Those Darned Anthropologists wrote: "Around the world, the structures of family norms are different. Ideas of what constitute a family changes based on culture, mobility, wealth, and tradition. Yet, as James Q. Wilson has stated: In virtually every society in which historians or anthropologists have inquired, one finds people living together on the basis of kinship ties and having responsibility for raising children. The kinship ties invariably imply restrictions on who has sexual access to whom; the child-care responsibilities invariably imply both economic and non-economic obligations. And in virtually every society, the family is defined by marriage; that is, by a publicly announced contract that makes legitimate the sexual union of a man and a woman.[6] In many cultures, the need to be self-supporting is hard to meet, particularly where rents/property values are very high, and the foundation of a new household can be an obstacle to nuclear family formation. In these cases, extended family forms. People remain single and live with their parents for a longer period of time. Generally, the trend to shift from extended to nuclear family structures has been supported by increasing mobility and modernization. Some have argued that the extended family, or at least the three- generational family including grandparents, provides a broader and deeper foundation for raising children as well as support for the new parents. In particular, the role of grandparents has been recognized as an important aspect of the family dynamic. Having experienced the challenges of creating a family themselves, they offer wisdom and encouragement to the young parents and become a reassuring presence in the lives of their grandchildren. Abraham Maslow described the love of grandparents as "the purest love for the being of the other." [7] The benefits of these intergenerational encounters are substantial for all involved."..."Contemporary society generally views the family as a haven from the world, supplying absolute fulfillment, and encouraging “intimacy, love and trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanizing forces in modern society.”[8] The family is often referred to as a haven providing love and protection from the rough and tumble industrialized world, and as a place where warmth, tenderness and understanding can be expected from a loving mother and protection from the world can be expected from the father. It is important to note that the cohesiveness of the family is contingent upon the relationship of all its members, particularly the father and mother. They establish the bonds each member has to each other, strengthening the nuclear family. However, the idea of protection is declining as civil society faces less internal conflict combined with increased civil rights and protection from the state. To many, the ideal of personal or family fulfillment has replaced protection as the major role of the family. The family now supplies what is “vitally needed but missing from other social arrangements.”[8] Social conservatives often express concern over a purported decay of the family and see this as a sign of the crumbling of contemporary society. They feel that the family structures of the past were superior to those today and believe that families were more stable and happier at a time when they did not have to contend with problems such as illegitimate children and divorce. Others refute this theory, claiming “there is no golden age of the family gleaming at us in the far back historical past.”[8] The number of single parent families in society is challenging the idea of the nuclear family. Divorce has given rise to different living arrangements for parents and children. These post-nuclear families have been described as “broken because the marriage bond has been broken.”[9] Single parent families also form as a result of the death of a spouse in the family. This changes the family dynamic, shifting responsibilities to the remaining spouse and new obligations for the children."Link
Jakkass wrote: » I've argued for my position quite thoroughly in the past. It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in. I think people would really need to sit down and think about the possible impact such decisions could have on society at large.
But Carss-Frisk argued that marriages and families have long been considered inseparable and that offspring are a core part of marriages.
Links234 wrote: » where the connection between gay marriage and abortion?
candy-gal1 wrote: » I dont see a reason to oppose gay marraige between two people who love each other, but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.
sponsoredwalk wrote: » They seem to be doing fine in America...
candy-gal1 wrote: » but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.
foxyboxer wrote: » Marriage is between a Man and a Woman who will start a family. That's just the way it is. My 2c
candy-gal1 wrote: » Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.
MrSir wrote: » I think people need to learn that even though they may be against something that doesn't mean they have the right to force their opinions onto someone else.Everyone is entitled to Civil Rights FULL STOP.
Jakkass wrote: » What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous.
Jakkass wrote: » Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.
Jakkass wrote: » The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.
Jakkass wrote: » It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in.
