Same sex referendum

[nitram]

You could get married in a church, and refuse to sign the civil register.

What happens then?

Your are church married but that has no legal status in the eyes of the state, as far as the state are concerned such a couple are legally considered single.

[fiatpunter]

this whole thing is a sham, all its done is create confusion (both unintended and intended ) around the possible future implications of this that and the other. what they neeðed to do was have a neutral non biased independent report on it giving the FACTS not heresay or whataboutery and Im very tempted to vote no as a result, so they can go off and do this and come back to me with solid legal fact and ramifications of what the implications are for a yes vote and another one for a no vote.

That's you just being lazy and arguably hiding your prejudice behind the "sham" that you are confused.

http://refcom2015.ie/ read it, make your choice based on the infomration that is widely available.

It is about equal treatment for two gay people who want to make the commitment to each other that marriage signifies.

In my opinion it is the No campaign that has muddied the water with its "who is going to think of the children" nonesense.

[pigsmickey]

Lads and ladies.
If you cant decide which way to vote because it's all too confusing, consider this. The confusion is being planted by the no side, in particular the catholic church aligned bodies.(Iona, Mothers and fathers Matter etc) These are the people who want to see our activities curtailed and us punters persicuted by draconian laws.If you wish to give these groups comfort and encouragement then please vote no, or don't vote at all.
If on the other hand, like me, you would like to give the holy joes a kick in the arse for presuming to tell us how to live your lives, then vote yes.

[funlover12]

That's you just being lazy and arguably hiding your prejudice behind the "sham" that you are confused.

http://refcom2015.ie/ read it, make your choice based on the infomration that is widely available.

It is about equal treatment for two gay people who want to make the commitment to each other that marriage signifies.

In my opinion it is the No campaign that has muddied the water with its "who is going to think of the children" nonesense.

unfortunately its not, cause then there wouldnt be a need for a booklet and months of debate, but if you want to dumb it down go ahead.

I dont vote for the sake of voting, I need to be convinced one way or the other and in this case they have failed to make a solid distinction and there are potentially serious ramifications for a yes vote aparently and given the fact I dont strongly feel one way or the other about it I wont just pick one for the sake of voting. A no is the safest vote in that case, status quo and we can come back to it if there are no holes in the yes campaigns logic and if that is already the case then you have to ask yourself why have television debates on it all if it just mudies the waters. dont blame me, blame the system.

[SweetStrawberry]

I've never before seen such a lack of self-awareness as David Quinn and his No Cronies screaming 'We're being censored'...on radio and national television.

[fiatpunter]

unfortunately its not, cause then there wouldnt be a need for a booklet and months of debate, but if you want to dumb it down go ahead.

I dont vote for the sake of voting, I need to be convinced one way or the other and in this case they have failed to make a solid distinction and there are potentially serious ramifications for a yes vote aparently and given the fact I dont strongly feel one way or the other about it I wont just pick one for the sake of voting. A no is the safest vote in that case, status quo and we can come back to it if there are no holes in the yes campaigns logic and if that is already the case then you have to ask yourself why have television debates on it all if it just mudies the waters. dont blame me, blame the system.

you have television debates becuse there is a choice. Yes and No. You can choose to continue to discriminate or not (in my opinion). I accept that some people who vote No genuinely believe that they aren't being discriminatory and they have various concerns, some real but capable of being dealt with (in my opinion) and some that are illusory.

Don't vote if you don't understand the implications of voting either way. Leave the decision to those who do. How is No the "safest"??

The answers are out there.

[simon2280]

The way I understand The Difference,
Civil Partnership has Legal Recognition and Appropriate Protections, Allegedly, Recognition By The State
Marriage Partnership Has Constitutional Recognition and Appropriate Protection, Recognition by State and Appropriate Religion,
For me, this is Why my Vote is "Yes" Despite the usual Fear Generating Tactics being Used by Religions against These Proposed Changes

[EIFII]

The way I understand The Difference,
Civil Partnership has Legal Recognition and Appropriate Protections, Allegedly, Recognition By The State
Marriage Partnership Has Constitutional Recognition and Appropriate Protection, Recognition by State and Appropriate Religion,
For me, this is Why my Vote is "Yes" Despite the usual Fear Generating Tactics being Used by Religions against These Proposed Changes

If you are right and the difference between civil partnerships and marriage is down to religious recognition then why does this matter to people for whom religion holds no importance of relevance?

Priests or whoever will be able to deny holding religious ceremonies for same sex couples if they object on conscientious grounds ie because of their own personal beliefs or opinions, and the couple concerned will be unable to sue. So I'm not sure that religion is anything to do with the difference between marriage and civil partnership

[simon2280]

If you are right and the difference between civil partnerships and marriage is down to religious recognition then why does this matter to people for whom religion holds no importance of relevance?

Priests or whoever will be able to deny holding religious ceremonies for same sex couples if they object on conscientious grounds ie because of their own personal beliefs or opinions, and the couple concerned will be unable to sue. So I'm not sure that religion is anything to do with the difference between marriage and civil partnership

My Vote is Yes as I personally Think of this Issue as A Rights Issue For Responsible Adults

[EIFII]

My Vote is Yes as I personally Think of this Issue as A Rights Issue For Responsible Adults

Fair enough. But you haven't answered my question....