The gay marriage debate on "Clare Byrne Live"

WoolyJumper

Im sure many of you saw the debate on Monday, i just got done watching it myself nd was shocked to see Breda O'Brien continually bringing up issues that had nothing to do with the debate in hand. Had it been the other way around, IONA would have no hesitation in bringing out the lawyers. I felt it important to make a complaint to the BAI. I'd encourage others to do the same. Its important that we ensure up coming debates are fair and balanced and are actually discussing the issues at hand. Here is a synopsis of what I said.

author wrote:

The show failed to show fairness and balance in regards to the issue being discussed which is the referendum allowing same sex couples to marry. Breda O’Brien continually brought up issues that had nothing to do with the referendum being held in May. She spoke about Adoption, IVF and surrogacy issues which were irrelevant, distracting and misleading to the main issue. There was also a lady in the audience who spoke about her difficulties of being a child conceived of IVF. While I have sympathy for her plight, this had nothing to do with the issue being discussed and was again misleading to the listeners. There may well be problems with current legislation around adoption, surrogacy, IVF and the rights of the child to know their natural born parents. However that is a separate issue for a separate debate and allowing this to be discussed in Same-Sex Marriage debates is distracting and misleading to the listeners. Going forward I think it is important for the host of these debates to insist on sticking to the issues at hand and if the representative cannot do this that they not be invited back to participate in the debate again. It is important that the national broadcaster ensures that this debate remains fair and balanced and that it is not accommodating information that is misleading and irrelevant to the debate and could potentially influence the outcome.

I can't actually link the email address because i'm a new user but you can find it on the Broadcasting Authority Ireland website.

Ten of Swords

Show wasn't bad, but I did notice that nearly all of the audience clapping and cheering happened after Breda or the No side made their points, makes me wonder how many of them were Iona rent-a-friends like that woman caught out near the the end of the show! Good to see her son too, who's opinion was in no way influenced by her at all...

Look, the no side cannot attack it on it's merits so they have to use distraction techniques.

Annasopra

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/dear-nervous-nellies/

WoolyJumper

I'm was already aware of everything that said in that link. Though I think it's no harm in sending an email anyway. And sure i'm nervous. The passing of this referendum is far from guaranteed. It's important there is not too much miss information flying around.

J_E

https://vine.co/v/OjY32lAltnu

The 'I'm not affiliated with Iona' woman was found later on by sleuths on the Internet...

Surprise surprise...

road_high

Ha ha I knew that fruit-loop was familiar...jasus where do they get these people, seriously.

Ten of Swords

J_E wrote: »

The 'I'm not affiliated with Iona' woman was found later on by sleuths on the Internet...

Poor Brendan...

road_high

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Show wasn't bad, but I did notice that nearly all of the audience clapping and cheering happened after Breda or the No side made their points, makes me wonder how many of them were Iona rent-a-friends like that woman caught out near the the end of the show! Good to see her son too, who's opinion was in no way influenced by her at all...

Look, the no side cannot attack it on it's merits so they have to use distraction techniques.

I think the No side by their more fanatical nature and axe to grind are more likely to come out (excuse the pun!) in a debate like this. Which means all the more the imperativeness for getting the Yes side out and voting, as those opposed are more likely to get and vote No such is the nature of their paranoid agenda.

eviltwin

It was great to see Breda lost for words on occasion. I've never seen her wrong footed like that before. She usually has an answer for everything. I thought the gay couple who spoke were just wonderful, so eloquent and sincere. It is hard to find fault with SSM when faced with the human reality of it.

road_high

eviltwin wrote: »

It was great to see Breda lost for words on occasion. I've never seen her wrong footed like that before. She usually has an answer for everything. I thought the gay couple who spoke were just wonderful, so eloquent and sincere. It is hard to find fault with SSM when faced with the human reality of it.

Exactly. And that's how most normal human beings are viewing it too, bearing in mind that most people now have openly gay family or relatives (which Breda likely has too, despite her robot like musings).
If I were gay and related to her by jasus she's be getting an earful off me.

WoolyJumper

eviltwin wrote: »

It was great to see Breda lost for words on occasion. I've never seen her wrong footed like that before. She usually has an answer for everything. I thought the gay couple who spoke were just wonderful, so eloquent and sincere. It is hard to find fault with SSM when faced with the human reality of it.

In fairness to Claire Byrne she did a really good job, she insisted on Breda answering why she was concerned specifically about same sex marriage, which was one of the occasions she became lost for words.

road_high

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Poor Brendan...

I know it was 20 years ago but it would take a really sad old prude to go on national TV and protest about a presumably very tame sex instruction tape. If it bothered you that much love, don't watch it and continue shagging Brendan as normal. Simple really.

road_high

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.

