Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
ONE OF MANY changes in Ireland’s towns and villages over the past decade has been the decline in the unique styles of Ireland’s shop signs.
Shop names used to be handcrafted, often by a local handyman, simply because there was no-one else to do them. Often they were functional: solemnly printing the name of the proprietor over a door. But they could also be beautiful too.
Over the past five years, graphic designer Trevor Finnegan has been travelling around the country taking photographs of the unsung typography on shop fronts – many of which have now closed down – documenting how Ireland’s shop signs used to look.
Kilmihil, Co Clare
Every month or so, he goes off on a trip somewhere in Ireland, stopping off in a village somewhere and looking for shops to add to the project, which he has called ‘Our Type’.
Each time, he knocks on the door of the shop, even if it’s closed down, to see if he can talk to the people inside before he takes a photograph. People are often wary at first but open up once he explains what he’s doing, he says.
Mountrath, Co Laois
“Sometimes they know the stories behind the signs and who did them,” he says. “They’ll often talk a lot about the shop generally and come out of themselves a bit”.
A lot of similar style signs are often found in one area.
Ennis, Co Clare
“In a lot of places there would have been someone like a stonemason or a carpenter who would do all the signs for the shops there, especially in the south and south-west counties,” says Trevor.
While some signpainters in Dublin became famous for their work, rural sign-makers were never as well-known, he says.
Advertisement
Carrick-on-Suir, Co Tipperary
Some of the old shops have become part of people’s homes, with many now turned into sitting rooms for the elderly couples who live there.
Gowran, Co Kilkenny
“A lot of the shops, especially the older ones, are closed down now, but some are turned into houses,” he says.
The changes to Ireland’s streets have made the project almost a document of Ireland’s past .
Knockcroghery, Co Roscommon
“It’s getting harder to find places,” he says. “At the start, lots of little villages had their own shops, but over the past 5 years all these shops over have been taken over by a Centra or a Spar or a Mace. They’re almost completely wiped out now”.
Trevor got the idea partly from a college project on typography during his time in NCAD – and partly because of his dad.
Boyle, Co Roscommon
“He used to collect old enamel signage from shops that had closed down. He was an architect, so he could take them when they were being thrown out or discarded. He used to put them up in the garage, and that got me interested,” he says.
As part of the project he plans to start looking next at who actually made the signs. “It’s hard to find out,” he says. “Often it was just a thing that someone did, maybe as a trade-off or a favour”.
Miltown Malbay, Co Clare
Trevor, understandably, says that typography is something he’s “really into”. ”It just intrigues me. I think they’re beautiful,” he says of the signs.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Fantastic initiative by these 3 guys fighting for equality. Stand up and fight with them. Vote With Us. Vote YES! Make your own video and submit it on http://www.votewithus.org
I’m usually giving out about him these days but fair play to Paul Murphy for calling out a baseless fear that people will use this as a anti-government protest vote.
Deerhoundog
Are you really saying that the feelings of gay people do not make “natural sense”. Do you really think your own feelings make “natural sense” to anybodu else? I thibk you need to go away and try to acquire some “natural sense”!
It feels strange to be asked if I accept or reject the right of strangers to make legal their union with one another. I would not for one second allow anybody to tell me what or with whom I engage my day to day life. It’s unthinkable that I would seek to impose my preferences on others. Yet that it what i am being asked to do. That being so, there is, of course, only one possible answer.
Reading the comments, I can see I’m alone in being pissed off with a headline which reads ‘What mother wouldn’t want this for her children?’ It’s a bit rich, in an article about equality, to assume that this is something that only ‘mothers’ are concerned about. I’m a father several times over. It matters to me.
Thanks Helen. It’s unfortunate that the editor chose to use a discriminatory quote in an article about discrimination. It’s a minor point in the big debate though. The main thing is to get the darn thing passed. Hopefully sense will prevail and prejudice will wither on the vine.
Bigus, if people were actively campaigning to prevent you from marrying the person you love, you’d probably feel like letting people know how you feel. It’s far from emotional blackmail. The fact is this referendum affects gay people profoundly. If passed, it will cement their security in the notion that they are fully welcome and equal members of their society. In that context, a little emotion is surely forgivable.
