Marriage Equality Referendum - how will you vote? [Archive] - Page 3

Spudulika

21/05/2015, 2:59 PM

Seeing as it is way down on the list of priorities of the vast majority and oddly "high" on the list of priorities of the FG/Labour regime, it'll pass. I always feel uneasy when this shower of scum push anything, especially without the regular passage of papers etc, but cannot see what is wrong with it. I personally have lots of questions about the knock on effect, but this doesn't seem to matter. Don't know anyone who will vote no, and if we're so desperate as a nation to be plamas'ed by "the watching world", it'll be 60/40 yes. People are too scared to question it let alone vote against it.

Dodge

21/05/2015, 4:00 PM

You are a weird dude Spud.

DannyInvincible

21/05/2015, 4:14 PM

I personally have lots of questions about the knock on effect, but this doesn't seem to matter.

Says who? If people have unanswered questions/reservations, they're entitled to vote 'no'. What questions about the potential knock-on effects do you have?

Don't know anyone who will vote no, and if we're so desperate as a nation to be plamas'ed by "the watching world", it'll be 60/40 yes. People are too scared to question it let alone vote against it.

There are plenty of people questioning it and being allowed to question it. Isn't the state broadcaster obliged to protect balance? I'm not necessarily saying I have a problem with the notion of media balance - it's important in a democracy - but you might even say that it provides the 'no' side with a disproportionately large voice considering their support is in the distinct minority. You can question the motion here and we can have a thorough discussion on your concerns. Nobody's going to ban you.

osarusan

21/05/2015, 5:44 PM

but you might even say that it provides the 'no' side with a disproportionately large voice considering their support is in the distinct minority.
Absolutely. It's why we keep seeing the same no advocates again and again - they're pretty much the only ones.

Spudulika

21/05/2015, 7:23 PM

You are a weird dude Spud.

I know :-) Russia does that to a man, plus watching and listening and reading too much news! Here the news informs you! :-)

Danny, people who have reservations or questions are being made feel like they are somehow, don't know, homophobic for one. How many will vote yes and still have their gay jokes or be as ignorant about gay issues as before, or see gay people as inferior? Throwing out the "homophobic" thing is the same as "racist" or here - "western liberal", which I have happily managed to avoid as I see corruption on both sides of the fence.

And there is not a thorough discussion, and this is a problem. People who have strong religious beliefs and believe/feel that homosexuality is inherently wrong or at best misguided, may well be misguided themselves, but they are entitled to hold such beliefs so long as they do not use them to hate others. Yet instead there are all sorts of issues popping up instead of just talking about feelings, which this is largely about. Feelings, beliefs and respecting others.

One issue that bugs me no end, is that certain yes campaigners (one mentioned on here) has a good story, but has been sickening on twitter with her ridiculing anyone who dares raise an issue. Same with our civil rights bodies Apparently it is important to have equality and rights so long as it fits a bandwaggon agenda. For example certain civil rights bodies, dept foreign affairs and certain politicos all cry over a radicalised muslim who happens to be an Irish citizen, yet when a petition of more than a dozen abducted Irish children is presented to the same bodies they say "it's a family matter". Nice.

Charlie Darwin

21/05/2015, 10:10 PM

jinxy lilywhite

21/05/2015, 10:35 PM

The No side have yet to offer a compelling argument to vote no.

They cite children's rights though it is not covered in the referendum, surrogacy again no legislation in Ireland covers it, adoption again the adoption board state last week that homosexual can adopt and have adopted. The instance for denying a homosexual the right to adopt is only if the birth mother has expressed a wish for the child not to be adopted by a homosexual.

I really thought there would of been an intelligent discussion and debate on it and all I have seen is tit for tat crap. And the no side leading themselves from disaster to disaster.

We live in an age where we do not define people by their race, sexuality or religion. I like to believe that it's the content of someone character.

As far as I am concerned I don't believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it is a choice whether they come out or not of the closet so to speak. So bearing that in mind I don't believe it is right to deny them the opportunity to marry the partner they live and want to spend the rest of their lives with and also the if anything untoward were to happen to either that they would have a right under the constitution as legal next of kin.

