Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

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.

Phibsboro

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.

The idea that allowing same sex marriage changes marraige into its opposite just doesn't make sense. The opposite of marriage would be to ban recognition of couples' relationships, not to extend that recognition to other couples.

Annasopra

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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)

The civil registration act could be amended potentially but that would likely be unconstitutional because
A the paragraph on protecting the institution against attack and
B Case law - Zappone/Gilligan in the High Court.

symbolic

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,

Would it not be more like.. Some people not being allowed to have a car and others are. Then we change the law so everyone can have a car (because of equality) so the people who currently have a car still have a car after the law change. Everyone's happy?

superfurry1

What was up with claire byrnes hair last night?

sarkozy

Last night was infuriating. Not because of the clunky format and depressing colour scheme, I expect that of RTE, but the debate.

Very enlightening, though. Now the anti-equality has shown its referendum strategy: to confuse the issue of marriage equality with adoption and surrogacy. These issues are related, but they're analytically and legally distinct, not causally connected and only marriage equality is up for referendum. The strategy is to sew confusion and prejudice among Ireland's more conservative citizens.

The anti-equality's logic is: marriage is for men and women, children have a right to a mother and a father and only a man and women bringing up a child together can provide the correct environment as the fundamental basis of our society. Since gay couples cannot conceive together due to biological reasons, this will create a nightmarish situation in which two same-sex parents will never be able to provide the correct environment and under new adoption/surrogacy legislation, parents will never be allowed to 'know their biological parents'.

Now, my thought is if we're to apply the anti-choice argument fully then the following situation must apply:

• Single parents (due to separation, divorce, death) must give up their children to a heterosexual couple who can bring them up correctly, but the child can, if they wish, can 'know their biological parent'
• All heterosexual parents who acquired a child through surrogacy, for example, from commercial surrogacy services in India, must ensure their child 'can know their biological parent' and give it up if required
• All surrogacy should be banned
• All adoption should be banned and children placed in facilities run by the state, religious organisations, etc. or deported to another jurisdiction

mewso

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,

A better analogy would be if only men were allowed ride bikes and we had a referendum to allow women to ride them too. Once passed men could continue to ride bikes and call themselves cyclists regardless of women partaking of the same pleasure.

When I see people claiming all sorts of things that will happen if SSM is passed I'm always reminded of that great pie chart:-

Tigger

superfurry1 wrote: »

What was up with claire byrnes hair last night?

looked like a wig

david75

Claire Byrne: Are you concerned about same-sex marriage?

Breda O Brien: *silence* … Sorry? I don’t understand.



that's all we need to know about her. Too busy derailing the debate at hand into fear mongering territory.

JP Liz V1

Is Colin Farrell on every week, defo will tune in if he is

david75

Im still baffled about the comment from the African chap..equality will open the door to polygamy and bestiality?? excuse me??

also, i dont know but i'm fairly certain that chap as with most non nationals resident in Ireland, wouldnt even be allowed vote in this referendum would he?
ive pals from Scotland, Australia etc, living here 20+ years some of them, who arent eligible to vote, so is it more of RTE trying to appear to be 'balanced' by allowing such a wackadoodle comment?

gladrags

Tonight should be a cracker.

Gerry Adams and Joan Burton go head to head,apparently.

At 10:35

"I have to say"

gladrags

gladrags wrote: »

Tonight should be a cracker.

Gerry Adams and Joan Burton go head to head,apparently.

At 10:35

"I have to say"

.

mzungu

gladrags wrote: »

Tonight should be a cracker.

Gerry Adams and Joan Burton go head to head,apparently.

At 10:35

"I have to say"

If this is anything like Joan's face off's with Sinn Fein in the Dail, this one could get a bit heated.

Un Croissant

A more straightforward question but a totally stupid process.

efb

This amarach poll is stupid

Atlantic Dawn

Gerard sporting a nice tweed suit.

CountyHurler

Oh Joan, I'm bored already... Just reading dispassionately from the autocue like she's doing a book report for school..

Gits_bone

Watching this for the first time.

Looks good!!!

Claire Byrne is so fit.

Un Croissant

I hate the Irish thing. Bla bla national language. It strikes of tokenism.

Roger_007

I wish Gerry would stop murdering the Irish language!

hotmail.com

Is there some kind of compulsory quota of Irish that Sinn Feiners have to say in media performances?

efb

hotmail.com wrote: »

Is there some kind of compulsory quota of Irish that Sinn Feiners have to say in media performances?

AFAIK Gerry isn't fluent

Un Croissant

Nasty bloodshot eye in the background.

Gits_bone

Un Croissant wrote: »

Nasty bloodshot eye in the background.

Nice totty all the same.

Atlantic Dawn

We have a lot to thank Lehman Brothers for, if they didn't collapse the problems would have been much worse.

Atlantic Dawn

They cut the dole for the under 25's did they not?

Un Croissant

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

They cut the dole for the under 25's did they not?

Yep. 100 a week I think.

efb

I'll never vote SF

efb

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

They cut the dole for the under 25's did they not?

IF THEY GO BACK TO TRAINING THEY KEEP IT DON'T THEY?

take everything

Claire Byrne looks amazing.

Roger_007

Gerry DOES look a bit like Santa Clause!

Un Croissant

Joan blasts off early.

efb

Roger_007 wrote: »

Gerry DOES look a bit like Santa Clause!

???

Roger_007

Un Croissant wrote: »

Yep. 100 a week I think.

That's €100 a week for doing nothing!

Gits_bone

efb wrote: »

IF THEY GO BACK TO TRAINING THEY KEEP IT DON'T THEY?

Junior C's?

take everything

Fur taxes now?
Ah FFS.

efb

Gits_bone wrote: »

Junior C's?

Retraining

Atlantic Dawn

efb wrote: »

IF THEY GO BACK TO TRAINING THEY KEEP IT DON'T THEY?

As far as I know they don't, all new claims were reduced.

efb

take everything wrote: »

Fur taxes now?
Ah FFS.

Stole from the rich???

Gits_bone

I'm liking this.