Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

Akrasia

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Mammys, mommys, mummys somewhere in the world there just has to be mimmys and memmys.

I call my mitochondrial DNA supplier 'Mother' in a creepy adams family voice

It started as a joke, and now I can't go back

Kiwi in IE

Akrasia wrote: »

I call my mitochondrial DNA supplier 'Mother' in a creepy adams family voice

It started as a joke, and now I can't go back

I actually call mine that too. Was mummy when I was a little kid, mum as a teenager and as an adult it's become mother said in a silly voice.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

But that's not all things being equal now, is it?

All things will never be equal and it would be absurd to make adoption policy on the assumption they will be.

Why should adoption law state one factor which should be given priority and how would it be implemented?

Why is marital status more important than any other factors? Why do married couples have some sort of advantage?

How, if at all, is the preference to be applied in real life cases where all things are never equal.

Should a couple who got married less than a Year before after a very short engagement be considered better for some reason than an unmarried couple who were together 15 years?

Why?

floggg

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is supported very much so by the following facts:

A child has never been born yet on this earth that didn't have a biological mother and a father. This still holds true, that not one single child has been conceived by same sex parents, despite billions and billions of humans having been born on earth since time began.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that there is a natural, biological, human bond that exists between two parents and their biological child, and I see no reason why we should not hold up this model of child rearing and human reproduction, as the most suitable and most proficient approach for pro creation and rearing children. The vast majority of humans born into this world in developed countries, are raised very successfully by their biological parents. Notwithstanding the fact that there can be circumstances that this is simply not possible due for example to the premature death of one or both parents, or where a single mother might put a child up for adoption because she feels unable to give her child the proper support that it might require.

While this SSM referendum technically has nothing to do with child adoption, this is only because this government deliberately took out aspects of the institution of marriage (namely the decision to "have" children which most people consider to be the next step after a wedding), so that people wouldn't have a say on whether it is right or wrong that a gay couple can "have" a family. The government know that there is no way people would vote for this, so as we all know, they separated out everything to do with a gay couple being allowed to adopt children and have a family, and stuck it into a separate bill that people DON'T have a right to vote on! Then they present the SSM referendum wording and say, "hey, this has nothing to do with children!"...

If you take a bit of altitude on the totality of what is happening here, it's an extremely cute move on the part of the government, you can have a vote on the subject by way of a referendum, but a lot of the substantive issues are not dealt with by way of a referendum, they have been separated out into a separate bill that people will not have a right to vote on!

I'm still undecided on SSM, I could well vote for it on the day, but what I take serious exception to is being told that childran have got nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, whether that be marriage between a fertile man and a woman, an infertile man and a woman, or a gay couple.

This is where I have the issue, that an increasingly aggressive gay lobby are now trying to tell people that there is no connection, either explicit or implied, between the institution of marriage, and the creation of children.

The fact that we appear to not be allowed discuss the concerns that are out there, concerns such as why would we as a society allow a couple whom nature has determined can never conceive children under any circumstance, to start a family. Concerns such as what will happen when without an imminent change in the law, there are far more couples wanting to adopt a child, than there are children who require adoption, what impact will us normalising gay families by way of SSM, gay families I believe will want to have children, have on this situation? Are we going to import these babies or what are we going to do?

No doubt I will be lambasted for holding a contrarian view on all of this, but as I have said, my biggest concern in this whole debate is that those who are not fully signed up to "2015 for Equality", and who have normal and natural human concerns about this massive step we are taking here, get shouted down, sneered at, ridiculed, and abused by an increasingly aggressive and ironically an increasingly intolerant, gay lobby in this country.

The only thing your "fact" supports or evidences is the gender requirements for sexuality reproduction in humans. It proves nothing in relation to marriage - which is not required in any way to reproduce, or a state which can itself result in reproduction.

If that's the best you can do to support your argument, then you clearly have no argument.

Also, the whole martyr plea about debate being shut down is absurd given the amount of posts you made arguing your case without being shut down - not to mention the disproportionate media representation given to the no side.

Again, countering your arguments or deconstructing them isn't shutting down debate - it's winning it.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That doesn't actually sound too bad tbh. Otherwise it sounds like you're arguing for change in the law just for the sake of it, mix things up a bit like a social experiment, rather than a change in the law to reflect the changing structure of the family* in society, because current laws have been shown to be insufficient and inadequate to reflect and to meet the needs and requirements of Irish society.




*"Family" as interpreted by the Irish Constitution, which is the actual definition that needs to be expanded**, which is why the whole "changing the definition of marriage" argument should be a non-starter. There isn't one, at least no definition of marriage in the Irish Constitution.

