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

Doctor Jimbob · 24-01-2015 11:34pm

jimboblep wrote: »

I disagree any vote and especially a referendum to change the constitution should be argued from both sides and let it stand or fall on its own merits

I feel I need to clarify my position on this as regards extending civil rights to gay people thts the correct and moral thing to do
I am not argueing on any MORAL RELIGOUS OR HOMOPHOBIC GROUNDS

You said you would consider voting no based on the dodgy arguments being used by the yes side. However the no side also use dodgy arguments, which you have completely ignored. Do you not see why this would make people think you were leaning towards the no side to begin with? I'm not saying you are or were, by the way.

jimboblep · 24-01-2015 11:36pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you're voting out of moral spite then?

I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

jimboblep · 24-01-2015 11:38pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You said you would consider voting no based on the dodgy arguments being used by the yes side. However the no side also use dodgy arguments, which you have completely ignored. Do you not see why this would make people think you were leaning towards the no side to begin with? I'm not saying you are or were, by the way.

Not the dodgy arguments just the attitude of presumption
this vote does not affect me so if they want me to get out and vote they should at least have the courtesy of explaining why

eviltwin · 24-01-2015 11:39pm

jimboblep wrote: »

I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

Its pretty simple Jim, either you agree that gay people should be allowed to marry or you don't. If you are undecided as to which way to vote ignore the talking heads and do your own research and find out the facts then see how you feel. I don't understand why you would choose which box to tick based on the campaigners. Its got nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Venus In Furs · 24-01-2015 11:39pm

jimboblep wrote: »

I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

What attitude?

You posted that you're thinking of voting no PURELY to get a little dig at those yes voters who piss you off - people have queried it; that's how a discussion works.

Some yes voters piss me off too - so I just ignore them and focus on how I feel about the issue at hand, seeing as that's what matters.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-01-2015 11:39pm

RobertKK wrote: »

That is one of the reasons I don't support heterosexual civil marriage. To me a church marriage is marriage, not the piece of paper you have to sign for the state to say you are married.
I don't believe the state has a right to define marriage.
Why should polygamists be not allowed to marry as many as they want at the same time.
Because the state says so?
It was only 22 years ago that the state laws said it was illegal to be homosexual.

That's actually sayign the exact opposite: that the church has a right to dictate state policy regarding inheritance rights and taxations for married couples.

Ave Sodalis · 24-01-2015 11:41pm

jimboblep wrote: »

I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

And this attitude is what's leaving people more and more frustrated. What would you call it so?
I've read and/or been involved in nearly all ssm or related topics on Boards. Every single one, the no vote has been more vicious and more nasty in their comments. You still haven't explained why that's okay for you, and people getting frustrated isn't. Not a single argument has been presented for the no vote that makes sense. Not one. Yet you're thinking of punishing the yes vote for vague replies? Why?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-01-2015 11:43pm

jimboblep wrote: »

I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

I know people who claim to vote yes to annoy their religious parents and grandparents and I find that just as bizarre as what you're saying here.

This referendum, for me, is more interesting not because of how people vote but their reasoning in doing so. And trying to dictate morals to other people is one of the worst and most condescending reasons - and it's something you are both accusing other people of and guilty of.

reprise · 24-01-2015 11:48pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

To highlight the inconsistancy in your argument.

As far as I can see, the no campaing comes from three different viewpoints:
- homophobia
- religion (why shuold I accept YOUR interpretation of "God's word"?)(What if I'm an atheist/agnostic/other faith?)
- moral (why are your morals more important than mine?)

The homophobic argument it the only one that doesn't actully reek of condescention or the idea that someone else claims to know more about social morality than I do, and I shoud really just accept their word without question.

If there is another argument, then I've yet to hear it.

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

Blahblah2012 · 24-01-2015 11:48pm

What is the necessity to make gay marriage = straight marriage?
Because quite simply...they aren't the same! That doesn't mean the relationships aren't of equal importance and relevance to the people involved and their families and should be viewed the same in law.
There should be a distinction because in practical terms there is.

eviltwin · 24-01-2015 11:50pm

reprise wrote: »

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

Don't speak for me. I'm married and have a traditional family. Whether gay couples can get married has nothing to do with that. I won't feel my marriage is threatened or in anyway diluted by the fact Paddy and Mick can get married. If anything more people getting married strengthens marriage.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-01-2015 11:50pm

reprise wrote: »

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

Opposite sex couples who can't or don't wish to have children. Your move.

padd b1975 · 24-01-2015 11:50pm

I will be voting no.

