nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

bazermc

RTE.ie on front page says 9:35pm

EPG says 10:35pm

I guess as long as Claire knows what time she is on at........:P

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Oops69

efb wrote: »

#€€€€

The owner and founder of Blackrock /Galway and Hermitage clinics is one of The Patrons of Iona institute , just so you know .

eviltwin

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So if we had a referendum that a bike is now called a car - and all that had a car must now have a bike , because the people who did not have a car felt it was unfair - so from now on all with a car should be on a bike only,

Again - this is a referendum going to the Irish people.

Coming with an attitude , not respecting the institution of marriage , saying , get over yourself we want that too. Your insecure

This is in real trouble as an approach - watch this space.

And also , if you question it - oh, your homophobic too :rolleyes:

Is that honestly how the debate and referendum will be won.

This is not like the X-Factor , you are trying to change a Union between a man and a woman , just because we want it too.

Sorry lads , try harder.

How is a bike a car? What a stupid analogy. As Joey said nothing is changing, it's just open to be more inclusive. You know the way we changed to allow women join certain professions or to let non Catholics go to certain schools and things like that?

BlaasForRafa

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That's a bit like saying that there a lot of drunk drivers, so drug driving is OK. The present existence of people making a mockery of marriage is not a valid justification for allowing a further set of people to make a mockery of marriage.

Who says that gay people will be making a mockery of marriage?

And exactly why would gay people getting married be a mockery anyway? Be as detailed as you like now.

Oops69

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd say it will be 40 % Yes - 60 % no

We kind of got that message form your earlier " arguments " , for want of better word . Autosuggestion isn't going to work on here , I think you're trying it out on the wrong audience love , God bless.

Un Croissant

Car is a bike. Car, bike, bike, bike, car.

I vote yes!!

FixdePitchmark

eviltwin wrote: »

How is a bike a car? What a stupid analogy. As Joey said nothing is changing, it's just open to be more inclusive. You know the way we changed to allow women join certain professions or to let non Catholics go to certain schools and things like that?

Ok - I'll try harder.

It is like Richard Dawkins wanting to become a priest - because we all have a right to be everything you know.

Anyway - if this is going to be the tone of explanation to the public, not a chance in hell this will be passed.

I know this is Boards, not that important to the public debate, but the pro argument on that show tonight were a joke.

Annasopra

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So if we had a referendum that a bike is now called a car - and all that had a car must now have a bike , because the people who did not have a car felt it was unfair - so from now on all with a car should be on a bike only,

Again - this is a referendum going to the Irish people.

Coming with an attitude , not respecting the institution of marriage , saying , get over yourself we want that too. Your insecure

This is in real trouble as an approach - watch this space.

And also , if you question it - oh, your homophobic too :rolleyes:

Is that honestly how the debate and referendum will be won.

This is not like the X-Factor , you are trying to change a Union between a man and a woman , just because we want it too.

Sorry lads , try harder.

Your argument is that the institution of marriage cannot change just because.

This is a non argument because marriage has constantly changed and evolved

* We bought in divorce
* We decriminalised marital rape
* We allowed couples the legal right to contraception
* We lifted bans on wives working
* We lifted the age from 12 year old girls legally marrying

Your argument is that marriage cannot change because it is what it is. The serious problem with that is marriage has constantly changed and evolved.

efb

@NicholasYenson: Why is the Iona Institute like the Dolmio adverts?
They're both still using outdated, mildly offensive puppets.
#CBLive

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Changes to the age of marriage is a mere technicality and of no relevance to this debate.

No. The argument is that marriage cannot change because it is what it is and has never changed. This is simply untrue.

Sheldons Brain

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your argument is that the institution of marriage cannot change just because.

This is a non argument because marriage has constantly changed and evolved

* We bought in divorce
* We decriminalised marital rape
* We allowed couples the legal right to contraception
* We lifted bans on wives working
* We lifted the age from 12 year old girls legally marrying

Your argument is that marriage cannot change because it is what it is. The serious problem with that is marriage has constantly changed and evolved.