I am tired of the word homophobic, just because some of us find this latest Marry who you want when you want and how you want , a little difficult to get our head around does not make us weird, just worried about the whole concept, no one should say sorry for being who they are but either should i for being straight…
Catherine, thank you for your comment. As you can see, the commentators in this forum have become old sparring partners through dozens of similar articles and it can get very heated here. I had my own outburst near the top of the thread, something I have just apologised for.
For those who have genuine questions as to why our gay and lesbian friends wish to avail of the right to marry under Irish law may I recommend to you this website : http://www.marriagequality.ie There is not only a FAQ which demonstrates the 160 differences between civil partnership and full and equal marriage. There are also a number of personal stories by the people whose lives will be changed by your vote in this referendum. Please read the stories, you will see that in every way but one we are the same, and in every single way we have the same hopes and dreams.
In fairness I also suggest that you look up the No side. I have no direct Web address but obviously the Iona Institute and it’s multiple offshoots have their own argument. In the end, it all comes down to one simple question : Do you believe that Irish citizens should ALL be treated equally under the law?
I see that a number of comments have been deleted, including mine, and I want to thank the Journal for that. The comments were beyond what is needed for a spirited dialogue and I am ashamed that I stooped to the level of the post that annoyed and upset me so much. I apologise for my part in that thread.
@ James Joseph Superior Power
The most basic truths are always simple. Every child has a mother and a father. Marriage is an institution designed to serve a husband and wife, any children they may have, and society. The proposed redefinition of marriage, denies both of these truths, putting adult desires ahead of children’s rights. Simple really.
The most basic truths are always simple. Marriage is a civil right not an institution. Marriage is a right pertaining to the legal union of two adult individuals based on their love to be committed to each other under the law and in the eyes of the state. No more no less.
Whether they have children before or afterwards is immaterial as a childs parents do not have to be married to be raised in a loving environment. Love and respect and care does that. Not marriage.
Paddy as I and several others have explained to you. Marriage is an Institution designed to serve two loving couples. Children are not a requirement for marriage and never have been. Should such loving couples have children as many gay couples do. Marriage provides constitutional protection to these families. Why do you believe that same sex couples and their families should be dined this protection. Children rights will NOT be effected in any way what so ever by the introduction of equal marriage. Tell us exactly what laws in relation to children will change by its introduction. I have asked you this question on several occasions before and you have never provided me with an answer. Stating the the “dogs on the street” know that marriage is about children is not an answer to my question. Stating that “every child has a mother and father” has noting to do with marriage. I think I represent a lot of readers in here when I put it to you that you are telling lies in a deliberate attempt to confuse the children and families relationship bill with the marriage referendum THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If I am wrong please provide some evidence that show that they are one and the same thing.
This indeed is the problem in a nutshell, there is a group of people trying to redefine marriage, who know little or nothing about it.
When peoe get married I assure you they have much more than a day out in mind.
Marriage has always been about creating the best environment for children, that is the only reason why the state has an interest in it. Marriage between a man and a woman became natural when they both loved each other enough to want to have children together. It became that binding institution, primarily to ensure men did not abandon the relationship after the children arrived.
Even “gay marriage” knows this fact, and that is why there is a surge in demand for surrogacy when each country changes the meaning of marriage.
Let’s put a stop to this abuse of children here and now, vote no.
You are confusing Marriage and Matrimony, Paddy. Marriage predates most of the major religions in the world.
Marriage was never about ” creating the best environment for children, that is the only reason why the state has an interest in it. Marriage between a man and a woman became natural when they both loved each other enough to want to have children together. It became that binding institution, primarily to ensure men did not abandon the relationship after the children arrived.”
In fact, it was a way of uniting families/tribes, and striking alliances, often arranged and never for love, or for children. This was the modus opernadi for a great many years up until very recently. You are talking to your hat and clearly know nothing about the origins of marriage.
Sorry Conor, but the European Court oh Human Rights ruiled just last year that gay marriage is not a human right. I know you like repeating this, but it’s just not true.
