How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

I will be voting yes.
I do not think it should be the decision of the nation to decide if 2 people can marry. Maybe a lot of lgbt people won't marry.. Maybe they will.. But they should have the option to decide like any other couple.
If EVERY lgbt couple in the world DID get married.. The world still wouldn't end.. Trust me!
It's totally cool if people find being lgbt weird or strange or unnatural.. Everyone is entirely entitled to their own opinion.. But in this case.. ACTIVELY campaigning against people..voting no and denying someone else equality and happiness.. That's unfair.. In my humble opinion.
It's upsetting to see people's lives being debated and torn apart publicly and I would be concerned for any sensitive/scared members of the lgbt community with the intensity of the debate and the possibility that the no vote will win.
Not being morbid.. But if it doesn't pass.. In 100 years someone will probably just implement it without even asking.. And we'll be the long dead "conservative" generation that failed to foster equality, fairness, open mindedness and happiness!

smash wrote: »

That was a pretty awful debate to be fair. A missed opportunity for everyone if you ask me. But at least the myth about adoption was debunked at the end.

It was a car crash.

It's something when Hookie is the voice of reason.

Very disappointed in Vinny B. Thought he would be the one broadcaster who would insist that the 'debaters' would stick to the actual topic but once again it looked like we are really voting on the Children & Family Relationships Act and not SSM.

At least I know what Tom Finegan look's like now, assuming it is the same Dr Tom Finegan who had a letter in the papers recently in support of the "vote no" campaign. The blurb say's somewhere that he's the legal advisor for MAFM. Bit trendy with the long sideburns.

aloyisious wrote: »

At least I know what Tom Finegan look's like now, assuming it is the same Dr Tom Finegan who had a letter in the papers recently in support of the "vote no" campaign. The blurb say's somewhere that he's the legal advisor for MAFM. Bit trendy with the long sideburns.

Taken from broadsheet.ie

Mothers and Fathers Matter includes among its members David Quinn of the Iona Institute (top), Ray Kinsella (centre), a Pro-Life activist and Professor at the Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business UCD and Tom Finegan (bottom), one-time assistant to Senator Ronan Mullen.

The website shares the same IP address as catholicbishops.ie, catholicireland.net, dublindiocese.ie, and gettingmarried.ie .

All because teh gays want to adopt your children.

If anyone wants to help yes equality here you go


http://www.yesequality.ie/canvass/

aloyisious wrote: »

Lol at Mattie McGrath backing the "vote no" campaign....... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/miriam-lord-mattie-s-on-the-dossier-but-he-s-no-yes-man-1.2202629

That article's hilarious!

floggg wrote: »

Why are you so insecure that you can't handle the idea of us both having the same type of tank?

Agreed, it's not about cars or tanks but access to the same road.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Like their urgent need to be included in the Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use?

:eek:

Why don't they just get them from Boots like the rest of us?

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Ugh, the posters are out in force now. They were plastered all the way from my front door to the office, both yes and no in equal number. For no posters to be matching the combined postering might of all the major parties, they must be getting some serious offshore investment. Sickens me.

Money = speech

smash wrote: »

And did you hear the no side?

"If we pass this referendum it will be constitutionally impossible for any future office ever again to give preference in law for a child to have a mother and a father"

Just read that. It's a direct quote from the no side. There's no specified preference in law for it at the moment, so why would there be preference for it in future if gay people could marry? I'll repeat, there's no specified preference for it now... And for what it's worth, adoption is a separate issue and that legislation will pass disregarding this referendum.

This is THE ONLY argument that the no side can offer, and it means nothing in relation to the vote.

It pisses me off that the Yes side seem to be trying to steer the conversation away from this argument, rather than just blasting it out of the water.

It's essentially saying if we vote yes now, we won't be able to discriminate in the future. Great - discrimination is what we are trying to do away with.

George Hook has been the only one to try and call them out on this yet - though he didn't do so all that forcibly.

I also hate the argument that if two men can marry they will have a right to a child at all costs.

Bull**** - if two infertile people or two elderly people marry, the State doesn't have to give them a baby from somebody else. Why should it chance for a same sex couple?

As Norris said last night, their own Legal Opinion says it will not change the package of marital rights.

kevin12345 wrote: »

Someone from MAFMatter on the Vincent Brown debate now. Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm sure this has been asked, but what do First Families First have against second families?

And is it non-presidential families they dislike, or just any new family a person might start after a divorce or other family break up?