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

Shrap · 17-03-2015 10:11AM

Cienciano wrote: »

After reading up on the school in Canada, thats exactly what they did. So instead of some states banning it, its 2 schools not making cards in art class.

Ha! Oh, the horror :eek::eek:

Kiwi in IE · 17-03-2015 11:12AM

Schools should ban Mothers Day anyway if they are going to continue to encourage my child to address me as 'Mammy' in school produced Mothers Day cards. I am 'Mummy', I hate 'Mammy', the word makes me think of an ugly, snaggle tooth old woman with a scarf on her head. You don't get yummy 'Mammys' do you?

One eyed Jack · 17-03-2015 11:23AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Schools should ban Mothers Day anyway if they are going to continue to encourage my child to address me as 'Mammy' in school produced Mothers Day cards. I am 'Mummy', I hate 'Mammy', the word makes me think of an ugly, snaggle tooth old woman with a scarf on her head. You don't get yummy 'Mammys' do you?

:eek:

Mind blown, best post of the whole thread!

bjork · 17-03-2015 11:28AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Schools should ban Mothers Day anyway if they are going to continue to encourage my child to address me as 'Mammy' in school produced Mothers Day cards. I am 'Mummy', I hate 'Mammy', the word makes me think of an ugly, snaggle tooth old woman with a scarf on her head. You don't get yummy 'Mammys' do you?

Calling yourself a "Mummy" I imagine you like this

http://stuffmonsterslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mummy-is-working-on-computer-3a7893.jpg

kylith · 17-03-2015 11:39AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Schools should ban Mothers Day anyway if they are going to continue to encourage my child to address me as 'Mammy' in school produced Mothers Day cards. I am 'Mummy', I hate 'Mammy', the word makes me think of an ugly, snaggle tooth old woman with a scarf on her head. You don't get yummy 'Mammys' do you?

Y'see I'd be the opposite. 'Mummy' conjures images of a well-dressed but distant upper-class person while 'Mammy' brings feelings of all-encompassing embraces, floury hands, comfy laps, and fierce protection. It's probably because only the posh kids and the English kids in school called their mothers Mummy. Plus you can't shout "Muuuuu! Muuuuu!" the same way you can shout "Maaaa! Maaaa!"

I hope to be a Mammy someday, if I can't convince my kids to call me Moogie.

Kiwi in IE · 17-03-2015 11:39AM

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

Shrap · 17-03-2015 11:48AM

kylith wrote: »

Y'see I'd be the opposite. 'Mummy' conjures images of a well-dressed but distant upper-class person while 'Mammy' brings feelings of all-encompassing embraces, floury hands, comfy laps, and fierce protection.

Growing up with my uber-posh English Mum making every attempt to get me to call her "Mummy" while I wrestled with being "mixed-race" in 70's Dublin, I know exactly what you mean. She also knows exactly what you mean, as "Mammy" was strictly forbidden for that very reason. So I've been calling her by her first name since age 8.

My kids call me whatever they like, so long as it's respectful! "Mum" seems to have won over "Mam", but they change it about to suit themselves. Like Stewie from Family Guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNkp4QF3we8

Cienciano · 17-03-2015 12:54PM

I don't mind what they're called as long as the children don't refer to their parents as "mammy and daddy" when they're adults. That's just weird

Annasopra · 18-03-2015 01:16AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Schools should ban Mothers Day anyway if they are going to continue to encourage my child to address me as 'Mammy' in school produced Mothers Day cards. I am 'Mummy', I hate 'Mammy', the word makes me think of an ugly, snaggle tooth old woman with a scarf on her head. You don't get yummy 'Mammys' do you?

Maybe you get Jammy Mammys

AlanS181824 · 18-03-2015 01:27AM

What an absolute twat!

