Who do the YES campaigners think they are?

[xcitedcork]

This has been a pathetic campaign from both sides. The yes side pushing some very woolly arguments the no side rebutting with some red herrings.
The very title 'marriage equality referendum' set the tone, a crime against the English language.

The fact of the matter is that over a time the importance of marriage has diminished. It will come to a point that co-habiting couples will have the same rights under the law as married people once they have children or have lived together for a set period of time.

I'm voting no as I haven't been convinced of the merits of changing the status quo

Baffled by your argument, your not convinced by the arguments on either side, they, to be fair whether you agree or not are clear in the main. The referendum title to me is as clear as day and appropriate, its exactly what we are voting for :-)marriage equality for all or marriage just being for straight couples.
Your voting no out of fear of changing the status quo, thank god people didnt think that during the divorce refferendums, eu foundation etc.
Society has to evolve, thankfully it is no longer illegal to be gay,it is acceptable to be an unmarried mother and hopefully after tomorow we will have moved on enough to say that yes you can marry the person you love. The biggest risk to society is people wanting to keep the status quo

Too many people are hypocrites in this country ( this is not in response to your note dob and i am not reffering to you but to general audience) i wouldnt be surprised at how many people will vote no, try to justify it by saying things like the arguments werent strong enough or keeping status quo when bottom line is if you need to be persuaded its because you are more likely a no thinker anyway, if you believe in full equality there should be no need to convince you of anything.
I cannot agree with a no vote but i fundementally defend a right to say no, lets just everyone come out and say the real reasons, like catholic church or just a belief that you dont agree with full gay rights.
For a working evolved society we need to be able to accept all people but also their views, a no voters opninion is just as important to a yes voters but where i believe referendums differ perhaps there should be a yes box, no box and objector box. I dont think it is right to stop gay people getting married if that is what they want to do, it doesnt concern anyone else but people should have the right to record their objection /opinion

[Sexy Fernanda]

This has been a pathetic campaign from both sides. The yes side pushing some very woolly arguments the no side rebutting with some red herrings.
The very title 'marriage equality referendum' set the tone, a crime against the English language.

The fact of the matter is that over a time the importance of marriage has diminished. It will come to a point that co-habiting couples will have the same rights under the law as married people once they have children or have lived together for a set period of time.

I'm voting no as I haven't been convinced of the merits of changing the status quo

I truly hope you don't have a gay relative ( who's lesbian or gay) or someone close, that in the future will make you fell guilty for such selfish attitude. But again what to expect from the old generation ? Born on the last century with small mind? Not much ...

[dob]

I truly hope you don't have a gay relative ( who's lesbian or gay) or someone close, that in the future will make you fell guilty for such selfish attitude. But again what to expect from the old generation ? Born on the last century with small mind? Not much ...

Do you think that rather lame guilt trip and half witted insult will influence my vote?

[Sexy Fernanda]

Do you think that rather lame guilt trip and half witted insult will influence my vote?

I've no intention at all of influencing your vote, I've better things to be worried about.
Take care and pray to never have a gay daughter /son. or grandson . byeeeee

[Cassandra]

Do you think that rather lame guilt trip and half witted insult will influence my vote?

No ,but one would hope the obvious attempts to continue social engineering based on archaic mythology by the No side would. (Yeah it should just be The Marriage referendum but the point is to show the current inequality that exists?)
Or how about the fact that in a society more accepting ,not in word but deed ,of those of different sexual orientations we maybe on the first track to accepting heterosexual women can do what they like with their bodies?
That the mindgroup that's encouring us to vote No wants their beliefs held up before those of others?
That the blood of countless women- Galway women- and Children is on their hands?

You honestly think that under laws guided by their hand and such people as their supporters we'll reach a stage where co-habiting couples are given the same rights as married people. You see no flaw in this way of thinking? Are you sure?

Because...

[johnb59]

marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman end of, so what is so wrong with civil partnership? this is supposed to be a catholic country, the church wont recognize same sex marriage?,but either way this pans out,its not going to affect my personel views on the matter,its only going to create more questions than answers like every debate in this country.so the quicker this gets sorted out the better and get down to real matters such as unemployment ,the health service ,water charges etc

[Curvaceous Kate]

marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman end of, so what is so wrong with civil partnership? this is supposed to be a catholic country, the church wont recognize same sex marriage?,but either way this pans out,its not going to affect my personel views on the matter,its only going to create more questions than answers like every debate in this country.so the quicker this gets sorted out the better and get down to real matters such as unemployment ,the health service ,water charges etc

The problem is the law got involved and religion and law get mixed up. A religious event got conditions and privileges given it by law, which serves to protect the couple that get married and give them certain responsibilities and rights within that union.

Also, the church has members from all genders and sexual persuasions and yet they only acknowledge the heterosexual ones with regards to marital union? It's rather hypocritical, especially when so many priests have been found to be bi sexual or gay and abusing young children. I wonder if they would have done that if they had not been allowed to find a partner and have a relationship outside of their work?

The only thing that should matter in the eyes of religion and the law is do the couple love each other? Do they want to be together and build a life together? If so, then let them seal that union in which ever way they see fit. If they consider themselves to be religious and attend a church, then why shouldn't they get married?

If people are not included in community, then no one has a right to tell them how to behave or what they should do with their lives and it's not fair to let them in so far, but not let them completely through the door.

I wouldn't get married again, it was more like a prison sentence for me, but hey it's not like that for everyone and they should have a choice, as long as they are committed and believe in the religion they want to get married through.

[justfrank44]

marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman end of, so what is so wrong with civil partnership? this is supposed to be a catholic country, the church wont recognize same sex marriage?,but either way this pans out,its not going to affect my personel views on the matter,its only going to create more questions than answers like every debate in this country.so the quicker this gets sorted out the better and get down to real matters such as unemployment ,the health service ,water charges etc

Marriage is an institution created by mankind, so what is the problem with changing it to make it more inclusive to all of society. And you ask what is wrong with a civil partnership, as others have stated, there are roughly 150 differences when it comes to legal issues such as inheritence, child guardianship etc.
I am glad that you think equality in the state is not an important issue.
Lastly you say Ireland is supposed to be a catholic country, how fucking dare you. Are you forgetting all other religions, especially those protestants who lead the fight for Irish independence, without whom this country would still be an outpost of the british empire.

[Cassandra]

marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman end of, so what is so wrong with civil partnership? this is supposed to be a catholic country, the church wont recognize same sex marriage?,

because Gays aren't women or men?
Is it a Catholic country? Or a country with PTSD developing Stockholm syndrome?

Marriage exists outside of Catholicism and is in essence, the meeting of two souls joined under their Diety to be recognized as a Union in the eyes of the Taxman - I mean government.

Paul himself never got married but viewed it better to be married than to burn with lust. Paul himself a staunch believer therefore not a believer in Idols didn't see how eating meat sacrificed to 'Imaginary' gods would effect his God and encouraged those who were not weak in conscience to do so but never lead those who were weak enough to stumble and thus fall.

You know Paul right? Formerly Saul? Persecutor of Christians? He just said right there "Don't worry about what anybody else puts in their mouth.Don't judge what anybody puts in their mouth."

^_^

[johnb59]

When you have to start swearing about someone's views whether they be right or wrong it just shows how small minded you are.take a chill pill