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

Hoop66

Well, obviously, I'll have to examine a seagull's entrails on the day. It would be foolish to make a decision otherwise.

FFS.

It's an absolute disgrace for the 'no' campaign to bring children into and just shows in how much fear they are, realising that their outdated views are being challenged and will be overthrown.

Do a same-sex couple have to have children for their marriage to be valid? No.
Do a same-sex couple have to be married to have children? No.

That answers the question re: children. Now, what's the next ridiculous argument going to be?

AnonoBoy

Riverireland wrote: »

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

Can't fault immaculate reasoning like that.

Nope.

Not one bit.

Shrap

floggg wrote: »

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that two parent families are necessarily or automatically better than any other type of family - only that they tend to be better for the child than unstable or single parent homes.

Of course there are many single parents who are amazing at parenting, and their kids do better than many two parent homes. But there is no denying its tougher for single parents and that kids will tend to do better in stable two parent homes.

Have to say that as a single parent, I was quite hurt by your assertion that two parent families "tend" to care better for their children. From this, I can see that you meant to say stable two parent families, and I can say (being in a stable, respectful relationship now) that you are somewhat right. It is easier to parent with help from another adult (parent or not). And that's the point really.

Single parent families frequently have as good support, in many cases better support from friends and extended family, as two parent families and I can't for one minute agree that two parent families are even generally better for producing well rounded, well cared for and well educated children. Certainly not to a point where it can be claimed that single parenting is less good than some notional ideal where the 2 parents, 2 jobs, 2.4 kids, the white picket fence and the dog have tipped the balance.

One eyed Jack

Rochelle wrote: »

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

bodice ripper wrote: »

please don't vote ever, if this is an indication of your level of analysis.

Shrap wrote: »

I'll second your decision not to bother, if you don't plan on basing your vote on your opinion of the subject of the referendum.

SW wrote: »

grand. I'll bring some sweets to your voting station for you to vote yes :rolleyes:

Snappy answers and all lads that might garner a few appreciative "thanks" on here, but you've all missed the bigger picture if you're telling that person not to bother voting. Right now, the yes campaign needs every single vote it can get, and that posters opinion is a fair representation of a lot of people's opinions who I have talked to about this issue.

They simply don't care, they don't want to know. They have more going on in their lives than to be bothered enough about who marries who and listening to people on either side of the argument throw childish and petty insults at each other and wind each other up and all the, as that poster says, "one upmanship" that goes on.

I'd sooner do what it takes to get someone over to my side of the fence than ignore their opinion in favour of duking it out with people who I know for definite are staying over the other side of the fence.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They simply don't care, they don't want to know. They have more going on in their lives than to be bothered enough about who marries who and listening to people on either side of the argument throw childish and petty insults at each other and wind each other up and all the, as that poster says, "one upmanship" that goes on.

That's fine but don't use other people as an excuse why you can't be arsed to vote.

floggg

Shrap wrote: »

Have to say that as a single parent, I was quite hurt by your assertion that two parent families "tend" to care better for their children. From this, I can see that you meant to say stable two parent families, and I can say (being in a stable, respectful relationship now) that you are somewhat right. It is easier to parent with help from another adult (parent or not). And that's the point really.

Single parent families frequently have as good support, in many cases better support from friends and extended family, as two parent families and I can't for one minute agree that two parent families are even generally better for producing well rounded, well cared for and well educated children. Certainly not to a point where it can be claimed that single parenting is less good than some notional ideal where the 2 parents, 2 jobs, 2.4 kids, the white picket fence and the dog have tipped the balance.

I wasn't trying to crticise single parents or suggest they were bad homes or anything like, so sorry if my language gave that impression.

My point is simply that, as you recognise, it's easier to parent with another parent/parent figure sharing the burden. It means you actually get to divide the load, increased parental contact time with children, more help with homework etc.

It's also better for the emotional and physical health and well being of the parents concerned (people in LTRs are known to be healthier, happier, more productive etc than single people).