**That whole "special position of a woman in the home" nonsense was alright when the Constitution only recognised heterosexual relationships too. However, clearly it doesn't reflect the dynamics of modern Irish society.

Not really sure if you are serious with your first statement. I would hope not.

padd b1975

BMJD wrote: »

it sounds to me like this Fiddly Hands Eames chick just needs a good ride

Grow up.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

Not really sure if you are serious with your first statement. I would hope not.

I genuinely don't see a problem with it if that is how some people choose to live their lives and they are happy in living that way in a way which works for them. They have the same right to live that way as someone who chooses a different life for themselves, no?

Kiwi made no mention of any negative aspects to that sort of family dynamic. It's simply a different family dynamic from one which for example you or I would choose for ourselves (well, not too dissimilar to my current family dynamic), not too sure about what family dynamic you would choose, but the important point is that you should have that right to choose.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't see a problem with it if that is how some people choose to live their lives and they are happy in living that way in a way which works for them. They have the same right to live that way as someone who chooses a different life for themselves, no?

Kiwi made no mention of any negative aspects to that sort of family dynamic. It's simply a different family dynamic from one which for example you or I would choose for ourselves (well, not too dissimilar to my current family dynamic), not too sure about what family dynamic you would choose, but the important point is that you should have that right to choose.

So you agree that people who dont want to live a nice nuclear family life with mummy staying at home should have the right to do so as well?

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you agree that people who dont want to live a nice nuclear family life with mummy staying at home should have the right to do so as well?

Of course?

I'm not sure what caused the confusion there really. Are there not already families in which an alternative dynamic to the nuclear family exists already, and society hasn't fallen apart at the seams, in fact it's become much more diverse.

The problem though is that the law in this area is outdated and so these families are not given the same recognition by the State as the nuclear family?

People are entertaining the "what if?" arguments, as if these families don't already exist in society? They do, and that's where I was coming from in pointing out the way that Kiwi put it as though marriage equality was in any way related to the nuclear family dynamic. It isn't, and arguing it that way is simply playing right into the hands of the people who are suggesting that marriage equality is a threat to the nuclear family.

K4t

My name is URL wrote: »

I've seen stinking piles of shite that were more charming than that woman.

She'd still get it though. . .

I remember during the fatal foetal abnormality furore she came out with the classic Mother Theresa adage that "life is full of suffering" with a faithful grin.

ohnonotgmail

K4t wrote: »

She'd still get it though. . .

I remember during the fatal foetal abnormality furore she came out with the classic Mother Theresa adage that "life is full of suffering" with a faithful grin.

That was certainly true for those people in her "care"

Redmen Rafalution

This woman is hilarious. What an idiot!

Tombi!

Mod:The state of how attractive she is has nothing to do with the thread.
So stop.

K4t

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Mod:The state of how attractive she is has nothing to do with the thread.
So stop.

It would probably be a more valuable thread than this tbh..

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't see a problem with it if that is how some people choose to live their lives and they are happy in living that way in a way which works for them. They have the same right to live that way as someone who chooses a different life for themselves, no?

Kiwi made no mention of any negative aspects to that sort of family dynamic. It's simply a different family dynamic from one which for example you or I would choose for ourselves (well, not too dissimilar to my current family dynamic), not too sure about what family dynamic you would choose, but the important point is that you should have that right to choose.

I have no issues with families/couples deciding their own roles, and if a woman chooses to carry out traditional roles and functions thats her choice.

What I do have issue is with women being expected to assume those roles, a husband (or wife) acting as head of the household and making all decisions rather than being an equal partner, or children being brought up to believe that a womans role is as a subservient home maker.

That was the description described, and it is not something I see as a desirable family stucture. Even if a woman is happy to defer to her husband by choice, I would object to any daughter being raised to believe she should do so herself once married or in a relationship.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

I have no issues with families/couples deciding their own roles, and if a woman chooses to carry out traditional roles and functions thats her choice.

What I do have issue is with women being expected to assume those roles, a husband (or wife) acting as head of the household and making all decisions rather than being an equal partner, or children being brought up to believe that a womans role is as a subservient home maker.

That was the description described, and it is not something I see as a desirable family stucture. Even if a woman is happy to defer to her husband by choice, I would object to any daughter being raised to believe she should do so herself once married or in a relationship.

I guess the whole point of being in a relationship would be that these decisions are made before the couple gets married, and if they, like yourself, are not amenable to the idea, they're not forced to marry each other, a bit like the way marriage equality for LGBT people doesn't mean that heterosexual people will be forced to marry people of the same sex. It's clearly not for them.

