Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

FixdePitchmark

United Chester Men wrote: »

You are one of these people who laughs at his own attempts at "jokes" it would appear. A great spokesman for whatever exactly you believe in..............

Do you take yourself that serious.

I responded - to a direct overused sentiment in this debate.

Are we saying Yes to no laughs now too :eek:

Mr.Nice Guy

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd say - Son , don't give into popular flawed fads. Be right when you are right - stay by what is right.

you came from a Mum and Dad, don't worry, it was the norm once. We decided to form a family and made every sacrifice possible for you, when family was considered uncool and a bit bigoted and un-intellectual and weak.

There is a civil partnership - I fought for that to be equal to marriage - but (cough cough ) we all know two men can't have kids. I know in 2015 they tried to say they could - "I know""you know - the bad days", you know, it was a daft moment that undermined the true needs and put the movement back 20 years,

Son - " what were they thinking".
Dad - " I guess if you are repressed for too long, you lose sight of - of what do we want, we want to be the same"
Son " But - Dad, we have a great family - I know me and Leo can't have kids - we love each other as much as you and Ma, you two love us , but - we are not the same as the family we had"
Dad " I know - this family is different, but we support you in everything you do"
Son " Thanks Dad"
Son " You know we are applying for adoption"
Dad " Lucky little ****er - you'll make great parents" - " Well your ma will help with the girl stuff"
Son " Dad I ****ing love you"
Dad " **** off you queer - lol"
Son " You biggot "
Dad " Don't bleeding start"


Anyway - this idea we can be all equal is daft.

But we can still treat people equally.

"But Dad, you say you sacrificed everything for me, yet you can't bring yourself to sacrifice your ideological view of marriage in order to see me and my partner be happy. Why is that?

"I want to be married. I want you to give me away during a wedding ceremony, not a civil partnership ceremony. Why not fight for that instead of fighting to make a civil partnership more special?

"One could fight to ensure that segregated toilets in Alabama in the 50s were of the same standards of quality and freshness as each other - but they are still segregated, are they not?

"End the segregation, Dad. I appeal to your sense of decency and compassion."

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Do you take yourself that serious.

I responded - to a direct overused sentiment in this debate.

Are we saying Yes to no laughs now too :eek:

ha ha

FixdePitchmark

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

"But Dad, you say you sacrificed everything for me, yet you can't bring yourself to sacrifice your ideological view of marriage in order to see me and my partner be happy. Why is that?

"I want to be married. I want you to give me away during a wedding ceremony, not a civil partnership ceremony. Why not fight for that instead of fighting to make a civil partnership more special?

"One could fight to ensure that segregated toilets in Alabama in the 50s were of the same standards of quality and freshness as each other - but they are still segregated, are they not?

"End the segregation, Dad. I appeal to your sense of decency and compassion."

" Son - are you for real , Your listening to the cause too much - to go on about the blacks, is a bit crazy"

" Gay culture and its position in society, even 20 years ago , is a bit crazy, to think they are black - sure North Dubs were blacks in 1988"

" I just think - you know , you and your nice mates should get together and say - ok , we can't have kids , we don't have a worry about , health and tax and **** in nappies and school and children's health care - maybe let them be protected - sure they raised us"

" Ok - I guess you are right dad - how long did you walk me to school , 8 ****ing years son"

" interesting - me and Leo are going to Greece on holiday"

"Enjoy son"

Mr.Nice Guy

I'm not sure if we got anywhere with that thought experiment but I hope yourself and anyone that may be leaning towards a No will at least pause to reflect on the human cost that a rejection could bring about.

FixdePitchmark

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm not sure if we got anywhere with that thought experiment but I hope yourself and anyone that may be leaning towards a No will at least pause to reflect on the human cost that a rejection could bring about.

No cost.

I think all yes voters have to consider the damage they have done to the true bridges built.

I think to reject the hand of friendship is one of the most aggressive acts that can ever be done.

