The gay marriage debate on "Clare Byrne Live"

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.

Aard · 23-01-2015 6:57pm

My worry is that people might actually identify with such mná sí.

Deranged96 · 23-01-2015 8:51pm

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".........

Aard · 23-01-2015 9:41pm

It's very possible for mass media and tge internet to give an impression of acceptance of homosexuality across Ireland. I don't believe the 76% in favour opinion polls. Irish people will just say what they think people want to hear. But in private, many if not most Irish people retain the oldfashioned view of homosexuality. The Young Dubs who are tolerant and all over twitter will not vote in the same numbers as their aunts and uncles across the country. Tolerant urbanites are complacent and will take as a given that shure nobody could hold such backward views.

Well done for trying to persuade your dad to vote yes. I don't envy your position. It's people like you that will pass the referendum -- by educating the old guard from which Dubliners are largely isolated. No pressure huh. This will be close vote and I believe it will fail due to a low turnout from complacent yes-supporters.

feardeas · 24-01-2015 12:23am

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.!!!!!!!!!!!

ninty9er · 24-01-2015 12:41am

**Soft voice**

"But Breda, of the 6 mentions of Marriage in Article 41, 5 of them reference divorce. Surely adding a contracting subsection to marriage is surely a positive move"

ninty9er · 24-01-2015 1:03am

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:

An bhfuil tú ag toiliú leis an togra chun an Bunreacht a leasú atá sa Bhille thíosluaithe
Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015

An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Comhionannas
Pósta), 2015

Ná chuir marc ACH SAN AON CHEARNÓG AMHÁIN
Place a mark in ONE SQUARE ONLY

MÁ THOILÍONN TÚ chuir X sa chearnog seo
IF YOU APPROVE mark X in this square

MURA DTOILÍONN TÚ chuir X sa chearnog seo
IF YOU DO NOT APPROVE mark X in this square

Mr.Frame · 24-01-2015 6:17pm

We have to keep reminding people especially the undecided voters or uneducated no voters that the referendum is NOT about gay adoption..

It's about whether or not we wish to allow gay and lesbian people the same right to marry as heterosexual people.
That's it in a nutshell..

Unfortunately the Iona group and others are purposely muddying the whole debate by saying its about "gay " adoption ,, IT IS NOT

The family and childrens relationships Bill will address matters regarding all other issues that will affect both heterosexual and homosexual people.,,ie adoption, surrogacy, ivf. ect ect

The no groups are basing their campaign on fear and mistruths , we need to call them out on that .

Jack Nana · 24-01-2015 6:43pm

road_high wrote: »

And the "I'm a gay man but oppose gay marriage as I believe a child should have a mammy and a daddy...." gays that these crowd roll out in each debate is getting seriously old at this stage.

Well Leo is one of those judging from that after hours thread on his 2009 Dail speech about adoption

Aard · 24-01-2015 7:53pm

Jack Nana wrote: »

Well Leo is one of those judging from that after hours thread on his 2009 Dail speech about adoption

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.

WoolyJumper · 24-01-2015 7:54pm

Jack Nana wrote: »

Well Leo is one of those judging from that after hours thread on his 2009 Dail speech about adoption

Leo has already stated that he was taken out of context and therefore supports allowing same sex couples apply for adoption. So either he was taken out of context or he was one of those gays and has since become more accepting of himself and has changed his views (been known to happen). Either way what matters is what his opinion is now. I dont really understand why Iona thinks its such a big deal could some how move the debate in their favour.

I never thought i'd spend so much time defending a fine gael politician...

Ozymandius2011 · 24-01-2015 7:57pm

Does anyone know whether RTE are applying the McKenna Judgement/Coughlan Judgement to the composition of the audience? For example is it 50:50 yes-no? If so I think they are taking it too literally. I don't recall such treatment of the Lisbon issue, which in the second referendum RTE made a statement that 50:50 airtime would not apply this time but it wouldn't be a benchmark for future referendums.

Aard · 24-01-2015 7:59pm

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

Annasopra · 24-01-2015 8:03pm

Mckenna judgement was about funding

WoolyJumper · 24-01-2015 8:05pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Does anyone know whether RTE are applying the McKenna Judgement/Coughlan Judgement to the composition of the audience? For example is it 50:50 yes-no? If so I think they are taking it too literally. I don't recall such treatment of the Lisbon issue, which in the second referendum RTE made a statement that 50:50 airtime would not apply this time but it wouldn't be a benchmark for future referendums.

