The gay marriage debate on "Clare Byrne Live"

Aard · 22-01-2015 1:28pm

floggg wrote: »

She threw in a lot of red herrings, but they let them all go past and fell back on "its about love."

Yeah the "love" argument doesn't work for me, and I'm even on their side. I was disappointed in Moninne tbh. She's incredibly well educated and heads an organsisation dealing day in day out with the types of obfuscating arguments made by Breda and co. Yet all she said was effictively "hashtag love is love pls retweet". I thought it was very weak. I know Lyons meant well and I got the impression that he became overwhelmed, but his arguments were similarly flimsy. Una Mulally, though ordinarily I find her a bit much, was the most level-headed of the lot. I guess she's used to dealing with Breda. In fact the more I think about it, the more useless the tv show was imo.

Daith · 22-01-2015 1:31pm

Aard wrote: »

Yeah the "love" argument doesn't work for me, and I'm even on their side. I was disappointed in Moninne tbh. She's incredibly well educated and heads an organsisation dealing day in day out with the types of obfuscating arguments made by Breda and co. Yet all she said was effictively "hashtag love is love pls retweet". I thought it was very weak. I know Lyons meant well and I got the impression that he became overwhelmed, but his arguments were similarly flimsy. Una Mulally, though ordinarily I find her a bit much, was the most level-headed of the lot. I guess she's used to dealing with Breda. In fact the more I think about it, the more useless the tv show was imo.

Yes, the "all about love" doesn't wash when faced with "it's all about children".

Hopefully it might have given the Yes speakers a bit of kick tbh. I'd still say Colm O'Gorman is our best speaker. I thought he argued very well with David Quinn on Newstalk.

Ten of Swords · 22-01-2015 1:41pm

Daith wrote: »

I thought he argued very well with David Quinn on Newstalk.

Yes, well worth a listen

Debate

Quinn had some cheek saying that in matters of adoption the state should place a child with a mother and father first, if that does not pan out then 'go to other options' (10 minutes 20 seconds)

Parents of last resort :rolleyes:

Daith · 22-01-2015 1:45pm

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Yes, well worth a listen

Debate

Quinn had some cheek saying that in matters of adoption the state should place a child with a mother and father first, if that does not pan out then 'go to other options' (10 minutes 20 seconds)

Parents of last resort :rolleyes:

It helps that O'Gorman is raising children with his partner. Very hard for Quinn to say his children aren't being raised correctly. Though he shouldn't have to mention his children at all.

floggg · 22-01-2015 1:55pm

Aard wrote: »

Yeah the "love" argument doesn't work for me, and I'm even on their side. I was disappointed in Moninne tbh. She's incredibly well educated and heads an organsisation dealing day in day out with the types of obfuscating arguments made by Breda and co. Yet all she said was effictively "hashtag love is love pls retweet". I thought it was very weak. I know Lyons meant well and I got the impression that he became overwhelmed, but his arguments were similarly flimsy. Una Mulally, though ordinarily I find her a bit much, was the most level-headed of the lot. I guess she's used to dealing with Breda. In fact the more I think about it, the more useless the tv show was imo.

I get the impression that the Yes side naively believed it would be a debate about marriage alone, not children, given the stated intent to legislate for that regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

Perhaps they expected more moderation from CB to keep the debate away from children, but I think they really should have been better prepared.

I've seen Moinne and others defend LGBT parenting get impressively in the past, and so I know she has it in her. She likely had all the wrong talking points prepared.

As for John Lyons, who I have met and seems like a really great guy, I don't think he's necessarily the best debater, though undoubtedly a passionate, compassionate and very genuine guy. Obviously they can't have the same speakers over and over again, but I think Colm O'Gorman and Max Krzyzanowski have been two of our most impressive speakers.

I could not be more impressed by Colm O'Gorman can remain so composed and steady in the face of people questioning his parenting skills.

Aard · 22-01-2015 1:57pm

It's interesting watching the evolution of Quinn's argument over the years. He's been very quiet this last while, and has finally moved on to something along the lines of: It's OK for same-sex couples to raise a child, but preference should be given to opposite-sex parents where possible. Tbh that argument is at breaking point, I can't see him conceding any more otherwise he'll effectively be on the yes side. I'm trying to remember when it was he said that.... It was definitely a couple of years ago or possibly more. On Primetime iirc. I wonder what PR company is advising the no lot....