WoolyJumper

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.

I think the opposition realised that Paddy Manning wasn't doing them any favours so they had to find themselves a new "gay man opposed to gay marriage"

J_E

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I think the opposition realised that Paddy Manning wasn't doing them any favours so they had to find themselves a new "gay man opposed to gay marriage"

Paddy and Keith, despite insisting they aren't, really do come across as having a deeply rooted homophobia of their own. At least Keith is collected when he speaks - Paddy is just plain rude and obnoxious.

Annasopra

Keith is very rude and obnoxious on social media

eviltwin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Keith is very rude and obnoxious on social media

What's his second name?

Annasopra

eviltwin wrote: »

What's his second name?

Mills

WoolyJumper

I thought Kieth came across a little rude and obnoxious in the debate as well, especially in the beginning where he basically said Colin Farrell's opinion didn't count because he doesn't live here anymore. Which was funny considering he was more than happy to listen to those who were from England but opposed to same-sex marriage.

J_E

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Keith is very rude and obnoxious on social media

Oh, certainly, but in a less furious way - Paddy is unbelievable in comparison. Practically jumping up and down on the couch sort of frantic. Both of them I strongly disagree with though.

I will note that I felt a little furious at Keith today for saying this-



Reading something like this, from a gay man no less, cuts me far deeper than any of the other arguments or portrayals of our community. It is demeaning, patronising, and unauthentic. For people to bring up this argument, they have some sheer nerve.

road_high

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I thought Kieth came across a little rude and obnoxious in the debate as well, especially in the beginning where he basically said Colin Farrell's opinion didn't count because he doesn't live here anymore. Which was funny considering he was more than happy to listen to those who were from England but opposed to same-sex marriage.

I thought he came across as very rude and abrasive. He shouted down a girl in the audience on one occasion and was focusing on children from the get-go. A very nasty bitter individual with a huge axe to grind.

macyard

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykQAW9Y7Ros

Like the gay right wing FG politician

road_high

macyard wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykQAW9Y7Ros

Like the gay right wing FG politician

Think in light of his recent coming-out it's safe to assume he has mellowed his views somewhat. No-one knows the personal turmoil he may have been going through (this was 6 years ago afterall) and perhaps he was in some self-denial and was this colouring his views on the issue. People are entitled to change their views. Iona and Breda are holding steadfastly to their bigoted view of the world which is more the current issue rather than what Leo said 6 years ago.

feardeas

The debate served to flush the no side out. It is now clear what the arguments will be about. They will not of course be about marriage equality as far as the no side will be. It reminds me of how abortion was brought into every EU treaty debate.

It is now time to prepare for two things 1] Re frame the debate 2] Argue against the points made.

To my mind 1 will be looked after by the passing of the family relationships bill. Constantly reminding people of that and then talking about equality will be good. Talking about rights and love will be helpful as well I'm sure.

If 2 still comes up then we question the credibility if those standing for the rights of children and concerns re parenting. It could be framed as follows:

Iona seems to believe in some kind of fantasy of Ireland of the 50's as espoused by Dev in his address to the nation in 47. Maidens and all that. This is the Ireland where young girls and women were becoming pregnant, where they were being put into institutions and treated in the most inhumane way possible to imagine. Where was the concern for a child's right to knowing their father and mother when children were taken from their mothers and adopted without any real consent.

One could also mention the various reports to abuse in the church. If the argument is made that people can not be held to standards of today for actions 30 or 40 years ago. Well then surely human relationships can not be held to account for views held over 2000 years ago.

Now people may say anger will get us nowhere but there is no harm in tapping into the latent anger that people in their 50s 60s and 70s have towards the church.

A lot of people believe that they missed out on a live and let live values and this might be tapped into.

I hope the campaign will gather rmomentum. This will not be won on Twitter or any other social media. Middle Ireland will need to be won over. It can be done.

Dingle_berry

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I'm was already aware of everything that said in that link. Though I think it's no harm in sending an email anyway. And sure i'm nervous. The passing of this referendum is far from guaranteed. It's important there is not too much miss information flying around.

I would be interested to see what the BAI says about it. Their Code of Fairness, Objectivity & Impartiality
in News and Current Affairs says:

Audiences are entitled to, and do, trust that the news and current affairs content they access from the broadcast media is accurate. Accurate information enables citizens to participate more fully in a democratic society. Accuracy is therefore a fundamental principle associated with the broadcast of news and current affairs content and should always take priority over the speed with which content can be delivered. It is also acknowledged that despite best efforts, inaccurate information can sometimes be conveyed, whether explicitly or implicitly. The principle of responsiveness is designed to ensure that broadcasters adopt fair, timely and appropriate remedies in handling the broadcast of inaccurate information.