Paddy your comment makes absolutely no sense what so ever and dose not answer my question. HOW WILL THE LAW IN RELATION TO CHILDREN CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE? Please answer the question you were asked and stop dancing around it with nonsensical drivel. Who ever said marriage was about a day out? It is about loving couples sharing there life together. That goes for bought gay and straight couples.
” Marriage between a man and a woman became natural when they both loved each other enough to want to have children together” Are you suggesting that those who chose not to have children don’t love each oater. It is clear if any one doesn’t know what marriage is about it is you. Or are you trying to redefine marriage to exclude all couples that don’t want children. News flash paddy it is natural for many same sex couples to want to have children just the same as it is for many opposite sex couples to want to have children. And no it is not selfish when gay couples want children. If you believe that marriage is the best environment to raise children why do you want to deny that to children being raised by same sex parents. Your augment makes no sense.
Clearly you don’t have much respect for men if you think that the only thing that stops them from abandoning there children is marriage. Most men or women for that mater don’t abandon there children because the love them. Have you ever thought of that.
What is is your problem with surrogacy. First of all it is used mostly by straight couples and has noting to do with ssm. Have you considered that maybe just maybe because surrogacy is on the increase anyway by gay people, many gay people want marriage so that they can have constitutional protection for their families and not the other way around. When it comes to ssm the only people abusing children are those trying to stop it and denying those children to have married parents if there parents wish to marry.
I never said it was a human right I said it was a civil right.
Please go and look up the difference and educate yourself Paddy.
Oh and why’ll you are at it perhaps you’d like to educate us on the funding of Catholic Comment seeing as though their very informative website contains very little about that. But does contain lots of information about their commenters. Everyone should have a read all about Paddy on there!
Hey Paddy! If heterosexual marriage is the best for children, when do you suppose heterosexual couples will stop beating, sexually abusing (either by the couple themselves or by entering their children into prostitution) and emotionally abusing their children? Tomorrow? Next year? Seriously, when can I stop reading about children ingesting heroin because their deadbeat STRAIGHT parents left it lying around after a drug binge?
You’re again and I dare say, deliberately, missing the point, nobody claims that same sex couples are better at raising children, they are just as good as heterosexual couples.
But, and for the umpteenth time, the referendum is simply about the civil marriage of gay people, nothing more, nothing less.
I’m not missing anything. I responded to a post which states some straight couples do terrible things to their kids. I’m merely pointing out that there is every chance that gay couples may do this too so why even bring it up?
You think a gay couple can replace a mother and father ? Well that’s your opinion, I think it’s airy fairy nonsense.
Likewise, you believe marriage has nothing to do with kids, again “for the umpteenth time” I would say that is utter rubbish. But you’re entitled to your opinions as am I.
Then you can probably show me the part in the constitution, that states that for people to get married they have to produce children.
What about married couples who decide to remain childless, what about married couples who for medical reasons can’t produce children? If marriage is all about children, then, applying your logic, their marriages wouldn’t be marriages.
Reread my post please Tony. Where, exactly, did I say that I cannot guarantee that gay people would not treat children in such a manner? I will break down my reasoning a little further so that you can comprehend: given the propensity of heterosexual couples to inflict misery and pain upon children, they can hardly be considered “the best configuration of parents for children”. You are quite right that I cannot guarantee that homosexual couples would not treat children in such a manner. You, in turn, cannot also guarantee that homosexuals couples would not succeed in doing a better job of raising children better than heterosexuals. What we do know is this; heterosexual couples have inflicted a great deal of documented abuse on children. Therefore, they are not the best configuration of parents.
Tony you are entitled to your opinion. But having an opinion doesn’t change facts. The facts are that children raised by gay parents do just as well as those raised by straight parents this is an evidence based facts and not an opinion. Marriage is not about raising children. It never has been. That is also a fact and not an opinion. When opinion contradicts facts then an opinion is no longer an opinion but rather a lie.
@ James Joseph Superior Power
Wow, you wrote that really loudly, I’m not sure if my eyes can take it.
If SSM is passed, all chances of undoing the flawed family legislation, an insult to democracy, will be removed. The legislation and the referendum come from the same ideology, which is built on destroying the roles of mothers and fathers. Children are demoted to been the pawns of adult whims.
