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

RobertKK · 16-03-2015 12:17PM

zanador wrote: »

People would put other people's happiness aside because they're annoyed about hearing about them being discriminated against? Sigh.

The media obsession with sexuality is boring a lot of people. Most of the time people are meant to be offended over something, when they are more concerned about the problems in their own lives.

fran17 · 16-03-2015 12:21PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Personally I thought the SSM referendum would sail through but I've spoken to a lot of people lately who I would have thought would vote Yes who are actually voting no. And it's not because of homophobia or bigotry, it's because of thing like what Eames has brought up. They are simply sick of hearing about LGBT being raised in relation to everything. I'm actually quite concerned now that the referendum won't pass because of stupid things like this and the Paddys Day parade stuff.

For a grouping who claim to be seeking tolerance and equality they sure don't tolerate a whole lot in fairness.I see our old friends "Irish Queers" are up to there old tricks this year again.That's a beautiful site for a family to witness on there way to the parade tomorrow.
Dignity seems to be absent in the yes campaign and it will show on polling day.

kylith · 16-03-2015 12:22PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Personally I thought the SSM referendum would sail through but I've spoken to a lot of people lately who I would have thought would vote Yes who are actually voting no. And it's not because of homophobia or bigotry, it's because of thing like what Eames has brought up. They are simply sick of hearing about LGBT being raised in relation to everything. I'm actually quite concerned now that the referendum won't pass because of stupid things like this and the Paddys Day parade stuff.

This is the kind of sht that really pisses me off - the people who say "Oh, I would have voted yes, but I'm sick of hearing about gay rights so I'm voting no", or I saw someone else say that they would have voted yes, but since there was no referendum on the water charges forthcoming they were voting no in protest. It's just so.... petty and spiteful. "Oh, I would have voted to give 10% of the population the same rights I have, but they've talked about how much they want it too much so now I'm going to vote to deny them rights".

I'm fed up to the back fcking teeth hearing about the water charges, Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, and the fcking Vintner's Federation, but I'm a grown up not a 5 year old, and I can recognise that different issues need to be dealt with separately and that fcking one group of people over because you're pissed off about something completely unrelated is the height of childish pettiness. Such people need to consider how they would feel if it was something that effected them being voted on and they had to listen to others talk about how they would have voted in favour only for the fact that the traffic lights at the end of the road don't stay green long enough, or the politician supporting the bill wears ugly shirts.

Shrap · 16-03-2015 12:22PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Personally I think she's a bit paranoid but her concerns are genuinely and honestly held, and probably shared by others. I see no problem with her voicing them.

I have no problem with her voicing them either, but I am cynical enough to think that her honesty is questionable. At heart, I reckon she's just against SSM, and this it the issue she will try and swing the result to a "no" with. She spent a lot of time telling us that civil partnerships should be enough, and why would people look for equality when the same sex quality of their relationship makes them NOT equal to M/F relationships. Excuse me while I don't find her concerns about adoption all that genuine.....

zanador · 16-03-2015 12:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The media obsession with sexuality is boring a lot of people. Most of the time people are meant to be offended over something, when they are more concerned about the problems in their own lives.

Yep, I agree that the media are annoying in how they deliberately hype stuff up but I don't think people should let that be a deciding factor in how they vote. By all means vote no if you have some kind of personal objection to marriage equality. But voting no because the media portrays lgbt people in a certain stereotypical dramatic way is ridiculous. I would hope that people realise by now that the media magnifies the minority to create a reaction in the majority.

Riverireland · 16-03-2015 12:27PM

zanador wrote: »

People would put other people's happiness aside because they're annoyed about hearing about them being discriminated against? Sigh.

I totally agree with your sentiments. However, outside of Dublin and outside of the media there is a potentially massive no vote. Add to that the fact that people are sick of hearing about it. There is an enormous amount of discrimination in Ireland based on gender, social class, race, education, accents, marital status etc. compared to the UK Ireland is a very intolerant society. I genuinely hope too many people are not disappointed in May. It's not an anti gay thing it's more an anti anything different thing unfortunately.

Baggy Trousers · 16-03-2015 12:37PM

BMJD wrote: »

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

You should go to the Leisureland count centre in 2016. She will be the absolute wicked witch of the west when she doesn't get elected.

conorh91 · 16-03-2015 12:42PM

Shrap wrote: »

I am cynical enough to think that her honesty is questionable. At heart, I reckon she's just against SSM, and this it the issue she will try and swing the result to a "no" with.

As someone with close friends in the No and the Yes camps, I find this sort of characterization a little artificial and unrealistic.