Daith · 22-01-2015 2:03pm

Aard wrote: »

It's interesting watching the evolution of Quinn's argument over the years. He's been very quiet this last while, and has finally moved on to something along the lines of: It's OK for same-sex couples to raise a child, but preference should be given to opposite-sex parents where possible. Tbh that argument is at breaking point, I can't see him conceding any more otherwise he'll effectively be on the yes side. I'm trying to remember when it was he said that.... It was definitely a couple of years ago or possibly more. On Primetime iirc. I wonder what PR company is advising the no lot....

Isn't his argument that there is something law that states married couples are preferred? I don't see how they can be "preferred" when they're the only couples who can adopt!

Aard · 22-01-2015 2:05pm

floggg wrote: »

I get the impression that the Yes side naively believed it would be a debate about marriage alone, not children, given the stated intent to legislate for that regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

Perhaps they expected more moderation from CB to keep the debate away from children, but I think they really should have been better prepared.

I've seen Moinne and others defend LGBT parenting get impressively in the past, and so I know she has it in her. She likely had all the wrong talking points prepared.

As for John Lyons, who I have met and seems like a really great guy, I don't think he's necessarily the best debater, though undoubtedly a passionate, compassionate and very genuine guy. Obviously they can't have the same speakers over and over again, but I think Colm O'Gorman and Max Krzyzanowski have been two of our most impressive speakers.

I could not be more impressed by Colm O'Gorman can remain so composed and steady in the face of people questioning his parenting skills.

On preparation.... Totally agree. At this stage it should be taken as a given that red herrings will be served by the opposition. You're right about Moninne -- a very capable debater who just took the wrong approach on the night. More moderation from Claire might have been expected too, especially simply in the line of keeping the debate narrowed to the topic at hand. Every possible tangent was accommodated by her. Nuts.

John Lyons reminds me of the Dónal Óg documentary that preceded the CBLive show. Dónal Óg comes at the marriage equality argument from a similarly compassionate angle. At this stage in the game, everybody including Breda acknowledges that gay couples love each other just like any other couple (such is the evolution of their thought!). So we can drop the love argument. Love and law are different. I'm not even sure I fully agree with the idea that marriage is all about love. We need more cold-hard-facts people like Una and Colm and Moninne on her better days. This is not to discredit John Lyons or Dónal Óg Cusack, but is merely an acknowledgement that their arguments and skills might be better suited to a different arena.

floggg · 22-01-2015 2:05pm

Aard wrote: »

It's interesting watching the evolution of Quinn's argument over the years. He's been very quiet this last while, and has finally moved on to something along the lines of: It's OK for same-sex couples to raise a child, but preference should be given to opposite-sex parents where possible. Tbh that argument is at breaking point, I can't see him conceding any more otherwise he'll effectively be on the yes side. I'm trying to remember when it was he said that.... It was definitely a couple of years ago or possibly more. On Primetime iirc. I wonder what PR company is advising the no lot....

Does anybody know what the Iona stance was on civil partnerships at the time it was introduced.

I note that Breda and others are quick to say how much they support CP and thing gay relationships should be recognised by the State in some (lesser) form.

This is obviously to deflect any arguments of prejudice or homophobia.

If there has been any change in their stance on CPs they should be asked to explain it, and why they only claim to support when justifying their opposition to marriage.

Aard · 22-01-2015 2:07pm

Daith wrote: »

Isn't his argument that there is something law that states married couples are preferred? I don't see how they can be "preferred" when they're the only couples who can adopt!

Yeah I think it's the Civil Registration Act that includes the phrase "man and woman", and is the only piece of legislation specifically mentioning that in the context of marriage. But that's not got to do with adoption, so maybe he's referencing something else. But I'm fairly confident that "man and woman" is not mentioned anywhere else.

Daith · 22-01-2015 2:08pm

floggg wrote: »

Does anybody know what the Iona stance was on civil partnerships at the time it was introduced.

