Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

golfball37 · 27-05-2014 10:11AM

ben.schlomo wrote: »

So it seems mans law won and batsh1t crazy Theresa has bowed out in the first count, im fairly surprised she got 13000+ votes though.

Theresa bowed out well beyond the first count, in fact she was the last elimination before Grace O'Sullivan who was tipped to win a seat in some quarters.

Well done Theresa, great performance and you kept your dignity unlike so many others.

Crann na Beatha · 27-05-2014 10:15AM

This post has been deleted.

Un Croissant · 27-05-2014 10:18AM

golfball37 wrote: »

Theresa bowed out well beyond the first count, in fact she was the last elimination before Grace O'Sullivan who was tipped to win a seat in some quarters.

Well done Theresa, great performance and you kept your dignity unlike so many others.

Depends on how you measure dignity. If your notion of keeping your dignity is getting up and saying women belong in the home and by doing so would create more jobs for the menfolk,all the while applying for a job in Brussels that completely contradicts that stance, then yes she kept her dignity.

Pherekydes · 27-05-2014 10:24AM

Phoenix wrote: »

Cant check youtube videos but this surely is a pisstake?

From the CatholicDemocrats.ie website:

Speaking on East Coast Radio to-day 15th May, 2014, Theresa Heaney, Catholic Democrats candidate in the European Elections South constituency, shocked the programme presenter and many listeners when she revealed how the contraceptive pill was harming our waterways.

She told listeners that the EU body responsible for protecting the environment had accepted evidence that the contraceptive pill was doing untold damage to our rivers and lakes and doing untold harm to our fish stocks. This evidence includes the development of intersex characteristics in male fish, which diminishes fertility and fecundity. Although often sublethal, such impacts may be permanent and irreversible.

Speaking to listeners afterwards, Theresa said that while the EU knew this already, they were with-holding the release of the information until 2016, obviously because of the consequences for the contraceptive industry.

“So, now we know”, Theresa said, “that the Catholic Church was right all along. The contraceptive Pill is a toxic drug and a serious health hazard, not only to our women and girls, but to our environment. It’s time to expose this abuse of our environment and our women and girls”, she said, “and if elected to Europe I will do just that”.

Theresa also invited Deirdre Clune of Fine Gael to join with her as she repeated her call on Dr. James Reilly to withdraw the so-called cervical cancer vaccine which is putting the lives and health of our women and girls at risk.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 10:31AM

golfball37 wrote: »

Theresa bowed out well beyond the first count, in fact she was the last elimination before Grace O'Sullivan who was tipped to win a seat in some quarters.

Well done Theresa, great performance and you kept your dignity unlike so many others.

Yes. She kept her dignity by claiming there's a 'gay agenda' to destroy the family while live on National TV.

She should stick to calling in Joe Duffy

"The pill is causing all the gays Joe"

folan · 27-05-2014 10:33AM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"The pill is causing all the gays Joe"

I knew it!

fecking tic tacs!

golfball37 · 27-05-2014 10:44AM

Un Croissant wrote: »

Depends on how you measure dignity. If your notion of keeping your dignity is getting up and saying women belong in the home and by doing so would create more jobs for the menfolk,all the while applying for a job in Brussels that completely contradicts that stance, then yes she kept her dignity.

She said women should not be penalised for staying at home and should have the choice to stay at home and be rewarded for it. By all means disagree with her but don't misrepresent her.
Theresa has a lot of views I wouldn't agree with but she got her points across in a dignified respectful manner. If she were my mother or aunt I would be very proud of her, as she is a lady.

ben.schlomo · 27-05-2014 10:53AM

golfball37 wrote: »

She said women should not be penalised for staying at home and should have the choice to stay at home and be rewarded for it. By all means disagree with her but don't misrepresent her.
Theresa has a lot of views I wouldn't agree with but she got her points across in a dignified respectful manner. If she were my mother or aunt I would be very proud of her, as she is a lady.

She didnt, she attempted scaremongering and then on Prime Time managed to end up agreeing that her points were mostly invalid when she was challenged by others.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 11:19AM

Phoenix wrote: »

Cant check youtube videos but this surely is a pisstake?