I'm kind of hoping that was the case on CBlive because i heard a lot of clapping to the no side arguments and it honestly had me worried. If RTE went out of it's was to have a 50:50 audience then it would make more sense

Ozymandius2011 · 24-01-2015 8:07pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Mckenna judgement was about funding

Yes but the Coughlan Judgement was about airtime - or rather that it said broadcasters have give balanced coverage. The McKenna Judgement could be considered related insofar as RTE is using taxpayer's/license payers money to broadcast.

NuMarvel · 24-01-2015 9:32pm

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 · 25-01-2015 1:49am

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I'm kind of hoping that was the case on CBlive because i heard a lot of clapping to the no side arguments and it honestly had me worried. If RTE went out of it's was to have a 50:50 audience then it would make more sense

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.

Ash885 · 25-01-2015 4:48pm

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 · 26-01-2015 9:09pm

Just listened to the morning Ireland debate last week, and I have to say it's both heartening and chilling at the same time to see how Breda O'Brien are resorting to naked attempts to muddy the waters and make this referendum about anything other than the issues.

Her closing remarks were a blatantly obvious attempt to stir about the anti-establishment vote, effectively saying that if all the political parties are in favour, then that's a good reason to be against it.

This is going to go very ugly and very dirty.

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.

Aard · 26-01-2015 9:59pm

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 · 26-01-2015 10:48pm

Aard wrote: »

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

I don't see any scope for litigation on that whatsoever.

It's such a bull**** attempt at scaremongering, it's ridiculous.

NuMarvel · 26-01-2015 11:30pm

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 · 27-01-2015 3:32am

floggg wrote: »

I don't see any scope for litigation on that whatsoever.

It's such a bull**** attempt at scaremongering, it's ridiculous.

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.

floggg · 27-01-2015 8:03am

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 · 27-01-2015 8:23pm

Given the recent controversey over that secondary school and public reaction to said issue, does anyone reckon the No side are themselves losing the debate with their idiocy? Not being complacent, but they really aren't hiding their ignorance one bit.

J_E · 28-01-2015 9:07am

I find the way people talk about the 'No side' and 'Yes side' a little like US games of Conservatives v Liberals. There are set campaigns for either vote but the majority of people fall on a spectrum in terms of what they think and feel about homosexuality and gay marriage. There is probably one person on the board who made that decision regarding the school, I wouldn't consider that person to then be representative of a whole coordinated group. I don't think the intelligence of the general public is so low as to take groups like Iona terribly seriously, the only thing that would really sway a vote is uncertainty.

Ash885 · 28-01-2015 6:12pm

J_E wrote: »

I find the way people talk about the 'No side' and 'Yes side' a little like US games of Conservatives v Liberals. There are set campaigns for either vote but the majority of people fall on a spectrum in terms of what they think and feel about homosexuality and gay marriage. There is probably one person on the board who made that decision regarding the school, I wouldn't consider that person to then be representative of a whole coordinated group. I don't think the intelligence of the general public is so low as to take groups like Iona terribly seriously, the only thing that would really sway a vote is uncertainty.

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.

J_E · 28-01-2015 7:35pm

The main reason Iona get so much airtime is because they are one of the few groups that actually have a degree of traction on their viewpoint and can hold a debate up, not to mention any show with them on is guaranteed popularity and heavy discussion. As long as people stop to take notice and discuss them in detail, they will continue to get said airtime.

Ash885 · 28-01-2015 8:08pm

J_E wrote: »

The main reason Iona get so much airtime is because they are one of the few groups that actually have a degree of traction on their viewpoint and can hold a debate up, not to mention any show with them on is guaranteed popularity and heavy discussion. As long as people stop to take notice and discuss them in detail, they will continue to get said airtime.

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".

floggg · 29-01-2015 9:35am

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.

ongarboy · 29-01-2015 10:34am

Agreed. Undecideds will most often stick with the status quo and therefore, they are the biggest challenge for the referendum...along with complacency of liberal minded people who assume the Yes vote will pass no problem and therefore feel they don't need to vote.

J_E · 30-01-2015 2:10am

floggg wrote: »

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.

You make it sound like a military operation... this is the sort of thing that makes certain groups of Yes supporters look rabid.

Daith · 30-01-2015 9:26am

J_E wrote: »

You make it sound like a military operation... this is the sort of thing that makes certain groups of Yes supporters look rabid.

I think there's rabid people on both sides to be fair.

Iona have a greater advantage in that they are a small organisation but who's presence on the media is vast. It's easier for them to be on the one page and speak with one voice.

I'm not sure about a military operation but I think there does need to be some coordination between the various Yes groups.

