Admitting a ‘ Yes’ vote may give constitutional rights to same-sex couples to bring children into the world artificially, including by donor eggs, donor sperm and surrogate mothers, is not a vote winner.
Every child has an equal right to be brought into the world, raised and loved, by his or her own mother and father. The circumstances of life mean it doesn’t always happen. But never before has the State taken away that right. That’s what a ‘ Yes’ vote would mean. In the Constitution, the State pledges to “guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded”.
If marriage is redefined on May 22, so also is family. Same-sex couples will have the rights that go with marriage – including the right to start a family. How can a same sex couple start a family? For a female couple, it would mean using sperm donated by some young man in Ireland or abroad.
A same-sex male couple will use the egg of some female student or some poor woman abroad. A surrogate mother must carry the child for them. And that’s the last bit of mothering that child will ever have.
Senator Ronán Mullen
Steady on.
*weeps*
Voting No Doesn’t Make You Homophobic (Independent.ie)
he meant ‘poor female student’
Me: Senator Ronan Mullen is really beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to oppose Marriage Equality.
Mum: Oh, he’s that gay Catholic who is virulently opposed to gay unions. He strikes me as a bit strange. There’s a lot of unpleasantness going on in his head.
Me: Are you referring to Keith Mills Mum?
Mum: No Ronan Mullen.
Lol.
Oh, here we go…
Any idea where the church stands on, what is technically fornication with a turkey baster?
I’m assuming not hovering over, cassock raised, thinking wide thoughts…
thanks I nearly laughed my soup out of my nose
Christmas stuffing?
But the constitution doesn’t define family. The Children and Family Bill already covered much of this and they weren’t complaining then. Mothering isn’t a necessarily female action.
Idiots.
They were complaining. He voted against it.
Ah, ok. So he’s even more stupid because he knows what the Children’s bill covered and what this didn’t. What a joke.
He’s not being stupid, he’s assuming most of the population aren’t aware of the bill and he’s attempting to confuse things. He’s lying, basically.
Exactly, he’s being wilfully dishonest
They have been beating this drum now for a while and talking about rights to mother and father, when asked where this right comes from they cant explain!
That whole second paragraph thing. Does he mean that the state is denying people the right not to have children? Does he ever read through his jibber jabber – the sad thing is I think so.
I have just read both second paragraphs and in fairness, I don’t know where you got that idea.
+1,000,000 for using jibber-jabber in a sentence
They were complaining rather vociferously.
The also campaigned against the preceding children’s rights referendum which made the requisite changed to the constitution to “pave the way” for the children and family bill.
Also they are not being idiots here, they telling porkies.
Idiots, liars, same thing
Nope.
Go buy yourself a dictionary.
God you are boring sometimes
Idiots tell stupid lies, they’re telling clever ones.
At least if he was an idiot, he might not believe all the complete sh*** he comes out with….
Also, Ronan believes gay people have all they need in Civil partnership.
Which he also voted against.
Because it didn’t equate same-sex relationships with elderly siblings on a farm.
Great lad is Ronan.
“Mothering isn’t a necessarily female action”
Eh, I think you’ll find it is. 100% of mothers are, in fact, female.
Mother Love Bone was five guys.
I think you’ll find they were 5 mothers being 5 guys
I said mothering, verb, not mother, noun. Mothering someone by caring for them, making sure they are happy and alive is no more a female action than driving a car. Anyone who has kids, male or female, does these things.
I think you’ll find that’s “loving”, “fathering”, “nurturing”, etc.
Explaining that love and caring can come from someone other than one’s mother does not negate the need for one.
Everyone is very passive aggressive today….
I think you’ll find mothering was Ronan’s choice of word. Hence my comment on it’s use and assumptions that only a women can perform this role which is frankly, horsesh** etc.
Define “mothering”. Is it just parenting while in possession of a vagina?
yes but with more smothering
Some people pay good money for that.
Lies make baby Jesus cry… but Ronans more interested in buying chips with his gambling winnings
https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/594960356021272577
Isn’t gambling a sin?!!
Only if youre poor
: D
Deserving or undeserving?
How is mothering not necessarily a female action???
Maybe you can help.
“Define “mothering”. Is it just parenting while in possession of a vagina?”
Oh yeah. Apologies. I forgot that there was no difference between men and women. That’s probably why it doesn’t matter that there are far fewer women TDs than men. They are entirely interchangeable and it doesn’t matter.
See all my comments above
POOR student, POOR women abroad??? He thinks LGBT couples only use cheap IVF & surrogacy options??? Does he not think Lesbian couples will use male students or poor men abroad?
Also Irish case law has all ready defined a married couple without children as a Family under the Irish constitution.
Oh and Finally Ronan All those issues you have highlighted are also issues for straight couples engaging in surrogacy
+1
‘every child has a right to be raised by its mother and father’
so, under a civil parnership scenario:
a child of one parent from a previous relationship lives with parent and partner and their children. biological parent dies. partner must adopt the child in order to maintain the status quo. not so if they were married.
so why on earth would anyone keep anyone else in a state of pain-in-the-holery?