This things are mere adjustments, not changing marriage into its opposite.
Marriage has existing in human society for aeons and has not meant same sex relationships, whereas the availability of divorce or the age of marriage have varied from place to place and at different times.

FixdePitchmark

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your argument is that the institution of marriage cannot change just because.

This is a non argument because marriage has constantly changed and evolved

* We bought in divorce
* We decriminalised marital rape
* We allowed couples the legal right to contraception
* We lifted bans on wives working
* We lifted the age from 12 year old girls legally marrying

Your argument is that marriage cannot change because it is what it is. The serious problem with that is marriage has constantly changed and evolved.

Except in all (ALL) above it was a man and a woman.

I think people may notice this one.

A bike is a bike
A car is a car
A marriage is a marriage

There is a difference between evolving and making something extinct.

Oops69

Is the fixe mppitchmak gone yet? typical vocifrous bigoted remarks in those posts , did they exhume ian Paisley ?

AtomicHorror

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd say it will be 40 % Yes - 60 % no

Not a hope, not even close.

BlaasForRafa

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Except in all (ALL) above it was a man and a woman.

I think people may notice this one.

A car is a car

Except when it's a ute ...or a pickup.... or a van .... or a station wagon .... or a people carrier.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There is a difference between evolving and making something extinct.

Straight marriage isn't being abolished you know.

AtomicHorror

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Except in all (ALL) above it was a man and a woman.

A 12 year old girl is not a woman. That should not need to be pointed out to you.

FixdePitchmark

Oops69 wrote: »

Is the fixe mppitchmak gone yet? typical vocifrous bigoted remarks in those posts , did they exhume ian Paisley ?

Stick stuff like that on a poster - stick up on a lamp post. "IF YOU SAY NO _ YOU ARE A BIGOT"

Watch the No vote fly up.

Seriously flawed referendum - must look up who came up with wording to go to public, was it done here on boards - or in a pub with a focus group.

FixdePitchmark

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not a hope, not even close.

What are the polls like ?

AtomicHorror

I think we should push for a referendum to enshrine forever in the constitution that;

1. bicycles are a kind of car.
2. marriage is between a man and a woman or a man and a bicycle, which is a kind of car.
3. you are obliged to marry a bicycle. Which is a kind of car.

kupus

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How could you tell if the TD was saying the truth or not, it would need to be backed up with a lie detector test where pictures of fine men or women were presented infront of each and their reactions noted.

Might as well call it the claire byrne does jermery kyle show.
Well it worked for 8 out of 10 cats does countdown.

AtomicHorror

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

What are the polls like ?

Last I check, No might get 27% if the undecided are split down the middle. If the undecided all swing conservative, as undecided often are, No might scrape 32%. Given the direction the government are suddenly fawning, they know full well which way this is going too.

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This things are mere adjustments, not changing marriage into its opposite.
Marriage has existing in human society for aeons and has not meant same sex relationships, whereas the availability of divorce or the age of marriage have varied from place to place and at different times.

This absolute nonsense that marriage has never changed is just that nonsense.

There have been many different forms of marriage over centuries. This includes as well same sex unions within Christianity.

The arguments being put forward by yourself and fixdepitchmark are non arguments that can be completely demolished. Placard proclamations from yourselves dont change anything.

Marriage can change and has changed and evolved over many centuries.

LGBT people are merely looking for the extension of civil marriage to include them. We are not looking to destroy anything or mock anything.

The deep irony of all of this is that heterosexuals are falling out of love with marriage and are marrying less and gay couples marrying will actually strengthen the institution.

Phibsboro

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Changes to the age of marriage is a mere technicality and of no relevance to this debate.
.