DannyInvincible

22/05/2015, 2:09 AM

Danny, people who have reservations or questions are being made feel like they are somehow, don't know, homophobic for one. How many will vote yes and still have their gay jokes or be as ignorant about gay issues as before, or see gay people as inferior?

It's a private ballot though. I mean, if people want to vote 'no', they can. If people otherwise hostile to homosexuality or people generally ignorant of LGBT issues wish to vote 'yes' and then return to type after their once-off gesture of good will, they're free to do that. They could also just vote 'no' and be consistent about it if they'd prefer. Either way, nobody will be preventing them from voting how they want to vote, whether it be 'yes' or 'no'.

And there is not a thorough discussion, and this is a problem. People who have strong religious beliefs and believe/feel that homosexuality is inherently wrong or at best misguided, may well be misguided themselves, but they are entitled to hold such beliefs so long as they do not use them to hate others.

What about using them to specifically deny upstanding others certain rights that are available to most of the population though? Surely you can appreciate why a gay person or advocate for LGBT rights might not be too sympathetic to such an intrusive and unreasonable position.

Spudulika

22/05/2015, 6:34 AM

Gwan, admit it. You'd vote no.

Ordinarily I would, especially with the corrupt shower of scum who are ruining the country further, or at best just abstain. But this time, no, I'd vote yes because I believe that everyone has the right to be married, even polygamy if it's proscribed in their faith (though why would anyone want more than 1 wife is beyond me). I see an equal amount of downsides for Yes and No, however I also live in hope that the mouthy lobby who are screaming everyone down now and making sure we're all equal, continue this and turnover the government. A kind of nouveau Rovers if you will.

Spudulika

22/05/2015, 6:41 AM

It's a private ballot though. I mean, if people want to vote 'no', they can. If people otherwise hostile to homosexuality or people generally ignorant of LGBT issues wish to vote 'yes' and then return to type after their once-off gesture of good will, they're free to do that. They could also just vote 'no' and be consistent about it if they'd prefer. Either way, nobody will be preventing them from voting how they want to vote, whether it be 'yes' or 'no'.

What about using them to specifically deny upstanding others certain rights that are available to most of the population though? Surely you can appreciate why a gay person or advocate for LGBT rights might not be too sympathetic to such an intrusive and unreasonable position.

This is the hypocrisy, once off gesture, consistent - we rot from the head down. An inconsistent and immoral government have divided and conquered, and the pressure on how to vote will press on a certain number, though the nonsense from both sides will probably mean these elements cancel each other out.

Sorry Danny, this cuts both ways. And both sides are permitted to have their own feelings and beliefs, it is in finding middle ground, which (largely) neither side of idiots are willing to give. The sneering, bullying attitude of some on the Yes side and their refusal to answer directly (Leo the lizard a case in point) and the inability to tell the truth from members of the No side (to express their feelings and not hide behind spurious arguments) means that there will be no coming together. Sadly we're getting further and further from maturity it's disheartening.

DannyInvincible

22/05/2015, 9:07 AM

Ordinarily I would, especially with the corrupt shower of scum who are ruining the country further, or at best just abstain. But this time, no, I'd vote yes because I believe that everyone has the right to be married, even polygamy if it's proscribed in their faith (though why would anyone want more than 1 wife is beyond me). I see an equal amount of downsides for Yes and No, however I also live in hope that the mouthy lobby who are screaming everyone down now and making sure we're all equal, continue this and turnover the government. A kind of nouveau Rovers if you will.

Why would you ordinarily vote 'no' if you believe everyone has the right to be married though? What would be the "ordinary" version of the present situation and why is this extraordinary so that you feel it more appropriate to vote 'yes'? And what do yo feel are the downsides to 'yes' passing?