I note that Breda and others are quick to say how much they support CP and thing gay relationships should be recognised by the State in some (lesser) form.

This is obviously to deflect any arguments of prejudice or homophobia.

If there has been any change in their stance on CPs they should be asked to explain it, and why they only claim to support when justifying their opposition to marriage.

I don't think Breda actually objected to it...

As for Quinn

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-well-pay-a-heavy-price-for-allowing-samesex-unions-26640081.html

https://twitter.com/oceanclub/status/429667373226815489

Aard · 22-01-2015 2:09pm

floggg wrote: »

Does anybody know what the Iona stance was on civil partnerships at the time it was introduced.

I note that Breda and others are quick to say how much they support CP and thing gay relationships should be recognised by the State in some (lesser) form.

This is obviously to deflect any arguments of prejudice or homophobia.

If there has been any change in their stance on CPs they should be asked to explain it, and why they only claim to support when justifying their opposition to marriage.

Calling them out on inconsistent arguments is especially relevant seeing as how Breda attempted to discredit Varadkar by referencing something he said six years ago while in opposition to the then govt.

floggg · 22-01-2015 2:09pm

Daith wrote: »

Isn't his argument that there is something law that states married couples are preferred? I don't see how they can be "preferred" when they're the only couples who can adopt!

The argument is that the constitution declares marriage the basis of the family in Ireland, so the state can prefer marital families to other types of families.

Their fear is that if same sex marriage comes into play, same sex married couples would be seen as equal to opposite sex married couples.

I think the yes side should acknowledge the truth of that argument, but also demonstrate how same sex couples are just as capable of raising children, and that there is no difference in outcomes for children of either family type.

Aard · 22-01-2015 2:13pm

Nice quotes from DQ. It's interesting how the no side's language has changed. You'll notice that none of the "better prepared" speakers (i.e. excluding some unfortunate audience members' contributions) mentioned any word of "gay lobby", "Catholic/Christian", "God", "Church", "the gays", "you could marry your brother".... (I lolled at that particular audience member; total cringe moment for Breda and Keith). They're being very clever and are very well versed in how to maintain a positive public image while not coming across as old-fashioned, conservative, narrow-minded, bigoted, etc.

floggg · 22-01-2015 2:14pm

Aard wrote: »

Calling them out on inconsistent arguments is especially relevant seeing as how Breda attempted to discredit Varadkar by referencing something he said six years ago while in opposition to the then govt.

I think it's more important to debunk the "compassionate" discrimination image they like to portray.

Groups which have opposed any and all civil rights advances for LGBT people shouldn't be allowed to claim to supprt them after the fact in order to try and make them seem compassionate and respectful towards LGBT people.

Aard · 22-01-2015 2:19pm

floggg wrote: »

I think the yes side should acknowledge the truth of that argument, but also demonstrate how same sex couples are just as capable of raising children, and that there is no difference in outcomes for children of either family type.

Totally agree. I think the yes side were dismissive of the adoption arguments seeing as how they're beeing dealt with via legislation alone. This is where I think Claire was at fault -- either she should have given Lyons and Mulally et al a heads up that the Children and Family Relationships Bill was up for discussion in equal measure to the Referendum (moreso, in fact, if you think about it), or she should have shot the no side down at every turn simply by saying that the adoption/surrogacy thing will be dealt with separately. This is where Claire fukced up. She also kept using the term "gay marriage", which could be perceived as showing a lack of awareness of the sensitivities of the language used in this particular debate. And of course the shudder-inducing goat reference.

floggg · 22-01-2015 2:23pm

Daith wrote: »

I don't think Breda actually objected to it...

As for Quinn

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-well-pay-a-heavy-price-for-allowing-samesex-unions-26640081.html

https://twitter.com/oceanclub/status/429667373226815489

I just googled the Iona stance myself. They were opposed to anything but limited partner rights based on cohabitation not love and commitment, which should be open to all relationship types including siblings.

Effectively they wanted to make sure that any recognition provided was for LGBT couples as room mates only, not anything to do with recognising their romantic relationship and commitment to each other.

I really hope somebody pulls him on it if he tries to claim to have supported CPs.