Fraid not Phoenix. I sarcastically wrote "holy water" but she unironically said the rest. Perhaps she might now team up with The Girl Against Fluoride and give us all a break from their wicked woo.

Kiwi in IE · 27-05-2014 11:25AM

golfball37 wrote: »

If she were my mother or aunt I would be very proud of her, as she is a lady.

If she were my relation I don't think I would ever recover from the mortification!

Kiwi in IE · 27-05-2014 11:35AM

The amount who voted for her, combined with the amount who voted for Ronan Mullen is a frightening indication of the amount of fruitcakes there are around who wish to enforce their religious based 'values' on the entire population.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 12:36PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The amount who voted for her, combined with the amount who voted for Ronan Mullen is a frightening indication of the amount of fruitcakes there are around who wish to enforce their religious based 'values' on the entire population.

I don't know why you call people fruitcakes.

You would want everyone supporting the killing of the unborn as a woman's right, we must all support gay marriage.
People are fruitcakes if they don't hold your values, and we must have your values forced on the rest of the population, which is the irony.
Let the people as a society decide want they want.

It is quite clear people like you would rather a certain section of society went unrepresented and for those who hold liberal social values to be the only ones allowed to be heard and represented.
Then you talk about fruitcakes.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 12:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

People are fruitcakes if they don't hold your values, and we must have your values forced on the rest of the population, which is the irony.

The irony is that you say this while not wanting equal rights for gay people, which makes 0 difference to you. You are forcing your values on the gay community.

The fact that the anti-gay brigade can't see this is hilarious.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 12:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know why you call people fruitcakes.

You would want everyone supporting the killing of the unborn as a woman's right, we must all support gay marriage.
People are fruitcakes if they don't hold your values, and we must have your values forced on the rest of the population, which is the irony.
Let the people as a society decide want they want.

It is quite clear people like you would rather a certain section of society went unrepresented and for those who hold liberal social values to be the only ones allowed to be heard and represented.
Then you talk about fruitcakes.

Oh, you're back. Yay.

All that we are advocating is that people be allowed to choose these things for themselves, according to their own values. No one will be forced to marry someone of their own sex, or be forced to have an abortion.

You are turning the issue on its head, in an Orwellian/John Waters-esque way, by saying that allowing people to act according to their own conscience, is "forcing" values on others. It is not. The status quo - which must delight you - is society forcing its values on its individual members by way of an out-of-date constitution.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 12:50PM

Muise... wrote: »

Oh, you're back. Yay.

All that we are advocating is that people be allowed to choose these things for themselves, according to their own values. No one will be forced to marry someone of their own sex, or be forced to have an abortion.

You are turning the issue on its head, in an Orwellian/John Waters-esque way, by saying that allowing people to act according to their own conscience, is "forcing" values on others. It is not. The status quo - which must delight you - is society forcing its values on its individual members by way of an out-of-date constitution.

You said it far better than I ever could.

Perfect post.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 01:09PM

Muise... wrote: »

Oh, you're back. Yay.

All that we are advocating is that people be allowed to choose these things for themselves, according to their own values. No one will be forced to marry someone of their own sex, or be forced to have an abortion.

You are turning the issue on its head, in an Orwellian/John Waters-esque way, by saying that allowing people to act according to their own conscience, is "forcing" values on others. It is not. The status quo - which must delight you - is society forcing its values on its individual members by way of an out-of-date constitution.

I love how you think one should go into a referendum and not vote according to what they believe, we must vote for what you believe is a right.
The constitution is out of date for those who feel restricted because the people have a say via referendum.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 01:14PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The irony is that you say this while not wanting equal rights for gay people, which makes 0 difference to you. You are forcing your values on the gay community.

The fact that the anti-gay brigade can't see this is hilarious.

Most people don't care about gay marriage, we had Eamon Gilmore going on about it, his party going on about abortion, these are not priority issues for most people, it is no surprise he lost his job and with Ronan Mullen getting more votes than Lorraine Higgins.
If the same sex marriage referendum is passed it won't be by much, a lot of people in this thread are out of touch and blinded by their liberal views to the reality, as there is a liberal bias on this forum.
Saying a liberal bias is not having a go at anyone, it is just the reality of this forum.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 01:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I love how you think one should go into a referendum and not vote according to what they believe, we must vote for what you believe is a right.
The constitution is out of date for those who feel restricted because the people have a say via referendum.

