Sean O'Rourke Today Show

alaimacerc

padd b1975 wrote: »

Great to hear Clive James sounding so well.

There was a great piece with him a while ago on the UK news (C4 I think?), but he sounded way livelier in this segment with Seanie. Let's hope he manages as many of his plans for the next 100 years as possible!

mickydoomsux

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I would question the term 'poor' here.

We don't know their actual finances. Do we?

Might be a bit surprised Micky.

They were in tallaght credit union getting loans.

Brendan Bendar

mickydoomsux wrote: »

They were in tallaght credit union getting loans.

Is that fact actually definitive, now could be, but hmmmm tells me nowt definitive.

Callan57

Another annual whing fest ... the First Communion extortion :mad:

Call me Al

Limerick would have been in safe hands ��

touts

Call me Al wrote: »

Limerick would have been in safe hands ��

When they came out of the bunker how would they know if Limerick had been hit or not?

padd b1975

Mullally's mid-Atlantic accent is very grating, not to mention her smugness that she's right about everything.

IvyTheTerrible

padd b1975 wrote: »

Mullally's mid-Atlantic accent is very grating, not to mention her smugness that she's right about everything.

Isn't Ben's mid-atlantic accent equally as grating? Or does the level of grating depend on how much one agrees with their views?

padd b1975

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Isn't Ben's mid-atlantic accent equally as grating? Or does the level of grating depend on how much one agrees with their views?

It was her childish sniggering that swung it for me.

Bannasidhe

padd b1975 wrote: »

It was her childish sniggering that swung it for me.

But you had no problem with Ben's inability to talk about the actual topic?

He was flinging out so many red herrings I'm surprised he didn't get fined for over fishing.

neris

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But you had no problem with Ben's inability to talk about the actual topic?

He was flinging out so many red herrings I'm surprised he didn't get fined for over fishing.

thats what the "No" side do in every debate where the good botherers participate - they dont have a justifiable argument

padd b1975

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But you had no problem with Ben's inability to talk about the actual topic?

He was flinging out so many red herrings I'm surprised he didn't get fined for over fishing.

I thought he acquitted himself reasonably well.
I particularly liked his common sense approach to the existing civil partnership legislation and how it has worked fantastically well for lots of gay relationships - the silent majority as I like to call them.

lazygal

padd b1975 wrote: »

I thought he acquitted himself reasonably well.
I particularly liked his common sense approach to the existing civil partnership legislation and how it has worked fantastically well for lots of gay relationships - the silent majority as I like to call them.

But Iona opposed the introduction of civil partnerships, even his own mother. How come he's done an about face on them now?

padd b1975

lazygal wrote: »

But Iona opposed the introduction of civil partnerships, even his own mother. How come he's done an about face on them now?

The Catholic Church is against gay marriage, but lots of individual catholics will vote yes.
I suspect there are also some members of Iona also planing to vote yes on the 22nd.

It's much the same as some gay people saying that they will vote no. When all is said and done it all boils down to the individual.

lochderg

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Oh great, O Gorman talks to poor people in a crap area in Dublin again.

We get it. We should all feel guilty for being "middle class"

it would be nice if Paddy could peruse the financial sectors and probe with some questions to these nice suited gentlemen-
"do you still feel that your remuneration should be so high after getting it all so horribly wrong?" - "do you still think that we're all in it together?" - "have you ever considered questioning our system what with all this pain around?"
"do you ever think that the market is skewed in favour of the few?" "what happened to all that 'sharing is caring' 'respect' & 'love', 'we're all equal in God's eyes' stuff that we learned about for 10 years?" "are we dysfunctional as a species?"-

Bannasidhe

padd b1975 wrote: »

I thought he acquitted himself reasonably well.
I particularly liked his common sense approach to the existing civil partnership legislation and how it has worked fantastically well for lots of gay relationships - the silent majority as I like to call them.

He spoke about things that are covered in the Children and Family Relationships Bill every time he was asked about the Referendum so no - do didn't acquit himself well as he was unable to talk about the actual topic.

As a matter of interest - have you any kind of evidence at all to back up 'civil partnership legislation and how it has worked fantastically well for lots of gay relationships - the silent majority as I like to call them'???

L1011

padd b1975 wrote: »

The Catholic Church is against gay marriage, but lots of individual catholics will vote yes.
I suspect there are also some members of Iona also planing to vote yes on the 22nd.

It's much the same as some gay people saying that they will vote no. When all is said and done it all boils down to the individual.

Iona is about 8 people. All of whom opposed civil partnership but now go on about how great it is.

alaimacerc

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a matter of interest - have you any kind of evidence at all to back up 'civil partnership legislation and how it has worked fantastically well for lots of gay relationships - the silent majority as I like to call them'???

I think it's pretty much code for "with this second-class status you are really spoiling us, Mr Ambassador." As such "evidence" would be practically declassé.

