1123heavy wrote: » Daith, not one person on this isle can marry someone of the same gender, we are therefore equal.
fran17 wrote: » Eramen that is one of the most insightful posts I have ever had the pleasure of reading.Excellent.
Shrap wrote: » You don't vote, even when you feel strongly that something could be changed? What kind of thinking is that? And I speak as someone who seriously respected your input till now. Why bother even commenting as someone who holds a particular view if you won't put your mark where your mouth is? Gotta say, I thought better of you strobe Edit: I believe the term is "fail". An appropriate term when something that could only be good for people might fail to get the public off it's ass to vote.
strobe wrote: » Voting isn't the only, or the most effective, method of effecting political change Shrap. (Did you really seriously respect my input? Probably best not to do that.)
Shrap wrote: » Generally, yes. From the sense you come out with on various topics. Not this time though. Bit embarrassed for ya tbh Hope you got some other trick up your sleeve to make your mark on equal rights in our delightful country. Perhaps you'll let us all in on your secret so we too can affect political change in a more effective way than boring ol' voting.
strobe wrote: » I'll tell you what, if it passes, presume my secret political sleeve trick was responsible.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Insightful? Nah, it's just needlessly verbose and ignorant waffle.
Shrap wrote: » No. And if your "if" is pertinent, I expect you to feel much worse. In fact, I shall blame you entirely
strobe wrote: » Ok, I'll vote so. Democracy in action.
Shiraz 4.99 wrote: » Unfortunately the polls are so skewed towards the Yes side the No campaign will have to go for shock, awe & bollox to have a hope of swinging this one. Expect to see abortion brought into the debate for absolutely no real reason bar stirring. Expect the bishops to reference some outline white paper first draft which discusses refusing communion to those who vote Yes. This will then be hastily denied. Expect stupid See No Evil / Hear No Evil type posters. Expect public spats with the referendum commission over equal time being afforded then a legal challenge being threatened after the result. Luckily the Yes campaign need do nothing bar let the anti-brigade have all the air time. One radio show listening to the Iona Institute or Mothers United Against something or other will have my Yes vote locked in.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Complacency and lazy assumptions will lose it.
Hannibal Smith wrote: » Why on earth would anyone vote no?
lazygal wrote: » Because children.
Shrap wrote: » Bleedin' deadly! I hope your deed is as good as your word dude. That has actually made my day (sad, but true).
tayto lover wrote: » Yes. A normal marriage as I know it.
strobe wrote: » Can I still light something on fire?
Larry Wildman wrote: » I will vote and it will be against homosexual "marriage" equality.
Larry Wildman wrote: » I will vote and it will be against homosexual "marriage".
Shrap wrote: » Any "reasons"? Or is that too much to hope for?
IsaacWunder wrote: » Fear and ignorance I suppose. It's a wedge issue. I support equality and will vote yes if I'm around, but I honestly don't care about it that much either easy to travel if I was out off town. The Catholic church are opposed, so a lot of elderly people will vote no for that reason, and that is the big problem the yes side have: old people always vote, young and middle aged people, for the most part, don't bother unless it's a general election or something divisive. Remember, only 20 years ago nearly half the population voted no to divorce. Hard to imagine now, but it was an angry campaign. Same issues then too: Catholic church opposed it. Only passed because they had vote on a Friday (i think) and students' unions laid on buses to get young people down to their constituencies to vote for it. No side used the same "think of the children" appeals in their ads.