Deedsie · 18-03-2015 08:33AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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

I absolutely detest the use of Mum, Mom or Mummy... Mam or Mammy are perfect

jooksavage · 18-03-2015 08:37AM

Cienciano wrote: »

I don't mind what they're called as long as the children don't refer to their parents as "mammy and daddy" when they're adults. That's just weird

Yeah that can sound odd. Not as weird as an empty-nest couple in their 60s who still call each other mammy and daddy.

Annasopra · 18-03-2015 10:14AM

I can't stand Ma, Mam or Mammy. It just doesn't sound right.

Shrap · 18-03-2015 10:18AM

Deedsie wrote: »

I absolutely detest the use of Mum, Mom or Mummy... Mam or Mammy are perfect

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I can't stand Ma, Mam or Mammy. It just doesn't sound right.

It's hilarious how fussy we all are about what's the "right" word! I literally couldn't care less about all but one - Mummy, which as explained above, caused me a lot of unnecessary grief. I'd be interested in whether people are more likely or less likely to go with what they called their own mothers?

One eyed Jack · 18-03-2015 10:18AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I can't stand Ma, Mam or Mammy. It just doesn't sound right.

Guilty of this one alright, I even call my wife 'Mam' sometimes, but she did stop me in my tracks one night when I started "Mam...", and she replied "Do you like when I call you Daddy?"...

She had a point, but jesus, totally different context! :pac:

eviltwin · 18-03-2015 10:31AM

We always called ours mother. My kids call me Ma or Mum. I hate Mammy, it makes me feel like an aul one.

floggg · 18-03-2015 10:42AM

reprise wrote: »

Because, as I already said, children cannot get married and therefore cannot form part of the marital contract.

I have no interest in your overstretched analogies.

What analogy?

floggg · 18-03-2015 10:55AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It doesn't threaten anything if you believe that marriage is not also about pro creation and having children and basically at the end of the day, creating the next generation from our generation, regardless of whether the parents are married or not married I might add. While there is no law on the statute book that states that the act of marriage and having a family are one and the same thing, in practice they essentially are one and the same thing, so to say SSM is not also about family and children, to me, is simply not a credible thing to say.

If on the other hand you do not believe though that marriage and a family unit are also about having children, and the creation of the next generation, and if you are in denial about the clear fact that the next generation of children are born from our generation of adults and that the vast majority of children and families fit into this category and that the vast vast majority of children are created from and raised by their biological parents, then you will obviously feel that children and the creation of a family are not in any way connected to SSM.

Marriage, family and having children are certainly not one and the same thing. We have countless children being born and raised in non-traditional heterosexual family structures, and countless heterosexual marriages which never produce children - often by choice.

As you admit, there is not one statute which even hints that marriage is primarily intended to result in pro-creation, or no benefit or policy from which such a position Can be inferred.

The state grants each couple the freedom to make their own reproductive choices and to divorce if they wish.

While you may certainly choose to see marriage as a child-centric institution, that is simply a personal belief and not supprted by the fact. You don't have the right to define the nature and purpose of the institution for the rest of us, or tell the many married couples who see marriage as being about adult relationships and commitments that they are wrong or not entitled to define the nature of their relationships for themselves.

floggg · 18-03-2015 11:04AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Eh no, don't get your point there at all, you don't seem to get the concept of an ideal family model and simple biology seems to be going over your head here. Infertile heterosexual couples, they are actually built to procreate, in terms of their biology and their opposite genders, although due to a medical disability or issue that causes a difficulty when it comes to the ability of that same couple to procreate, they are unable to have children. That is a different thing entirely from a homosexual couple wanting to have children, but at the same time their union or relationship, by virtue of them being of the same gender, specifically prohibits procreation on any level whatsoever.

It is well known that women and men, or fathers and mothers, they bring different things to the table when it comes to rearing children, different skills, different experiences, different perspectives, that while often different, still compliment each other to create a well rounded child.

A child having two mothers or two fathers, have we really thought any of this out at all? The truth is that no we haven't, because we are being bombarded with this mantra now where everyone has to be equal and if people are not equal then there is a profound wrong of some sort taking place.