P. Breathnach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He spoke about things that are covered in the Children and Family Relationships Bill ...

Act, Bannasidhe, Act. The Children and Family Relationships Act. He spoke about matters that have already been decided.

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Act, Bannasidhe, Act. The Children and Family Relationships Act. He spoke about matters that have already been decided.

Did Michael D sign it already?
Wasn't sure so I erred on the side of caution.
I stand corrected.

alaimacerc

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did Michael D sign it already?
Wasn't sure so I erred on the side of caution.
I stand corrected.

Done and dusted as of 6 April.

padd b1975

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He spoke about things that are covered in the Children and Family Relationships Bill every time he was asked about the Referendum so no - do didn't acquit himself well as he was unable to talk about the actual topic.

As a matter of interest - have you any kind of evidence at all to back up 'civil partnership legislation and how it has worked fantastically well for lots of gay relationships - the silent majority as I like to call them'???

The uptake of the civil partnership legislation by gay couples is amongst the highest in the EU.
If it's such an inadequate law for gay people why has it not been largely ignored by the gay community?

Gay marriage was always going to be addressed sooner or later, so why have so many couples opted for something gays generally feel is woefully inadequate??

Dare I say it's anything but....

IvyTheTerrible

padd b1975 wrote: »

The uptake of the civil partnership legislation by gay couples is amongst the highest in the EU.
If it's such an inadequate law for gay people why has it not been largely ignored by the gay community?

Gay marriage was always going to be addressed sooner or later, so why have so many couples opted for something gays generally feel is woefully inadequate??

Dare I say it's anything but....

Sooner or later. So how could they have known how long "later" would be? Lots of gay couples took up the PACS system here in France, as a stop gap. It was more than 15 years before gay marriage was introduced here in France.

Callan57

padd b1975 wrote: »

The uptake of the civil partnership legislation by gay couples is amongst the highest in the EU.
If it's such an inadequate law for gay people why has it not been largely ignored by the gay community?

Gay marriage was always going to be addressed sooner or later, so why have so many couples opted for something gays generally feel is woefully inadequate??

Dare I say it's anything but....

Dare I say that's a bit silly. Should a drowning man refuse a teaspoon of water on the basis that it is "inadequate" ... half a loaf better than no bread surely

Bannasidhe

padd b1975 wrote: »

The uptake of the civil partnership legislation by gay couples is amongst the highest in the EU.
If it's such an inadequate law for gay people why has it not been largely ignored by the gay community?

Gay marriage was always going to be addressed sooner or later, so why have so many couples opted for something gays generally feel is woefully inadequate??

Dare I say it's anything but....

Is that a serious question?

Are you really asking why gay couples didn't just say 'ah shure same-sex marriage will be along any decade now darling so let's wait eh. No point rushing into the half measure of civil partnership with it's limited protection when we have waited so long for full protection now is there?'

No. People took what protection they could get while still campaigning for full protection.
Why isn't Civil Partnership good enough?
Two main reasons -
1. It could be repealed by any future government then it's all no more civil partnerships. This cannot happen with marriage.
2. Irish courts take a literal view of what constitutes a 'family' and if it ain't founded on marriage it ain't a family.

If Civil Partnership is sooo fantastic why is there such a campaign to get same-sex marriage?

neris

so its ok for the night staff to stay on duty looking after patients but dangerous go patients if the day nurses go and do some work.

alaimacerc

padd b1975 wrote: »

The uptake of the civil partnership legislation by gay couples is amongst the highest in the EU.
If it's such an inadequate law for gay people why has it not been largely ignored by the gay community?

Just to go out on a limb here, but what would you be saying if it uptake rate were particularly low?

Would it perhaps be on the lines of "they don't even want CP, obviously there's no need for marriage!"

Callan57

Never ceases to amaze me how so-called intelligent, well educated judges can be so callous, insensitive & downright careless in their use of language. Of all people you'd expect them to be ultra conscious of how dangerous words can be.
That judge should manup & apologise unreservedly for the hurt he caused the Buckley family ... shame on him!

padd b1975

alaimacerc wrote: »

Just to go out on a limb here, but what would you be saying if it uptake rate were particularly low?

Would it perhaps be on the lines of "they don't even want CP, obviously there's no need for marriage!"

I would prefer government to see about beefing it up some more to make it attractive to gay couples rather than diluting traditional marriage.

hullaballoo

padd b1975 wrote: »

I would prefer government to see about beefing it up some more to make it attractive to gay couples rather than diluting traditional marriage.

:rolleyes:

You're funny.

RayM

padd b1975 wrote: »

I would prefer government to see about beefing it up some more to make it attractive to gay couples rather than diluting traditional marriage.

