Ireland: Ordinary citizens are being intimidated into voting ‘Yes’ to same-sex marriage

The marriage referendum is about changing marriage from a union of a man and a woman into the union of two adults regardless of gender who desire a lifelong commitment. Up to a few decades ago, the meaning of marriage as the union of two complementary sexes open to procreation has been unquestioned. In four weeks’ time, it will be voted on and a majority opinion will determine whether one of the most natural aspects of humanity is going to be changed to suit a certain interpretation of equality.

As a people, we generally tend to be gentle, humane and loving. It is to this national characteristic, nurtured by its underlying Christian ethos, that the current political and media establishment is appealing…

…But there is an unpleasant undercurrent, that of intimidation. People who, in their heart of hearts, cannot equate same-sex unions with marriage fear being accused of homophobia. The few who dare to express their views in public have experienced an onslaught in social media. The most intimidated of all seem to be our elected representatives. It is incredible that the political parties have imposed the whip to get their members to support the “Yes” vote. All but one Senator submitted…

It’s psychological: if enough people think X, then you risk being shunned if you disagree.  It is well-expressed in the coinage “sheeple.”

  • kkruger71

    i think a lot of it breaks down to the fact that starting in the late 80s, we really didn’t put up enough of a fight on the redefinition of words and terms by the left. Now we are stuck with them really having control over the language and it is becoming harder and harder to be persuasive. With “progress”, “equality”, “equity”, “justice”, etc, etc. all being effectively synonymous with left-wing political activism, it is next to impossible to argue many of their campaigns in a way that the average, uninvolved, passive voter will be swayed by.

  • Dana Garcia

    I thought Nigel Farage dealt very well with the subject in an interview a few months ago. He said unapologetically that Britain has an adequate civil partnership law and that’s plenty.


    In addition, I wish someone would point out the unromantic marriage practices around the world — polygamy, child marriage, bride kidnapping. Marriage diversity is mostly appalling, not wonderful.

  • How is a traditional marriage the same as same-sex unions or unions in which people are not married?

    Why crave acceptance when one has gone out of one’s way to be different?

    This is not about equality or inheritance (a legal matter). It’s about ideology.

    • kkruger71

      To me it has very little to do with the gay thing specifically anyway. I was against calling it common law marriage when hetero people just lived together too. I am fine with governments giving it some sort of recognized status, like “union”, I just think the term marriage has and should keep its specific definition and designation.

      • I don’t think non-marital unions should be recognised as the same as traditional unions. There is no point in redefining things to suit a finicky minority.

        Strangely enough, Sweden recognises same-sex unions but not boyfriend/girlfriend unions.

    • Mal

      It’s also about destruction. There are forces hell-bent on destroying western society. They do this by devaluing life, weakening marriage (the one that naturally sustains society) and family. If the Irish vote to destroy them selves they will only have themselves to blame.

  • Mal

    The homophiles, like all other lefties, will call the defenders of real marriage all sorts of names. Be not afraid.