That's not what I think.

I don't think these things should be up to the electorate to decide. I think they are private matters.

However, we have a Constitution that the people wrote their values in, which has been amended so many times it looks like the Ship of Theseus and sometimes I think it is too restrictive on matters of private conscience, and that we should scuttle it.

But there it is - we have to vote on these matters and everyone will vote according to what they believe is right. And so we debate in public on personal matters, and we all get our say. I think you know that your side is waning, so pretending the opposition is silencing you or threatening your right to an opinion is kinda cornered-ratty.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 01:25PM

Muise... wrote: »

That's not what I think.

I don't think these things should be up to the electorate to decide. I think they are private matters.

However, we have a Constitution that the people wrote their values in, which has been amended so many times it looks like the Ship of Theseus and sometimes I think it is too restrictive on matters of private conscience, and that we should scuttle it.

But there it is - we have to vote on these matters and everyone will vote according to what they believe is right. And so we debate in public on personal matters, and we all get our say. I think you know that your side is waning, so pretending the opposition is silencing you or threatening your right to an opinion is kinda cornered-ratty.

So the people shouldn't be able to decide what kind of society they want?

We must leave it to politicians to decide?

I think it is immature to be name calling - like bigot, homophobe as it is a way to try and shut down debate. There will be a section of the population against gay marriage but will not speak out because of this. people will tell lies to pollsters so not to be judged by someone who may be liberal and they know if liberal how they will be thinking. People told pollsters they supported the children's referendum over 80% support, after the vote it was 53%.
I don't think 'my side' is waning. People will act to avoid being called names, the intimidation from name calling is not there when one casts their ballot.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 01:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So the people shouldn't be able to decide what kind of society they want?

We must leave it to politicians to decide?

I think it is immature to be name calling - like bigot, homophobe as it is a way to try and shut down debate. There will be a section of the population against gay marriage but will not speak out because of this. people will tell lies to pollsters so not to be judged by someone who may be liberal and they know if liberal how they will be thinking. People told pollsters they supported the children's referendum over 80% support, after the vote it was 53%.
I don't think 'my side' is waning. People will act to avoid being called names, the intimidation from name calling is not there when one casts their ballot.

Of course people should decide what sort of society they want. But marriage is for two people to consent to, not society. Let the people against same sex marriage speak out all they like; they cannot then reasonably complain when others point out that the sky is not falling in countries that allow it, society is not decaying, and that they are *name-calling alert* mean and spiteful bigots who can't stay out of other people's business.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 01:32PM

The fact that people can vote for inequality is a strange one. Did they have a referendum on allowing black people equal rights in America?

It will be interesting to see how the referendum question will be worded (unless this has been decided already and I've missed it?)

I would word it, "Do you believe in equal rights for all people in Ireland"

Muise... · 27-05-2014 01:40PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The fact that people can vote for inequality is a strange one. Did they have a referendum on allowing black people equal rights in America?

It will be interesting to see how the referendum question will be worded (unless this has been decided already and I've missed it?)

I would word it, "Do you believe in equal rights for all people in Ireland"

Nice sentiment, but to avoid confusion with other rights issues, they'll have to be more specific and write an amendment to the sections that deal with marriage, and ask us if we agree or not.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 01:55PM

Muise... wrote: »

Of course people should decide what sort of society they want. But marriage is for two people to consent to, not society. Let the people against same sex marriage speak out all they like; they cannot then reasonably complain when others point out that the sky is not falling in countries that allow it, society is not decaying, and that they are *name-calling alert* mean and spiteful bigots who can't stay out of other people's business.

Society has always decided on social issues including things like marriage.

You are judging the impact of something when it will take decades for results to be seen.
Already it has led to Russia not allowing foreign adoption to certain countries and people after two men married and adopted a Russian child which they took to the US, Australia, Germany and New Zealand for child abusers to abuse.
Of course the media didn't rabidly report why Russia brought in laws that banned foreign adoption to single men whether gay or straight where same sex marriage/unions are allowed.
Some see it as anti-gay, others might view it as child protection, as you don't have to be gay to have a same sex marriage.

