Victory for "equality" , victory for vociferous minority, symptom of moral decline? What do you reckon?

Depends if you think religion is unquestionable and a dogma to which you are servile.

If you're more of a free thinker it makes perfect sense.

The only reason they felt they had to do it was to sidestep religious intolerances. It both saddens and amazes me that so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people continue to be unable to work out the god delusion once they become capable of free, intelligent thought. This is relevant because the main reason the Noes give is that it is allegedly against the teachings of their particular delusion. Remove the delusion and they would probably mostly leave private things that neither concern nor affect them alone.

Repeat for politicians in America too, particularly Republicans who tend to specialise in delusional religious thoughts to the point where they believe they are working directly for a deity.

The direction that Irish politics take is of minor consequence when compared to what could happen to the USA next time around.

And once again, Northern Ireland find themselves isolated by both the Republic and the rest of the Union

Maybe they'll go for abortion rights next for women. No, hold on they won't do that as they want to control what a woman does with her own body.....silly me !!!

You need a majority to win a referendum so hardly a minority as you say.

Beat me to it.

Don't you think that people can be anti same-sex marriage without being religious?

The only arguments I have heard against same sex marriage have been based on religion and frankly I'm struggling to think of one that would not involve religion other than plain and simple outright intolerance of anything that does not fit into their little box of ideas of how life should be, so in that respect it would be difficult to not involve religion but not impossible - that person would be a right pain in the backside to be within half a mile of though.

That's a wholly different issue. A woman has the right to choose not to have intercourse (leaving aside the issue of rape for the moment). She should not then gave the right to commit murder of the unborn child that was the product of what she chose to do. What about the rights of the child and the father?

How on earth can you "murder" an unborn child?

What law is it covered by?

As far as I am concerned a child doesn't exist as a person until it is born. As far as the father is concerned, he doesn't have to carry the child for 9 months or give birth so his views are irrelevant.

Dally, there is a big difference in choosing to have sex and choosing to have a child. Better to have an abortion than an unloved and unwanted child to be brought up in an uncaring environment.

They should lock the pregnant mother away in a home out of sight of the public and her family until she has had the child, then send her back to her family while keeping the infant for themselves so that it can be sold to the highest bidder. They could get the church to administer this, or something.

I'm all for same sex 'marriage' and if I ran the church I'd give gay people the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. However, I believe our society should be secular (which it currently isn't) so whilst I agree with civil partnerships, I think the decision on whether to allow same sex marriage should be left to the church, and other religious organisations to decide.