Because your brother doesn’t want you, Bo.

So you wouldn’t be in favour of such a thing? I’m curious because you often describe this referendum as being about marriage equality but it’s not being equal at all to be honest. Why should your moral standards stop two people who love each other from getting married? Isn’t that the whole crux of the yes side?
And before you say it….. yes I do know two gay twins that where caught in bed with each other.
#Equalityforsome

Bo, marriage forms a legal family bond ie kinship between two unrelated people. Siblings already have that legal kinship therefore a secondary bond through marriage is neither legal nor desirable.

I hope that this answers your question.

Bo, your last comment begins with and follows the assumption that I am against it. I never said that. I would have to know more about it, but I would not be against it, nor strongly for it until I have informed myself better from those on both sides.

I would appreciate if you did not assume my position on sibling marriage and then use it to attack my own civil equality. It is disingenuous and hurtful.

But we could easily change the law. I love the hypocrisy of the yes side. You tell people not to judge but then do it yourself.

No one from the yes or the no camp can really answer that one. Sure they wouldnt be doing any harm but siblings getting married (whether same sex or not) cant happen as there are laws against incest in this country. Completely separate from anything to do with marriage and something that could be amended by legislation without need for a referendum if the government chose to look at it. As far as this referendum goes it has nothing to do with it if that makes sense.

I haven’t judged. I have not stated by opinion because I haven’t fully formed it. You are calling us hypocritical yet ignoring our posts and putting words in our mouths.

I have no issue with sibling marriage thus far, as I am aware of no negatives.

Now please take your accusations and assumptions elsewhere and show me the respect I have shown you.

Bo, you are very welcome to put forward a campaign with supportive arguments for a change in the incest law. I for one would like to be more informed about the consequences of such a change. Good luck to you.

However, this is not part of the upcoming referendum and perhaps should be separate from this thread?

Stop feeding it!

If the referendum allowed gay people to marry but also stipulated that no other aspect of law will be changed relating to marriage,family,children or society as a result I would vote yes.
This referendum has never been about the government giving gays equality it’s about the government wanting to redefine the legal definition of the term marriage for the purposes of downgrading the legal status of the natural family.
If you remove a child’s history,family and heritage you create a soulless individual, a more extreme version of this is used in west african child soldiers, they are removed from their natural parents and family to become soulless child soldiers and killers.
Ailbhe your brothers marriage is unique in so far as he and his wife can create a family, and this is the reason why i will vote no to keep the institution of marriage,family and the child in the constitution as it was written by the founding heroes of this state.

Hi Thierry,
We all know your claims to be false. But thanks for commenting and have a good day.

Ailbhe I would vote yes to gay marriage if no aspect of family law was affected…
But the referendum will change child and family law so it’s a no from me

Incorrect, but thanks for your response. Have a nice weekend Thierry

Thierry, I genuinely believe that your premise is incorrect in this regard. However, we know that you and many others on this board have made up your minds and that we cannot sway you from those positions. I therefore wish you well and hope that if and when the referendum passes you will see that the consequences will not be as dire as you believe.

Have a pleasant day!

Ailbhe, you have a partner?

*gutted*

Right, that’s it. I’m voting no. That’ll learn ye for being in love.

Alan! I’ll leave her for you, you know that. You and I are soulmates. Finally a man has ‘turned’ me….

I am happily married to my wife at the moment Bo and Thierry.
Could one of you please tell me why if I vote yes this will change…. or have any effect on our relationship as 2 heterosexuals.

Because reasons. Joe.

Good, non-homophobic, reasons.

But you wouldn’t understand then if I told you because of brainwashing by the mainstream media and the gaystapo liberals.

Have any of the yes camp seen the Louie Theroux show a week ago about trans gender kids in San Francisco. It was shocking and jaw dropping. A yes vote will ultimately lead to a ridiculous society that sees anything as acceptable.
There is a very simple reason for voting no. It is a stupid question.