Sorry Danny, this cuts both ways. And both sides are permitted to have their own feelings and beliefs, it is in finding middle ground, which (largely) neither side of idiots are willing to give. The sneering, bullying attitude of some on the Yes side and their refusal to answer directly (Leo the lizard a case in point) and the inability to tell the truth from members of the No side (to express their feelings and not hide behind spurious arguments) means that there will be no coming together. Sadly we're getting further and further from maturity it's disheartening.

I just think a 'no' vote on his particular occasion is an inherently unreasonable position; it's supporting a restriction of others' access to certain rights (rights to which most Irish citizens already have access) simply because one might not agree with a private choice an independent stranger wants to make. Where is your reasonable middle ground? The reason the 'no' side cannot express their true feelings and have to rely on disingenuous and spurious arguments is for the very reason that they'd be exposed as distinctly unreasonable and illiberal if they actually had to be honest for a change. Usually people resort to twisted bull**** when they're on shaky ground. Perfect example of it here from David Quinn on Newstalk yesterday: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/audio-iona-institute-director-david-quinn-and-newstalks-chris-donoghue-go-head-to-head-in-heated-debate-on-referendum-31238445.html

osarusan

22/05/2015, 9:24 AM

I see an equal amount of downsides for Yes and No.
What are the downsides for a Yes vote?

nigel-harps1954

22/05/2015, 9:37 AM

What are the downsides for a Yes vote?

Them gays can kiss and all that.

Mr A

22/05/2015, 11:11 AM

Like others on here I have not at any point seen the No side raise a single argument that made any sense. Just the same old warnings that the sky will fall if it goes through. Lots of pretence that their views were not based on religion, a mask that fell away completely yesterday when the Iona chair basically spelled it out. I don't share the view that the Yes side was in any way bullying or arrogant. There were some incidents with posters and that egg incident was obviously very wrong, but in general the tone struck me as positive.

I think there is a very unfortunate tendency to use referendums to attack the government of the day rather than taking issues on their merits. Who the government is has nothing to do with an issue like this FFS.

osarusan

22/05/2015, 11:46 AM

Like other on here I have not at any point seen the No side raise a single argument that made any sense. Just the same old warnings that the sky will fall if it goes through.

The same fabric of society that they told us would be torn asunder 20 years ago if divorce was realised and again 5 years ago when the Civil Partnership Bill was enacted but is still intact now will be torn asunder this time! Can't you see?

tetsujin1979

22/05/2015, 11:51 AM

The #hometovote movement would bring a tear to a glass eye.

Mr A

22/05/2015, 12:54 PM

The same fabric of society that they told us would be torn asunder 20 years ago if divorce was realised and again 5 years ago when the Civil Partnership Bill was enacted but is still intact now will be torn asunder this time! Can't you see?

Actually they supported divorce, and civil partnership. They only opposed those at the time because of technical deficiencies of the legislation.

nigel-harps1954

22/05/2015, 12:57 PM

The #hometovote movement would bring a tear to a glass eye.

Couple of absolute crackers of tweets in it, but my personal favourite that I've seen so far:

https://twitter.com/bazlyons/status/601521965929725952

A lot of yes voters flying #hometovote (https://twitter.com/hashtag/hometovote?src=hash) but let's not discount the no voters walking across the water.

EDIT:

Just spotted another fantastic one:

King of Iona (https://twitter.com/KingOfIona) 21 hours ago (https://twitter.com/KingOfIona/status/601416190846697472)
Currently worrying that everyone coming #homeToVote (https://twitter.com/hashtag/homeToVote?src=hash) could make the country up to 5% more gay.

tetsujin1979

22/05/2015, 1:19 PM

I really liked this one: https://twitter.com/colmoregan/status/601509013013004288

The #hometovote (https://twitter.com/hashtag/hometovote?src=hash) is like when you're watching The Hobbit and an army of elves you'd forgotten from earlier in the film arrive over a hill.

nigel-harps1954

22/05/2015, 1:41 PM

A Dublin taxi driver has his say on Australian ABC News. (This is fantastic!)

https://twitter.com/Duff_Nasty/status/601734040832581632

culloty82

22/05/2015, 2:36 PM

One thing I've noticed on Facebook is that almost all my friends, most of whom wouldn't be any degree political, have either simply highlighted that they have voted, or made personal comments to mark the occasion. It certainly seems to have struck a note for anyone under 40, so will be interesting to note the reactions tomorrow morning.