Really, the ex-partner parent should move in with the new partner and parent so that the kid can be raised with both parents. Messy but would make for good TV i guess
Ronán claims that never before has the state taken away the right for a child to be raised by its own mother. So who exactly was selling the babies of unmarried mothers?
Good business.
That wasn’t the state taking away unmarried womens’ babies, it was the church, and so that was ok…
Classic Mullenism.
*inserts un-popped corn into microwave*
and there you have it — they think surrogacy will lead to more liberal thinking on abortion.
nevermind that this referendum has nothing to do with children, the surrogacy bill was already passed etc etc etc
This referendum has everything to do with children, by convenient for the gay lot to deny what gay marriage will irrevocably alter children’s rights.
Lolwut
Dude, grammar is awesome. Get on board.
Nope.
This referendum has everything to do with children … if they are gay and would one day like to be married.
zing!
I CANT STAND THIS GUY
Join the club.
€50 registration fee.
If it weren’t for him and people like him, there’d be nothing to talk about on BS. We would all just read the affirmative articles and wallow in our own sense of rightness.
ah no, we’d make up some puns as well.
And there might be more cat videos like in olden times
You guys paint a tempting picture of what the future could hold.
Only in this country the yammering of this person would be published in a “newspapaper” , in the rest of the civilised world he would be daubing this nonsense on the walls of his hospital ward using his own faeces.
Im sorry but does “senator” in our country mean “some rich twit who thinks theyre a politician but couldnt buy enough votes”?
Voting NO is denying a basic human right to someone based on their sexual preference, bigotry is probably the least offensive term I’d use to describe it.
I have a better club, “lets vote Yes in the referendum and rely on democratic process to shut him up in the same manner that the childrens rights referendum did”
That way we can all prove how empathetic and democratic we are instead of what assholes we are.
+1
+1 was meant for medium sized C
the +1 was better on Lillys comment. I was wondering if you were saying you are also a 44yr old virgin or that Mullen is actually 45.
“Isn’t there something unhealthy about the groupthink that got us here?”
Yes Ronan, yes there is.
I’d love to know what it must feel like to live in his head, completely obliviously detached from reality.
“Groupthink” is the buzz word right wingers use to describe public opinion when its not in their favour
Groupthink is a word with pretty left wing connotations actually.
But I’m pretty sure Jimmythehead is more or less right.
Christian Conservatives are very fond of using Groupthink as a way to express disdain for other peoples opinions.
Agreed. I mean, isn’t “groupthink” the purpose of having a referendum and a debate?
Or at least, the result of.
https://i.imgur.com/IZRHxo9.jpg
Only time ive ever heard groupthink used is when poshos are annoyed about their views being supressed. Think it was some UCD anti abortion canvasser tho its been thrown around more than Daddys beamer keys at this stage dontcha know like totes magoats
When you are quite finished waging class war Jimmy, go read 1984
Then I guess you need to broaden your horizons.
@rotide
would love to but the man never taught me how to read
You should read Down And Out In Paris and London, bit more up my street personally.
For the 10 minutes I listened to the No campaign last night on Matt Cooper and while disagreeing with their point I thought they were starting to make a cogent argument. Then they started quoting Jurassic Park – “Life finds a way!”. Sorry but you cannot quote a film about genetically modified dinosaurs running amok while discussing the impact of gay marriage on the lives of children!
Jurassic Park is a metaphor for surrogacy.
Were they implying that LGBT couple have some frog DNA that will allow them to mutate to the opposite gender in a single sex environment?
44-year-old virgin.
Looks well on it tbh
He’d pass for a Confer boy
Abstinence
Rosaries
Jelly Tots instead’a other stuff in the drinks cabinet
And Die Hard BoxSets instead’a Porno
Not sure I’d want 30 years knocked off meself that much
Has anyone being posting Yes Vote articles in the Independent to refute these sorts of claims? Everyone here knows that he’s talking rubbish, but many voters don’t browse the internet and will only have been exposed to the No side arguments.
Do you really think that it’s only on the internet that the yes side arguments appear? Really?
No. Not at all. And I didn’t say that.
What I’m asking, is that while the No side have the usual supects always posting opinion pieces, are there yes proponents also posting opinion pieces in the same papers?
Because if there isn’t, they the yes side is missing a hell of a trick. If people only hear one side of the debate, then they’ll most likely choose that side. It’s all well and good for us to point out Mullen is full of it, but he doesn’t care. If he can trick people into believing him, then he’s won.
In terms of public support the no side consists of :
Iona, Mothers and Fathers Matter, Ronan.
The yes side consists of:
Everyone else.
This is why we’re seeing the kneejerk ‘we’re being bullied’ thing happening.
The Church are also advocating a No.
Make no mistake, the combination of apathy and people thinking like you just did there, “everyone else” , will make this a lot closer than you expect.
Everybody was cool with Childrens rights.
Nobody showed though and it ran really close.
I predicted last year that 1. it would pass by a landslide (*) and 2. broadsheet would become unbearable.