I never attended a wedding ceremony where the married couple were asked if the love each other, as a condition for marriage. So clearly marriage is not about love only, even though that is a bonus. The heterosexual couple of men who married in New Zealand last year, were clearly not in love, but the SSM legislation there makes an ass of the law and marriage in general facilitated their “marriage”.
The rest of your points are just old hat. If children are acquired by gay couples, then these children need protection, and that should be enacted under civil partnership law. But marriage is a different thing, and children happen in 85% of marriages. These children need protection under the banner of marriage. In this case the children come from their mother and father. No external genomes to the couple were required. If two adult men, or two adult women, choose to satisfy their whims, without regards to the rights of children the choose to create; then I object to redefining marriage to make these adults feel better about what they inflict on a child.
@ James Joseph Superior Power
Sorry James but there is no evidence that children of gay couples do as well as others. The most recent study indicates some problems. But in general, gay or straight, are capable of been good parents. However the evidence that exists indicates a preference for the blood relatives of a child. Many stepfather/stepmother relationships fare poorly when compared to the biological parents.
Ah so now when faced with the fact you lost your argument you simply resort to a “computer says no” answer! How mature and well thought out.
Marriage, like voting, like divorce, like legal counsel, like freedom to practice religion, like free speech are all civil rights.
Human rights include the right to food and water, the right to live in peace, the right to an education.
Many countries and states around the world have legislated for equal civil marriage as a civil right and those places have not fallen into an apocolypse of children being sold and straights being forced to marry the gays! Thats what your side attempts to do in their poor miseducation campaign.
Paddy when faced with the truth you actually cannot handle it. You muddle your religion in with what you think civil society is and cant resolve the difference in religious based moral viewpoints and a civil societal viewpoint.
Oh and you still have not explained where Catholic Comment get their funding from!
@ Larissa Nikolaus
Actually Larissa, I owe you nothing but the respect due a fellow commentator. Let me say I try to earn my way in life by work, just like everyone else. I receive no, zero, funding from anyone else. My zeal to defend marriage is purely altruistic. I see it as vital to a healthy society, and I believe SSM is the death blow to an already ailing institution. Those looking for SSM care not for society, they only care for themselves. That is my honest view, and I feel no compulsion to apologise for it.
And no, it’s not a civil right. It will only become a civil right if the civilians of this country vote in May to redefine marriage, and declare that they wish to create a new right for gay couples to “marry”, and remove the rights of children to a mother and a father.
@ Ailbhe O’Nolan
I prefer not to engage with persons who display bitterness. I dont believe we should redefine marriage for you Ailbhe. You fain concern for orphaned children, yet fight for the right to have fatherless or motherless children.
The only one displaying bitterness on here is you.
You want to discriminate against gay people and deny them the right to marriage, and you keep on falling back to the same fallacies all over again, without any logical or scientific backup just your antiquated system of believe, that makes you blind to the crimes the Catholic Church has committed
@ Larissa Nikolaus
Larissa if I apppear bitter, I apolagise, that is certainly not my intent. I am trying to reply to a few individuals, and the rush may give the impression of abruptness at times. I assure you I try to answer the key points where I can.
May I again say gay people have the same right, with the same societal restrictions, to marry, as heterosexuals. Indeed many have in the past married, because they wanted a family of their own, above their own sexual preferences.
But you keep trying to establish there is a “right” to SSM and this is just not true, at the moment. Your introduction of the crimes committed against children, is purley to try and hush any voices that would cry out, children deserve a mother and a father. Well they do, and perceived adult rights, should always be secondary to the actual rights of children.
At one point in time slaves had no civil rights, ya know something the great catholic church said nothing about, until after the emancipation of the slaves actually occurred.
Civil society is fluid and is based in law, what is currently a civil right for all citizens – civil marriage – is currently restricted to only those who are either heterosexual or those who are homosexual that enter into a marriage with another heterosexual for an unknown reason other than love. That makes a mockery of marriage as you have so deftly pointed out further back about two straight men abusing the marriage equality law in New Zealand.
The extension of civil marriage to homosexuals will do nothing except extend the civil rights of homosexuals, it will not tear down the world, which is what the no campaign attempts to portray. Please provide me an example of a country where the sky has fallen in due to the legislation for marriage equality.