Please name these different qualities. What exactly do each bring to the table and how can a parent of either gender not perform the same roles?

How does this manifest itself in single parent families? Do you believe all children in such families have been deprived of some fundamental parental influences? Name them?

Is it something more than mere biology lessons?

Do all parents need to have experienced something before they can guide their children through it?

PopePalpatine · 18-03-2015 11:09AM

I say "Mom" but when referring to my mother I call her "Mum". I blame the American and British TV shows I watched as a kid. :pac:

floggg · 18-03-2015 11:13AM

bjork wrote: »

In a few years we won't have to worry about mothers day because no one will know who their mother is, just like half of them now don't know who their father is.

I will inbreeding cause problems in a few generations?

i hope for your own sake you don't actually believe your own posts.

LordNorbury · 18-03-2015 12:15PM

floggg wrote: »

Marriage, family and having children are certainly not one and the same thing. We have countless children being born and raised in non-traditional heterosexual family structures, and countless heterosexual marriages which never produce children - often by choice.

As you admit, there is not one statute which even hints that marriage is primarily intended to result in pro-creation, or no benefit or policy from which such a position Can be inferred.

The state grants each couple the freedom to make their own reproductive choices and to divorce if they wish.

While you may certainly choose to see marriage as a child-centric institution, that is simply a personal belief and not supprted by the fact. You don't have the right to define the nature and purpose of the institution for the rest of us, or tell the many married couples who see marriage as being about adult relationships and commitments that they are wrong or not entitled to define the nature of their relationships for themselves.

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.

LordNorbury · 18-03-2015 12:22PM

Anyway folks I've said all I have to say on the thread and don't have the time during the day to engage with the thread on a continuing basis. Best of luck to everyone who engaged.

ohnonotgmail · 18-03-2015 12:25PM

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.

there is no connection. You can get married and not have children and conversely have children without getting married.

floggg · 18-03-2015 12:28PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Sorry, two gay people cannot conceive a child that is biologically descended from both of them.

As I've said, in my view, SSM is about the furtherance of the right of gay people to have children as part of a FAMILY and a MARRIED gay couple being the head of that family, at the expense of a child's prime right to be reared by its biological parents where that is at all possible.

You disagree, but I do not believe that that makes my point wrong or invalid in any way whatsoever.

I do accept though that a new act was introduced that is allowing gay couples to adopt children, and the only reason this happened was because this government wanted to legislate for SSM and had to separate out the whole question of children, and legislate for what would simply never have been passed, had the subject of gay couples having the right to adopt children, been put to people in this SSM referendum.

My point being is that it's awfully convenient that you can now argue that "SSM has nothing to do with the right of gay people to adopt children, this is a completely separate issue that has now been legislated for", when the whole debate has been specifically engineered by the government, essentially in your favour. And if you disagree, then you might explain to me why this legislation has been introduced immediately before the SSM referendum?

It is being introduced by the government as they see it as being important and necessary in its own right, and which they are certain does not raise any constitutional issues which might prevent it's introduction.

You are arguing that the changes deprive children of rights but they do no such thing. What this legislation will do is to provide children with rights and protections they feel heretofore lacking.

The legislation is a recognition that family structures, as well as our treatments of non-marital families has changed.

It recognises that children are being brought up in blended families, single parent households, being born through assisted reproduction etc, as well as being raised in same sex households.

At the minute, children being brought up by nonbiological parents will often have no legal rights whatsoever to those non-biological parents - placing them at a huge disadvantage and imposing many unnecessary burden on them. For example, if their biological parent dies, a non-biological parent will be a stranger in law to them even if they raised and supported them from birth.

Refusing to recognise that relationship in no way benefits children or society. So far from denying children anything, this legislation will finally provide them with the rights they need vis-a-vis their non-biological parents and ensure that they aren't prejudiced by the states refusal to recognise their family structure.