So - The way the Yes side have conducted themselves will not be forgotten.

lownhard

SpaceTime wrote: »

Never thought I'd say this but Coveney came across extremely well

Ah lads....even my Yes voting friends said he was embarrassingly poor. If it was a school debate it would have been a unanimous loss for him. He was a lightweight...a bit like Chris Donoghue on NT....classic lightweight.

We all hear what we want to hear....on both sides.

The polygamy issue is used to illustrate the point that we are all "bigots" in some shape or form. I am sure that the vast majority of the population (gay and straight) would be against pluralist marriages....in essence, we are all "bigots" in the eyes of our polygamist brothers and sisters. Or think of the plight of the homosexuals who are advocating a No Vote....they must be bigots too. We all draw the line somewhere on marriage....just because the line is more to the right page for some than others doesn't make them any more or less bigoted than someone who draws the line further left. Not a referendum issue, granted, but an issue that has come to light from the nastiness of this campaign. Newsflash....Gays are "bigots" too.

5uspect

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are you for real.

A few studies - change our constitution.
Every study - has another study to disprove a study.

You clearly have no idea how research works.

Dan_Solo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

No cost.

I think all yes voters have to consider the damage they have done to the true bridges built.

Not that I particularly want to build bridges with most of the No camp, but I'm voting yes because it's right. Nothing at all to do with the "Yes campaign" whether you have issues with them or not.

hotmail.com

lownhard wrote:

The polygamy issue is used to illustrate the point that we are all "bigots" in some shape or form. I am sure that the vast majority of the population (gay and straight) would be against pluralist marriages....in essence, we are all "bigots" in the eyes of our polygamist brothers and sisters. Or think of the plight of the homosexuals who are advocating a No Vote....they must be bigots too. We all draw the line somewhere on marriage....just because the line is more to the right page for some than others doesn't make them any more or less bigoted than someone who draws the line further left. Not a referendum issue, granted, but an issue that has come to light from the nastiness of this campaign. Newsflash....Gays are "bigots" too.

Just how many people are voting No because of prejudice, dislike and ignorance of gay people, particularly gay men? It's the elephant in the room and the key issue I think.

P_1

Mullen would give an aspirin a headache.

Anyone considering voting no should have a look at this piece of common Kiwi sense.

Cerveja

Thought Claire Byrne was very poor as a host, she simply wasn't commanding enough & was struggling to get her questions out.

Thought the No side let themselves down with their over-reactions after almost every sentence that came out of Ronan Mullen's mouth.

And was not impressed with Coveney, as felt he was holding back too much

?Cee?view

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes gang deserve a good kicking after such a campaign.

And right there you've made your position crystal clear.

United Chester Men

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The problem the NO side have is - they are all bloody nuts.

But right.

If you are that passionate about the NO vote and keeping the 1930 definition of what a family is intact you should leave the debating to more informed and endearing advocates to fight "the cause" because you certainly are talking nonsense.

FloatingVoter

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The problem the NO side have is - they are all bloody nuts.

.

But nuts remember to vote. Divorce barely scraped past in the 90s because of the same cadre of reactionary planks.

The problem the YES side have is - they are all bloody complacent. I'll lay money half the kids of Ireland will be too busy organising the celebratory piss-up to remember to cast a vote.

circadian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

No cost.

I think all yes voters have to consider the damage they have done to the true bridges built.

I think to reject the hand of friendship is one of the most aggressive acts that can ever be done.

So - The way the Yes side have conducted themselves will not be forgotten.

I think a genuine friendship involves tolerance, acceptance and compromise.

How exactly is the no campaign offering any of these? A Yes result would have minimal impact on this opposing the bill, yet, a No result would have a greater impact on the other side.

If a Yes vote genuinely had a serious impact on people in the No camp then I could understand the unwillingness to compromise, but it doesn't. There is absolutely no genuine reason for not showing tolerance and compromise.

It is the No camp that is rejecting the hand of friendship.