Calling people bigots will not change people to vote for gay marriage, it is more likely to make sure the person goes out and votes against it, keep it up

But with weak arguments one attacks the person, not the issue.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 01:58PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The fact that people can vote for inequality is a strange one. Did they have a referendum on allowing black people equal rights in America?

It will be interesting to see how the referendum question will be worded (unless this has been decided already and I've missed it?)

I would word it, "Do you believe in equal rights for all people in Ireland"

When you have no argument go back to racism as an argument about equality.

Are men and women equal?
Can a man give birth to a child, if not then are we equal to a woman who can?

golfball37 · 27-05-2014 01:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Most people don't care about gay marriage, we had Eamon Gilmore going on about it, his party going on about abortion, these are not priority issues for most people, it is no surprise he lost his job and with Ronan Mullen getting more votes than Lorraine Higgins.
If the same sex marriage referendum is passed it won't be by much, a lot of people in this thread are out of touch and blinded by their liberal views to the reality, as there is a liberal bias on this forum.
Saying a liberal bias is not having a go at anyone, it is just the reality of this forum.

There is no liberal bias here as being a liberal means being tolerant of an opposing view.

Most posters on here do not display that trait when it comes to respecting somebody with a conservative view, so they are not liberals imo.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 02:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Society has always decided on social issues including things like marriage.

You are judging the impact of something when it will take decades for results to be seen.
Already it has led to Russia not allowing foreign adoption to certain countries and people after two men married and adopted a Russian child which they took to the US, Australia, Germany and New Zealand for child abusers to abuse.
Of course the media didn't rabidly report why Russia brought in laws that banned foreign adoption to single men whether gay or straight where same sex marriage/unions are allowed.
Some see it as anti-gay, others might view it as child protection, as you don't have to be gay to have a same sex marriage.

Calling people bigots will not change people to vote for gay marriage, it is more likely to make sure the person goes out and votes against it, keep it up
But with weak arguments one attacks the person, not the issue.

Oh good - you're using the Theresa Heaney method of self-defeat by throwing
utter bollocks around like confetti at a Big Fat Gay Wedding. Keep it up!

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 02:06PM

Muise... wrote: »

Oh good - you're using the Theresa Heaney method of self-defeat by throwing
utter bollocks around like confetti at a Big Fat Gay Wedding. Keep it up!

That answers nothing.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 02:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That answers nothing.

There was nothing to answer.

shruikan2553 · 27-05-2014 02:08PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Society has always decided on social issues including things like marriage.

You are judging the impact of something when it will take decades for results to be seen.
Already it has led to Russia not allowing foreign adoption to certain countries and people after two men married and adopted a Russian child which they took to the US, Australia, Germany and New Zealand for child abusers to abuse.
Of course the media didn't rabidly report why Russia brought in laws that banned foreign adoption to single men whether gay or straight where same sex marriage/unions are allowed.
Some see it as anti-gay, others might view it as child protection, as you don't have to be gay to have a same sex marriage.

Calling people bigots will not change people to vote for gay marriage, it is more likely to make sure the person goes out and votes against it, keep it up
But with weak arguments one attacks the person, not the issue.

A man and a woman can't marry and adopt a child to abuse them?
Bit hypocritical to comment on weak arguments when the argument against gay marriage comes to because I think so. Yet try claiming women shouldn't be able to vote or non white people shouldn't be allowed into the country and it makes you a sexist or racist!

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 02:16PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

A man and a woman can't marry and adopt a child to abuse them?
Bit hypocritical to comment on weak arguments when the argument against gay marriage comes to because I think so. Yet try claiming women shouldn't be able to vote or non white people shouldn't be allowed into the country and it makes you a sexist or racist!

Vast majority of sex child abusers are men.

An estimated one in 20 teenage boys and adult men sexually abuse children, and an estimated one teenage girl or adult woman in every 3,300 females molests children.

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

But hey lets increase risks of child sexual abuse. This is going to be a ticking time bomb that in time will explode like the child abuse in the church - where men are not allowed under church rules to be alone with minors because of what happened in the past, to protect both the minor and priest.

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Comments