The gay marriage debate on "Clare Byrne Live"

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

Sadly this is the truth.

I didn't watch the debate as my father was watching it, I'd find it too uncomfortable. I did look up "Coming out of the Curve" on the RTE player but to be honest only watched 20 or so minutes.. didn't grab me.

Anyway back to the "regular viewer", I was on my way to a maths Grind and my Dad was driving me- out of no where he just goes "what do ya make of the gays marrying?". Now, I was a little debased at the start but I think I explained why I'm pro marriage equality fairly eloquently and why i thought he should vote yes too (He doesn't know I'm gay btw).

Then it was his turn to speak. "They can't help it I suppose, it's a sickness", "sad how many of them are around really", "you'd feed sorry for 'em". I was actually delighted to hear these sympathetic noises coming from so i said "Yeah, but i don't think they'd want your pity, they'd want the right to marry"
"No, they'll start adopting and its not a suitable set-up for children. Children need a mother and a father, its only natural".........

floggg wrote: »

No offense, but an angry railing against historic wrongs would not be an effective strategy.

People who are angered by various church and other wrongs regarding the family etc are already like to lean to the yes side. It's the traditionalists who are more inclined to vote no, and attacking the traditional structures they still value will backfire.

I think we need to engage on the points, but to counter them and show why a yes vote is actually good for children and families. I think focusing on children being raised by same sex couples and how they will be prejudiced by a no vote would be far more effective.

None taken, the late hour might explain it. There are all manner of strategies that can be taken. I think as many of them as possible should be taken.

If at all possible the bill and referendum should be de coupled. Also I would imagine that the adoption agencies will continue to use the strictest criteria as is only right.

I think it would be good for people who have been raised by same sex couples to speak out if they wish to.

May seems a long way away.!!!!!!!!!!!

While we are going to be voting on a new subsection to Article 41, we are not voting for a new institution called same sex marriage, or gay marriage, we are voting on marriage equality, it is **vitally* important that proponents use this terminology only.

Sex and gay are to some extent inflammatory words to certain soft no voters that can be won over.

The standard referendum ballot format would give the paper to read:

^ And let's face it -- most of the time it wasn't the Referendum that was being discussed on CBLive.

Aard wrote: »

Which Varadkar cleared up in the past couple days, so we can stop quoting him out of context and trying to paint him in a particular light. Let's move on.

Even if those quotes were in context, there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds. I mean, we've seen the Bishops go from claiming civil partnerships will ruin marriage and gays should remain chaste to saying they don't oppose same-sex relationships being covered by law (as long as it's not marriage). Why are we so surprised that a politician has changed his mind?

Tony91 wrote: »

Like you WoolyJumper I was worried when I heard the loud clapping from the no side. However when the camera cut to the no side and they were clapping, there were only a handful there clapping - particularly Breda's son, he was almost beating his hands together clapping. That's my opinion anyway from what I saw.

That's it exactly. My heart sank at the applause given to random tangents from Breda and then when it did pan to the audience, you could see what was in essence the majority of her family and friends it seems, clapping like seals.

It really bothers me that LGBT people have to put up with these outlandish passive aggressive "debates". Hopefully in years to come, on Reeling in the Years we'll look back at the Iona bridage as a dark spot on what will otherwise hopefully be a very positive year of change.

floggg wrote: »

I am also amazed that out of the 4 debates I've heard, nobody has challenged them on the bull**** insinuations that gay couples are going to be able to take children away from their natural parents.

They fear litigation. At this stage that's all I can put it down to.

floggg wrote: »

I am also amazed that out of the 4 debates I've heard, nobody has challenged them on the bull**** insinuations that gay couples are going to be able to take children away from their natural parents.

They're clever enough to make those insinuations in a way that's easy to deny if called on it. They're all very practiced at being offended at the idea that they were disparaging someone; they're just stating their sincerely held opinion.

These people have no shame. Don't think for one second they'll play by the same rules as everyone else.

I think our problem is that we're not sure yet what the best approach is when presented with this. If we're too confrontational, then we come off as aggressive, and they gain the listeners/viewers sympathies. And we don't want to seem too evasive when presented with the question of "Don't children deserve a mother & a father".

Aard wrote: »

Check out the no side on Claire Byrne. They're all well-connected, well-educated, well-heeled Southsiders. Barristers and accountants. They know what they're doing and how to get what they want. They're very well organised and have money and time to burn.

You can't litigate an opposing argument in a debate though, especially if that argument is factually correct.

The only case they would have is if a Yes campaigner outright called them liars, in which case they would possibly have a defamation case - though that would still be a difficult case to make, and the defences of truth or honest opinion would be available.

Iona and Co are also smart, and they would know spuriously litigating every and any comment they don't like would be a PR disaster, especially after the Pantigate row.

They are trying very hard to establish themselves as the real victims of homophobia so aggresive legal bullying would undermine all of that.

Ash885 wrote: »

But the board of management of any school acts in unison on these matters so I'm sorry but I do. Hence the frustration from the Principal when contacted by outside reporters as the decision does lie heavily on their involvement. And sorry but when groups like Iona get so much broadcasting time in comparison to their actual followers, I do think these uncertain voters can easily be swayed by them because of their very mentality of scaremongering.

Even if the board acts in unison (a board like that will rarely have unanimous agreement on any matter though), that doesn't mean they are part of, instructed by, or representative of any formal no campaign.

In fairness to Iona, they are rather clever, and are never outwardly homophobic or attacking LGBT people. They hide behind arguments based around children, while offering nice platitudes and sound bites about how tolerant they are, how much they support civil partnership and lgbt rights (even if they have always opposed them heretofore) and how many gay friends they have.

They are also smart enough to know they can't win on the issues, so they are trying to make this debate about anything but LGBT relationships - which goes own very well with undecideds.

If in doubt, undecideds will vote no, and Iona are trying to sow as much doubt on red herring issues as possible.

Ash885 wrote: »

That hit the nail on the head. Do people take the risk in ignoring them in the hope they cry out to empty ears? It does seem sometimes when the liks of Breda get's everyone hot-headed that she seems more reasonable with her "calm nature".

No, we can't ignore them. Their message will mobilise their core (who will vote), and sow doubt and confusion in the minds of undecideds and even some supporters. We need to counter them clearly and concisely, and ensure we mobilise our supporters en masse.