United Chester Men

circadian wrote: »

I think a genuine friendship involves tolerance, acceptance and compromise.

How exactly is the no campaign offering any of these? A Yes result would have minimal impact on this opposing the bill, yet, a No result would have a greater impact on the other side.

If a Yes vote genuinely had a serious impact on people in the No camp then I could understand the unwillingness to compromise, but it doesn't. There is absolutely no genuine reason for not showing tolerance and compromise.

It is the No camp that is rejecting the hand of friendship.

This is not even anything about a hand of friendship, a compromiise, a settlement!!! It just shows how ignorant and full of false superiority a lot of the No voters are. It is about equality and accepting society as it is now. Forced marriages and loveless marriages out of convenience were the order of the day alot of the time back in the days (and well beyond) of the drafting of the constitution when racism, sexism, bigotry and domestic violence was seen as normal part of society. When homosexuality was a crime. Noone questioned a family when the husband bet his wife and/or kids.

The religion aspect of family is derived from a "mystical" book drawn up by one of the most corrupt and questionable society regimes for centuries long. I am a Catholic, out of faith but I have logic also and without need to cause offence, the religious facade are in no position to define what is a family. Indeed noone is but those who consider themselves a family.

So much insecurity and false notions of superiority by No voters who are stuck in the past.

FloatingVoter

It takes an awful lot for the like of me, Gilmore, and Trampoline Adams to agree on anything - but YES heads....arise from your beds on Friday week and vote. It may be raining, you may be hungover, you may be so cool that asking the little old lady at the polling booth how you go about voting is beneath you......learn. Vote.

I've seen these "so many people for it, my vote won't matter" go to the wire.

Let Dave Cameron's victory last week in the UK be a lesson to you all. Loudmouths and malcontents count for nothing. Middle England put on it's wellies and umbrellas and now rule for five more years. Fair play to them. Do the same.

United Chester Men

FloatingVoter wrote: »

It takes an awful lot for the like of me, Gilmore, and Trampoline Adams to agree on anything - but YES heads....arise from your beds on Friday week and vote. It may be raining, you may be hungover, you may be so cool that asking the little old lady at the polling booth how you go about voting is beneath you......learn. Vote.

I've seen these "so many people for it, my vote won't matter" go to the wire.

Let Dave Cameron's victory last week in the UK be a lesson to you all. Loudmouths and malcontents count for nothing. Middle England put on it's wellies and umbrellas and now rule for five more years. Fair play to them. Do the same.

You have made a few comments about the type of people who vote Yes, why is that?? You seem to think that a lot of them are unemployed, non informed, alcoholic lazy hippies essentially?

FloatingVoter

United Chester Men wrote: »

You have made a few comments about the type of people who vote Yes, why is that?? You seem to think that a lot of them are unemployed, non informed, alcoholic lazy hippies essentially?

I'm speaking from experience. The divorce referendum in 1995 was to the wire. At the time I was 21 and out and about dropping leaflets and being a little activist. On the day itself, I made the ballot box by minutes. Some of my counterparts didn't. It was a scare.

I have full faith in all of those who turn up and vote yes, no, or spoil the vote before or just after work / school run / dole queue / drugs run. Busy people tend to remember to do things. I also have full faith that the NO vote will be martialled and bussed to the ballot boxes with free sandwiches afterwards.
Plan for that.

United Chester Men

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I'm speaking from experience. The divorce referendum in 1995 was to the wire. At the time I was 21 and out and about dropping leaflets and being a little activist. On the day itself, I made the ballot box by minutes. Some of my counterparts didn't. It was a scare.

I have full faith in all of those who turn up and vote yes, no, or spoil the vote before or just after work / school run / dole queue / drugs run. Busy people tend to remember to do things. I also have full faith that the NO vote will be martialled and bussed to the ballot boxes with free sandwiches afterwards.
Plan for that.