The institute of marriage has definitely been redefined quite radically over the last century or so, mainly in the area of the woman's rights within marriage. Marriage as it developed in western Europe was effectively a contract, establishing the man's property rights in the woman. The woman had very few rights of her own without her husbands permission. It was as recently as the 1970's that Irish women were forced to leave civil service jobs when they got married; up until 1975 women in Spain required their husband's permission to open a bank account, own property, travel abroad - all of that has been redefined since then in various marriage related acts. More recently still, the idea that a woman can refuse consent to sex within a marriage has been established (the idea that a woman could be raped by her husband just wouldn't have made sense to someone 50 years ago because the then definition of marriage saw the man's rights as paramount).

Another recent example is the allowing of inter-race marriages - laws banning such marriages were only ruled unconstitutional in the US in 1967.

Going back further, you get really quite radical redefinitions - the whole idea of the state being involved in marriage at all is relatively recent (early 19th centruy for UK), prior to that it was mainly a religious notion with some attempts at registering by the state. At various times polygammy was acceptable (and in fact still is in large parts of Africa and the Middle East).

And so on... Our current status quo isn't as traditional or as long lived as you might think.

retro:electro

I thought Claire did a great job. Much prefer her to Miriam. Hope she gets the independent success she deserves.

Wellyd

This sounds like the most stupid question ever but maybe someone can explain it to me. If in irish law, marriage isn't specifically defined as being between a man and a woman then why can't two men or two women just get married now?

Spanish Eyes

We haven't got a wording for this referendum yet.

That is why the debate is becoming fractious to an extent.

And while I for one am not against SSM, until I see the referendum wording, then I can really parse and analyse all the nuances of this topic.

I did note that the Dr from the UK said that the takeup of SSM in the UK after the law was changed was tiny. She made it sound like gay people wanted to get their own way, and once they did, they forgot about it.

It will be a fascinating debate for sure.

I think the No side actually sowed the seeds of doubt and FEAR, which is not good for the Yes side I think.

Still, a week is a long time in politics I suppose.

Phibsboro

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Stick stuff like that on a poster - stick up on a lamp post. "IF YOU SAY NO _ YOU ARE A BIGOT"

Watch the No vote fly up.

Seriously flawed referendum - must look up who came up with wording to go to public, was it done here on boards - or in a pub with a focus group.

For someone who is extremely progressive, this whole thing appears to have taken you by surprise! The referendum has been brewing for years with various constitutional reviews moving towards it since 2003/4 and it finally being recommended by the constitutional convention in 2013.

As for the wording, you'd be hard pressed to look up who came up with it as we don't actually have the wording yet! The department of justice will announce it, presumably at the same time we get a definite date for the referendum.

Spanish Eyes

Wellyd wrote: »

This sounds like the most stupid question ever but maybe someone can explain it to me. If in irish law, marriage isn't specifically defined as being between a man and a woman then why can't two men or two women just get married now?

I think it has been defined in case law as being man/woman. So the constitution needs to be amended if it is to include SS.

Annasopra

Wellyd wrote: »

This sounds like the most stupid question ever but maybe someone can explain it to me. If in irish law, marriage isn't specifically defined as being between a man and a woman then why can't two men or two women just get married now?

It is specifically defined in law in the Civil Registration Act as being between a man a woman. It is argued to change this law a constitutional referendum is needed because the constitution says the "state shall protect the institution of marriage against attack" although many people also argue a constitutional amendment and referendum are not needed.

And so we are having a referendum on it.

Spanish Eyes

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is specifically defined in law in the Civil Registration Act as being between a man a woman. It is argued to change this law a constitutional referendum is needed because the constitution says the "state shall protect the institution of marriage against attack" although many people also argue a constitutional amendment and referendum are not needed.

And so we are having a referendum on it.

So the Government of the day can absolve themselves of having legislated for it. If it passes...

(Why can't the Civil Registration Act be amended to include SSM?....see above)

david75

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This things are mere adjustments, not changing marriage into its opposite.
Marriage has existing in human society for aeons and has not meant same sex relationships, whereas the availability of divorce or the age of marriage have varied from place to place and at different times.

humanity or if you dont understand, the human species, has not been around for aeons. Look up the measure of an aeon before you make a bigger fool of yourself.