I've actually just posted on this - before I saw your post. I think the article is a pile of piddle, but that's hardly surprising! You know these 'studies' Mullen et. al. keep talking about - do you think they'll ever actually give references to them?
I thought it was a great piece and I would regard him as perhaps the best journalist in Ireland right now. His articles always challenge mindsets and get people thinking.
I found this one no different.
UI,
What way do you swing on the gay marriage issue?
For or against?
There is no traditional family. there is a percieved traditional family, that is all.
Different cultures have different traditions. Afterall up until a few years ago it would be quite common for three generations to live together. And lets not forget that the traditional western family is founded upon the idea that one adult brings in cash and the other minds the kids.
Family is what you make it.
Fence
"There is no traditional family. there is a percieved traditional family, that is all."
Not really. 'Man and wife' has been the family model since before BC. I'd say that's a traditional family.
I'm also not aware of any culture which has preached husband and husband and wife and wife as being beneficial to society.
AFJ
"What way do you swing on the gay marriage issue?
"For or against?"
I don't like the term 'gay marriage' as it seems an oxymoron. I would agree with the recommendations from the recent Oireachtas Committee that we allow for civil partnerships like in the UK.
I think that's fair.
"I don't like the term 'gay marriage' as it seems an oxymoron. I would agree with the recommendations from the recent Oireachtas Committee that we allow for civil partnerships like in the UK.
I think that's fair"
UI,
I agree 100%.
I am totally opposed to the suggestion of gay couples adopting children.
So a traditional fmily is a man and a woman, plus kids? Nothing else? What about grandparents? What about extended family?
The modern family emerged in the western world in or around the 17 and 18 centuries with the emergence of the middle classes.
There are cultures with one woman and two men, that is traditional for them.
Todays tradition is yesterday's innovation.
Fence,
I interpret the traditional family model to mean the nuclear family.
"The modern family emerged in the western world in or around the 17 and 18 centuries with the emergence of the middle classes"
Did a father and mother not raise their kids prior to the 17th and 18th century? I could have sworn they did.
"There are cultures with one woman and two men, that is traditional for them."
What cultures?
If we start turning our nose up at the traditional fmaily model then we will be left with many bizarre concoctions of the family model.
I don't want that. I don't want society turning into a circus.
Did a father and mother not raise their kids prior to the 17th and 18th century? I could have sworn they did.
That depends on what you mean by raise. Among the upper classes most of the raising of children was done by servants. Mothers didn't even breastfeed.
As for the cultures, perhaps I over stated, But there is an Afircan tribe where it is the norm for a woman to marry two brothers, or cousins, so that there are three adults to help with the raising of the children.
I don't think they would find their own lifestyles bizarre in the slightest.
Fence
"That depends on what you mean by raise. Among the upper classes most of the raising of children was done by servants. Mothers didn't even breastfeed."
The family model was still essentially what it is today though.
"As for the cultures, perhaps I over stated, But there is an Afircan tribe where it is the norm for a woman to marry two brothers, or cousins, so that there are three adults to help with the raising of the children.
"I don't think they would find their own lifestyles bizarre in the slightest"
Well there are Mormons in the US who take multiple wives but that doesn't mean it should be allowed over here in law.
The law must reflect what's best for society.
Well there are Mormons in the US who take multiple wives but that doesn't mean it should be allowed over here in law.
But, if the people involved ar consenting adults then why not? I just don't understand why people are so hung up on other people's love lives.
Personally I'd be all "eeewwww" over that, but who am I to prevent someone from living their life the way they want, provided they aren't hurting anyone?
The family model was still essentially what it is today though
Not really. It involved a man and a woman simly because a man and a woman were required to produce heirs. The relationships and childrearing methids were wildly different.
If you think about it having two fathers, or two mothers, is essentially the same as having a mother and a father as you have two parents.
Fence
"But, if the people involved ar consenting adults then why not? I just don't understand why people are so hung up on other people's love lives.
"Personally I'd be all "eeewwww" over that, but who am I to prevent someone from living their life the way they want, provided they aren't hurting anyone?"
