Nuclear family under Threat say Pat Kenny

limklad

One the Partnership bill debate going through the Dail at the moment is been debated on Fronline at the moment.
Pat Kenny opening comment that he says "Nuclear Family is under threat of attack" What a blatant lie. They been many different froms of Families for Since the Human Race has began.

I believe he has his head stuck up someone ass in his attitude in his opening comments. The nuclear will always exists and will never be destroyed, it is other forms of Child rearing families.
There been many successful rearing of Children by many different types of families.
1/. Traditional Married Family.
2/. Single/widowed Family.
3/. Abandoned by one member of the Marriage
4/. Both parents passed away.
where Uncles/Aunts/Cousins/Grandparents/Friends/Neighbours/strangers who wants to take over the duty of carer of the child/children.

In all of the above cases there have been abuses of children. I was reared in the Government promotion of "Nuclear Family" and was abused by both Father and Mother. Can I sue the Government for promoting the abuse for not allowing me to escape from it?

I believe that the FF Government under DeValera over the last century is punishing Children of different form of other types of Families in proper recognition of looking after children.

Children are raised best by loving carers not by certain abusive biological Parents who like to called themselves "The Boss". Been raised by abusive carers no matter what relationships is wrong just because backward society over the last Century has caused and is causing far more harm than good.

I am for Good Guardians who will rear, love and care for the children, not Discriminate against other types of families rather than the Nuclear Family alone.

Wolfe Tone

I think the traditional Mother, Father and child is the best, under ideal conditions.

limklad

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think the traditional Mother, Father and child is the best, under ideal conditions.

If you read my post it failed miserable for me and for many Children, especially when both mother and father fought like cats and dogs and bossed and abuse me and other children.

Byron85

I'm watching it at the moment and one of the Fianna Fail ministers (I can't remember his name), who is obviously against the Civil Partnership Bill, said that the country is under attack from "aggressive secularists".

There is quite a lot of barely contained "Christian" prejudice among some of the contributors to the show.

Wolfe Tone

limklad wrote: »

If you read my post it failed miserable for me and for many Children, especially when both mother and father fought like cats and dogs and bossed and abuse me and other children.

Yes, I know, but under IDEAL conditions. If I could have picked a family to have it would have been that.

Sulmac

I had to laugh at the guy (yellow shirt, I think?) who started talking about the "sexual acts" carried out by homosexuals.

Why is it that the most blatant homophobes are so obsessed with what homosexuals do in the bedroom?

Also: After studying it, the protection of the family in the Constitution is a joke when it comes to the rights of children. One need only look at the Baby Ann case as an example, though there are many more like it.

nesf

limklad wrote: »

One the Partnership bill debate going through the Dail at the moment is been debated on Fronline at the moment.
Pat Kenny opening comment that he says "Nuclear Family is under threat of attack" What a blatant lie. They been many different froms of Families for Since the Human Race has began.

He was introducing the discussion topic rather than expressing his own opinion I think.

pwd

limklad wrote: »

One the Partnership bill debate going through the Dail at the moment is been debated on Fronline at the moment.
Pat Kenny opening comment that he says "Nuclear Family is under threat of attack" What a blatant lie. They been many different froms of Families for Since the Human Race has began.

I believe he has his head stuck up someone ass in his attitude in his opening comments. The nuclear will always exists and will never be destroyed, it is other forms of Child rearing families.
There been many successful rearing of Children by many different types of families.
1/. Traditional Married Family.
2/. Single/widowed Family.
3/. Abandoned by one member of the Marriage
4/. Both parents passed away.
where Uncles/Aunts/Cousins/Grandparents/Friends/Neighbours/strangers who wants to take over the duty of carer of the child/children.

In all of the above cases there have been abuses of children. I was reared in the Government promotion of "Nuclear Family" and was abused by both Father and Mother. Can I sue the Government for promoting the abuse for not allowing me to escape from it?

I believe that the FF Government under DeValera over the last century is punishing Children of different form of other types of Families in proper recognition of looking after children.