Even if the other parent figure did nothing more than rub your feet every night and listen to you bitch about whatever grief your kids might happen to have caused that day, it would still help lighten your load which could surely only be of benefit to your kids as well.

Still, great parents will be great whether single or part of a team and ****ty parents can actually be ****tier when working in pairs.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd sooner do what it takes to get someone over to my side of the fence than ignore their opinion in favour of duking it out with people who I know for definite are staying over the other side of the fence.

I'd sooner not have to counter anybody's views on anything. However, when those who definitely are staying on the other side of the fence are making it their business to try and confuse fence-sitters with much mud-slinging, twisting of words and conflation of other issues with this one, there's an actual duty I feel to try and straighten (no pun intended) the argument back to it's actual position.

floggg

floggg wrote: »

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that two parent families are necessarily or automatically better than any other type of family - only that they tend to be better for the child than unstable or single parent homes.

That would be my point too - and we are simply agreeing with the same thing but saying it in different ways.

Offering stability - time - and resources - is the "ideal" for parenting. It really is as simple as that.

The methods by which you attain that - or the configuration of the people doing it (be it a single parent - any kind of couple - or any kind of community) is simply irrelevant to that ideal.

Each configuration has their own challenges - for sure - but they are not challenges that are unique to that configuration usually. On average single parents have more of a challenge to meet the demands of time and resources - but so too do many couples.

It would be an easier claim to make - or argument to make - if "single parent" was even some coherent group of people upon which to base the argument. But it is not. It is a group of people with such variety as to be functionally useless in making - or evaluating - the argument. A variety of back grounds - careers - social structures - support structures - that is so diverse as to render a straight comparison functionally nonsense in the same way as a statement like "Doing sport with your arms and legs will be healthier than just your arms".

floggg wrote: »

I don't think there is anything wrong with recognising one family model tends to produce the best results (again, emphasising the word tends) and supporting and encouraging that model where possible - as long as we also recognise and support other family models as well.

I think it is a red herring to put the focus on the family model itself - but rather to leave that out entirely. That is a top down approach - and I would more recommend a bottom up approach which is to recognise what actually constitutes a healthy upbringing of children - modularise that - and offer support for people who are failing at one of those modules - without any recourse to what parental configuration they are in.

That is to say that without reference to the parental configurations at all - we can recognise in a modular fashion the requirements of bringing up children - and what can lead to failures in those modules - and offer support for anyone failing one or more of those modules.

Shrap

floggg wrote: »

My point is simply that, as you recognise, it's easier to parent with another parent/parent figure sharing the burden. It means you actually get to divide the load, increased parental contact time with children, more help with homework etc.

Absolutely true, but as we all know in these times, two parents may be just as stretched as one, and juggling jobs, child-care and responsibilities in a relationship may present more difficulties for some couples than it does for a single person.

Still, great parents will be great whether single or part of a team and ****ty parents can actually be ****tier when working in pairs.

Ain't that the truth!

Oh, and thanks for the clarification.

zuber

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.

well said im with you

To Elland Back

floggg wrote: »

It is entirely your right, but I still can't understand it.

Surely LGBT people have suffered much more serious bullying than opponents of equality for LGBT people. So surely you should be more likely to react to that bullying, no?

Why is bullying by some supporters on one side of the debate an issue for you, but not bullying by some supporters on the other side of the debate?

Look, it is my intention to vote yes because of the simple fact that it doesn't affect me at the moment, but it may affect some of my family members in the future and sure if it gives others happiness, so be it.

However, nearly every poster here who has stated that they intend to vote no (with or without giving reason), has been launched upon in very personal terms. Those who are involved in those attacks come from a perspective where the decision to pass this referendum is a no-brainer and will not accept that there are people out there who have opposing views. I do not agree with that and it may influence my decision on polling day.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

That's fine but don't use other people as an excuse why you can't be arsed to vote.

You may not appreciate it as a valid reason for abstaining from voting, but just like they don't care about who marries who, they're just as unlikely to care what other people think of them for abstaining from voting.