Ave Sodalis · 24-01-2015 11:51pm

reprise wrote: »

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

The bolded parts are debatable.

bodice ripper · 24-01-2015 11:51pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

Voting no as I would rather a whole new system of marriage without state involvement.

Bisexuals have a special area of the brain devoted to spotting insincere concern, I now have a full blown migraine.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-01-2015 11:52pm

jimboblep wrote: »

Not the dodgy arguments just the attitude of presumption
this vote does not affect me so if they want me to get out and vote they should at least have the courtesy of explaining why

Ok then, my mistake.

Why then do you find the attitude of presumption so much worse than the gay bashing/'think of the children' nonsense being peddled by the no campaign?

RobertKK · 24-01-2015 11:52pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I had my wedding in a registry office. Is my marriage not a marriage then?

The problem is, it is the state defining your marriage, not you defining what your marriage is.
That to you is what marriage is, it is not what marriage is to me. I have a relation who got married in the registry office abroad. I had to pretend I was happy and all that when told as she told no one, but deep down I was thinking to me that wasn't marriage. To her it is, and so in her own eyes she is married, so fine.

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

So, you don't believe in a marriage with state involvement, but it's cool for the church to do it and define it? What about people of different religions? Does that exclude them?

I do appreciate your honesty in admitting the religious belief behind your choices

It should be fine for the church/religious groups, secular groups, gay groups, polygamy groups or whoever you want to define it for their own people and people choose what is marriage to them. Not the state defining it for everyone like it has some God given right to.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There's nothing stopping you from having a church marriage and not personally recognising any other marriages. I don't understand why you think this definition of marriage should be forced upon the entire state, however.

Sorry but the definition of marriage is forced on everyone by the state. My views allows far more freedom, so if I got married in the church, you may think it is not marriage, but you may get married in lets say a humanist ceremony and that to you is marriage., and everyone is happy, and everyone has more freedom, and we wouldn't need referendums to allow same sex marriage, because the people would own marriage, not the state so same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.
The state just defines it for everyone like it is the God we must listen to, and it gives no choice.

AnonoBoy · 24-01-2015 11:53pm

With a pencil most likely.

Slot Machine · 24-01-2015 11:54pm

jimboblep wrote: »

I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

Well in fairness you sound like your only business in the thread is to be contrarian and generally stir the ****.

I've seen this exact thing happen in previous threads: snarkily insinuating that only one side has to play nice with you to win your vote. Frankly, I doubt you're even going to vote if this is how seriously you're treating the matter.

Doctor Jimbob · 24-01-2015 11:55pm

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is, it is the state defining your marriage, not you defining what your marriage is.
That to you is what marriage is, it is not what marriage is to me. I have a relation who got married in the registry office abroad. I had to pretend I was happy and all that when told as she told no one, but deep down I was thinking to me that wasn't marriage. To her it is, and so in her own eyes she is married, so fine.

No, the state is simply verifying the marriage in the eyes of the state/law. It isn't defining it. It's simply a contract.

It should be fine for the church/religious groups, secular groups, gay groups, polygamy groups or whoever you want to define it for their own people and people choose what is marriage to them. Not the state defining it for everyone like it has some God given right to.

And what exactly do we do about polygamous divorces? A complete mess from a legal standpoint. I get what you're saying, and in a perfect world it would be lovely, but it's a massive oversimplification to just say we can toss out state involvement in marriage.

Sorry but the definition of marriage is forced on everyone by the state. My views allows far more freedom, so if I got married in the church, you may think it is not marriage, but you may get married in lets say a humanist ceremony and that to you is marriage., and everyone is happy, and everyone has more freedom, and we wouldn't need referendums to allow same sex marriage, because the people would own marriage, not the state so same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.
The state just defines it for everyone like it is the God we must listen to, and it gives no choice.

