rmSenator Ronán Mullen

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)

Senator Ronán Mullen

124 thoughts on “Yo Momma

    1. Jordofthejungle

      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.

    1. Odis

      Any idea where the church stands on, what is technically fornication with a turkey baster?

      1. Stewart Curry

        I’m assuming not hovering over, cassock raised, thinking wide thoughts…

  1. Don Pidgeoni

    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.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        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.

        1. pedeyw

          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.

    1. fluffybiscuits

      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!

    2. Odis

      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.

      1. Medium Sized C

        I have just read both second paragraphs and in fairness, I don’t know where you got that idea.

    3. Medium Sized C

      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.

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            At least if he was an idiot, he might not believe all the complete sh*** he comes out with….

      1. ahjayzis

        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.

    4. p

      “Mothering isn’t a necessarily female action”
      Eh, I think you’ll find it is. 100% of mothers are, in fact, female.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        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.

        1. p

          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.

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            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.

      2. Stephanenny

        Define “mothering”. Is it just parenting while in possession of a vagina?

      1. Stephanenny

        Maybe you can help.

        “Define “mothering”. Is it just parenting while in possession of a vagina?”

        1. newsjustin

          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.

  2. Wayne.F

    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

  3. scottser

    ‘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?

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      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

  4. ReproBertie

    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?

      1. Clo

        That wasn’t the state taking away unmarried womens’ babies, it was the church, and so that was ok…

  5. Starina

    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

    1. tm

      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.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        This referendum has everything to do with children … if they are gay and would one day like to be married.

    1. newsjustin

      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.

  6. YourNan

    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.

  7. JimmytheHead

    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.

  8. Medium Sized C

    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. Owen

          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.

  9. edalicious

    “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.

        1. Medium Sized C

          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.

          1. jeremy kyle

            Agreed. I mean, isn’t “groupthink” the purpose of having a referendum and a debate?

          2. JimmytheHead

            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

          3. JimmytheHead

            @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.

  10. Optimus Grime

    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!

    1. pedeyw

      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?

    1. Tá Frilly Keane

      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

  11. Bob

    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.

    1. rotide

      Do you really think that it’s only on the internet that the yes side arguments appear? Really?

      1. Bob

        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.

        1. rotide

          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.

          1. Medium Sized C

            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.

          2. rotide

            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

  12. ReproBertie

    “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.

    1. Well that's that

      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.

      1. rotide

        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?

        1. neil

          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.

          1. neil

            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.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            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!!

          3. neil

            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.

          4. Don Pidgeoni

            Tenuous I know but it’s the first defining of marriage in the constitution right? I mean technically.

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      And because of gits in a snit voting against the Seanad’s abolition, we’re stuck with his sort for the forseeable future.

  13. rotide

    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

  14. Mike Dublin

    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.

  15. pmc

    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.

    1. Jordofthejungle

      Lol – my mother is hilariously convinced Senator Ronan Mullen has a “big secret”. When pressed she replies “his sort always do”.

  16. Caroline

    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.

  17. James

    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.

    1. Dubloony

      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. Don Pidgeoni

        +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.

      2. Stephanenny

        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?

  18. Jess

    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.

    1. pedeyw

      They’re a subset of asshat anyway. Not all asshats are homophobes but all homophobes are asshats.

  19. Owen

    “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?

    1. Caroline

      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.

      1. Owen

        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*

  20. St. John Smythe

    “sperm donated by some young man” – he wrote the whole article as an excuse just to write that line

  21. Joe cool

    It’s an insult to decent thinking people that this guys in a place of authority

  22. Ima Soul

    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.

Comments are closed.