I actually think Breda O'Brien is probably a decent, but very misguided, ignorant and fearful person once you get over all her Iona crap. She likely believes she is doing the right thing.

DQ seems like a slithery slimey [expletive] [expletive] though.

Aard · 22-01-2015 2:26pm

floggg wrote: »

I think it's more important to debunk the "compassionate" discrimination image they like to portray.

Groups which have opposed any and all civil rights advances for LGBT people shouldn't be allowed to claim to supprt them after the fact in order to try and make them seem compassionate and respectful towards LGBT people.

Exactly, and this is where Breda's nice as pie attitude gets my non-spousal goat (thx Claire for that one, once more :pac:). She was very clear in saying that she believes the love between two men or two women is just the same as that between a man and woman. And oh of course she's in favour of civil partnerships, sure we wouldn't want to discriminate against the gays. But marriage.... marriage is an institution.... you're trying to redefine this centuries-old institution....

I can't go on. But yeah. She's very good at being a loving caring mammy type who wouldn't want to hurt the gays at all. I'm surprised we didn't hear that one of her best friends is gay or something along those lines.

The problem is that it's very difficult to pinpoint that subtle fake-niceness. The audience member who used the word "homophobic" got such an OTT reaction that it was comical. Homophobic? Us? Never.

NuMarvel · 22-01-2015 2:47pm

Daith wrote: »

Yes, the "all about love" doesn't wash when faced with "it's all about children".

Agreed. On its own it can unintentionally come across as selfish, in a what about me kinda way.

The message needs to be that the referendum is about letting same sex couples marry, it doesn't change anything else.

floggg wrote: »

I get the impression that the Yes side naively believed it would be a debate about marriage alone, not children, given the stated intent to legislate for that regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

I'd agree with this too, but for the life of me, I can't figure why they would think that. While I can understand not being prepared for some of the specific arguments (e.g. that marriage will eliminate certain preferences), there is no excuse for not knowing that that children would be brought into it in some way, shape, or form.

Daith · 22-01-2015 2:50pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

The message needs to be that the referendum is about letting same sex couples marry, it doesn't change anything else.

Indeed.

Someone should have pointed out that all of Breda's issues currently happen and will continue to happen regardless of the referendum.

The fact that no one challenged her when she said marriage is defined in the Constitution is another thing.

NuMarvel · 22-01-2015 3:06pm

Daith wrote: »

Indeed.

Someone should have pointed out that all of Breda's issues currently happen and will continue to happen regardless of the referendum.

The fact that no one challenged her when she said marriage is defined in the Constitution is another thing.

One thing to remember about these debates is that the average voter doesn't watch them as intently as us. They'll hear a woman say something about children's rights being taken away, and they'll wonder if there's something to that. Even if someone did correct her, you know for a fact that Breda would continue making the same false claims as if nothing was said.

The best way to challenge these things is to actually talk to voters. Bring it up in conversations with family, friends or co-workers and see what they think. And if they say things like "I'm worried about children's rights", get them to talk it out some more. Ask them how they think adoption currently works, etc and let them bring themselves to the conclusion that marriage doesn't change anything.

Daith · 22-01-2015 3:14pm

Yes, this will be the first time I'd actually consider helping to canvasing or knocking on peoples doors in my area.

floggg · 22-01-2015 3:25pm

I just finished listening to the Newstalk debate, and again very impressed by Colm O'Gorman.

He is very composed, articulate and focused, and is excellent at getting to the core of each argument raised against him.

Hopefully we will see much more of him over the coming months. If it passes, I think he deseves an invite to my wedding.

He was excellent at exposing the flawed logic and hypocrisy of DQs position, and did exactly what should have been done on Claire Byrne.

As for the Iona argument regarding the legal preference for mother/father families, it is actually rather clever. Its raising the spectre of "unintended consequences" and future problems, without actually requiring them to take a firm stance against LGBT families or parenting.

So they can continue to pay lip service to protecting children of LGBT parents, while they behind "legal issues/concerns" when pushing a position which is harmful to those children.

I hope the good thing about these early debates is that the Yes side can recalibrate their campaign now, and counter all of these artificial arguments clearly and effectively.

