Cohabitation, there is more to it than sex

Joe Xuereb

Jun 4th 2010, 20:52

@ Curmi. 'some of my best friends are....but' is a reality. Homosexual relationships are indeed different as indeed are the experiences they have. Maybe you have been lucky and never met any who use this silly tactic to distance themselves from the minority they are about to denigrate.
If I lived in Vladivostok I'm sure I could quote yet another anecdotal permutatation to the gay civil union debate. And pointless with it as, quote: 'And no I'm not a homosexual and I do not agree with homo marriages'.
About wills and stuff, I did make it clear it was hypothetical. For I too, like yourself, do not agree with homosexual marriages. The gay community has been clamouring for equality for decades but only on principle. Why would I want a setup that's hazardous at best? - look around you. From where I stand, sex has been hijacked away from its intended purpose and straights are behaving exactly like homosexuals, like bunny rabbits. It seems that there was a quiet revolution. Heterosexuals wanted equality with homosexuals. They did not wait. They took the bull by the horn. Not all. Many still obey churchy rules and the fallout is what we see.

Richard Curmi

Jun 4th 2010, 13:46

@ Joe Xuereb: "The answer is "no" because the nature of the relationship is different. To give you one simple example. In Victoria (Australia), a same sex partner may (in certain circumstances) upon the breakup of a same-sex relationship apply for maintenance and/or a share in the other person's property." This is the reply I got from Joseph Carmel Chetcuti to my question as to whether those in non-sexual relationship should have the same rights and duties as those in a sexual relatinship. In thanking him for the reply I also told Fr. Joe that I believed that Chetcuti had a point there. That is why I kept saying that any cohabitation legislation should take into consideration all kinds of relationships the cohabitants have.

Now do me a favour, if you please, and tell me where I am muddying the water and what my obvious agenda is.

All the same I'm happy for you if you are so sure of your affairs but there are others who would like and are indeed demanding to have their rights guaranteed by the law.

This is my obvious agenda; any other agenda is hidden from me.

Joe Xuereb

Jun 4th 2010, 11:40

@ Curmi, determined as I am to go to heaven, I would make sure that any debts were settle and THEN leave my chattels to 'friend'. In any case, my 'friend' would be honourable that's why I was with him and my family would not need worry about settling anything outstanding. You can muddy the water as much as you like but your agenda is obvious.
As for your 'gay' disclaimer, I stand my ground because of MY experience. How many times have I heard it said when someone, say, puts down a black person 'some of my best friends are, but.....'. And more to the point here, 'I'm not gay myself, but......'. And so distancing themselves that they, shock/horror, are no way gay. You are right Richard - for all it's worth - being gay is no catastrophe. In fact, just the opposite. Deal with it!
@ Seychell. I dare say there are homosexuals who use surrogate mothers. Not in my experience though. Gay man and perfectly fertile gay woman can come to an arrangement. And impregnation can be done in a number of ways if that's what's confusing/worrying you man. Deal with it like a real man Dave!

Joe Xuereb

Jun 3rd 2010, 23:10

@ David Seychell. As promised.
Malta is short on human rights other countries take for granted. Divorce, for example.
You're now suggesting prohibition of marriage for couples who cannot, or won't, have children. Isn't there enough stringency as it is David? You want more? The world moves on. Malta continues to alienate itself because, the people are told they are special, they're Paul's children, and so on. Beware of laws that oppress some today. Tomorrow may be your turn. Because cultural oppression is not selective.

All this is to do with the cards we are dealt as conscious humans. We are told to procreate by a creator but the method is very unwieldy. So the church acts as nanny and prescribes what/when is allowed and what isn't. And of course we're reminded we have free will. So, I'm dealt a rotten set of cards and told to use my judgement what I do with them. No sugared-pill within the church, neither outside it. Oh dear! Where does one turn?
A real dilemma and the answer is not with the church. It is not equipped to sort out the mess that is the god-given human condition.

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 3rd 2010, 15:37

@ David Seychell:

While surrogacy is a complex issue (a grey area) with several problems of its own, it is hardly as problematic for the children as polygamy is.

Regarding marriage being "mainly about children", making marriage "misplaced" if a couple cannot or will not have children, that would not even be your "interpretation of facts". Where is it written that the main purpose of marriage is to have children?

David Seychell

Jun 3rd 2010, 13:13

@Kenneth Cassar (final comment)
"That is not a statement of fact." Fine, consider it my personal interpretation of facts then.

"That is only your opinion, thanfully a minority opinion."

As far as I know, in Malta, and around the world in general, "your" opinion that same-sex "marriage" should be legalised is also "thankfully a minority opinion."