Imagine a person being asked about the referendum by
a USI student
a Yes Equality person
a LGBT Noise person

and all getting slightly different answers?

floggg · 04-02-2015 11:46am

J_E wrote: »

You make it sound like a military operation... this is the sort of thing that makes certain groups of Yes supporters look rabid.

No, it's not a military operation but it is unfortunately a political one.

Often just as messy.

Annasopra · 04-02-2015 10:13pm

J_E wrote: »

You make it sound like a military operation... this is the sort of thing that makes certain groups of Yes supporters look rabid.

Thats politics. You have to engage politically or else the campaign will fall apart.

jobbridge4life · 05-02-2015 1:58pm

J_E wrote: »

You make it sound like a military operation... this is the sort of thing that makes certain groups of Yes supporters look rabid.

Oh no a group of people organizing effectively and campaigning with enthusiasm for a right the rest of the country takes for granted! How uncouth and frightening.

murph82 · 07-02-2015 9:38pm

Trust me thankfully ireland is not ready for gay marriage,why do gay people need marriage to be recognised as a couple,personally marriage is an institutiion between a man and a woman,of course if passed gay couples will move onto the next step which is gay adoption,no campaigners are right to raise this fact,to say otherwise is blatant lies,this is evident from what they originally wanted to where we are today,originally they just wanted civil partnership,never happy with what they have,always want more,i feel the media is completely one sided on this debate,blatantly obvious,newspapers to the media,the no side are potrayed as dinosaurs living in the past,ireland is not ready for it,i am 32 and personally feel it is wrong,it is natural for a man and a woman to have kids,nature did not intend same sex couple to have kids,if this was the case woman would be able to conceive by themselves and vice versa,the result will be very close but unfortunately for the yes side the older generation will come out in force,your average yuppy wont care enough to go out and vote.

Deranged96 · 07-02-2015 9:45pm

murph82 wrote: »

Trust me thankfully ireland is not ready for gay marriage,why do gay people need marriage to be recognised as a couple,personally marriage is an institutiion between a man and a woman,of course if passed gay couples will move onto the next step which is gay adoption,no campaigners are right to raise this fact,to say otherwise is blatant lies,this is evident from what they originally wanted to where we are today,originally they just wanted civil partnership,never happy with what they have,always want more,i feel the media is completely one sided on this debate,blatantly obvious,newspapers to the media,the no side are potrayed as dinosaurs living in the past,ireland is not ready for it,i am 32 and personally feel it is wrong,it is natural for a man and a woman to have kids,nature did not intend same sex couple to have kids,if this was the case woman would be able to conceive by themselves and vice versa,the result will be very close but unfortunately for the yes side the older generation will come out in force,your average yuppy wont care enough to go out and vote.

I hate to break it to you but Ireland is ready for it.
We were once like the Ukraine of Western Europe but thanks be to God {except I don't actually mean God} that we as a country have evolved over the last 20 odd years into a modern and civilised people who respect human dignity.

No disrespect to the Ukrainians

murph82 · 07-02-2015 9:51pm

What do you mean when you say we were once like ukraine,and ''thanks be to God {except I don't actually mean God''
by the way im normally very good at calling referendums,looks like i will be right again,we shall see on may,dont get me wrong i could be wrong but i doubt it

Icefan · 07-02-2015 9:58pm

murph82 wrote: »

Trust me thankfully ireland is not ready for gay marriage,why do gay people need marriage to be recognised as a couple,personally marriage is an institutiion between a man and a woman,of course if passed gay couples will move onto the next step which is gay adoption,no campaigners are right to raise this fact,to say otherwise is blatant lies,this is evident from what they originally wanted to where we are today,originally they just wanted civil partnership,never happy with what they have,always want more,i feel the media is completely one sided on this debate,blatantly obvious,newspapers to the media,the no side are potrayed as dinosaurs living in the past,ireland is not ready for it,i am 32 and personally feel it is wrong,it is natural for a man and a woman to have kids,nature did not intend same sex couple to have kids,if this was the case woman would be able to conceive by themselves and vice versa,the result will be very close but unfortunately for the yes side the older generation will come out in force,your average yuppy wont care enough to go out and vote.

Punctuation (or lack of it) aside, you seem to be confused. Gay people are currently eligible to be CONSIDERED for adoption as individuals in the same way that straight married couples or individuals are.

The new Children and Families Relationship bill will mean that gay couples will for the first time be CONSIDERED for adoption and will become law whether the Marriage Equality referendum passes or not.

So if you want to do your "Won't someone think of the children" routine you really should be getting in contact with your TD.

The gay marriage debate on "Clare Byrne Live"

Comments