Im 1 for 2 so far and have no doubt i’ll be 2 for 2 come the 23rd
*in relation to nearly every other referendum
“In the Constitution, the State pledges to “guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded”.
If marriage is redefined on May 22, so also is family.”
Except that the constitution doesn’t define the family so it can’t redefine it.
Correction: The Referendum isn’t there to redefine marriage. It’s to extend the right of access to Civil Marriage to everyone regardless of their gender. So, it’s not a redefinition, therefore the family isn’t redefined. It has nothing to do with adoption rights, surrogacy rights, children’s rights or parent’s right. It has nothing to do with the debate about whether or not certain couples are capable of raising a child. Nothing whatsoever.
Correction of the Fool Mullen, that is
Correct me if I’m wrong but technichally isn’t the whole point of the referendum to change the definition of marriage in the constitution? To Redefine it?
The Constitution doesn’t define a marriage as a union between two people of opposite sex, just pledges to defend the institution (without defining it). So no, the amendment would not redefine marriage.
Article 41 (3)(i): The State pledges itself to guard with special
care the institution of Marriage, on which the
Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Wait, so actually, this referendum will not redefine marriage under the constitution but actually define it? Hahahahahahaha this is great!
But then why are you having a referendum? You don’t need one if its not in the constitution? What the hell? Push this mofo through!!
Don, the proposed amendment won’t actually define marriage in the Constitution either, just affirm that it is open to couples regardless of their sex.
The courts have defined marriage as existing between opposite sex couples only, not the Constitution.
Tenuous I know but it’s the first defining of marriage in the constitution right? I mean technically.
Cant believe our taxes are paying for idiots like Mullen and co….
And because of gits in a snit voting against the Seanad’s abolition, we’re stuck with his sort for the forseeable future.
ok, i’m guessing a post was deleted since replying to anything just results in a post at the bottom of the thread.
and I can’t edit posts.
COME ON KARL, GET IT TOGETHER
I think Senator Mullen has made a good argument if you ask me.
Vote yes so everybody has the same right and
opportunity to raise a family.
When he says the words “young man” I always imagine him rubbing his thighs with his hands as he said it.
I can’t help it and it scares me.
Lol – my mother is hilariously convinced Senator Ronan Mullen has a “big secret”. When pressed she replies “his sort always do”.
Well done for removing that post Broadsheet. People shouldn’t advocate violence against this man. However such violence will be the inevitable outcome of a No vote. That is the stark consequence that awaits No voters. It isn’t, but I can still say it is, because fear is quite effective and lying is OK if it’s for a greater cause.
You had me for a second there.
Firstly, starting family for gay couple means exactly the same what starting family for couple who can’t have kids means.
Secondly, Also, why is everyone forgetting about adoption? That would be my number one option. And there are so many kids looking for home out there.
And finally Yes or No result in referendum won’t change that.
In this country, there were 14 adoptions last year. These were mainly by people who were in relationships already.
People here don’t give up babies for stranger adoption any more.
Those who want to adopt need to go abroad. This leaves lots of room for shady goings on.
I would have a problem with people being exploited, both in adoption and surrogacy, just to satisfy a westerners desire for a baby.
+1
People don’t want to adopt older children, and for some coming from very difficult circumstances, you can understand that a bit. Potential parents of these kids need a lot of support to encourage these types of adoptions.
If Mullen was able to repeal the right to travel he’d run out of ideal straight couples fairly fupping quickly. What would he do then?
Doesn’t every statement Ronan Mullen makes sound like it’s missing the suffix, “isn’t that right, Memmy?!”, or is it just me?
https://twitter.com/RichieMcCormack/status/592661772127117312
If you vote No in the referendum you are homophobic. You are denying rights to someone based solely on their sexuality. Thats the definition. Not only that, but you’re an asshat too.
They’re a subset of asshat anyway. Not all asshats are homophobes but all homophobes are asshats.
“egg of some female student or some poor woman abroad” – way to enforce the subtle negativity there champ. Why a student or poor woman abroad?
It’s a helluva lot more scary when you think of the potential dilution of our proud race… or Eileen in her final semester at Mary I, falling on hard times and having to traipse through the automatic doors of the clinic with tears rolling down her ruddy cheeks.
They harvest the eggs Joe.
You mean to say they not only focus on students and the poor abroad, but POOR STUDENTS?
Not on my watch.
*grabs no poster and bible*
Is there any other kind of student? I sincerely hope not.
Red Herring for lunch… again.
44 year old virgin + 1 would just make him a 44 year old surely?
“sperm donated by some young man” – he wrote the whole article as an excuse just to write that line
He’s gone and got it tattooed on his arse
It’s an insult to decent thinking people that this guys in a place of authority
And here we have another ” belief” thrown into the mix. He is talking out of his catholic, priest box. He has a very limited outlook based on his concrete box with a padlock. People must use logic in these issues, but if you live in a box, you aint got any, your logic has been overwhelmed by propaganda. Example: keep your unvacinated child away from my vacinated child. Duh.