Because sometimes a line has to be drawn. For example, prostitution is not something I want in society even though it doesn't affect me personally if two consenting adults engage in it. I oppose it though as I feel it will lead to a more depraved and soulless world. The same goes for polygamy and gay adoption in my opinion.
"Not really. It involved a man and a woman simly because a man and a woman were required to produce heirs. The relationships and childrearing methids were wildly different."
What does that tell you? That a man and a woman is the NATURAL way. It still involved a man and a woman and just because technology allows for different avenues doesn't mean we should take them.
"If you think about it having two fathers, or two mothers, is essentially the same as having a mother and a father as you have two parents."
Wrong. See here and in particular this quote:
"Children need both a mother and a father. Why? Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation."
Leaving children to parents of the same sex is cruel and unhelpful for the child.
I agree UI.
I think you and Ronan should get together for a chat - you've linked to his column with glowing praise for the last 3/4 weeks?
Polygamy can seem disingenuous to bring up, but if all children need are "loving parents", why not have 3, 4,5 of them??
I know it's a faectious argument but regardless of whether or not gay marriage becomes a reality it's important that we keep up a discussion on what's best for children/family and resultingly, what's best for society.
I don't think resultingly is a real word. I apologise. It's too late to think in English. I'm reverting to my primitive pre-formalised language free un-de-constructed thought processes that have a nocturnal predilection.
The boundaries will continue to be pushed no doubt and if gay marriage is endorsed, polygamy will be the next issue up for debate I reckon.
Gradually traditional values will disintegrate before our very eyes whilst those on the far left will tell us that things are improving.
I think we have to make sure that all this doesn't happen.
As for Mr Mullen, I've linked to him for months never mind weeks. It's weird how often I agree wtih him!
If he mentioned me in one of his articles I'd be delighted. I must be his biggest fan! 
Okay, so because certain studies have stated that a child is best served by having both a mother and a father you say that gay couples should not adopt right? And because of this they should not be allowed to marry?
So therefore marriage is purely for children? So childless/infertile couples should be forcibly divorced?
And single mothers should have their children removed and instead placed in "traditional" families?
Fence
"Okay, so because certain studies have stated that a child is best served by having both a mother and a father you say that gay couples should not adopt right?"
Most studies say that. Isn't it obvious? Surely you agree that a child is best served with a father figure and a maternal figure?
"And because of this they should not be allowed to marry?"
A marriage by definition is between man and woman. I've no problem with civil unions for gay people.
"So therefore marriage is purely for children?"
Huh? No...
"So childless/infertile couples should be forcibly divorced?"
Again, no...
"And single mothers should have their children removed and instead placed in "traditional" families?"
No offence but you seem to be jumping to extreme lenghts when my position is actually quite simple.
Kids deserve the chance to have a motehr and father and a stable family unit. Not some alternate incarnation of that unit.
UI is it a mother and a father or a mother figure and a father figure? Most parents, whether single parents or queer parents, recognise the need for their children to have strong relationships and ties to people of different genders, beliefs, backgrounds etc... so that their children learn basic values of respect and equality as well as as many different perspectives on the world as possible. If my partner and I had a child and our fathers played large roles in the baby's life - as male role model figurs with close emotional ties to him/her - wouldn't that be sufficient?? Even accepting that it's good for kids to have male and female people playing a strong role in their lives I don't see what that means marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Fiona
"If my partner and I had a child and our fathers played large roles in the baby's life - as male role model figurs with close emotional ties to him/her - wouldn't that be sufficient??
Even accepting that it's good for kids to have male and female people playing a strong role in their lives I don't see what that means marriage must be between a man and a woman."
While that scenario would be better, it still would not be ideal for the child in my view.
I believe a child is heavily influenced on the relationship between the mother and father. For example, if a young girl has a father who is abusive towards the mother and herself then I think she will likely be drawn towards men who are bad for her self-esteem. It's said that a girl models her future partner largely on how her father treated her and I would agree with that.
Therefore if a little girl grows up in an environment where there are two women rather than a man, I think it will send out confusing messages for her and her development.
That's just my opinion.
Commenting by HaloScan