Acornvilla

22/05/2015, 3:48 PM

If we have any gays in the foot.ie village, good luck today, I hope this passes.

Spudulika

22/05/2015, 3:50 PM

Why would you ordinarily vote 'no' if you believe everyone has the right to be married though? What would be the "ordinary" version of the present situation and why is this extraordinary so that you feel it more appropriate to vote 'yes'? And what do yo feel are the downsides to 'yes' passing?

I just think a 'no' vote on his particular occasion is an inherently unreasonable position; it's supporting a restriction of others' access to certain rights (rights to which most Irish citizens already have access) simply because one might not agree with a private choice an independent stranger wants to make. Where is your reasonable middle ground? The reason the 'no' side cannot express their true feelings and have to rely on disingenuous and spurious arguments is for the very reason that they'd be exposed as distinctly unreasonable and illiberal if they actually had to be honest for a change. Usually people resort to twisted bull**** when they're on shaky ground. Perfect example of it here from David Quinn on Newstalk yesterday: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/audio-iona-institute-director-david-quinn-and-newstalks-chris-donoghue-go-head-to-head-in-heated-debate-on-referendum-31238445.html

Should clarify the voting part. If it were any other topic I would vote No or refrain, because of the corruption that grows like cancer in the Irish government. I hope that's clear.

As for a no vote being "inherently unreasonable", that is your opinion and nobody has a right to deny you that. All else, you can explain it to others who a) want to vote no, or b) who "need education".

Agree about resorting to spurious nonsense, both sides are guilty of this in varying degrees. I believe that it should be discussed in a proper manner with middle groudn sought, not ultimate victory. This is where we reduce ourselves to the level of well, god knows what.

Osarusan, what are the downsides for a No vote? When politicians and campaigners, from both sides, refuse to answer simple questions or go more and more shrill just to gain a moral higher ground, it destroys any good that can be gained. Equal downsides for both is that it will create further division and no matter what the result, there will be losers. The winners will not be those who should be cared for, but the scum in government who have further divided and conquered. Not a conspiracy, just a fact.

On the home to vote, shows just where we are in terms of mature nation. When there is a major reason to protest injustice and ongoing corruption and fleecing the citizens of the state, nothing. But this. Glorious!

Hope this passes so that the great and the good can tell us how wonderful we are and the next reason to "debate" is opened by the FG/Lab regime - or at least until after the Championship!

tetsujin1979

22/05/2015, 4:08 PM

My own contribution to the #hometovote movement: https://twitter.com/tetsujin1979/status/601771114352738306
I do so love a good meme

DannyInvincible

22/05/2015, 6:11 PM

Agree about resorting to spurious nonsense, both sides are guilty of this in varying degrees. I believe that it should be discussed in a proper manner with middle groudn sought, not ultimate victory. This is where we reduce ourselves to the level of well, god knows what.

It's a case of either/or though. One side seeks the option for recognition whilst the other side seeks to refuse the provision of such an option. Where can a middle ground be found in that?

On the home to vote, shows just where we are in terms of mature nation. When there is a major reason to protest injustice and ongoing corruption and fleecing the citizens of the state, nothing. But this. Glorious!

I think this probably articulates some of the misgivings you have: http://www.judecollins.com/2015/05/thoughts-on-a-referendum/

osarusan

22/05/2015, 6:54 PM

Actually they supported divorce, and civil partnership. They only opposed those at the time because of technical deficiencies of the legislation.
I think we are talking about different 'they's.

The Catholic church didn't support divorce, certainly. Bishop Flynn made some shameful threats. William Binchy scaremongered endlessly.

osarusan

22/05/2015, 7:01 PM

Osarusan, what are the downsides for a No vote?
Here's one: that same sex couples are told that a majority of the voting public decided, for whatever reasons*, that giving them the right to civil marriage and the constitutional protection it provides was not something compelling enough to vote yes.