Nobody gets out of bed in the morning thinking "how will I seek to destroy marriage today?" No doubt you agree with that.

Similarly, I don't believe anybody gets out of bed in the morning thinking "How can I undermine the civil rights of people with differences today?"

There are a few commentators whom I would regard as coming close to such a bitter, trolling mindset. David Quinn and Brenda Power would be close to the line. But FHM is not. She is sometimes painfully respectful and courteous, even if she does come out with clangers and mad hashtags (and in fairness, she seems to acknowledge these minor ineptitudes).

The woman's entire career has revolved around children and child welfare, so she's not some neophyte attempting to suddenly row in with a homophobic agenda.

She made some fairly lucid and reasonable requests today, i.e. clarification on the wishes of birth parents. If people would just say "OK Fidelma, that's a fair question, we'll look at that", imagine how much more civilized and amiable the debates could be?

People say they are tired of the 'gay' debates. I think what they're even more tired of is the never-ending point-scoring and barbed personal comments. It's ugly and difficult to put up with after a while. It doesn't contribute anything to the mature political discussion we all claim to crave.

floggg · 16-03-2015 12:42PM

conorh91 wrote: »

She said she wants clarification. I assume that means clarification that the constitutional amendment will not alter the current situation, or perhaps she wants there to be a statutory obligation to consider the wishes of birth parents, if such an obligation does not already exist. I don't know. Maybe you should ask FHM that question.

Personally I think she's a bit paranoid but her concerns are genuinely and honestly held, and probably shared by others. I see no problem with her voicing them.

There's no problem at all with her voicing her concerns - other than the embarrassment she should (but likely doesn't) feel at having repeatedly uttered such stupidity.

The fact you genuinely believe in your own brand of stupidity doesn't excuse the stupidity - in fact it makes it worse.

At least when Gerry Adams says weird **** on Twitter, it's possible to believe he's in on the joke. Unfortunately for Fidelma, she is the joke (not because of her views on marriage equality or same sex adoption, just because she seems lacking in any common sense or political intelligence whatsoever).

brooke 2 · 16-03-2015 12:45PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Now she's saying that the parents of child being put up for adoption should get to choose whether a same sex couple gets to adopt the child

Crazy. This is just bigotry.

The rights of the parents to discriminate against gay people do not trump the right of the child to be placed into a loving home

Why do people like Pat Kenny bother allowing her to have air time? This is what she loves - make a controversial
comment and have various media heads
contacting her to repeat it on their programmes. Wonder if Jonathan
Healy will also have her on today??
Gggggrrrrrrr!!

:(

brooke 2 · 16-03-2015 12:53PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Personally I thought the SSM referendum would sail through but I've spoken to a lot of people lately who I would have thought would vote Yes who are actually voting no. And it's not because of homophobia or bigotry, it's because of thing like what Eames has brought up. They are simply sick of hearing about LGBT being raised in relation to everything. I'm actually quite concerned now that the referendum won't pass because of stupid things like this and the Paddys Day parade stuff.

Vincent Browne's programmes from around the country clearly illustrated
that there are a lot of people 'out there'
who think very differently from what the
Dublin based media would have you believe. The result of the referendum is
far from being a foregone conclusion.

Riverireland · 16-03-2015 12:54PM

floggg wrote: »

There's no problem at all with her voicing her concerns - other than the embarrassment she should (but likely doesn't) feel at having repeatedly uttered such stupidity.

The fact you genuinely believe in your own brand of stupidity doesn't excuse the stupidity - in fact it makes it worse.

At least when Gerry Adams says weird **** on Twitter, it's possible to believe he's in on the joke. Unfortunately for Fidelma, she is the joke (not because of her views on marriage equality or same sex adoption, just because she seems lacking in any common sense or political intelligence whatsoever).

I'm no too familiar with fidelma other than seeing her mentioned here. From what I'm reading though she at least appears to be giving her honest opinion openly. Does anyone actually believe that all the politicians in the country who's parties are supporting this referendum are going to vote yes! I personally don't and the older media set will be in the same boat. You can hear it in what they don't say in interviews.

Shrap · 16-03-2015 01:01PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Nobody gets out of bed in the morning thinking "how will I seek to destroy marriage today?" No doubt you agree with that.

Similarly, I don't believe anybody gets out of bed in the morning thinking "How can I undermine the civil rights of people with differences today?"

I do agree with that, but I also think that there are many for whom SSM represents a change too far removed from their "traditional" thinking who have to search around for some way to support their own reasoning. I too doubt that she gets out of bed thinking how will I stand in the way of SSM? I think she probably does ask herself "what reason do I have to support my inclination that gay people shouldn't marry....oh yes, the children", and has dedicated herself to supporting her own traditionalism quite disingenuously considering she wasn't all over the airwaves in relation to hetero couples using DC or adopting.