Deerhounddog, whilst canvassing yesterday one household was voting Yes because they have a transgender child. Trans issues are very real and more common than you expect. If you ever wish to discuss these issues I would be happy to oblige. One site which may answer your questions is http://www.teni.ie

Have a good day!

Joe in our constitution the term “marriage” is described many times amongst terms relating to family law, children law and society law…
Be very careful of the exact wording of what you are voting for..
This referendum proposes to change the meaning of the word marriage to not distinguish between the sexes which will in turn apply to all the other section of the constitution and will cause many landmark court cases which will involve children’s custody, access,adoption,family law, inheritance,guardianship,next of kin,taxation, pensions… Everything maybe not necessarily for you but for other citizens of Ireland who live by the law of the constitution which you propose to change without doing any research and expecting someone to do it for you.

Helen you are ailbhe

So if gay people get married, kids will be forced to have sex change operations?

Seems legit, Neal.

Helen, thank you kindly for your offer but I don’t believe I have any questions that need answers as I am very well informed. I know these issues are very real but don’t believe that marriage is any sort of solution.
Regards.

I’m voting no because I don’t want to see society collapse when young girls are forced to have sex changes and become male child soldiers.

Not to mention the slippery slope argument that brothers and sisters and aunties and cats will suddenly want to marry each other.

You’re right to, John. There’s also the matter of women from Eastern Europe being being smuggled into County Monaghan’s puppy farms to be force impregnated to feed the voracious hunger gays will have for designer babies.

Because the last thing we need is more immigrants!

If you say so Thierry, am I also Sandra Bullock….I hope not, cos I fancy my chances with her. To’am roide

Hi bo jangles. I love my brothers and sisters. I don’t want to marry any of them because I am not romantically in love with any of them. I love my Partner but I am also romantically in love with my Partner. I believe their is a difference between loving some one and being romantically in love with some one. For me the criteria for marriage not only requires two people to love one another but it also requires for them to be in love with one another. for this reason I cant envisage any problems from the aspect of marriage equality been about love. After all we don’t see two straight sibylline who love one another wanting to marry each another. I hope this helps to clears things up for you.

Ailbhe, I’m not at all sure when answering questions about this aspect, to people who have asked me, and it has got me thinking and actually reading the constitution. You seem to be well informed so maybe you can answer this. There are questions being asked on another thread here on Journal. Are Articles 41.3.1 and 41.1.1 affected when taken in conjunction with the proposed amendment? And does it affect 42? Or is that intended? I think the yes campaign (and note I am a yes voter as it stands) needs to be clear about the intent. Is it just about marriage or also about parenting/founding a family with children,, in terms of what is being sought? I have a feeling that the message is not that clear at the moment. And if it is about marriage only, and not about children, is the wording right? The constitution can’t be changed the way legislation can, so we need to get this right.

Thierry, what does article 40.1 of our constitution say?

You cannot get a postal vote if you are going to be away on holidays.

If you’re away on work then you should be able to get one, but you will need proof of this from your employer.

Thanks Niall & Ailbhe

I hope you bought her a glass of wine after!

So your saying dermot that marriage is for male couples and female couples.?

Dermot, under section 40.1 of the Irish Constitution all Irish citizens are regarded as equal under the law. There is no provision for this constitutional requirement to be abrogated on numerical values – a small population receives the same protection as the majority and indeed, the minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Joe, I really don’t think Dermot knows what he’s saying. He certainly hasn’t made any sense.

Dermot, A couple is defined online as two individuals of the same sort considered together. So where do you get the idea they can’t be a couple? And 97%? So how come in the polls the majority are for a yes vote? Your sort of thinking thankfully is on the way out. Passing the sort of thinking displayed by many on the no side on to children is far mare damaging to them than having two mammys or daddys would be. Imagine if a gay child was brought up thinking like that? How would s/he ever accept themselves. That is the kind of thinking that could lead to suicide of gay youths. And is a big part of why so many struggle for years with their sexuality before having the courage, or through desperation, coming out.