I can't even begin to imagine how painful that could be, and I can't think of any downside for a yes vote that comes remotely close to it.

*reasons: homophobia, the inability to understand that this referendum isn't about children, adoption or surrogacy, the idea that it is a legitimate response to perceived negative campaigning by the Yes side, and (the one that deserves a special place in hell) spiting the government.

Spudulika

22/05/2015, 8:03 PM

Here's one: that same sex couples are told that a majority of the voting public decided, for whatever reasons*, that giving them the right to civil marriage and the constitutional protection it provides was not something compelling enough to vote yes.

I can't even begin to imagine how painful that could be, and I can't think of any downside for a yes vote that comes remotely close to it.

*reasons: homophobia, the inability to understand that this referendum isn't about children, adoption or surrogacy, the idea that it is a legitimate response to perceived negative campaigning by the Yes side, and (the one that deserves a special place in hell) spiting the government.

Danny, interesting link, thanks! And for the middle ground, there was never a chance as it was never allowed. The whole procedure of bringing this to a vote was made in such a way that it was going to cause a sh!tstorm, plus the DOB and compliant FG meeja went to town getting people at each others throats. I really believe that Putin is learning from our headers, oh wait, actually one of the PR companies who advised/are advising FG actually advise the Kremlin. However these companies are typically international (like KPMG etc) so it's moot.

Osarusan, when "homophobic" is thrown into the mix, it becomes ridiculous. Especially when it is used to bully, insult and stigmatise, and very often in this case unfairly. It is the same as the "pro-choice/pro-abortion, anti-choice/pro-life". You of all people, as a purveyor of English as a 2nd language, would know the power of words, and this is huge. And saying that one side deserves a place in hell? Come on, this is the time of absolutism that destroys any chance of discussion and coming to an understanding.

osarusan

22/05/2015, 8:28 PM

Osarusan, when "homophobic" is thrown into the mix, it becomes ridiculous. Especially when it is used to bully, insult and stigmatise, and very often in this case unfairly. It is the same as the "pro-choice/pro-abortion, anti-choice/pro-life".

Are you suggesting that I use the word carelessly? Plenty of people have been quite open about their homophobic reasons for voting no.And there are plenty of others whose homophobia is transparent to everybody but them ("I've nothing against gays, but i don't think they should be allowed to marry"), yet who will waffle on about being bullied or intimidated when they are called on their homophobia.

You of all people, as a purveyor of English as a 2nd language, would know the power of words, and this is huge. And saying that one side deserves a place in hell?As a purveyor of English as a second language, I know a strawman when I see one, and I just saw one. Nowhere did I say one side deserves a place in hell, and there is no way you could have interpreted it as such.

I said one reason deserves a special place in hell. The reason being something along the lines of: 'I've actually no problem with gay people marrying but the government are a shower of ******* so I'm voting no.' That, in my opinion, is extraordinarily stupid.

NeverFeltBetter

22/05/2015, 10:56 PM

Crazy good turnout by all indications. No proper exit poll (don't know why) but you have to say it's looking good for "Yes".

jinxy lilywhite

22/05/2015, 11:37 PM

Danny, interesting link, thanks! And for the middle ground, there was never a chance as it was never allowed. The whole procedure of bringing this to a vote was made in such a way that it was going to cause a sh!tstorm, plus the DOB and compliant FG meeja went to town getting people at each others throats. I really believe that Putin is learning from our headers, oh wait, actually one of the PR companies who advised/are advising FG actually advise the Kremlin. However these companies are typically international (like KPMG etc) so it's moot.

Osarusan, when "homophobic" is thrown into the mix, it becomes ridiculous. Especially when it is used to bully, insult and stigmatise, and very often in this case unfairly. It is the same as the "pro-choice/pro-abortion, anti-choice/pro-life". You of all people, as a purveyor of English as a 2nd language, would know the power of words, and this is huge. And saying that one side deserves a place in hell? Come on, this is the time of absolutism that destroys any chance of discussion and coming to an understanding.