LookingFor · 22-01-2015 4:15pm

I think David Quinn really needs to be challenged on his 'new' message about the referendum locking in the children & family bill.

If the suggestion is that we should vote no to 'loosen' that bill, I think he needs to come clean about what he would see happening in the event the bill is passed and the referendum is failed.

Specifically, what he would have done to families who adopt and the children involved after the bill is passed but before it is 'loosened'...

Quinn et al are very good at striking on fuzzy soundbites about children's interests and all that, but they seem to have either skant disregard for the children of gay couples, or perhaps, active contempt for their legal standing wrt their parents, if they sought to undo them via a legal challenge if the referendum fails. I think that needs to be brought to the surface, because while some may have an appetite for their emotive soundbites on one level, I think very few would have an appetite for the kind of retrospectively destructive ruthlessness DQ et al may pursue with regard to the family bill if the referendum fails.

Seamai · 22-01-2015 4:33pm

Aard wrote: »

Exactly, and this is where Breda's nice as pie attitude gets my non-spousal goat (thx Claire for that one, once more :pac:). She was very clear in saying that she believes the love between two men or two women is just the same as that between a man and woman. And oh of course she's in favour of civil partnerships, sure we wouldn't want to discriminate against the gays. But marriage.... marriage is an institution.... you're trying to redefine this centuries-old institution....

I can't go on. But yeah. She's very good at being a loving caring mammy type who wouldn't want to hurt the gays at all. I'm surprised we didn't hear that one of her best friends is gay or something along those lines.

The problem is that it's very difficult to pinpoint that subtle fake-niceness. The audience member who used the word "homophobic" got such an OTT reaction that it was comical. Homophobic? Us? Never.

I'd say herself and Keith Mills would probably get on like a house on fire.

Mr.Frame · 23-01-2015 3:28pm

Ronan Mullen was on RTE this morning and AGAIN, he harped on about "every child deserves a mother and father".. he went on and on and on about it ..

It's quite obvious that the Iona LOBBY group have a set script and a plan to purposely distort things.

IF their message is repeated often enough the general public will take it on board .

The YES side really need to get their act together, call the NO group out on things.
I heard another radio programme yesterday in which a caller really did think the referendum was about gay adoption.

Aard · 23-01-2015 5:18pm

Like somebody said above, the general public don't understand this as well as people in this thread might. All they hear is snippets of headlines and soundbites.

Regarding Ronan Mullen, I don't understand why this one person is given so much air time. He's one of probably very few Oireachtas members who actually want to publicly reject the notion of civil marriage equality. He represents about 0.5% of the Oireachtas yet he gets far more than 0.5% of airtime dedicated to TDs/Senators views. Galling.

L1011 · 23-01-2015 5:24pm

Aard wrote: »

Like somebody said above, the general public don't understand this as well as people in this thread might. All they hear is snippets of headlines and soundbites.

Regarding Ronan Mullen, I don't understand why this one person is given so much air time. He's one of probably very few Oireachtas members who actually want to publicly reject the notion of civil marriage equality. He represents about 0.5% of the Oireachtas yet he gets far more than 0.5% of airtime dedicated to TDs/Senators views. Galling.

The requirement to give equal time to both sides results in this happening when there's very few people available from one side.

Dara O'Briain had a routine about this, stating that the logical extension of it is that we need someone from the Flat Earth Society on to rubbish anything anytime there's a space scientist on...

Aard · 23-01-2015 5:37pm

I can understand having to present both sides of the debate. But when it's the same people day in day out, it gets a bit ridiculous. Keith Mills's presence showed that we're close to getting no-camp barrel-scrapings....

L1011 · 23-01-2015 5:46pm

Aard wrote: »

I can understand having to present both sides of the debate. But when it's the same people day in day out, it gets a bit ridiculous. Keith Mills's presence showed that we're close to getting no-camp barrel-scrapings....

I see it as heartening that they can't find anyone else, basically. We're a few people away from having some screeching harridan who looks like she's walked in from shouting at people on O'Connell Strete.

The gay marriage debate on "Clare Byrne Live"

Comments