More freedom, yes, but also much less protection. I feel like you haven't thought this through fully.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-01-2015 11:56pm

reprise wrote: »

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

If you rered the post, I listed three grounds for obkection, none of which feaatured the word "hysteria", "hared", "Iona" or "heckling".

I'd consider your startmetns to be objections on moral gorunds (although uncertain, because you'd need to elaborate on why).

The first one - could be argued that this is being interpreted that people who dont intend to have children or cant have children should be from forbidden to marry - says who?
The second one - who gets to say what constitutes marriage? Why?

Ave Sodalis · 24-01-2015 11:57pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry but the definition of marriage is forced on everyone by the state. My views allows far more freedom, so if I got married in the church, you may think it is not marriage, but you may get married in lets say a humanist ceremony and that to you is marriage., and everyone is happy, and everyone has more freedom, and we wouldn't need referendums to allow same sex marriage, because the people would own marriage, not the state so same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.
The state just defines it for everyone like it is the God we must listen to, and it gives no choice.

The reason it needs to go through the state is for legal reasons, them reasons being the only reason I'd consider even getting married. In an ideal world, you wouldn't have to get married for those reasons but you do. We have to work with what we're given unfortunately.

eviltwin · 25-01-2015 12:00am

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is, it is the state defining your marriage, not you defining what your marriage is.
That to you is what marriage is, it is not what marriage is to me. I have a relation who got married in the registry office abroad. I had to pretend I was happy and all that when told as she told no one, but deep down I was thinking to me that wasn't marriage. To her it is, and so in her own eyes she is married, so fine.

I don't really understand the point you are making.

If you support a church wedding as the only real wedding then are you not letting the church define what your marriage is, is the fact the church has expectations of married couples not defining your marriage.

All we did was turn up on a day and say our vows - which we wrote by the way. We didn't have to promise to have children or to stay together forever or anything like that. The state didn't tell me what my marriage should be, we define our marriage every day. The state simply witnessed and facilitated it so that an offical record exists to show that he is my husband and I am his wife.

I respect those who choose to marry in a church but not everyone can, not everyone wants to. Why should only a Catholic marriage be valid in a country where we have people of all faiths and none. In your example I wouldn't have been able to get married at all as I'm not eligible to marry in a church. The state at least gave me that option.

Venus In Furs · 25-01-2015 12:00am

reprise wrote: »

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

Grand IMO to say that, even if I feel the status quo should be changed; it's honest rather than the "Bisexuals won't be able to marry two people", "I'm voting no just to spite yes voters who annoy me" stuff.

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

What is the necessity to make gay marriage = straight marriage?
Because quite simply...they aren't the same! That doesn't mean the relationships aren't of equal importance and relevance to the people involved and their families and should be viewed the same in law.
There should be a distinction because in practical terms there is.

Seeking equal rights doesn't mean also thinking hetero and homosexual marriages are the same. Although, same-sex and inability to have a child together (not that marriage always = children)... I don't see any other differences tbh.

gandalf · 25-01-2015 12:01am

reprise wrote: »

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

What about people who get married but don't have children and have no intention of ever having children by your definition they aren't underpinning the family unit. Does that mean that their union is not quite a proper marriage?

Edit - Also these days what is a definition of a family unit?

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:03am

eviltwin wrote: »

Don't speak for me. I'm married and have a traditional family. Whether gay couples can get married has nothing to do with that. I won't feel my marriage is threatened or in anyway diluted by the fact Paddy and Mick can get married. If anything more people getting married strengthens marriage.

I am not speaking for you. I was merely providing a non-trivial argument for the no side that wasn't homophobic or ranting.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Opposite sex couples who can't or don't wish to have children. Your move.

Accidents will happen. People change their minds.

sup_dude wrote: »

The bolded parts are debatable.

They won't debate themselves.

Blahblah2012 · 25-01-2015 12:04am

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Seeking equal rights doesn't mean also thinking hetero and homosexual marriages are the same. Although, same-sex and inability to have a child together (not that marriage always = children)... I don't see any other differences tbh.

Not true. This referendum WILL make same sex marriage = mixed sex marriage.....when clearly they are not.