David Seychell

Jun 3rd 2010, 13:09

@Kenneth Cassar
Regarding the reasons you gave for which you think polygamy is not ideal for children, I agree with you. However there are many other different relationships which may result in having children in a not ideal environment/circumstances for those children. Such a circumstance is surrogacy. Surrogacy is an arrangement whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant and deliver a child for a contracted party(a gay couple for example). A surrogate mother conceives a child that she won't care about. Imagine your natural mother PRE-decided to abandon you from birth not because of some insurmountable problems but because of money. Is this fair for the child? A common example is when a woman may decide to have casual sex with a man in order to become mother, single mother. If a woman want to raise children all alone, it's her decision, and society cannot stop her. However, society created the institution of marriage NOT to FORCE but to [encourage and incentivise(1)] you to choose that kind of relationship which is best for children. You are free to choose that relationship/s which is not best for children, but then don't expect society to bless you(1) for that with marriage.

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 3rd 2010, 07:43

@ David Seychell:

"Because marriage is mainly about children and hence in case where you don't even have the slightest chance of having (or adopting) children, marriage is misplaced in the first place".

That is not a statement of fact. That is only your opinion, thanfully a minority opinion.

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 3rd 2010, 07:39

@ David Seychell:

Ok, I shall answer your question unequivocally. At this point in time, and considering all factors (including possible children resulting from marriage and how it would effect them), I would most probably vote NO.

However, seeing that a minority of people who choose to do so, still have multiple partners, and unfortunately even offspring from different partners with or without polygamous marriage, I wouldn't lose any sleep about it. Even if polygamous marriage passes a referendum (very unlikely), I am confident that it will be used only by an insignificant minority who would still have multiple partners with or without polygamy.

That said, I would like to make it clear that there are other options besides polygamy vs "traditional" marriage. For instance there is also gay marriage (which is harmless to non-gay people and beneficial to gay people who want it), and there should also be the option of divorce for failed marriages.

I hope this is finally clear.

Richard Curmi

Jun 3rd 2010, 04:59

Believe me or not , Joe Xuereb, I would not contest such a will unless the dying person had some outstanding debt owed to me. So you assumed wrongly that just because I asked "what if this will could be contested by next of kin?" I am projecting how I would deal with such a situation.

I wrote that because I know that it is on our death bed that we really learn how many relatives we have and if the money is sort of big one will see them coming out of the proverbial woodwork claiming for the portion they perceive should be passed on to them.

In my own way I was agreeing with Joseph Carmel Chetcuti, regarding legal guarantee of the rights of same sex cohabitants.

My disclaimer was not made because it would have been the end of the world if I happened to be gay but beacuse I wanted to make it clear that I stand for what I believe is right and fair even if I do not have that orientation.

If you do not believe my bona fide, there is nothing else I can say or do.

David Seychell

Jun 2nd 2010, 18:04

@Joe Xuereb (Part 2 of 2)

Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't really bother me the fact that some couples who can't procreate still do get married, after all they aren't many. What bothers me is when someone tries to use this unfortunate exceptions as a reason to hijack the mission of marriage. My previous "english-exam" analogy meant to say that yes, no system is 100% efficient (and marriage is no exception) however that's not a valid reason to make the system less efficient, on the contrary, se mai, it's a good reason to try making it even more efficent.

And by the way, I think my suggestion that marriage should not be open to couples who can't procreate and won't adopt, should be implemented AFTER civil partnerships is introduced in Malta so that it would be availabe not only for gays but also for them.

David Seychell

Jun 2nd 2010, 17:48

@Joe Xuereb (Part 1 of 2)
" Why David, in god's name, why?"

Because marriage is mainly about children and hence in case where you don't even have the slightest chance of having (or adopting) children, marriage is misplaced in the first place . I obviously don't think that those married should be obliged to have children, however it makes sense to invest where it's likely to have a return. When a man and a women love each other, and vow to stay together, then there you have the basis for the formation of a nuclear family. This is when society steps in with its institution (marriage) to solidify this union which potentially is likely to become, as I said a nuclear family. However, if you know beforehand that it's impossible for a couple to have children then marriage should be avoided in the first place because the potential of the formation of a nuclear family is non existent.

David Seychell

Jun 2nd 2010, 16:59

@Kenneth Cassar "I never said that"
Ok, let me ask you this question. Imagine there's a referendum in Malta which asks you whether or not you want the state to give the option to the people to get legally married by choosing EITHER the traditional marriage or polygamy.

Would you vote in favour of giving people the option to choose polygamy if they want to (voting yes) or would you vote in favour of denying them this option(voting no)? Your answer should clarify the matter, and by the way, needless to say, I would vote no.

Joe Xuereb

Jun 2nd 2010, 16:37

2) And Richard, when, somewhere, you sympathise with a homosexual's plight, you needn't qualify that by a disclaimer. We are big boys now.