Of course the No campaign hates the term marriage equality and uses same sex marriage instead to make it sound different. Thats why you will never see Paddy refer to equality at all, he wants the gays to remain as second class citizens, which I am sure is what he says to his supposed gay friends all the time.
So Paddy…. funding for Catholic Comment?????????????????????
Just read your link, is this guy for real? How can in the 21st century someone like this clown be alloed to practise as a lawyer?
And then we have Paddy here, painting the US as the big Satan by promoting equality, sad as it is, I fear Paddy may be just one step removed from this Californian lawyer, if he is removed at all in his biased opinions
@ Paddy Maybe your eyes can’t take it as they are blind to the truth by bigotry. I don’t know you tell me.
“If SSM is passed, all chances of undoing the flawed family legislation, an insult to democracy, will be removed.” No paddy all chances of undoing the legislation will not be lost. You can campaign for a referendum to undo the fort coming one that will allow the for legislative change. As the fair minded people have done so to bring about this referendum to change legislation to allow ssm. It is your opinion that the legislation is flawed paddy that doesn’t make it flawed. How is it an insult to democracy seen that it has been put in place by our elective representatives who had promised such legislation in their election manifesto .
“The legislation and the referendum come from the same ideology, which is built on destroying the roles of mothers and fathers.” How will it destroy the roles of mothers and fathers. Amusing that you are a good parent no body is going to take away your children from you . You will still be a father to them when the legislation is enacted and if the referendum passes. The role of a mother and father is only relevant where they are present and they are capable and do good parenting. Gender is of no relevance when it comes to parenting a child.
“Sorry James but there is no evidence that children of gay couples do as well as others” I have provided you with several links on other ssm related articles that prove that they do. Do I relay need to repeat my self every time and provide these links on every article for you. “The most recent study indicates some problems.” What study Paddy. Are you referring the one that was carried out for the so call Iona “Instituted” The one that was designed to come up with a fore gone conclusion to suite their agenda. How long will it take the authors for this study to admit that it is flawed as so many of the studies that Iona have presented to us in the past have been proven to be flawed. Why dose Iona try to miss lead the public by calling its self an Institute considering they have never carried out any creditable research of there own. Or are they trying to redefine the word instituted. It would be illegal to refer to them self as an instituted just across the water in England.
“However the evidence that exists indicates a preference for the blood relatives of a child.” What makes you think that one parent in a same sex relationship can not be a blood relative or a biological parent?
“Children are demoted to been the pawns of adult whims.” What has that got to do with gay parenting or a gay couples desire to have a child no more than it has to do with a straight couples parenting or their desire to have a child?
“I never attended a wedding ceremony where the married couple were asked if the love each other, as a condition for marriage. So clearly marriage is not about love only, even though that is a bonus” wow that is a big turn around from your previous position. Are you now advocating for lovelies marriages. You have previously stated and I quota. “Marriage has always been about creating the best environment for children, that is the only reason why the state has an interest in it. Marriage between a man and a woman became natural when they both loved each other enough to want to have children together” So now you position appears to be that marriage is the best place for a child to be reared even if there is no love in that marriage and that the marriage of a man and women is no longer natural as they don’t need to love each other to want a child. Make up your mind Paddy what is your position?
” The heterosexual couple of men who married in New Zealand last year, were clearly not in love, but the SSM legislation there makes an ass of the law and marriage in general facilitated their “marriage”. What those that even mean. “The heterosexual couple of men” ???? Did you mean to say homosexual. Assuming that you did are you saying that you know of a case where two men were married who didn’t love each oater and because of this one lovelies marriage all same sex marriages makes an ass of the law.? Thats hilarious Paddy. Could the same not be said for a straight couple in a similar position.? . Any way? I thought your position now was that love is not a requirement for marriage. A little bit (well a big bit) of a contraction there Paddy.
“The rest of your points are just old hat” What dose that mean??? I don’t wear a hat.
“If children are acquired by gay couples,” “acquired” Are you now suggesting that gay couples view children as property. Such an insulting thing to say. Paddy most gay couples desire to have a child and raise a family is the very same as most straight couples desire to have a child and raise a family. Surly you are not one of those bigoted ignoramuses that would suggest other wise.