Shrap wrote: »

I'd sooner not have to counter anybody's views on anything. However, when those who definitely are staying on the other side of the fence are making it their business to try and confuse fence-sitters with much mud-slinging, twisting of words and conflation of other issues with this one, there's an actual duty I feel to try and straighten (no pun intended) the argument back to it's actual position.

Give them enough rope to hang themselves I say, let people see them for the intolerant nutbars they are. Give the Irish people credit that they're not that immature any more, that they have minds of their own and can see for themselves what these people are at, that simply doesn't tally with their experience of people who are LGBT.

floggg

To Elland Back wrote: »

Look, it is my intention to vote yes because of the simple fact that it doesn't affect me at the moment, but it may affect some of my family members in the future and sure if it gives others happiness, so be it.

However, nearly every poster here who has stated that they intend to vote no (with or without giving reason), has been launched upon in very personal terms. Those who are involved in those attacks come from a perspective where the decision to pass this referendum is a no-brainer and will not accept that there are people out there who have opposing views. I do not agree with that and it may influence my decision on polling day.

I haven't seen too many personal attacks - though I have seen people attack their arguments. I'm sure there are some looking back, that they aren't from the majority of posters, and I inagine many of those making such attacks are straight.

I just really don't see why I, or possibly your family members or friends, should be punished for that.

I think you should also be more sensitive to the fact that this can be an extremely emotive subject for some of us, and constantly hearing that either yourself or your friends or family are unnatural, dangerous to kids, etc of having your relationship compared to incestuous relationships etc can sometimes take its toll.

Whatever arguments there have been so far have been very spurious, and often rather absurd - and yet these are the only reasons being put forth to justify continued discrimination against us.

If some people react adversely in the face of all that, try to have some understanding what it might be like to have either your rights or your friends and families up for public debate and consider whether you would remain entirely rational throughout the debate.

And however bad you might think the tenor of the debate is, is voting to deny rights really a proportionate response?

To Elland Back

floggg wrote: »

I haven't seen too many personal attacks - though
And however bad you might think the tenor of the debate is, is voting to deny rights really a proportionate response?

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

Daith

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

What personal attacks?

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I'll be voting no for 3 reasons.
1. I seen on another thread on this site how the homosexual posters ganged up on another poster, the end result being that she closed her account.
A cohort of people who demand to be treated equally and want tolerance seem to want to force their views on others by shouting the loudest and intimidating people..

This can be summed up as other people act like idiots so I will act like an idiot too.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

2. I will not vote for anything this government proposes, Enda's due another wallop...

and
.

You believe a vendetta against a politician is more important than fundamental rights?

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

3. I believe that the ideal family unit is a married hetrosexual couple and their children.

(1) The referendum has nothing to do with adoption or children, that is in the legislation (Mary Hanafin is about the only politicians who agree with you on this, so I take it you will give FF a vote in the next election?)

(2) Have you told all the single mothers and single fathers?

rainbow kirby

I happen to be still registered to vote in Dublin South-West - tempted to book a cheap flight as soon as the referendum date is announced to place a big fat YES vote :pac:

I am bi, monogamous and marrying the (opposite sex) love of my life in May. Why should the rights be different based on the gender of my partner - it makes no sense at all!

bodice ripper

Still sick of being told to suck the cock of obvious no voters in an attempt to sway the unswayable. As perviously pointed out - mom said never kiss the ass that is ****ting on you.

Annasopra

Riverireland wrote: »

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

Just in case anyone takes that as "derailing" let me clarify that I personally think marriage is over rated as an institution. But, in the interest of equality, if it is going to be changed then why not include multiple partner marriages for bi sexuals and people of minority religions etc? I'd rather not see another costly referendum in a few years time when we still have a huge unemployment, homeless, healthcare problem to deal with. Why not just cover off everything now.

You are derailing. Its classic whataboutery derailing.

GaryDub31

I will be voting yes. We are living in modern times now and I do not see why people should be denied this right. Surely the only thing that should matter is that they love each other enough to make this commitment.

floggg

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

Well there have been plenty on here who support marriage who have put forward their argument in a reasonable manner - shouldn't you support them?

And again, you have never really addressed why you aren't equally opposed to the many opponents of marriage equality who have not put forward their case in any reasonable manner.

Why is it only one side's behaviour who you are scrutinising.

What's more, places like boards and twitter and facebook aren't really awreally representative of the official campaign, and tend to be forums were extreme opinions and stances tend to get most attention.

But if you look at the formal campaign being run by the Yes side, I don't think you will find a more patient, understanding and polite set of spokespeople in the country.

If you heard Colm O'Gorman for example frequently having to defend his own parenting skills from unjustified attacks, you would surely agree he deserves a medal for remaining so composed and calm. There are many others on the Yes side who put forward very passionate, but respectful and honest arguments.

They are often met by dishonest and disrespectful arguments in return.

Why would you consider punishing those Yes campaigners by voting no, which would be nothing if not a ringing endorsement of the likes of the people who distributed the "Sounds of Sodomy" flyer.

Can you give any explanation for the seemingly contradictory stance?

Annasopra

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

I havent seen any personal abuse to you?

Ave Sodalis

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

I think you're mixing the no side and the yes side up...

To Elland Back

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I havent seen any personal abuse to you?

I never said the attacks were directed at me, I never said I had only seen them on Boards and I was only giving an opinion on why some people might decide to vote no and that I might consider it myself in light of this

To Elland Back

sup_dude wrote: »

I think you're mixing the no side and the yes side up...

Nope, the no side are presenting their point of view in a calmer manner than the yes side in my opinion. I'm not commenting on the pros or cons themselves

jobbridge4life

To Elland Back wrote: »

I never said the attacks were directed at me, I never said I had only seen them on Boards and I was only giving an opinion on why some people might decide to vote no and that I might consider it myself in light of this

Then vote no and know that you chose to punish an entire subset of people based on the behaviour of a tiny minority of them. Be proud that you chose to vote to maintain the discrimination faced by innocent children based on the fact that their parents share gender.

jobbridge4life

To Elland Back wrote: »

Nope, the no side are presenting their point of view in a calmer manner than the yes side in my opinion. I'm not commenting on the pros or cons themselves

Perhaps that is because it is not their families and marriages that are being denigrated. Perhaps it is because they do not have to grovel and 'behave' for their rights to be recognised equally with the remainder of the country.

spikeS

To Elland Back wrote: »

I never said the attacks were directed at me, I never said I had only seen them on Boards and I was only giving an opinion on why some people might decide to vote no and that I might consider it myself in light of this

Well I will be voting YES, I am straight but my best friend is gay and he deserves to have the same rights as me.

Sometimes gay people might get heated on this but it's so important to them and who are you to say they are less then the rest of us.

bodice ripper

To Elland Back wrote: »

I never said the attacks were directed at me, I never said I had only seen them on Boards and I was only giving an opinion on why some people might decide to vote no and that I might consider it myself in light of this

please massa, can I live my life free from interference even though some people are butthurt?

rainbow kirby

It's incredibly petty and reflects incredibly poorly on people if they would vote against a civil rights issue just because some people on that side annoyed them.

Ave Sodalis

To Elland Back wrote: »

Nope, the no side are presenting their point of view in a calmer manner than the yes side in my opinion. I'm not commenting on the pros or cons themselves

Have you seen any logical argument presented by the no side? Any well presented, factual reason for voting no? I haven't.

There are people on the yes side getting heated, yes, but have you seen some of the arguments from the no side? I'm gonna guess not, or that you're chosing to ignore them because they can be far more vicious and nasty than the yes side. Why is this okay? Why are you supporting this?

K4t

Poll should be made public.

Astonishing that over 100 posters are against equal rights, and disappointing that 67 people don't care about it. It does explain why this country was held back for so long though.

spikeS

K4t wrote: »

Poll should be made public.

Astonishing that over 100 posters are against equal rights, and disappointing that 67 people don't care about it. It does explain why this country was held back for so long though.

Think of the positive with over 600 people voting yes, the no side has no chance

Ave Sodalis

spikeS wrote: »

Think of the positive with over 600 people voting yes, the no side has no chance

Unless people on the yes side don't vote

spikeS

sup_dude wrote: »

Unless people on the yes side don't vote

There was section for not voting all the yes votes here plan to vote in may.

Ave Sodalis

spikeS wrote: »

There was section for not voting all the yes votes here plan to vote in may.

I mean actually going out to vote. People may support it, and people may intend to vote yes but there may be a lot of " ah sure, they've plenty of support, I couldn't really be bothered going out to vote".

aloyisious

To Elland Back wrote: »

Nope, the no side are presenting their point of view in a calmer manner than the yes side in my opinion. I'm not commenting on the pros or cons themselves

This'll be my only post to this thread. I'll have a look at whatever reply that To Elland Back posts here to it. To me the No side are being mischevious and misleading in what any of them post about the single issue of equal Civil Marriage to both heterosexual and homosexual adult citizens here. Just because one presents one's point in a calmer manner than the other side doesn't make the deliberate lie and slap across the face any less insulting to the reader. It seem's like the sound of the orator's voice, and not it's message, is doing the trick.

To Elland Back

sup_dude wrote: »

Have you seen any logical argument presented by the no side? Any well presented, factual reason for voting no? I haven't.

There are people on the yes side getting heated, yes, but have you seen some of the arguments from the no side? I'm gonna guess not, or that you're chosing to ignore them because they can be far more vicious and nasty than the yes side. Why is this okay? Why are you supporting this?

We're going around in a loop here, so I'll try and summarise my thoughts as follows;

I intend to vote yes, as I don't see any legitimate reason to vote no.

I don't like bullies ranting personal abuse at those with different views and I can see why people might be swayed to cast their vote a particular way when they experience or witness it. I've seen more of it from the yes side, than then no side and much of it away from Boards

Finally, nobody has to justify to others why they vote a particular way in an election or a referendum.

Goodbye & Good Luck

spikeS

To Elland Back wrote: »

We're going around in a loop here, so I'll try and summarise my thoughts as follows;

I intend to vote yes, as I don't see any legitimate reason to vote no.

I don't like bullies ranting personal abuse at those with different views and I can see why people might be swayed to cast their vote a particular way when they experience or witness it. I've seen more of it from the yes side, than then no side and much of it away from Boards

Finally, nobody has to justify to others why they vote a particular way in an election or a referendum.

Goodbye & Good Luck

But you can understand why people might get heated at people that don't want them to have rights? Would you not be angry if treated like a second class citizen.

jobbridge4life

To Elland Back wrote: »

We're going around in a loop here, so I'll try and summarise my thoughts as follows;

I intend to vote yes, as I don't see any legitimate reason to vote no.

I don't like bullies ranting personal abuse at those with different views and I can see why people might be swayed to cast their vote a particular way when they experience or witness it. I've seen more of it from the yes side, than then no side and much of it away from Boards

Finally, nobody has to justify to others why they vote a particular way in an election or a referendum.

Goodbye & Good Luck

You'll still need to justify it to yourself.

Ave Sodalis

To Elland Back wrote: »

We're going around in a loop here, so I'll try and summarise my thoughts as follows;

I intend to vote yes, as I don't see any legitimate reason to vote no.

I don't like bullies ranting personal abuse at those with different views and I can see why people might be swayed to cast their vote a particular way when they experience or witness it. I've seen more of it from the yes side, than then no side and much of it away from Boards

Finally, nobody has to justify to others why they vote a particular way in an election or a referendum.

Goodbye & Good Luck

You still haven't answered why it's only the yes side you think shouldn't be allowed to say anything remotely angry, but the no side can rant and rave and say horrible things all they want but that's fine?

Annasopra

To Elland Back wrote: »

Nope, the no side are presenting their point of view in a calmer manner than the yes side in my opinion. I'm not commenting on the pros or cons themselves

Really? You mean like when some on the no side thrown around vile homophobic abuse and suggest strong links between all gay men and all pardophiles?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93940266&postcount=1016

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93894775&postcount=7

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93881431&postcount=134

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93892027&postcount=1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93543281&postcount=1692

Ave Sodalis

That's not including the posts from other known posters who are actively anti-SSM, or anti gay in general

Flem31

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It's incredibly petty and reflects incredibly poorly on people if they would vote against a civil rights issue just because some people on that side annoyed them.

If someone described you as a base cretin would you still be inclined to vote in a way that favoured that person.
Some of phrases used by both sides goes beyond mere annoyance.

seenitall

Flem31 wrote: »

If someone described you as a base cretin would you still be inclined to vote in a way that favoured that person.

Probably not, but if you are a base cretin you were going to vote against people's civil rights anyway.

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

You still haven't answered why it's only the yes side you think shouldn't be allowed to say anything remotely angry, but the no side can rant and rave and say horrible things all they want but that's fine?

Quite simple really -

Keep your temper. If you are in the right, you can afford to keep it.
If you are in the wrong, you can't afford to lose it.


I can only speak for myself when I say that it's been my experience that people who lose their temper, lose their audience. The people who object to marriage equality are all too aware of this, and they will use it to their best advantage in baiting those people who support marriage equality into reacting and coming off like a couple of unhinged nutbars.

It's an insidious tactic, but they use it because it works, and very effectively as has been witnessed time and again in these discussions.

It's absolutely not fine to insult other people, but do you think they care? Of course they don't. They just want you to sink to their level, because right now, as it stands, they have nothing to lose, but the yes campaign have everything to lose. That's the reality. The yes campaign are hoping to gain enough support to make a change to the Irish Constitution against people who would happily have it remain the way it's written now.

I hold the people campaigning for a yes vote to a higher standard, because I think it weakens our position when we fail to maintain our dignity in the face of adversity, cheapening the value of marriage equality to nothing more than a mud flinging match.

A mud flinging match is something people can do without. Let those people who are against marriage equality fling mud all they want. At the end of the day they'll be the only people left covered in shìt if people refuse to engage with them. Try and remember that there's far more support for marriage equality than there isn't. We don't need to resort to nastiness, we just need to support each other.

conorh91

Flem31 wrote: »

If someone described you as a base cretin would you still be inclined to vote in a way that favoured that person.
Some of phrases used by both sides goes beyond mere annoyance.

Dominic Hannigan, who is one of the few coalition TDs who speaks frankly in public, said on radio earlier that the Yes side has a preachy element within it, and this will be a problem.

I believe he was echoing a similar statement by Terri Prone, who probably knows a thing or two about public relations. I would paraphrase her comment as "stop shrieking at people from a high horse".

I am going to vote yes to the amendment, but I have tried to advance a few arguments against it, even just for the sake of a healthy debate. But not one of us can ever drive people away from same-sex marriage like the shrill cry of a lefty behind a keyboard, doing their best Martin Luther King impersonation, implying that any No voter is some sort of vile homophobe. Way to alienate people.

spikeS

conorh91 wrote: »

"stop shrieking at people from a high horse".

Jesus what a bigoted and stereotyping thing for a person to say

floggg

spikeS wrote: »

Think of the positive with over 600 people voting yes, the no side has no chance

Please don't say don't say such a thing. Voter apathy and complacency are the biggest risk to a yes vote.

We need everybody out to vote. the no side may be a minority, but they are a determined one who will mobilise. We need to mobilise the yes side in order to ensure the will of the majority is carried.

conorh91

spikeS wrote: »

Jesus what a bigoted and stereotyping thing for a person to say

I hope that's a joke. Otherwise, turn in your spurs and trot in another direction.