Are same sex couples embarrassed of the fact they are different from mixed sex couples or what is the fascination/obsession with being classified the same?

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 12:05am

reprise wrote: »

I am not speaking for you. I was merely providing a non-trivial argument for the no side that wasn't homophobic or ranting.

Accidents will happen. People change their minds.

They won't debate themselves.

But wasn't well thought out, nor justified.

Accidents happen. What about people who can't have children? Are their marriages lesser than those who can? As for the opposing gender, this is what this and many other threads are talking about.

eviltwin · 25-01-2015 12:05am

reprise wrote: »

I am not speaking for you. I was merely providing a non-trivial argument for the no side that wasn't homophobic or ranting.

I'd like more explanation of that point. Tell me why I should vote no. Tell me why my marriage is under threat is the referendum passes.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:05am

Yes of course accidents happen but if marriage exists as a foundation for the family unit surely those who do not wish or are not able to have Children should also be denied permission to marry.

*I don't actually think this of course, but it seems like the logical path to take from your argument.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:08am

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Not true. This referendum WILL make same sex marriage = mixed sex marriage.....when clearly they are not.

The referendum isn't suddenly going to allow gay couples to reproduce with each other. It is simply going to make same and opposite sex marriages equal in the eyes of the law. Hope this clears up any confusion.

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:11am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, the state is simply verifying the marriage in the eyes of the state/law. It isn't defining it. It's simply a contract.

And what exactly do we do about polygamous divorces? A complete mess from a legal standpoint. I get what you're saying, and in a perfect world it would be lovely, but it's a massive oversimplification to just say we can toss out state involvement in marriage.

More freedom, yes, but also much less protection. I feel like you haven't thought this through fully.

We will be voting on a new definition for marriage, so whether it is a verifying a contract, it still comes from the definition that the state gives as being the marriage.
To me I would be only married in a church wedding, the civil papers would not be the marriage, but lets someone is an atheist, my marriage wouldn't be what they would view as marriage. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I said earlier a solicitor would be needed, we really should have agreements on who owns what and what happens if a marriage fails or if someone dies.There is no reason why it shouldn't be as simple as a will is to make and it would make pre-nuptial agreements a thing the people getting married would have to discuss, rather than having it something awkward as if to say the marriage is going to fail before they are even married.
Pre-nuptial agreements would have to be made legal rather than being used as a guide in the courts, and changes would have to be made when children arrive.

Blahblah2012 · 25-01-2015 12:11am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The referendum isn't suddenly going to allow gay couples to reproduce with each other.

I don't think any referendum will manage that I'm afraid

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:12am

sup_dude wrote: »

But wasn't well thought out, nor justified.

Accidents happen. What about people who can't have children? Are their marriages lesser than those who can? As for the opposing gender, this is what this and many other threads are talking about.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd like more explanation of that point. Tell me why I should vote no. Tell me why my marriage is under threat is the referendum passes.

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marraige, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

Ozymandius2011 · 25-01-2015 12:12am

Breda O'Brien in today's Irish Times is on about the importance of the biological link between mother-father and child. That sounds to me like an argument against adoption. It was also interesting a few nights ago on Tonight with Vincent Browne that on the episode (archives are on tv3 website) featuring Fidelma Healy Eames and a woman from Catholic Comment opposing gay marriage, that both admitted they either had a child that was not biologically related to them or to being a single parent i.e. Eames admitted she's an adoptive parent, while the Catholic Comment woman said she is a single parent. So it seems a matter of some prominent persons on the no side saying "do as I say not as I do".

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:16am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes of course accidents happen but if marriage exists as a foundation for the family unit surely those who do not wish or are not able to have Children should also be denied permission to marry.

*I don't actually think this of course, but it seems like the logical path to take from your argument.

No, that's known as Reductio ad absurdum

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:16am

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I don't think any referendum will manage that I'm afraid

Well, no. Obviously.

eviltwin · 25-01-2015 12:18am

reprise wrote: »

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marraige, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

Apologies, I thought this was your opinion.

Its something that I've heard a lot from the No side and I was hoping someone could elaborate on it.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:19am

reprise wrote: »

No, that's known as Reductio ad absurdum

How? It naturally follows that if marriage is for producing families, those unable to have families should not be allowed to marry. That's literally part of the argument you're using against SSM. Why is it a logical fallacy to extend this to opposite sex couples who are infertile, for example?