Children are raised best by loving carers not by certain abusive biological Parents who like to called themselves "The Boss". Been raised by abusive carers no matter what relationships is wrong just because backward society over the last Century has caused and is causing far more harm than good.

I am for Good Guardians who will rear, love and care for the children, not Discriminate against other types of families rather than the Nuclear Family alone.

Why do you capitalise "child" and "children"?

Mike 1972

Ive being hearing rightwits and religious types moaning about how "the family is under threat" for decades

I still see lots of families around and a society/culture which is still largely based on the assumption that everyone has or is part of a family.

I dont see any sign of it going out of fashion.

Einhard

The only reason they even mention families and children is because, unlike 20 years ago, they can't just come out and state how homosexuality makes them sick, and gays are depraved perverts. That's the rationale behing a lot of the objections to civil partnership, but in today's more tolerant environment, the bigots have to dress up their animosity in a more enlightened guise. Does anyone really think that, had this issue been raised 30 years ago, those objecting to it would really have been invoking the primacy of the family?! It should be remembered when listening to David Quinn or the like, that the Catholic Church still views homosexuality as sinful. Therein lies the nub of the issue, not phoney pontificating on the nuclear family. It used be so much easier when bigots were upfront about their prejudices.

nesf

Sulmac wrote: »

I had to laugh at the guy (yellow shirt, I think?) who started talking about the "sexual acts" carried out by homosexuals.

Why is it that the most blatant homophobes are so obsessed with what homosexuals do in the bedroom?

That guy was *special* alright. He couldn't bring himself to accurately say what he meant other than "sexual acts." Pat gets some real strange ones on that show, that's for sure!

jimmycrackcorm

nesf wrote: »

He was introducing the discussion topic rather than expressing his own opinion I think.

That's what I heard too. Have to say that Kenny is quite good on the frontline; he doesn't let stuff go as he did on his previous gig.

nesf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's what I heard too. Have to say that Kenny is quite good on the frontline; he doesn't let stuff go as he did on his previous gig.

He's getting better at pinning down people on points I think. Or at least I've gotten that impression over the course of the season. I still miss Questions and Answers though.

Nijmegen

The traditional nuclear family is not all that it's cracked up to be - the vast, vast majority of abuse, sexual and otherwise, takes place in the family home. Top of the list of abusers is not dirty men in raincoats, it's fathers, brothers and uncles.

So the view that a certain % of kids raised in non-nuclear families will have issues ignores the idea that a certain % in nuclear families have issues.

I believe that the first preference for a family should be one with two loving, caring and supporting parents. I think that single parent families have more issues than one where there's two mothers or two fathers.

Eliot Rosewater

Nijmegen wrote: »

I believe that the first preference for a family should be one with two loving, caring and supporting parents. I think that single parent families have more issues than one where there's two mothers or two fathers.

I think I agree. Many of the arguments put forward for preventing same-sex couples adopting children could be equally applied to single parents. My feeling is that if two people in a stable relationship, regardless of gender, go out of their way to adopt a child then they would probably be decent enough parents.

Grumpypants

I think David Quinn argued against himself for the whole show. He kept saying that the father/mother married etc is the best bet for the kids and this should be looked after. But surely if this already has the best results, it needs the least amount of help of all the family units and in turn it is the gay couples, single parents, co-habiting couples etc that need the extra help and financial breaks to help them bring up there levels of success to match the usual family unit he talks about not less help.

Im not even sure any of those studies can be accurate due to the % differences of the two groups.

Its also really stupid that we have children dying in care while the state argue that a couple who could give that child a good loving home cant adopt.

Einhard

Those who are against the notion of granting adoption rights to gay couples don't seem to realise that such couples aren't demanding the right to adopt, but the right to be considered for adoption. There's a huge difference, and any concerns that might arise would be dealt with through the long, demanding adoption process in place in this country. This process is designed to ensure that children are adopted only by parents able to look after their long term needs, and provide a stable and loving environment for them. The criteria don't change for gay couples, so as long as they pass the vetting process, then I really don't see what problem there is. Unless one's opposition is based more on homophobia than concern for the children, in which case there's not much point in attempting an informed discussion.