Spud who in this world would be pro abortion. Pro choice yes but I doubt they would be pro abortion. Pro abortion what is that. A demand for every woman to able their child.

Apparently Ireland will run dry off prosciutto tomorrow around 3 PM

bennocelt

23/05/2015, 12:36 AM

Now that that's over, can we get a referendum on the blasphemy laws, or how are these things decided? :o:)

Spudulika

23/05/2015, 5:05 AM

Are you suggesting that I use the word carelessly? Plenty of people have been quite open about their homophobic reasons for voting no.And there are plenty of others whose homophobia is transparent to everybody but them ("I've nothing against gays, but i don't think they should be allowed to marry"), yet who will waffle on about being bullied or intimidated when they are called on their homophobia.

As a purveyor of English as a second language, I know a strawman when I see one, and I just saw one. Nowhere did I say one side deserves a place in hell, and there is no way you could have interpreted it as such.

I said one reason deserves a special place in hell. The reason being something along the lines of: 'I've actually no problem with gay people marrying but the government are a shower of ******* so I'm voting no.' That, in my opinion, is extraordinarily stupid.

No, however the word has been used and misused so often in this mess of a situation that it lost its validity a long time ago. And claiming that "plenty of others whose homophobia is transparent to everybody but them" - come on, really? That's primary school stuff. And this is intimidation and the stifling of open debate. Put it alongside the immigration debate (for example) and throw in the word nazi/racist and it goes along with the anti-debate logic that many who earn their money/fame from talking down anyone with a point opposite to theirs need.

Osarusan, if you bring hell into it, you bring religion, and so you will pick and choose what you want to follow/believe. Which sits snugly alongside the wisted logic of many on both sides of the debate. And please, don't try to argue a hell point, it comes from your/our religious training and needs to be eradicated. If you said furnace, or dustbin, then it is less emotive and a long stride away from the nonsense fools on both sides are spouting.

Spudulika

23/05/2015, 5:10 AM

Spud who in this world would be pro abortion. Pro choice yes but I doubt they would be pro abortion. Pro abortion what is that. A demand for every woman to able their child.

Apparently Ireland will run dry off prosciutto tomorrow around 3 PM

Jinxy - it is the logical extension - which is illogical. When those who know better lecture about rights, and sneer at prolifers (or people who don't hold a strong opinion or just feel uneasy about abortion) - "anti-choice", it is a deliberate attempt at a wind up, like calling Rovers - Shams or Drogheda part of Louth (we all know it isn't). It is lowering the level of discourse. The exact same and worse is going on with the FG/Lab carnival, and in Russia, USA, UK.

If you are pro-Ukraine, you are a pro-nazi, US lapdog, hater of Russia. If you question(ed) the US-led invasion of a sovereign state you were an enemy of the people and coward. If one group wish for labels to be removed, using the same or worse against others to further their own agenda is like cutting off your fingers because you don't want to have to cute your nails each week (or once a year if you're from Cork).

osarusan

23/05/2015, 8:18 AM

And claiming that "plenty of others whose homophobia is transparent to everybody but them" - come on, really? That's primary school stuff. And this is intimidation and the stifling of open debate.
Absolute rubbish of the highest order. Are you saying that there are no people out there who subconsciously hold homophobic views? People who say 'I've nothing against gays but i'm voting no because i don't think they should be raising children" but who still don't think they are homophobic. And to argue this is to intimidate and stifle debate. Total nonsense.

Spud, on this thread you've mentioned the factual arguments of the No side, you've mentioned the 'middle ground', and you've mentioned the 'downsides of a yes vote' but when anybody asks you to be specific about them, you haven't given any answer whatsoever.

Instead you come at the whole thing at some meta-level, with your ultra jaded and untra cycnical position on the whole system and discourse of politics and the 'meeja'. Why don't you give some specific answers for a change?