“then these children need protection, and that should be enacted under civil partnership law. But marriage is a different thing, and children happen in 85% of marriages. Have you changed your mind again? what happen to your view that marriage was the best place to raise a child. Do you believe that children being raised by gay parents should some how be treated differently and raise in an unconstitutionally protected family? I thought that you were all about what is best for the children. when did that change Paddy?
“In this case the children come from their mother and father. No external genomes to the couple were required.” So are you suggesting that children who are being abused by their natural parents or there natural parents for what ever reason can not look after them should remain with these parents. Are you saying that the state dose not have a duty to protect these children by placing them with the most suitable foster or adoptive parents? Most right minded people would find such a thought unthinkable. How is such a concept a case against ssm. One thing has noting to do with the other.
” If two adult men, or two adult women, choose to satisfy their whims, without regards to the rights of children the choose to create; then I object to redefining marriage to make these adults feel better about what they inflict on a child.” All righted minded would agree with that paddy as they would agree a adult man and a adult woman choosing to satisfy their whims, without regards to the rights of children the choose to create; they would also object to redefining marriage to make these adults feel better about what they inflict on a child.” Those reasons have noting to do with allowing ssm. No child should be created on a whim despite the fact that the Catholic Voice would have us believe they should by trowing the idea of using contraception out the window and take the attitude that sure if the come the way what about it. Do you know that publication Paddy? A little birdy told me you are associated with it.
My apologies paddy. I now see that you were referring to a case where two heterosexual who maried in New Zealand how ever the premis of my argument never the less remains valid.
The problem, in a nutshell, Paddy is that some people are denied equality and they are denied it for no rational reason. To disguise or justify the blatant inequality that forms the basis of many of your objections, you employ straw-man arguments which are, at best, misguided and at worst, disingenuous and in some cases, bordering on hysterical. Your comments about the abuse of children are in the realm of hate-speech.
Marriage may, and often does, involve children, but neither they nor a desire to have them, is a pre-requisite of a marriage. If, as you suggest, marriage is solely to protect children and ‘primarily to ensure men did not abandon the relationship after the children arrived’, then it has clearly not achieved this. Nor, in fact, is it capable of doing so.
As someone who is married, I had many reasons for doing so. Primarily, I married the person I love for the simple reason that I love him. I didn’t join an ‘institution’ and my marriage is not in any way threatened by the extension of equality to any family member, friend, neighbour, or colleague who just happens to be gay. Far from it.
So, please, next time you feel like championing the cause of marriage, please do not assume that you speak for everyone who is married. Neither my marriage nor that of anyone I know is as brittle and fragile as the type of marriage you describe. It does not need your protection nor that of the group for which you speak.
Is this some sort of joke? This is a country where women carrying a child whose defects are inimical to life cannot access an abortion. On the actual subject of the thread – mammies of my mother’s generation, and indeed my generation, would be pushing their gay sons to “find a nice girl and rear a family” which many of them did, and for all we know are still doing. A bit of a dirty deal for the wife in that situation but, hey, everything looks normal, right? All of a sudden we have become so hip, and so libertarian? I don’t think so. This is on a par with our miraculous ‘economic recovery’.
One reason to vote no would be because you agree with the idea that marriage should only be as between one man and one woman.
If you disagree, you can vote yes and see what way the government intend to define marriage.
The wording is suspect in the extreme, and that alone is a good reason for rejecting the referendum proposal..
Larissa,
There’s nothing in the constitution at present that prevents marriage from being contracted without distinction to the sex of either party. It’s unnecessary, and if it’s unnecessary why add “in accordance with law”?
The legal requirements for marriage are also defined without distinction to sex.
@Paddy. Hundreds of thousands of unwanted children are born every year. Hundreds of people are brought up in single parent family units, either through the parents not being together, or someone’s partner dying.