Bus runs and sandwiches??? I am pretty sure those who vote no, in the majority, will do so without a fuss whilst the Yes voters will be out in force. It means a hell of a lot more for a Yes result to those voting Yes than a No result to those voting No. Who said that Yes voters aren't busy people?? This isn't a liberal tree hugging v middle class referendum. Whilst I agree that there are a lot of silent voters, segregating voters into groups or "types of people" like you seem to have done in a couple of your comments is ignorant to who exactly is on either side.

FloatingVoter

United Chester Men wrote: »

Bus runs and sandwiches??? I am pretty sure those who vote no, in the majority, will do so without a fuss whilst the Yes voters will be out in force. It means a hell of a lot more for a Yes result to those voting Yes than a No result to those voting No. Who said that Yes voters aren't busy people?? This isn't a liberal tree hugging v middle class referendum. Whilst I agree that there are a lot of silent voters, segregating voters into groups or "types of people" like you seem to have done in a couple of your comments is ignorant to who exactly is on either side.

I've checked your previous posts. You're a YES person. Check mine - you'll find the same. Do the entire campaign a favour and stop using hot button words like segregation, liberal, middle class to put people in boxes. Stop starting arguments where there are none. You do nobody any favours.

United Chester Men

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I've checked your previous posts. You're a YES person. Check mine - you'll find the same. Do the entire campaign a favour and stop using hot button words like segregation, liberal, middle class to put people in boxes. Stop starting arguments where there are none. You do nobody any favours.

Are you serious?? My posts have been extremely pragmatic and logical. Any "hot word " I used was in response to an extremist remark and wasn't just thrown in for sensationalism . I just didn't like how you attempted to rouse the Yes voters by telling them to get over their hangovers and get out of bed to vote. If that isn't generalising, I don't know what is. Whether you are a Yes voter or a No voter, is irrelevant. Your remark was offensive, whether intentionally or not. I was picking you up on this point alone. We can leave it there as I would prefer.

If you have a particular issue with any of my posts I would gladly attempt to clarify/justify them for you.

United Chester Men

P.s. lets please not turn this into a petty pointless argument. I was just taken aback with your comment. I accept I jumped the gun a bit. We should leave it there.

CreepingDeath

circadian wrote: »

I think a genuine friendship involves tolerance, acceptance and compromise.

It is the No camp that is rejecting the hand of friendship.

Friendship my arse..
Much like the Dublin bus drivers are "extending the hand of friendship" to the Dublin bus and the labour courts... it's purely for their own agenda.

United Chester Men wrote: »

It just shows how ignorant and full of false superiority a lot of the No voters are....i.

So much insecurity and false notions of superiority by No voters who are stuck in the past.

False superiority ?
Being heterosexual means your body, gender and sexuality are aligned in such a way that you are much more likely to succeed in reproducing, just as natural/biology/MILLIONS of years of evolution intended.

Every single person on this planet can trace their parents and parents parents, all the way back to the beginning of mammal life on this planet through a series of male and female parents.

It's hard not to feel that the LGBT community (well maybe not the bisexuals), are at a disadvantage in this specific respect.
So when it comes to marriage and raising families, heterosexuals DO have a natural advantage and the advantage of complementary and contrasting parenting roles.

If the yes side believe in tolerance and diversity, then having a same sex couple sounds quite intolerant.

(I actually thought I could be clever and invent the phase "mono-sexual" couple, but that just means not bisexual... someone used it already, damn them!)

Un Croissant

Claire almost nailed him but let him wriggle free

Un Croissant

I see that Alex White didn't make the cut.

RayM

It's amazing the way, just like William Binchy, Patricia Casey, etc, his professional opinions just happen to match his religious beliefs. Given how important they obviously are to him, isn't it odd that he didn't mention those beliefs even once during that interview?

Atlantic Dawn

Commercial surrogacy needs to be banned, he's right.

Slicemeister

I don't believe him when he says there'll be legislation against commercial surrogacy.