In what specific way will giving same-sex couples the right to marry dilute anybody else's marriage?

alaimacerc

padd b1975 wrote: »

I would prefer government to see about beefing it up some more to make it attractive to gay couples rather than diluting traditional marriage.

Fascinating I'm sure, but it doesn't address the point.

Actually... not even all that fascinating. How much "beefing up" would you care for? CP "separate from but equal to" marriage? Or slightly more "equal", but still definitively second class, so they don't get ideas above their station?

Callan57

RayM wrote: »

In what specific way will giving same-sex couples the right to marry dilute anybody else's marriage?

They would have to have fairly insipid marriages to begin with if they are that easily diluted.
Wasn't this the same argument posited when divorce was being discussed?

alaimacerc

Callan57 wrote: »

They would have to have fairly insipid marriages to begin with if they are that easily diluted.
Wasn't this the same argument posited when divorce was being discussed?

Divorce does at least actually change each "instance" of the institution. You don't have to get divorced, but you do have to enter a institution that can, in civil terms, now be terminated. (Let's not get into the morass that is religious annulments.)

Allowing other people to get married while making no changes at all to the terms of all existing marriages, or future marriages that would already have been lawful... that's quite the stretch.

Seems to pretty much be a case of "ew, don't want to be associated with". Very much so in the case of that "very young 43 year old" writing to Mandate for Marriage.

Callan57

Ronan Mullin .... that's my Q to depart to Lyric. Could not take his waffle on a Monday

neris

what a hate filled little man. a biggoted little weasel

neris

mullen getting narky now coz hes getting a dose of his own interupting

neris

is there only mullen and that other pillock breda obrien who are against the marriage referendum? they seem to be the only 2 people on any radio show speaking for the No side

padd b1975

RayM wrote: »

In what specific way will giving same-sex couples the right to marry dilute anybody else's marriage?

It will no longer be a bond based exclusively on the relationship between a man and a woman.

L1011

neris wrote: »

is there only mullen and that other pillock breda obrien who are against the marriage referendum? they seem to be the only 2 people on any radio show speaking for the No side

Keith Mills also turns up.

There was another lad who's name I've forgotten, but after a few media performances so bad they make Terence Flanagan look well prepared it seems they've decided that having him on would be seen as promoting the other side!

padd b1975 wrote: »

It will no longer be a bond based exclusively on the relationship between a man and a woman.

As that doesn't "dilute" anything, you've not answered the question.

padd b1975

L1011 wrote: »

As that doesn't "dilute" anything, you've not answered the question.

That's a matter of opinion really.

If you take something away from something that was the very cornerstone of what it was, then as far as I'm concerned it's been diluted.

Callan57

padd b1975 wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion really.

If you take something away from something that was the very cornerstone of what it was, then as far as I'm concerned it's been diluted.

If it's that easily diluted it can't be very solid to begin with

neris

what was it the corner stone of?

mikom

padd b1975 wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion really.

If you take something away from something that was the very cornerstone of what it was, then as far as I'm concerned it's been diluted.

You sound shook.

alaimacerc

padd b1975 wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion really.

If you take something away from something that was the very cornerstone of what it was, then as far as I'm concerned it's been diluted.

"Taking away the cornerstone" is "diluting" something?

You've just jumbling up metaphors at this stage. If you take away a cornerstone of something, it doesn't get "diluted", it collapses. And this cornerstone is... "no gays allowed?"

Seems pretty survivable to me. And pretty non-dilutey, too.

RayM

padd b1975 wrote: »

It will no longer be a bond based exclusively on the relationship between a man and a woman.

How would that dilute it? You don't seem capable of directly answering anybody's questions. Since you don't appear to have any actual arguments against marriage equality, maybe you should consider voting 'yes'.

neris

I think we may have found Ronan Mullens biggoted Northern cousin or long lost sister

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-candidate-wants-gay-people-jailed-adultery-made-illegal-and-rock-bands-outlawed-31176105.html

Callan57

Michael Colgan: "sending a ballet critic to review a cage fight" brilliant!
He has me on the floor laughing, an absolute tonic on a miserable morning.:)

Any chance RTE would drop MLOD and give us Mr Colgan every week?
I very nearly missed him because I was late changing back after having to go to Lyric to avoid herladyship. :mad:

CountyHurler

Callan57 wrote: »

Michael Colgan: "sending a ballet critic to review a cage fight" brilliant! He has me on the floor laughing, an absolute tonic on a miserable morning.:)

Not usually a huge fan of Colgan, as I find him a bit arrogant, but he was very funny today... And I liked the way he didnt let political correctness get in the way of giving his honest opinions about the book.

Particularly liked his line... "Sean, this book is called The Woman Who Stole My Life... And that is the name that I have now given to the woman in RTE who handed me this book to review". Brilliant..

Callan57

Someone should give Noonan a fisherman's friend