How on earth does the marriage of two people affect parenthood. You are an troll, and idiot, and someone who needs to pull his head out of his arse and the 1850′s and come live in the 21st century where the right attitude is that everyone is equal, and everyone should be allowed to marry what partner they choose, as admissible by law. None of this “marry your sons, marry your sister” nonsense. Its between two non related people falling in love and entering a loving relationship. Seeing as many children born these days are born out of wedlock, your argument is a moot point last relevant in the 1950′s so please , sling your hook and go off and die like the rest of your idiotic generation that would deny people the right to be in a loving relationship.
SSM has NOTHING to do with family units or children.
In your opinion Paddys comments are backwards. I wouldnt agree. I would call them conservative or maybe old fashioned.. There are plenty of gay people who will be voting no. Whats your opinion on them??
However “go off and die like the rest of your idiotic generation” ?????
Well thats ageist, cruel and downright disrespectful. And you wont be doing the Yes campaign any favours with that attitude..
@sinead, any idea his many gay people will be voting no? What percentage do you reckon is “plenty”? I doubt very much if “plenty” gay people are going to deny themselves equality.
I am sick and tired of the backwards victorian rhetoric spouted by fear mongers the likes of whom voted on the 8th amendment to the constitution. There are a small few (two that RTE pull out the the back of a cobweb infested cupboard) many think that people should vote no. One of the most prolific, Keith Mills, will be at the Eurovision instead of voting, so there ya go.
I don’t understand why anyone would stand in the way of someone else’s happiness, especially as its civil marriage, as opposed to the sacrement of matrimony.
I am far from ageist. but as far as I am concerned, people with the outdated homophobic views should be confined to the annals of history.
Well if animals are doing it then that MUST mean its ok. Animals sometimes kill their young and eat them. Do you think thats something we should start doing too?
“A man and woman are designed to be together physically and biologically. 2 members of the same sex are not.” And what qualifies you to come up what that conclusion? Did you study at the Institute of homophobia?
Please take your time to read this piece I wrote and let me know if it has any relevance. I think it’s a flaw that needs addressing before any vote is cast.
Why Ireland Should Not Vote.
As a once heavily influenced religious government, Ireland was never fully ‘democratic’, but more so a puppet to the Catholic Church in regards to certain matters. ( i.e; abortion, homosexuality )
The Catholic Churches narrow minded, stern views enforced strict ideologies which took away the fundamental right to freedom of speech and ones ability to question right from wrong without judgement and possible jail-time.
As history tends to follow us, it leaves negative and positive effects.These effects can ad a cognitive bias without anyone questioning the future results.The ‘Catholic Church’ effect is one among many to why the Gay Marriage vote may be a ‘No” on May 22nd.
Another effect which continuously slips through the cracks of re-invention is the current antiquated voting method. As a democracy, it should be a priority to reach its citizens ( full audience ) when holding an election, not just a percentage. Since the invention of the internet this is has become a fundamental flaw in the Irish voting system which has not been addressed. As habits change and peoples surroundings adapt so should its voting methods.
The most recent and last effect that ads to a flawed voting system is emigration. With 1 in 4 people effected by emigration this factor stretches further then our emotional ties and pushes its effects to the ballot box.
The result;
The majority of the ‘Yes’ vote will most likely come from the age group between 18-35. This age group will either be in University, at an entry or middle level job or will have already emigrated. For the first two cases, a high number of students and newly employed will be stuck in university/work and not be able to travel to there local town to vote on May 22nd ( a Friday ). That is the first unfair advantage.
A second disadvantage to the ‘Yes’ vote is the population that are able to vote on the day.
The majority of the 45+, now grown up, holding strong ‘moral’ views on why to vote ‘No’. This elderly majority still live in there home communities and have the ease of walking down to there local ballot station to vote ‘No’.
Why this is wrong; it’s antiquated and bias. The process already favors a side, whether you want to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, it’s logically incorrect.
What Should be done;
Before any voting is cast, the government, now once removed from the Catholic Church, should look at its voting process and change it so that it’s a fair non-bias vote.
By making it both internet and not internet based, the vote has the ability to reach its actual audience and not a select few. We ( I ) should be aloud to vote from abroad. Just because I’m not home now, doesn’t mean I never want to return. Being a citizen of Ireland should give me that right. In the case for the Gay Marriage bill, I would like to return to a country where people can live equally. To disregard an educated and highly skilled percentage of the Irish population is an unwise choice by the government.