Helen you are a citizen, “who happens to sound like ailbhe”.
And to have the same rights by law as every other citizen

Thierry Ratt “who happens to sound like an idiot” Ailbhe currently doesn’t have the ability to marry the person she loves.

Should I fall in love with a woman tomorrow and want to marry her I can do that.
Albhe has fallen in love with a woman and, presumably, would like to marry her but currently can’t.

We’re not equal. We ought to be and a yes vote will ensure we are.

Also, I’m not Helen. Helen is married for YEARS and straight. I’m 28, gay and have never been married. Not yet anyway.

Dermot I have to ask. Where are you getting those figures from? Can’t remember last time I read that much bull.
This referendum is about marriage equality only.

Nobody is going to be forced to go out and marry someone of the same sex.
The choice of who you marry man or woman/ woman or man will still be up to the individuals getting married.
So far all the arguments I’ve heard against are pretty much the same as the anti-divorce campaign back in the 90.
This referendum dose not affect anyones religious beliefs. It is purely about civil rights. Where the state will just recognise a marriage contract between to people of the same sex if they both want to get married.

Two not to

Thierry, I totally agree with you that the bullying of that poor child was horrific – the reaction to that torture by the general public has been gratifying insofar as the bullies have been roundly excoriated.

I would hope that the same attitude would be applied to any bullying that occurred to children of a same-sex couple. It would be extremely cowardly of us to step back from loving progress in order to appease the bullies.

Thank you for your comment.

Could be worse Thierry, we could have a re emersion of religious fundamentalists…..

Thierry bullying is a serious cause for concern for most parents and the fact that you are using it in an attempt to score points for the no side is everything that we need to know about you and your fellow campaigners. Your a disgusting human being with no morals or scruples.
I would also bet that there is a married couple who’s child done this disgusting act to that poor lad from Cork. So I wouldn’t be using that as your example.

Thierry you seem quite worried about the children… You should check out the ISPCC website, they are in favour of a yes vote, and they unlike most on the no side acknowledge the damage to children that a no vote will have. Actual, real damage. Not a pie in the sky possibility of being bullied. And as stated above, the bully is at fault not the victims family.

No society has ever gotten rid of bullies they are an unfortunate fact of life.
If a yes vote means even one more child is ridiculed at the school gate for arriving with two dads surely that’s enough to drive home a landslide no vote.
Kids well being is way more important in my book than putting the lgbt camp in to the constitution

You can’t stop it completely, there is always going to be some bullies who will find something to pick on – whether a kid has a single mother, mother and father, two fathers, or two mothers!

But you can try to educate. Failing this referendum will not help anyone. Passing it will send a message that having two parents of the same sex (because families like this exist already!) is not something to be ashamed of.

What about the impact on children a no vote will have Thierry . Do you really think the ISPCC would support a yes vote if it wasn’t the best thing for children?

Fat kids still get bullied, but we don’t stop fat people from marrying. There is a big problem of racial bullying at the moment but we’re not discussing laws of preventing other races from marrying.
Bullies need to be dealt with, not their victims.

@Thierry

Blaming the victims of bullying for being bullied is like blaming rape victims for being raped.

Nice try, you failed, have a nice weekend.

I suspect Thierry is from the “sure they were asking for it” camp on that one, Larissa.

Good point Thierry, we should ban autism.

Exactly Larissa, I got bullied in primary school for wearing glasses, sure it was probably my own fault for being short sighted!

Not a valid argument in my opinion, bullies prey on the vulnerable, no reason needed.

Thierry. Read article 40.1 carefully

40.1, 40.61i in particular

@mdmak33 really if you want to protect the innocence of children you might want to ban the Internet, TV, Sun newspaper, every magazine and libraries.