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 12:19am

reprise wrote: »

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marraige, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

I was looking for a well thought out, justified, factual, well presented argument for voting no. You can have reasons like that but if you can't argue them, then how's that any better?

mad muffin · 25-01-2015 12:25am

Of course yes. Why would you vote any other way?

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:25am

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't really understand the point you are making.

If you support a church wedding as the only real wedding then are you not letting the church define what your marriage is, is the fact the church has expectations of married couples not defining your marriage.

All we did was turn up on a day and say our vows - which we wrote by the way. We didn't have to promise to have children or to stay together forever or anything like that. The state didn't tell me what my marriage should be, we define our marriage every day. The state simply witnessed and facilitated it so that an offical record exists to show that he is my husband and I am his wife.

I respect those who choose to marry in a church but not everyone can, not everyone wants to. Why should only a Catholic marriage be valid in a country where we have people of all faiths and none. In your example I wouldn't have been able to get married at all as I'm not eligible to marry in a church. The state at least gave me that option.

Nowhere did I say a Catholic marriage be the only valid marriage. I actually opened up marriage as being what the people getting married define it as, you said in your case you defined it, that is my point. But I question the need for the state's role in it as it is only since the 1830's when we were in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that civil marriage was brought in, in England and Wales, and from the mid 1840's for Ireland.
Before then it was religious groups in the UK (Christian and Jews) who married and there was no marriage for atheists, muslims and others
I think they went wrong then with the civil marriage, they should have allowed the atheists and whoever else do their own marriages and not the state taking control of it.

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:29am

eviltwin wrote: »

Apologies, I thought this was your opinion. Its something that I've heard a lot from the No side and I was hoping someone could elaborate on it.

That's my point. It's a simple argument, it doesn't require a thesis, it's easily understood and it will not succumb to hysteria and accusations of homophobia. Quite the opposite in fact.

Whether the yes side wants to deal with it or not, this is a referendum changing a substantial pillar of the traditional marriage contract.

We dont have ssm in this country and there are too many arrogant idiots on the yes side that are acting like this referendum is taking something away and not the other way around.

Summer wind · 25-01-2015 12:31am

Just because my husband and I are a man and woman it doesn't mean we love each other more than John and Michael or Susan and Mary do. We all deserve to live, love and be happy. For this reason I'd vote yes.

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:36am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's actually sayign the exact opposite: that the church has a right to dictate state policy regarding inheritance rights and taxations for married couples.

Why should married couples get special taxation policies over single people?
Couldn't one just put it on their tax returns how many dependents they are supporting and take it from there?
Inheritance rights - have a solicitor involved.

Ozymandius2011 · 25-01-2015 12:39am

Red C poll says: 77% to vote yes - of which 44% have no reservations and 33% have some reservations. 22% to vote no according to twitter. Source #marref

emersyn · 25-01-2015 12:46am

@all the people who have started saying that they’re going to vote no because the nasty gays have become too rude and grating for their tastes: what does it feel like to have the power and privilege to literally be able to dangle human rights above our heads like a carrot and only give them to us providing we pander to your feelings? Listen to yourselves

pablomakaveli · 25-01-2015 12:50am

Can't vote since i don't live in Ireland no more but if i had it would have been a Yes vote from me.

I'm glad my gay and lesbian friends back in Ireland will finally get the equality they deserve.

There's no valid reason to vote no. A lot of those who are voting no are being dishonest as to their reasons as well. There's only one reason why they're voting no but they dont like to admit it.

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:52am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Can't vote since i don't live in Ireland no more but if i had it would have been a Yes vote from me.

I'm glad my gay and lesbian friends back in Ireland will finally get the equality they deserve.

There's no valid reason to vote no. A lot of those who are voting no are being dishonest as to their reasons as well. There's only one reason why they're voting no but they dont like to admit it.

You've lost me, what's the secret reason?

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:56am

reprise wrote: »

You've lost me, what's the secret reason?

No one will marry us whether heterosexual or homosexual...

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

Comments