(from page 6)

The Objectivity & Impartiality Rules, specifically #17 and #19 would also seem to have been violated by Breda (and the broadcaster by inviting the opinion of the guests who campaign for issues surrounding parenting/adoption/IVF).

It is definitely going to be used by the no campaign to muddy the water and confuse the debate. It will tie up the Yes campaigns time correcting the misinformation rather than arguing in support of equality. I definitely agree with Clare Byrnes point that updating the legislation around parenting is happening too close to this referendum. Though it does have to be done before the referendum.

WoolyJumper

Honestly I doubt much of anything will come of it, but i'll let you know their response if I get one. I'd be happy once with future debates the host ensures that the issues in hand are discussed and it is not constantly derailed with issues around fertility and adoption, in order to try and scare people into voting no. Which let's face it, we've seen this kind of fear mongering in previous Irish referenda and it's worked.

Aard

Claire Byrne is an experienced moderator. She cannot be excused in any way shape or form just because it was her first show. She had total control and decided to go with the contentious topic du jour of civil marriage.

Letting Breda O'Brien on the show was one thing -- letting the monster raving loonies on was another. Keith Mills --Keith who? Is this guy at all influential? I've never heard of him before. Breda was predictable in her obfuscation and nice-as-fukcing-pie tactics.

The audience. Oh my god, Claire, what were you thinking. The IVF woman. Totally irrelevant. I'm so sorry you are emotionally scarred and have several hundred half-siblings you'll never know. But save it for a different debate. And the fact that Claire tried to link that story to Moninne Griffith's child was such a fukcing cod. Jesus Claire, get to know how to properly segue without being prejudicial. Breda's son. Maybe next time the entire family can come on the show for a big pray. The black guy who admitted that his views were due to his faith...I bet the no camp didn't like that particular admission. I actually muted the telly for the old chap it was so vitriolic so I can't comment further. And of course, la piece de resistance herself, Catriona Lynch not representing Iona and definitely not the Community of Nazereth or Sword of the Spirit. I can barely remember what she said, all I recall is arms flailing everywhere.

Claire should've had better control of her audience, and during one of the breaks should have told them to drop it with the clapping. I feel so bad for Lyons, who even said to her that he thought he was invited by RTE to discuss the referendum. Scarleh for Claire tbh.

Daith

Aard wrote: »

I feel so bad for Lyons, who even said to her that he thought he was invited by RTE to discuss the referendum.

I honestly thought he was going to cry at one stage. He gets really emotional. Breda's politeness is a killer.

floggg

eviltwin wrote: »

It was great to see Breda lost for words on occasion. I've never seen her wrong footed like that before. She usually has an answer for everything. I thought the gay couple who spoke were just wonderful, so eloquent and sincere. It is hard to find fault with SSM when faced with the human reality of it.

But they needed a lot more of those forceful push backs against the crap she was spouting.

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

If we let the view that children will be prejudiced by a yes vote go unchallenged, then love alone won't cut it.

floggg

feardeas wrote: »

The debate served to flush the no side out. It is now clear what the arguments will be about. They will not of course be about marriage equality as far as the no side will be. It reminds me of how abortion was brought into every EU treaty debate.

It is now time to prepare for two things 1] Re frame the debate 2] Argue against the points made.

To my mind 1 will be looked after by the passing of the family relationships bill. Constantly reminding people of that and then talking about equality will be good. Talking about rights and love will be helpful as well I'm sure.

If 2 still comes up then we question the credibility if those standing for the rights of children and concerns re parenting. It could be framed as follows:

Iona seems to believe in some kind of fantasy of Ireland of the 50's as espoused by Dev in his address to the nation in 47. Maidens and all that. This is the Ireland where young girls and women were becoming pregnant, where they were being put into institutions and treated in the most inhumane way possible to imagine. Where was the concern for a child's right to knowing their father and mother when children were taken from their mothers and adopted without any real consent.

One could also mention the various reports to abuse in the church. If the argument is made that people can not be held to standards of today for actions 30 or 40 years ago. Well then surely human relationships can not be held to account for views held over 2000 years ago.

Now people may say anger will get us nowhere but there is no harm in tapping into the latent anger that people in their 50s 60s and 70s have towards the church.

A lot of people believe that they missed out on a live and let live values and this might be tapped into.

I hope the campaign will gather rmomentum. This will not be won on Twitter or any other social media. Middle Ireland will need to be won over. It can be done.

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.

macyard

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.

Please go down this line, I want to see the outcome.

Aard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.