Tut tut NIrish, putting words in people's mouths again? I did like your rationale for why two thirds of the Irish electorate failed to vote - very creative.
Tut tut NIrish, putting words in people's mouths again? I did like your rationale for why two thirds of the Irish electorate failed to vote - very creative.
Well as the marriage equality referendum resulted in sixth highest turnout out of any of the 22 referendums previously held in the history of the Irish Republic I think we can safely assume those who wished their voices to be heard were and those who couldn't care less either way just went on about their business as normal.
However when the result is placed against the backdrop of Catholic church rallying their members to turn out in resounding numbers to vote an emphatic NO then I believe my view was a reasonable assumption to make.
Either way there is one thing of which there is no doubt and that is that the Cathoilc church WERE well and truly beaten and whether or not that was a result of people simply going out and voting yes or turn simply not going out to vote no (ie against the instructions / orders / threats from their priests and bishops) the outcome was the same - a massive two fingers to the Church whatever way you look at it, which is I believe what I said in my original post, but of course you know that already.
You're equating a failure to vote with giving two fingers to the Church without any evidence - wishful thinking if ever I saw it
Had I been eligible to vote I wouldn't have voted either, and as you know I'm opposed to the whole concept - if people want to vote for that sort of nonsense, let them, but I don't give a damn
I disagree as when taken in the context of Ireland being a Country where when the Church say jump people normally ask how high I do see it that when the church clearly and repeated said you must go out and vote no to this terrible thing then people didn't in such large numbers ( as you point out) I do feel that it was a clear signal of either their lack of interest in the overall subject ( doubtful as most people had an opinion on the matter one way or the other here and were quite vocal about it) OR they simple thought " ah screw you church, I'm NOT going out to vote no, go fuck yourself, I couldn't care less / I disagree with your stand on the issue".Originally Posted by kommentariat
Of course you're right that's just my view and there is no evidence to back up that view - except the actual non vote turn out itself. Out of interest then what if not my view would you put the non turn out down to, just a simple lack of interest in the overall issue then perhaps?
Now, I'm not one to stir things up (much) - but that's another can of worms right there!
During the first Scottish Independence referendum (see what I did there? :ymdevil: ), the UK Govt told us that Scotland was "extinguished" in 1707, and assumed into an "enlarged and renamed England"! *
So, I fear the UK Govt would regard N Ireland and Wales as having even less of a claim to be a "Country", but having said that, you're on safe ground punting your claim to Kommie as he's continually proved himself to be a complete tit on anything that he hasn't read in either the Daily Torygraph or the Daily Heil.
:ymparty:
*http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...reaty.20178521
We're talking about Southern Ireland here of course which the last time I checked even the UK government accepted was a fully bonafide Country.
Any number of possibilities - boredom with the Chattering Classes' latest fad, a lack of the "What's In It For Me" factor, a sense of "it's going to get up any way so why bother" (or perhaps I'm just projecting my own reasons).
You may be interested in reading what the lesbian journalist Helen Razer writes. Essentially the Australians have made marriage irrelevant for everyone, but especially gay people. That's where every country should be heading in my opinion, and proves that it can be done if politicians want answers that aren't just superficial - "Oh, let them marry and that will solve the problem and we can get on with the things that matter". There's an article I've seen from a same sex lobby group in Australia giving reasons for gay marriage. Only one of them is of a practical nature: there's fewer evidentiary requirements where someone is married, as a de facto relationship needs to prove (minimal) longevity, but only in certain edge cases. Beyond that its entire thrust is "It's not fair (boo hoo)" and what a socially desirable outcome marriage is for the entire population. When I ask my Australian friends for three reasons why they want to get married it's the boo-hoo reason alone that they can come up with.
Narcissism again, you see. But issues of adultery become irrelevant under the Australian model until "marriage equality" comes along.
Dammit - I'll get the bugger sometime!
Interestingly some Australian papers are suggesting that one or two MPs opposing gay marriage are prepared to ditch marriage as a state-sponsored relationship and leave it to the religious institutions. The state would offer only civil partnerships. This is, in effect, the French model where the relationship is confirmed by the government and optionally blessed by the church or other religious body
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote