Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

What framework do you use to determine whether an impact is positive or negative and do you have percentages that you use to make up these conclusions?

IE you determine a change as a result of voting yes to a particular amendment leads to a (defined by you) positive impact on 5 percent of the population but has a negative impact (defined by you) on another 6 percent of the population.

Are you voting yes or no to the change?

Yes Remember hearing in media/polls that both referendums would be predominantly yes about two weeks ago just when the literature started to arrive in the door makes the result even more astounding that the gubber-mint could get it so so wrong in space of 2weeks/ten days

Does anyone actually know the governments motivation for these referendums….,was there a strong lobby group pushing for them…..there are far more pressing issues as we all know than playing around with a few words at a cost of €23m

You think the incredibly bitter and personalised bile issued by that individual is appropriate?

Where do those "feelings" come from?

There's always postive/negative impacts in these types of things - that much is obvious, whether it is fairly clear to you the level of positive/negative impacts is rarely decided by your exposure to "religion" or being a Catholic - you've said it yourself, you honestly don't know how you'd vote if thes case was close in your own head.

This one, for me has been very very clear cut - with no religion coming into it at all.

The divorce referendum again was clear cut - knowing the real and positive imact that change would have one people I knew.

The abortion referendum was MUCH trickier from a general moral (which I appreciate can come from religious teachings)ethicial and scientific point of view - however I think a lot of non-religious people would have found this a difficult choice, considering the variables at play. Its easy to come down on the opinion that you'd vote based on the level/severity of impact being the deciding factor if you dont accept the invidivials without a voice in the disucssion will never have the ability to outline the level or severity or impact on their lives or that you have a lack of clarity on when life "starts". (Not suggesting you do - but to suggest that this is purely religion at play is to be over simplistic on it)

Did you vote Yes to the care referendum - when those MOST LIKELY to be directly negatively impacted by it, in the majority called for a no vote?

There was no significant religious element to the landslide victory for No. This is a bitter attempt to cast the No vote as unthinking.

Quite the opposite: the Irish nation employed critical thinking, common sense and personal experience; as we have in previous refenda. It allowed us to reject governmental propaganda and vote morally, intelligently and in our own interest.

There is hope for us yet.

Threads like this always brings a smile when the people who go around telling others to be nice let the mask slip and show what they really are.

It depends on your definition of impacts also. For a straight person who doesn't believe in gay marraigr, is the impact of gay marraige being legal on them significant? Again, that's depends on each individuals own interpretation of the word "significant". That person isn't impacted in terms of their rights or freedoms. They are still entitled to do the exact same as they were before etc. But they are impacted in terms of their "happiness" level as they believe its wrong. Like with every vote, when I am presented with a direct proposition I do my research and vote based on that research.

I never said religion came into this for for every single No voter. My position is that the 730k who voted no in gay marraige referendum were very likely going to vote no in this referendum on family. I also think if there is a referendum and the wording around durable relationships is clearer or they worded it so it's clear that it means single mothers etc that 700kish will still vote No, primarily due to their beliefs on the concept of family being very strongly linked to marraige. Again, I don't see why that's such an outrageous prediction.

I accept abortion is trickier. However the research does also point out that atheists are much more likely to be prochoice than someone who considers themselves religious. But again, that's not the case in every situation. That's isn't a simply coincidence and I think people who are prolife and religious would say they are prolife due to their morals, and not necessarily their religious beliefs. But I would argue their morals are often founded in their religious belief.

I did vote yes. I never felt anyone was going to directly negatively impacted by it in a significant way. The current Constitution doesn't place any obligation on the state to provide care for people individuals with a disability and the prosed one didn't either. I definitely understand feeling of frustration for people with a disability on having that missed opportunity though, but I also felt that this referendum is not going to be run again for a long time. So, basically felt there was no "significant" negative impact on them. If I felt there was a good chance of another referendum with inprove wording I would jave went No.

Sitting on The AG'S letter, not revealing said advice when asked about it,and letting that utterly useless wording go to the people, its all on him, if O'gorman had an ounce of decency he would resign.On TV yesterday he came across as a petulant child and a sore loser.

If the food you were served in a restaurant was undercooked you'd send it back.

No difference here. The proposed changes in wording were not up to scratch. So the logical thing for the electorate to do was send it back to the government to improve on.

Voting yes to it in my mind was either uninformed or ideological driven.

I disagree.

It was up to the people.

The people voted no in an open democracy.