I wouldn't judge them for that though, nor would I judge them for how they choose to raise their children, as long as the children are healthy, happy and feel loved by their parents.

deeks

LordNorbury wrote: »

This is where I have the issue, that an increasingly aggressive gay lobby are now trying to tell people that there is no connection, either explicit or implied, between the institution of marriage, and the creation of children.

But there isn't.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/40-per-cent-of-babies-born-outside-marriage-29539976.html

The above link details how over 36% of children born in Ireland are born outside wedlock. This is before SSM etc and nothing to do with the so-called "gay lobby". Some people want to get married and some don't. Some want to have kids and some don't. Some are straight and some are gay.

The SSM referendum has absolutely nothing to do with children so can we stop trying to muddy the waters. It boils down to one question and one question only - should two people who love each other be allowed to get married. Simple as that!

conorh91

deeks wrote: »

The SSM referendum has absolutely nothing to do with children

Funnily enough, when the question is asked "why is civil partnership inadequate?", the usual response is to claim that family protections available to children who reside with the same-sex couple are insufficient.

In fact, that claim is true.

To then advance a claim that the upcoming referendum has nothing to do with children is fundamentally dishonest. The definition of the so-called "constitutional family" will be amended by default.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Funnily enough, when the question is asked "why is civil partnership inadequate?", the usual response is to claim that family protections available to children who reside with the same-sex couple are insufficient.

In fact, that claim is true.

To then advance a claim that the upcoming referendum has nothing to do with children is fundamentally dishonest. The definition of the so-called "constitutional family" will be amended by default.

Children and Family Relationship Bill. This deals with what you are talking about. Therefore, to say that the referendum does not deal with children is true.

I think I'm just going to have this statement saved somewhere so I don't have to keep typing it out on this thread.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I guess the whole point of being in a relationship would be that these decisions are made before the couple gets married, and if they, like yourself, are not amenable to the idea, they're not forced to marry each other, a bit like the way marriage equality for LGBT people doesn't mean that heterosexual people will be forced to marry people of the same sex. It's clearly not for them.

I wouldn't judge them for that though, nor would I judge them for how they choose to raise their children, as long as the children are healthy, happy and feel loved by their parents.

I have no reservations in saying I will judge the **** out of any person who raises their daughter to believe she is less than, less capable or less entitled just because of her gender.

You're marriage equality analogy is a ridiculous comparison. Raising a child to believe they are lesser isn't a legitimate parental choice. Its a form of child abuse.

And I also don't believe any woman raised in such an environment could be said to freely choose a similar family structure for herself when she grows up. Unfortunately if you are told that you are less than or unequal often enough you start to believe it.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

Children and Family Relationship Bill. This deals with what you are talking about. Therefore, to say that the referendum does not deal with children is true.

The statutory protections afforded to children residing with same-sex couples would be lesser than that which will be afforded through the galvanizing effect of the constitutional amendment; the effect will be further enhanced by impeding challenges to the constitutionality of the CFR Bill, should the amendment be carried.

floggg

conorh91 wrote: »

The statutory protections afforded to children residing with same-sex couples would be lesser than that which will be afforded through the galvanizing effect of the constitutional amendment; the effect will be further enhanced by impeding challenges to the constitutionality of the CFR Bill, should the amendment be carried.

Any specific examples of where you see constitutional difficulties or are they just assumed??

StewartGriffin

floggg wrote: »

Even if a woman is happy to defer to her husband by choice, I would object to any daughter being raised to believe she should do so herself once married or in a relationship.

floggg wrote: »

And I also don't believe any woman raised in such an environment could be said to freely choose a similar family structure for herself when she grows up.

Here you are saying that the daughter's future choices are massively influenced by the role model of a mother. And if that role model is positive, the outcome will be just as positive for the child.

So, how can you say if there is no mother it will have no effect?

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

I have no reservations in saying I will judge the **** out of any person who raises their daughter to believe she is less than, less capable or less entitled just because of her gender.

You're marriage equality analogy is a ridiculous comparison. Raising a child to believe they are lesser isn't a legitimate parental choice. Its a form of child abuse.

And I also don't believe any woman raised in such an environment could be said to freely choose a similar family structure for herself when she grows up. Unfortunately if you are told that you are less than or unequal often enough you start to believe it.

But here's the thing - nobody suggested there was anyone who was less than anyone else, or that anyone was subservient to anyone else? I don't know where you got that from as I certainly didn't get it from Kiwi's post?

Nobody suggested that anyone was less capable or less entitled to anything by virtue of their gender, and nobody suggested anything about raising a child to believe they are less than anyone else (and I also disagree with you throwing in the term 'child abuse' there tbh).

