I dunno, what does jesus think?

Is having children constitutionally protected? There absolutely should be a licensing process for having children because that is the actual problem. You have to have a license to get married, what? why? but you can just pop out as many kids as you feel like regardless of your ability to properly raise them.

No it isn't.

Just skip to the end and suggest we kill the blacks, gypsies and other undesirables.

It's always funny the people against gay marriage overwhelmingly think marriage is best for raising children.

Its as if they don't realise gay people can have children in numerous ways without being married.

I take it you've never been married, because a marriage license isn't at all like a gun license or driver's license

So it's just a tax then? Instead of whether or not the government should or shouldn't allow gay marriage, it should be why does the government have any say at all in the first place.

And yet the groups campaigning for a No are also those very groups voting against the extension of protections to children in the referendum of 2012.

Breda O'Brien a particularly nasty sort not only thinks that gay people should not get married but also thinks that gay people should abstain from sex like unmarried straight people.

Paddy Power, a bookies not always known for accurately reflecting markets, currently has the Yes vote at 1/33 and No at 9/1. The line is at 60.5% Yes at 5/6

I agree that should be the case, but since the government does have a say, it's pointless thumb twiddling to discuss it here.

Its effectively a negative tax. There are a tonne of benefits financially to being married including tax breaks.

The government also doesn't have a say, they will only reject licences if it'd be illegal to allow them, like in polygamy. Its just easier to remove those limits than to completely overhaul the right to marry.

Also if you got government out of tax you'd have to replace it with something functionally identical to replace the various rights and responsibilities that come along with the status. We'd be at the same place except you'd want to know why lawyers have to get involved with the massive contract you need to sign.

You know what is ACTUALLY tragic for children?

Being denied adoption to a loving home and being relegated to a miserable life experience at an orphanage - where the odds of attachment disorder due to extreme neglect and abuse is almost a ****ing lock - because your prospective parents both have a penis.

But please, proceed with how confusing it is to have parents with the same sex organ. Surely this will trump the traumatic effects experienced in the alternative scenario.

World class ignorance OP. Mind blowing that this is even an issue in contemporary society.

Voted yes. Why wouldn't I?

I'm almost against there's the concept of men and women in the first place, but guess it's practical to use restrictively. The words he and she should be substituted for a new word meaning both + third sexes.

Just happen to be 'heterosexual' myself. Why impose that on other people?

Like demanding left handed turn right handed. Ridiculous.

Op is fuming that when he walks out his door tmoro the streets are going to be lined with gays dancing under raining confetti

I read the the referendum went from 80% approval to just 53%. Additionally concerns were voiced that some have responded yes to the poll (to not appear homophobic) but still vote no. Unfortunately this isn't a sure thing.

That is a concern, but it's difficult to separate from a fair amount of wishcasting by the No side - the usual "silent majority" derp. Polls showed a weakening of the Yes vote in the immediate run-up, but the move was from Yes to Don't Know, with very little pickup for the No vote.

Returns are all looking good so far.

Ireland about to officially be the first country ever to legalise equal marriage rights via referendum.

Democracy and logic wins, bigotry and idiocy loses. Yay.

You haven't heard? At some point it leads to sex with animals or possibly people marrying ferrets.

It's looking decisive as well at the moment.

Those kids are guaranteed to grow up and not hate gays, which is a tragedy.

Shoulda mixed those tears in with some whiskey, imo. Missed opportunity. Or a Black Velvet, which would also have been pretty appropriate.

I voted yes and looks like the majority felt the same way as it went through 68.4% in favour of. Plenty of gay people have children from marriages and then divorce. Their kids still get to visit them or live with them and their same sex partner and society hasn't crumbled, due to this.

Marriage isn't solely about children either, plenty of married couples choose not to have kids or else can't.

This is a pretty liberal and gay-friendly website, not to mention there have been previous threads that show almost unanimous support for gay rights and SSM on 2p2, so the results of this poll don't surprise me. I'd have guessed 90-10.

The idea in 2015 that anyone with an ounce of brain functionality in a civilized country would be against this is almost laughable. If you're fighting against it, understand that you're going to be on the wrong side of history, and you'll be laughed at and mocked as a bigoted fool 15, 20, 25 years down the line when this is a complete non-issue. Go watch the movie 42, and pay particular attention to the Dodgers road game in Cincinnati scene. You want to be Pee Wee Reese, not the people in the crowd.

As far as the US, there's only one way this can end. We're at 37 states legalizing SSM now as opposed to 0 going into 2003. Support has jumped from 22% in 1993 to 61% today. SCOTUS in all likelihood will legalize it nationwide within a couple of months.

I would vote for the "getting government out of the marriage business" option.