PS. The bit about family is hypothetical of course. They are lovely people. Why! every now and then I even get a Christmas card - with a baby jesus and a stuffed donkey somewhere in the background. Oh happy, happy days!

And one other thing Richard. Often, when people write about......'what if the family contested a will?....they are really projecting how they would deal with a similar situation. Well, homosexuals, atheist ones to boot, have a different take on the world. Not all of course, but more and more, more (of them) will not be held to ransom, not by tooth-fairies, even less by uncaring families. The price one pays of course is that one does not get to go to heaven. Big deal!!
@ David Seychell. I'll deal with you later. Ts OK! I'll be gentle, ever so.

Joe Xuereb

Jun 2nd 2010, 16:26

1) @ Curmi, Richard. Quote: 'I do not agree totally with Mr Joe Xuereb when he said "Don't bother. In the event, leave whatever chattels you have to whoever by writing a legal will ...." if this will could be contested by next of kin......'
Richard, if a family has shunned a homosexual son until he's on his death-bed......when they come running......they wouldn't dare (am I being naive?). And my partner would fight for what I left him, legally. He wouldn't do a David Laws* and utter not a whimper to safeguard, what? I wouldn't have anything to do with such a person. Closetry makes one vulnerable Richard. Better to come clean, with honour, fearless, giving the finger to a hypocritical world.
Partnership or not, will or not - at my death-bed I'll have whoever it is I want. A historically-rejecting family don't need to know I'm gone. A doctor would be nice. But certainly, most certainly, no viaticum. A whiff of that and I'd be up like a bolt, dying like I've lived.
Richard, I've said all this in the last couple of comments.

* http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153578583&ocid=today

cont./

Joe Xuereb

Jun 2nd 2010, 16:19

@ Curmi, Richard. Quote: 'I do not agree totally with Mr Joe Xuereb when he said "Don't bother. In the event, leave whatever chattels you have to whoever by writing a legal will ...." if this will could be contested by next of kin......'
Richard, if a family has shunned a homosexual son until he's on his death-bed......when they come running......they wouldn't dare (am I being naive?). And my partner would fight for what I left him, legally. He wouldn't do a David Laws* and utter not a whimper to safeguard, what? I wouldn't have anything to do with such a person. Closetry makes one vulnerable Richard. Better to come clean, with honour, fearless, giving the finger to a hypocritical world.
Partnership or not, will or not - at my death-bed I'll have whoever it is I want. A historically-rejecting family don't need to know I'm gone. A doctor would be nice. But certainly, most certainly, no viaticum. A whiff of that and I'd be up like a bolt, dying like I've lived.
Richard, I've said all this in the last couple of comments.

* http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153578583&ocid=today

Richard Curmi

Jun 2nd 2010, 11:09

@ Joe Xuereb: Either I wasn't clear enough or you got me wrong. I declared that I am not a homosexual (not protested) to indicate that I have no vested interests or any hidden agendas in saying what I was writing.

I did not assume that homosexuals wouldn't fight for their rights but I was trying to argue that they have to be protected by the law as all others.

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 2nd 2010, 08:31

@ David Seychell:

"What you said, is that you're in favour of reforming marriage so as to accommodate polygamy in Malta for those who would want it, just like I said previously".

I never said that.

"If you consider the rules of marriage, you will realise that sex is of central importance".

Pretty obvious to me.

"The AIM of marriage, as created by society, is to strengthen the union of a man and a woman who love each other in order to ENCOURAGE procreation...."

That's very different from saying that "the institution of marriage should not be open to those couples who can't procreate and won't adopt".

Joe Xuereb

Jun 1st 2010, 22:54

@ Seychell.Quoting yourself: 'I suggested that the institution of marriage should not be open to those couples who can't procreate and won't adopt'. Why David, in god's name, why?

David Seychell

Jun 1st 2010, 20:22

@Kenneth Cassar
"Sorry but I cannot see the practical difference between 1 and 2. Care to explain?"

As I said before:"The AIM of marriage, as created by society, is to strengthen the union of a man and a woman who love each other in order to ENCOURAGE procreation and to create long term stability that children needs"

The aim of marriage is to ENCOURAGE not FORCE procreation. That's the difference. Even today, with the advanced contraceptive methods, it's still highly likely that a married couple would want to have children because first, marriage encourage (giving extra points to married couple who apply for social housing is an example of such incentives) the formation of the ideal environment and circumstances where children would "probably" be born and raised. And secondly, there's the reproductive instinct present. In case number 1, however, the possibility of having children is zero.

Marriage is there to encourage and incentivize you to have children in a children-friendly environment, BUT NOT to OBLIGE you. If you still won't have children, bad luck, at least society tried its best. However, where it's impossible to have children, encouragement and incentives (marriage) are out of place in the first place.