Why do you think a woman couldn't freely choose to be a homemaker if she was raised in an environment where her own mother or another woman in her life had influenced her in that respect?

I certainly don't view my wife as subservient or less than anyone or less capable than anyone else in society. She herself though believes that her work is not appreciated by society, and I've often disagreed with her on this point, but I can see now where she gets it from - because some people in society actually do believe a woman is incapable or is of less value in society if she chooses to be a homemaker.

I can see now too where you're coming from when you say that being told you are less than or unequal often enough you start to believe it. You only start to believe it because you want to believe it, rather than question it.

If I were to believe that I would be impeded by certain circumstances in life and I hadn't questioned those circumstances, I probably wouldn't have thought of myself as capable of anything. I also don't believe in entitlement to anything, as I believe that responsibility towards other people is more important than entitlement. Entitlement is a reward system, not a privilege system.

As my mother used say to me growing up, when I wanted something -

"Don't mind what anyone else has, you make your own case as to why you think you are entitled to... whatever".

I apply the same principle to arguing for marriage equality for people who are LGBT - don't mind what people who are heterosexual have, argue the case for marriage equality on how it benefits people who are LGBT, and not just because people who are heterosexual are allowed be married or because it's "the right thing to do" or "because it's fair" or anything else.

kunst nugget

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Here you are saying that the daughter's future choices are massively influenced by the role model of a mother. And if that role model is positive, the outcome will be just as positive for the child.

So, how can you say if there is no mother it will have no effect?

S/he's saying raising a child while enforcing negative gender stereotypes could have an impact on their future wellbeing and personal development. Raising a child to not pander to traditional roles set out for them but instead choose the path that fulfills them most can be done by any of the parenting combinations you can possibly think of.

StewartGriffin

kunst nugget wrote: »

S/he's saying raising a child while enforcing negative gender stereotypes could have an impact on their future wellbeing and personal development. Raising a child to not pander to traditional roles set out for them but instead choose the path that fulfills them most can be done by any of the parenting combinations you can possibly think of.

No, read the quotes, s/he's saying that a daughter who sees her mother being treated/behaving a certain way will most likely follow that example.

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

S/he's saying raising a child while enforcing negative gender stereotypes could have an impact on their future wellbeing and personal development. Raising a child to not pander to traditional roles set out for them but instead choose the path that fulfills them most can be done by any of the parenting combinations you can possibly think of.

What exactly is negative about them? Actively fighting against them is something I would consider more damaging to a person than recognising that they have a mind of their own and that they don't have to "pander" as you put it, to MY ideas of "negative" gender roles.

Anything else IMO is simply an adult living vicariously through their own child and foisting their issues with society upon their children. I couldn't support that sort of idealism among adults, let alone children tbh.

Other than that, yes, I do agree that any combination of gender is capable of raising a child to be a functioning member of society that contributes to that society rather than being more focused on what they are entitled to as a member of that society.

kunst nugget

StewartGriffin wrote: »

No, read the quotes, s/he's saying that a daughter who sees her mother being treated/behaving a certain way will most likely follow that example.

I read the quotes and I answered the question in a more general sense - negative gender stereotyping doesn't only apply to women. What issue do you have with what I said?

StewartGriffin

kunst nugget wrote: »

I read the quotes and I answered the question in a more general sense - negative gender stereotyping doesn't only apply to women. What issue do you have with what I said?

You see Kunst, I'm not talking about a general sense, and I'm not asking a question, I'm referring specifically to flogg's posts.

Why do you think I have an issue with what you said?

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly is negative about them? Actively fighting against them is something I would consider more damaging to a person than recognising that they have a mind of their own and that they don't have to "pander" as you put it, to MY ideas of "negative" gender roles.

Anything else IMO is simply an adult living vicariously through their own child and foisting their issues with society upon their children. I couldn't support that sort of idealism among adults, let alone children tbh.

Other than that, yes, I do agree that any combination of gender is capable of raising a child to be a functioning member of society that contributes to that society rather than being more focused on what they are entitled to as a member of that society.

Me and my wife would have a traditional structure to our family at present after a certain circumventing of different combinations of childminders, creches, working days and nights etc before we took the decision together - something with do with all major decisions in our family - that she would give up work for a while to spend time raising our children. Her mother died quite young - something that had a huge impact on my wife in terms of how precious time is. While we've adopted the lifestyle that suits us best, we're not going to raise the kids to say that this is the only lifestyle worth pursuing and that the only place for a woman is in the home. We're doing our best to raise our kids to be confident enough to make the decisions that suit them best. Hopefully we're doing that - who knows what the future holds.