The ‘funny’ thing is, one should not have the ability in the first instance to deny someone the right to equality, so voting on such is a contradiction to freedom and a practicing democracy (Ireland ).
Agree with you Dave. All I’m saying is I’m in full favor of equality. I just feel the odds are unfairly stacked against the ‘Yes’ vote. That should be addressed before any voting is cast so that we get a genuine outcome. not just a percentage. Many other countries can vote from abroad or online. It’s a simple step that could be implemented. If we want equality, the voting system should mirror that.
I agree with you Ian. Over 300,000 citizens under the age of 30 have left the country in the last 6 years. The youth of Ireland would in the majority vote for equal marriage, so yes the Yes to Equality campaign is on the back foot.
I don’t really understand why votes and referendums here in Ireland have to be held on a Friday, why aren’t Irish people allowed to vote on a Sunday, like in most European countries?
Well I mean if animals are doing it then that MUST mean its ok. Animals sometimes kill their young and eat them. Do you think thats something we should start doing too?
Are you sure you are on commenting on the right article there Chris. What has your comment got to do with same sex marriage? surly you are not equating same sex marriage with eating children.
I wouldn’t by a licence for my dog, I wont be buying one for my telly. Not for my Marriage not if I can help it.
Why would anyone need or demand anything from the state, stand on your own two feet. Benefits are a trap. Don’t buy into their control. The local school cant have a cake sale, a young lad cant go into temple bar with his guitar and sing a song. By voting yes you are voting for more state control of private matters. Start saying NO.
All that will happen by voting yes is that this rotten corrupt government can say we have the support of the people for our policy’s and laughing at you behind your back. While you are busy getting all emotive about what ever distraction tactic or begrudgery they are throwing at you the pigs are at the trough. Wake up see the scam.
This referendum has nothing to do with the government of the day. Voting against it to spite the government will not be recognised as a protest vote, it will simply be interpreted that you do not want marriage equality. Put the politics aside and do your gay fellow citizens a favour.
I think Stephen you might be a bit right, lt”s a pity people can’t see the bigger picture and stop looking to big daddy state to validate them. A massive No which I would love could be double edged sword in that some might mistake as homophobia. Given that you have the state that thinks it owns everything the trees the fish the seaweed and is selling off everything it can while planning to bomb Leitrim why you would want to give them more is beyond me!!!
I must say no matter what anyone believes on the subject, someone will always use an insult in a reply, and that is very intellectual for any debate lol.
If its about equality then why is the referendum about SSM.it should be about you ,in civil partnership in the law of the land have the same rights as a normal married couple.the equality issue is a red herring for to get your own way,and emotionally blackmail people into voting yes.
Because if you amend civil partnership to have the same rights as any other heterosexual couple, you are basically creating a second system of marriage?
And why would one do that, if one can achieve the same by extending the existing terms of marriage to include same sex couples?
Would you care to back up your point with a logical reason for this?
The biology does matter.can one yes voter tell me why men and women have the bits that we have,which is meant to be for obvious reasons, and why men cannot conceive, explain that with a proper answer,until then I’m voting no.
The argument all along was equality, so don’t change what you have change what others have to suit you.giving civil partnership the same rights as all married couples does not create two tier system,it creates what you are supposed to be looking for,equalityin law to normal marriage,so what you said is silly.its obvious it is not about equality.
Marriage equality will not change anything for heterosexual couples in terms of marriage. If civil partnership was exactly the same legally, there would be a legal conflict and it would be unconstitutional. You really need to read more before you post, because your posts scream ignorance for the sake of ignorance.
150 rounds of drinks ordered at the Dáil's bars on the day TDs failed to elect a new Taoiseach
34 mins ago
674
11
Dublin
What exactly is 'affordable' housing ... and how much should it cost?
6 hrs ago
2.2k
Darndale
Discovery of human hand in yard of Dublin primary school not thought to be malicious
Updated
12 hrs ago
54.2k
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 152 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 104 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 136 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 106 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 78 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 77 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 37 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 33 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 127 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 60 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 75 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 82 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 38 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 43 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 25 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 86 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 96 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 68 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 50 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 84 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 64 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say