JacquesD'Ladd wrote: » N.O.
sponsoredwalk wrote: » Yes it should be changed because it is an antiquaited law that impinges on the rights of human beings. This is not an issue of choice it's an issue of the majority of people's bigoted views impinging on the freedom of other people in the society. This is a more fundamental right than just a choice, it's excluding people from expressing their love in the way most natural forpeople all over the world - in the eyes of the law & the public.
sponsoredwalk wrote: » I'd love to hear the pragmatic reasons behind excluding human beings from expressing love in a natural way :rolleyes:
sponsoredwalk wrote: » Remember, you have just voiced your opinion on a radical change of the family;
sponsoredwalk wrote: » as being a reason you'd vote against giving people their fundamental human rights yet if you knew anything about cultures throughout the world you'd realise there is no such thing as a single family structure. I'll refer you to my post you haven't attempted to reply to here where you'll get a more detailed answer to why this is the case.
sponsoredwalk wrote: » You have to explain to us why all over the world the one common thread anthropologists find is that marriage a "publicly announced contract that makes legitimate the sexual union of a man and a woman." is the finding...
sponsoredwalk wrote: » Again, this is not a matter that should be up for democratic vote it's too deeply ingrained in humanity, transcending all boundaries & cultures, to be a matter people get to choose on. Nobody gets to tell others how to live & it's simply a matter of bigoted history that we're trying to, and will, overcome.
sponsoredwalk wrote: » If you can't face these simple truth's then I call foul & suspect some ulterior motives...
Jakkass wrote: » In democratic systems such as the Irish one, if people are asked to vote on a particular issue, they certainly do have the right to cast their vote along with everyone else. If people have real concerns about it, then they should be known. The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons. Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.
Jakkass wrote: » The issue doesn't surround whether or not people can or should express their love. It surrounds whether or not children should be raised in such situations. Or indeed, if the Government should attempt to ensure that in the vast majority of situations that children are raised with both a mother and a father. Personally, I don't think that is that antiquated to expect the Government to ensure the very best for children.
Links234 wrote: » I don't like the implication that children brought up by two men or two women aren't getting the very best upbringing.
Jakkass wrote: » The issue doesn't surround whether or not people can or should express their love. It surrounds whether or not children should be raised in such situations. Or indeed, if the Government should attempt to ensure that in the vast majority of situations that children are raised with both a mother and a father. Personally, I don't think that is that antiquated to expect the Government to ensure the very best for children. The right of expressing your love is clearly yours, but the welfare of any children needs to be considered. If marriage is the basis for the family in the Constitution, that means we also need to consider children as well as the love expressed.
Jakkass wrote: » I have. LGBT couples have the right to formalise their relationships or will do within a few months. I'm arguing based on legislation, and possible impacts. Not on the basis of anthropology.
Wikipedia wrote: Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well. Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[24][25][26] Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[25] Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.[27][28][24][29][25] In fact, the promotion of this notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter to the well-being of children.[24] No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.[30][24][25] Society is replete with role models from whom children and adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles.[25] Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[27][9][24][31][32][33] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[24] These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.[34] The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[27] If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.[35] Canadian Psychological Association is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.[9] According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics "those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both".[36] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[8][37][34][25] Most of the studies appeared in rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development.link
MrSir wrote: » That's a joke right? Please,for all that is good,tell me you're joking.
Links234 wrote: I don't like the implication that children brought up by two men or two women aren't getting the very best upbringing.
mickydoomsux wrote: » I see no problem letting same sex couples get married and having kids.
Jakkass wrote: » I give no guarantee, that you will "like" my opinion. If it is more than a dislike, and if you feel I am violating the charter of AH. Click the report post button beside my avatar.
Liam Byrne wrote: » How ?
mickydoomsux wrote: » Teens and children will take the piss out of each other over anything so that's hardly a compelling argument. I see no problem letting same sex couples get married and having kids. What business is it of mine? It'll probably never happen in good auld cat-lick Ireland though. We're still incredibly backwards in our thinking, for the most part.