I get that there are issues around the donor in DC or the wishes of the natural parent/s in adoption, and it's a conversation worth having, but it is disingenuous to bring them all to the fore solely because of the SSM debate. If you take my point.

deeks · 16-03-2015 01:24PM

Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing here but why should birth parents have a say as to who the adoptive parents are. If there's people accepted by the adoption board and are at the top of the list then why should a birth parent be able to say "No"? I'm sorry but in my mind if you put a child up for adoption, for whatever reason, you should have no say in who the child is placed with.

(BTW - I am in no way trying to vilify people who put children up for adoption)

arayess · 16-03-2015 01:32PM

deeks wrote: »

Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing here but why should birth parents have a say as to who the adoptive parents are. If there's people accepted by the adoption board and are at the top of the list then why should a birth parent be able to say "No"? I'm sorry but in my mind if you put a child up for adoption, for whatever reason, you should have no say in who the child is placed with.

(BTW - I am in no way trying to vilify people who put children up for adoption)

I disagree
There are many reasons for adoption and not all of them warrant saying you've no say imo.

ColeTrain · 16-03-2015 01:34PM

The Seanad gives failed no-marks like Healy Eames a voice. You'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

deeks · 16-03-2015 01:35PM

But why? Whatever the reason for adoption the outcome is the same - i.e. the child is placed with adoptive parents. Why should the reasoning for the adoption have an impact on the rights of the birth parents to decide who the child is placed with?

El_Dangeroso · 16-03-2015 01:43PM

BMJD wrote: »

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

You wouldn't say that about a man.

She's clearly an eejit of the highest order but there's no reason to be sexist.

MRnotlob606 · 16-03-2015 01:50PM

Wow some people should undergo an IQ test before the start a twitter account.

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 01:50PM

It's gotten to the stage in this country now where if you state the plain, simple and indisputable fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot conceive a child naturally or by using fertility treatment, whereby they both will have a biological relationship with that child in terms of parentage, then you are accused of being against equality or worse again homophobic.

Like other things in this country, no conversation is allowed, no discussion is tolerated, you are just expected to fit in now with what is now a pretty much universally accepted national opinion, because Pantibliss or whatever says so, which is that gay parents that do not have any biological connection with a child they adopt, is every bit as normal in terms of becoming a parent, as a straight couple who conceive a child who is genetically a descendant of each parent.

In my view, these are not the same things and I don't believe we should follow a status quo on this and just do as we are told, because as we have seen in this country, it hasn't panned out too well in the past when we just accepted popular opinions on things and run with the prevailing logic at the time.

I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong, I'm not saying gay couple should be allowed to adopt, or that they shouldn't, what I take serious issue with is being told that any view that is contrary to "we are all equal so give us our rights", gets shouted down and ridiculed by the gay lobby in this country.

It cannot be argued that a gay couple can naturally conceive a child where both parents have a genetic relationship with that child, so on some level, a gay couple and a straight couple, in relation to the ability to conceive a child, are not equal. Stating this as an opinion and as a simple undeniable fact, does not, or at least should not, make me against equality or homophobic.

DeadHand · 16-03-2015 01:51PM

This appalling woman is key proof of the total futility and stupidity of the fundamentally undemocratic policy of gender quotas in politics.

She proves comprehensively that female politicians can be just as inane and useless as their male counterparts.

This country doesn't need more female politicians, it needs fewer and better politicians of either gender.

People should be encouraged to positions of power firstly for their capability and sense of integrity, not for happening to have the currently preferable set of genitals.

Caliden · 16-03-2015 01:53PM

She doesn't even pay road tax Joe!!

Reference

Shrap · 16-03-2015 01:53PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It cannot be argued that a gay couple can naturally conceive a child where both parents have a genetic relationship with that child, so on some level, a gay couple and a straight couple, in relation to the ability to conceive a child, are not equal. Stating this as an opinion and as a simple undeniable fact, does not, or at least should not, make me against equality or homophobic.

A gay couple and a straight couple who cannot naturally conceive a child are equal though, clearly. You're again missing the point that the IVF/DC/AHR angle has nothing to do with SSM.

Links234 · 16-03-2015 02:03PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's gotten to the stage in this country now where if you state the plain, simple and indisputable fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot conceive a child naturally or by using fertility treatment, whereby they both will have a biological relationship with that child in terms of parentage, then you are accused of being against equality or worse again homophobic.