So if the welfare of children is your concern, then you should be actively supporting this legislation.

floggg · 18-03-2015 12:46PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

There were lots of busy lawyers Td's Judges last week, After changing something as simple as a drug related law. Family law is infinitely more complex.

Can you actually point to any specific negative consequences - or should we just be afraid of change itself?

All changes have potentially unforseen consequences, but that doesn't mean we should never make them. How else will we ever progress as a society?

The same "unknown consequences" arguments could have been, and I have no doubt were, raised when society was asked to allow gender or racial equality for the first time, and for contraception and divorce too.

In each of the cases though, we eventually accepted that those changes were positive and necessary, and that we shouldn't hold back from making positive changes to our laws just because of a fear of change.

So it would be absurd to do so now.

floggg · 18-03-2015 12:58PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

I haven't lived in Spain, Norway, Belgium or Canada, etc, so I haven't a clue what life over there is like, for kids raised by straight parents or for kids raised by gay parents. I believe that the best interests of a child, where possible, is to be raised by its biological parents.

Some of the unconventional paternity options that are lying just around the corner for us in this country, where as was mentioned in the media the other day, a gay man's mother going down the road of being a surrogate mother for her gay son's child, making her at the same time, the birth mother and biological grandmother of the child, and the gay father also being an uncle and a father to his child, if you think any of this is normal or healthy, then I really worry about where we are heading as a country:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/governments-experiment-with-the-lives-of-irelands-children-is-a-scandal-31044878.html

I think the fact that you aren't looking to those countries before determining whether this change would be positive or negative shows the disingenuous nature of your concerns and arguments.

If you were motivated by a genuine concern on these issues, then you would be looking to countries where answers to your questions can be readily determined.

Buy instead you are happy to Base your position in your wholly unsubstantiated beliefs - which suggests that upholding your beliefs may be more important to you than their veracity.

Kiwi in IE · 18-03-2015 12:59PM

floggg wrote: »

Please name these different qualities. What exactly do each bring to the table and how can a parent of either gender not perform the same roles?

This is clearly obvious! Mammy cleans bakes, has a meat and potato dinner on the table as soon as Daddy gets in from work, does laundry and stays at home. Daddy goes to work, earns the money, pays all the bills and gives mammy a set amount for housekeeping, mows the lawn, puts out the bins and kicks footballs. Daughters wear dresses, play with dolls and help Mammy with the cooking and cleaning so they know their role for the future, boys play with cars, guns, cowboys, play football and play outside in the mud. Daddy is the 'head' of the household and is in charge of all major decisions.

Ave Sodalis · 18-03-2015 01:05PM

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.

And?

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.

And there's been plenty of children born to single parents and without both biological children who grow up just as successfully.

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!"...

The Bill covers more than just gay adoption which is only a small section of it.

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!

The Bill wasn't taken out for the referendum.

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.

No one is saying there's no link at all, we're saying the link is becoming less and less important and can be ignored.

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.

As above. Plenty of children born outside of marriage now.

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?

Have you any knowledge on the adoption situation of Ireland today? Or any other options there are for couples who can't naturally conceive? I'm gonna guess not.

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.

Gay lobby. Right. See people only get pissed off when you refuse to acknowledge that what you're saying isn't relevant.

One eyed Jack · 18-03-2015 01:26PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is clearly obvious! Mammy cleans bakes, has a meat and potato dinner on the table as soon as Daddy gets in from work, does laundry and stays at home. Daddy goes to work, earns the money, pays all the bills and gives mammy a set amount for housekeeping, mows the lawn, puts out the bins and kicks footballs. Daughters wear dresses, play with dolls and help Mammy with the cooking and cleaning so they know their role for the future, boys play with cars, guns, cowboys, play football and play outside in the mud. Daddy is the 'head' of the household and is in charge of all major decisions.

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.

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

Comments