Firstly let me say I will be voting yes. Like every debate there are 2 sides to the argument. The No campaigners are perfectly entitled to their views and beliefs. I may not agree with their sentiments , opinions or the methods they use to get across those opinions but they are entitled to hold them and to express them, just as campaigners on the yes side are as well. Suck it up. We live in a democracy and we are having a referendum on the matter. The outcome will be decided by the majority.

    1. James Power

      It will be decided by the majority but will only have an effect on a minority. What a cruel system don’t you think? Your status as a citizen being decided upon by people who are more interested in allowing people to have opinions than rights.

        1. donkey_kong

          its a great system – one may argue that it affects an minority but we all live in a society and the rules effect us all.
          Also it’s a change to our constitution which is fairly important,.

      1. Tonyc

        James , what would you suggest as an alternative , the system we have may not be perfect but it is the best there is

        1. James Power

          It’s pretty easy to state that it’s a great system, and yes it is a good system but not great. I like it well enough but there is room for improvement. Lying, making up your own facts, demands that things be debated which are nothing to do with the referendum should all be knocked on the head. That’s a problem with politics in general, with every Republic I suppose. I think democracy is great but the ability to lie in referendum campaigns with impunity is, in my opinion, verging on treason. The Constitution is too serious to allow that kind of nonsense.

    2. Corvo

      Just because they’re entitled to their views and beliefs doesn’t mean everyone else has to ignore how offensive and harmful those beliefs are and it doesn’t put their views beyond criticism.

      1. Tonyc

        I do not find their comments necessarily offensive , but I ma sure they find the idea of marriage for everyone just as offensive as you find there comments.

    3. Stewart Curry

      Opinions are subjective and open to be criticized. The shittier the opinion, the bigger the criticism.

    4. Nially

      They’re entitled to their opinions. We’re entitled to point out when their opinions are factually incorrect. We’re also entitled to our opinions on their opinions. And yet instead of “sucking it up”, loads of people are either describing the Yes side as bullies or, as you’re doing here, posting passive-aggressive nonsense about everyone having a right to an opinion. No one is disputing that; we’re disputing whether specific opinions are well-argued, reasoned or analysed, or based on a sound factual basis.

  8. bisted

    ‘…..prior to this there has been no sign of a no campaign in Dundalk that I’ve seen’….Dundalk is in the archdiocese of Armagh and archbishop Martin has been very vocal calling for a ‘no’ vote.

  9. eamonn clancy

    This is the weak link, the grey area where the ref could stumble; does a child have a say in who parents it him/her?

  10. John

    the No vote is playing on peoples fears and a lack of information on the consequences of the vote. Why aren’t the political parties countering with the facts around the implications of the vote? It feels like the no vote are gaining momentum by muddying the waters and no one is countering them.

    1. ReproBertie

      That comment could be applied to the No campaign from every referendum I can remember with the notable exception of the Seanad abolition referendum. The No campaign is always about the fear. Having watched the debates, all the facts and evidence presented to counter their fear is dismissed out of hand and the fear restated. A simple example of this was Ronán Mullen’s response to the statement from the adoption agency fella (can’t remember his name) on the Claire Byrne show. As soon as the clip was finished he said “Well I’m not convinced” and then repeated all his fears that had been shown to be incorrect in the clip.

    2. Jane

      *Why aren’t the political parties countering with the facts around the implications of the vote?*

      I think they are. However, witness the antics of Ronan Mullen on Clare Byrne. He was allowed to imply that Geoffrey Shannon was an unprofessional political appointment with scant understanding of the nature of his role and a completely unreliable witness to the adoption process. It has not been my understanding to date that this is a true or accurate reflection of Mr. Shannon’s reputation in his job, however I would imagine that the impression, once given, has had an impact.

      This is unconcionable behaviour, but how does one argue against it?

  11. Bobojoc

    My reading of that is that she only wants a mammy.
    She doesn’t want a daddy at all.

    1. ReproBertie

      There’s a lot of No campaign posters that say a mother’s love is irreplaceable and Ronán Mullen talks about birth being the last experience a surrogate child has of a mother’s love.

      For me this just highlights the sexist attitude of the No campiagn who believe a woman’s role is to stay at home minding the children and that a fathers’ love is pretty much irrelevant.

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          +1. Though with their traditional views of mothers are carers, I’m not sure it fits into their baby-stealing gays narrative as easily.

  12. JunkFace

    Religious organisations/people especially the catholic church, should have no powers over a nations laws and peoples freedom and human rights, as their whole belief system is an ancient and ‘made up’. Total Fiction!

    Also these same Religious organisations freely let their clergy Rape & torture children for decades, maybe centuries, and now they are all concerned about children’s welfare? Give us a break

    1. Jane

      Yes, I wonder why nobody, when they’re getting up on their high horse about childrens’ rights, ever asks them how these rights were served by selling them off to Americans and calling it adoption or imprisoning and enslaving young women in laundries, or moving paedos around so they always had fresh meat? I imaagine those would be difficult defend.

      On that basis, I’d say their record on children’s rights is patchy, if you massively ignore most of their record.

      And let’s not forget, these are the same crowd who were against Noel Browne’s mother and child reforms. Maternal health and child welfare were apparently not a priority for them at that time, why would we think they had changed in any way?

  13. 15 cents

    are ya allowed to just lie like that to sway voters? is that not illegal? also, the whole thing is punctuated with a bizarre bit about primary schools having to teach about same-sex relationships .. like thats a bad thing. wtf?

    1. Jess

      Yes you’re allowed lie. Not only that but the state broadcaster will ensure that your lie gets equal voice to facts. Because apparently lies are opinions, everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone’s kickstarter has merit

  14. nellyb

    It’s for lazy, feeble minded or broken (my sympathies to 2 n 3).
    Are the authors actively helping Irish adults, sold to US as babies, to get birth records from all these unchristian Sisters and Brothers of No Mercy… ? Right to mother and father like… – no?

Comments are closed.