Spudulika

23/05/2015, 8:31 AM

Absolute ******** of the highest order. Are you saying that there are no people out there who subconsciously hold homophobic views? People who say 'I've nothing against gays but i'm voting no because i don't think they should be raising children" but who still don't think they are homophobic. And to argue this is to intimidate and stifle debate. Total nonsense.

Spud, on this thread you've mentioned the factual arguments of the No side, you've mentioned the 'middle ground', and you've mentioned the 'downsides of a yes vote' but when anybody asks you to be specific about them, you haven't given any answer whatsoever.

Instead you come at the whole thing at some meta-level, with your ultra jaded and untra cycnical position on the whole system and discourse of politics and the 'meeja'. Why don't you give some specific answers for a change?

Are you claiming that there are? Flip sides, are there "heterophobic" people out there? We've all heard plenty of such rhetoric but wouldn't call it as it's a) supposed to be funny or b) going to leave you out on a limb. Just because people have voted No or hold beliefs opposite to ours does not mean they are wrong or homophobic. If you remember a boxing debate in Maynooth, it was not to prove that those who disapprove of boxing were wrong, just that they should accept the rights of others - and were in a real minority.

I am cynical, as are you from your posts, and I am jaded, as it is tiring to see such bile being spouted and packaged as public discourse. So trying to find something that will allow for people to find middle ground is difficult.

Factual arguments of both sides bear scrutiny, and some elements of changes that come into law are wider reaching effects.

And while your reading is that I've avoided questions, it's not fully true. By downsides of a yes/or no vote I will simply point to the fact that those who have used the most hateful and damaging rhetoric to date will see themselves as having "won". I hope that this is clear? If you believe this will not be the case, regardless of the result, then it is just that you hold different views and I will respect that. Hope my answers have been specific enough to meet your criteria :-)

Meta-level? Nice one, never thought of that.

osarusan

23/05/2015, 8:47 AM

Once again:

what are the factual points the No side have?

What is the middle ground you wish people would seek?

What are the downsides of a yes vote?

passinginterest

23/05/2015, 10:32 AM

As I saw someone say, it's starting to look like there was more of a silent yes than a silent no. It seems many older people and those from rural backgrounds who were expected to be the silent no were terribly wronged.

Charlie Darwin

23/05/2015, 10:40 AM

Osarusan, when "homophobic" is thrown into the mix, it becomes ridiculous. Especially when it is used to bully, insult and stigmatise,
Cry me a ****ing river. These people don't know the meaning of the word 'bullying.' They've raked over gay people's lives, questioned every aspect of their lives, contested their right to be treated equally as human beings, gay people who have been insulted, demonised and had the most disgusting aspersions cast upon their character not only over the past few weeks but for decades. If these people feel bullied - good. I hope it ****ing hurts, because it's absolutely nothing compared to the hurt they've caused gay and lesbian people.

This is a great day, I'm delighted and proud.

NeverFeltBetter

23/05/2015, 2:27 PM

Proper results starting to flood in now. Is looking like low 60's Yes. Turnout is the same. Think only Roscommon/South Leitrim on course to reject.

Acornvilla

23/05/2015, 4:41 PM

Good ol' Longford was 50.41% in favor of no..

NeverFeltBetter

23/05/2015, 4:49 PM

Roscommon/South Leitrim is the only place to vote majority No. Longford/Westmeath was 53% Yes.

Edit: Oh wait, you mean, like, the actual County of Longford? Doesn't really matter does it?

DannyInvincible

23/05/2015, 5:12 PM

To think homosexuality was only decriminalised in Ireland in 1993... This is a great result for equality, rights for all and all things good in the world. A proud and historical day for Ireland; moving forward and into the future. I'm absolutely delighted. What a massive moment for inspiring people like David Norris who have spent their entire lives putting up with crap fighting for equal recognition simply so they could just ****ing be themselves and live just like any other decent citizen. Massive respect. Nice to see Donegal North-East deliver a majority 'yes' vote too. Well done, everyone! :)