The '23rd Report on British Social Attitudes' came out a fortnight ago. It reports, among many other things, a decline in membership of political parties and trades unions.

Here is something new. White couples from Europe and elsewhere are travelling to India to be impregnated via fertility clinics with the embryos of Indian women.

To its great credit, the Labour party has unambiguously declared that the current system of tax individualisation discriminates against single-income married couples in favour of dual-income married couples.

Francis Fukayama made his name with the book 'The End of History'. This postulated that the age-old struggle to find the best way of ordering our political life together had ended with the defeat of communism and the victory of liberal democracy.

The psychologist Oliver James, who made his name with 'Britain on the Couch', has a new book out called 'Affluenza'. It's not his term, it been around for a few years, but basically it amounts to an extreme bout of consumerism, the idea that we are what we own, that we are fulfilled by what we own, and that we can't be happy unless we're keeping up, and passing out, the Joneses.

The fierce debate taking place in England over whether or not Church adoption agencies should be forced to consider homosexual couples as prospective parents rages around three issues, namely the principle of non-discrimination, religious freedom and the rights of children.

The news that Anglican leaders in the UK have lent their voices to Catholic opposition to New Labour's plan to force religious adoption agencies to consider homosexual couples for adoption is welcome. Quite apart from the political significance of the statement from Archbishop Rowan Williams and Archbishop John Sentamu backing Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, it is of profound significance from an ecumenical point of view.

The importance of religious freedom is one of the themes of the Iona Institute. Religious freedom belongs roughly in same the category as freedom of conscience, that is, it is part of the freedom to act in accordance with your beliefs. In a liberal society, of course, that means doing so in a way that doesn't do harm to others. (Although we can argue all day about what exactly constitutes harms to others.)

According to reports (see news), the Government is planning to lump together a series of proposals concerning children's rights in their proposed referendum in March or April. Reports suggest that the proposed wording may impact upon three seperate articles of the Constitution.

Drink driving is on the agenda again. This time, however, the story appears to have taken something of a surreal twist. Rural politicians, always on the look out for a way to shore up a few more votes, seem to have zeroed in on the issue.

I write as a citizen increasingly concerned with multiple social breakdown in Irish and other Western Societies, and with the frequent absence of rational ethical or social policy debate in the media, along with the substitution of emotion and "compassion" for reasons, reasoning, comparative research, and hard evidence.

A new report commissioned by the British Government sets out to discover what makes us happy. (See news). It turns out that having time to spend with other people is one of the big drivers of human happiness. Hardly a surprise.

To you and me it’s called polygamy but the new and more polite name for it is ‘plural marriage’ and in America the move is on to have it legalised. (See The Times, December 30, 2006)

Three factors are adding impetus to this drive. The first is the fact that in Utah there are something like 20,000 adults in ‘plural marriages’. It is hard to crack down on that many people.

The second is a series produced by HBO called ‘Big Love’ that treats polygamy sympathetically.

The third factor is the big one, however, namely the ongoing campaign to redefine marriage. It is evident that a growing number of people believe that the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is unnecessarily and unjustly discriminatory. It is neither of course, but let’s not allow that to detain us here.

The point is that once we get it into our heads that the current definition is indeed discriminatory, then we must come up with some new, more inclusive definition of marriage that is not discriminatory. The push is already on, and it has succeeded in some countries, to have gay marriage recognised. But why stop there? If it’s discriminatory to limit marriage to a man and a woman, surely it’s also discriminatory to limit it to any two people? Why ban polygamy? Why indeed ban polyandry (multiple husbands).

And come to think of it, why make people marry before they can enjoy the various benefits of marriage?

These are the issues our policy-makers must consider once they decide that the current definition of marriage is a form of discrimination. Or they can decide that there are in fact sound, rational reasons for the current definition.

Yesterday's Irish Times front page story appeared to be good news for the many people concerned about Government proposals to change the definition of the family to give rights to children. But certain questions remain.

The headline in the Guardian over Christmas read: “Religion does more harm than good”. The sub-head read: “82pc say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious”.