It's not that you can't talk about it, it's more the fact that people who do bring up this line of reasoning usually do so as a stick to beat LGBT people with, and claim that because we are different on X criteria, then it's perfectly acceptable for us to be treated as lesser.

LDN_Irish · 16-03-2015 02:08PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's gotten to the stage in this country now where if you state the plain, simple and indisputable fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot conceive a child naturally or by using fertility treatment, whereby they both will have a biological relationship with that child in terms of parentage, then you are accused of being against equality or worse again homophobic.

No it hasn't. Why don't you deal with things that really happen rather than absurdities you've created in your head?

If anyone had ever been called homophobic for pointing out that same sex couples can't conceive children, you'd be absolutely correct though. The latter in that hypothetical would at the very least be a runner up for "best case of stating the obvious 2015."

reprise · 16-03-2015 02:08PM

Shrap wrote: »

A gay couple and a straight couple who cannot naturally conceive a child are equal though, clearly. You're again missing the point that the IVF/DC/AHR angle has nothing to do with SSM.

But that misses the point that marriage constructs the environment for the biological child by design, as opposed to mandating having a child. Not the same thing at all.

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 02:12PM

Shrap wrote: »

A gay couple and a straight couple who cannot naturally conceive a child are equal though, clearly. You're again missing the point that the IVF/DC/AHR angle has nothing to do with SSM.

So we just ignore the vast vast majority of children, the generations and generations of people who have been born into the world by their natural parents, we disregard all of that, and zone in on the small minority of children who are raised by parents who are not biologically connected to them in any way, due to some circumstance or another such as their parents dying young or a single mother deciding to put her child up for adoption, and we do all of this because two gay people decide that they want to "have" a child?

Again, a simple understanding of basic biology says they are still not equal. If a straight couple have not been able to conceive a child of their own, either naturally or using fertility treatment, due to an issue with the reproductive health of one or both partners in the relationship, this is still not the same as a gay/lesbian couple who between them, don't possess the ability between them to ever conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of what medical treatment is made available to them. Nature may often cause something to happen to one or both people in a straight relationship, that would cause a child being conceived, to be highly unlikely, this can often be something as simple as the age of the woman, she made have left it too late to start a family, it doesn't mean that ten years previously, she couldn't have had a family then with her partner.

A comparable gay/lesbian couple can never conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of their age, health, or the ability to afford fertility treatment, so they are still not the same thing and yes, these kind of things are very relevant to same sex marriage, because same sex marriage invariably involves, as we have seen, the wish to make gay families and their children equal with straight families and the children born into straight families, and I happen to believe these things are not at all equal and are completely different by virtue of the simple fact that their gay or lesbian parents, being of the same gender, simply cannot conceive a child and no child they rare will have a biological connection with both parents, they are simply not parents in the strictly biological sense and well understood meaning of the word "parents".

That doesn't make me against equality or homophobic as the gay lobby in Ireland would label me as and others who feel the same way.

mickstupp · 16-03-2015 02:12PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

... Like other things in this country, no conversation is allowed, no discussion is tolerated, you are just expected to fit in now with what is now a pretty much universally accepted national opinion ...

Well that's a load of bull. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you can express it. The problem for me is that those opinions can't be backed up with rational arguments. In which case...

LordNorbury wrote: »

... what I take serious issue with is being told that any view that is contrary to "we are all equal so give us our rights", gets shouted down and ridiculed by the gay lobby in this country.

I think if your opinion is: we're not all equal and so we don't all deserve the same rights - then you deserve to be shouted down and ridiculed, not by the 'gay lobby', but by everyone.

Shrap · 16-03-2015 02:13PM

reprise wrote: »

But that misses the point that marriage constructs the environment for the biological child by design, as opposed to mandating having a child. Not the same thing at all.

Why? Do unmarried straight people not plan children? Many, many couples find out they're infertile independent of marriage. Marriage is a contract between two people to confirm their love and commitment to each other and to confer automatic inheritance rights. People have children outside of marriage all the time. Marriage is not an environmental requirement for children, as I'm sure you know.

reprise · 16-03-2015 02:16PM

mickstupp wrote: »

Well that's a load of bull. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you can express it. The problem for me is that those opinions can't be backed up with rational arguments. In which case...

I think if your opinion is: we're not all equal and so we don't all deserve the same rights - then you deserve to be shouted down and ridiculed, not by the 'gay lobby', but by everyone.

So you get to decide what's "rational" and you get to decide who "deserves" to be "shouted down" and no doubt, you are sufficiently neutral to do so.

That's exactly the hysteria LordNorbury mentioned.

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

Comments