David Seychell

Jun 1st 2010, 20:02

@Kenneth Cassar
"Where exactly is it written that it is obligatory (or should be) that married people have (or adopt) children?"

Nowhere, as far as I now. However, I think you should try to read between the lines. If you consider the rules of marriage, you will realise that sex is of central importance. I'm not saying that one of the partners must make sex with his spouse each time it requests it. However, if one of the partners refuse to have sex for a long time, it could create the basis for divorce for example. What I'm trying to say is that according to marriage laws, when you get married with someone, you are expected to "make love" with your partner, at least once in a while. When the institution of marriage was created by society many centuries ago, there didn't exist today's advanced contraceptive methods. Hence, society felt that man's sexual instinct coupled with marriage's "duties" would have been enough to do the trick. There was not even the need for marriage laws too put pressure on the couple regarding the number of children.

David Seychell

Jun 1st 2010, 19:57

@Kenneth Cassar "What I wrote in December (do you actually keep notes?) was..."

I M Dingli once told you on (21/11/08):"What I’ll do is set up a word document and start pasting your posts in it so that I will be in a position to quote your exact words when
addressing you"(1) Who knows maybe I have taken up his suggestion. No, seriously, I pay
attention to what people say (especially to me) so that's why usually I remember such comments. Anyways, regarding the quote I was refering to, you already found it by yourself. What you said, is that you're in favour of reforming marriage so as to accommodate polygamy in Malta for those who would want it, just like I said previously.

Today it's same-sex marriage, tomorrow it's polygamy and the following day marriage is gone to the dogs LITERALLY.

(1)http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20081119/andrew-borg-cardona/minister-yours-is-no-disgrace

Joe Xuereb

Jun 1st 2010, 18:06

A marriage contract is only a social construct, to maintain social order and protect children whose rearing takes longer than all other animals. Such a contract need only have statal sanction. And is, therefore, fluid. Enter religion, with its usual prohibitions, and meddlings in things it doesn't understand because lacking the freedom to inform itself, only interested in saving souls, and its skin - and the whole marriage thing gets rather sticky. To clarify - I can see religion forbidding marriage to two M+F people who intend not to have children. In a similar situation, I could not see any reasonable state meddling. A State forbids murder, etc. But two people living together in peace? The Church has weird takes on matters.
@ Curmi. I wouldn't prohibit gay marriage but I think it unnecessary, as intimated earlier. It's all academic anyway. We (gays) are more akin to the 'state expectation' module, more fluid, more accommodating. We have relationships but none of this unattainable fidelity for life. In this sense, homosexuals' lives tend to be lived out more naturally. Because no children present (usually). Heteros, on the other hand, have them and that gives marriage its 'solidity' and its 'precariousness'.

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 1st 2010, 16:29

@ David Seychell:

Regarding polygamy, I made a quick search and found that, as suspected, you are quoting me out of context.

What I wrote in December (do you actually keep notes?) was the following:

"I can only speak for myself and not for 'most progressives'. While I would not recommend polygamy, I would not prohibit it as long as it is entered into freely and the people getting married are adults. There is a difference between 'not recommending' and 'prohibiting'. I have no problem with people not recommending gay marriage. It is the people who prohibit it whom I have a problem with..."

"...polygamy actually would not work for me. Also, one should consider the emotional effects on all involved...especially children...which goes to show that polygamy is a grey-area and not a clear-cut case to me".

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20091129/andrew-borg-cardona/take-it-outside-boys

I think the last sentence explains my position well. In any case, we're living in a democracy, and if Maltese society would want polygamy, there is nothing to stop the legislators form legislating accordingly.

Polygamy is not for me anyway, so can we go back on topic now?

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 1st 2010, 15:43

@ David Seychell:

By the way, an anarchist would on principle be opposed to any form of marriage, so think again.

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 1st 2010, 15:37

@ David Seychell:

"...and said you're not against polygamy in our country (for those who wanted it)".

Where have I said that?

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 1st 2010, 15:33

@ David Seychell:

1. "The institution of marriage should not be open to those couples who can't procreate and won't adopt".

2. Parenthood should be obligatory for those who get married.

Sorry but I cannot see the practical difference between 1 and 2. Care to explain?

Franco Farrugia

Jun 1st 2010, 14:25

@ Joe Borg: 'I don't want to keep you or anyone else invisible but I object that you trample on my rights.'
I don t have the intention of standing up for Chetcuti, but come on, haven t you and the Catholic church been doing just that on certain minorities, especially homosexuals, for centuries???????? And now, you dare give that statement? Ara veru wiccek bla zejt.

David Seychell

Jun 1st 2010, 14:16

@Kenneth Cassar
"By suggesting obligatory parenthood, you are not promoting marriage as it was originally conceived or as it is traditionally held, but only how you wish it to be to match your totalitarian outlook."

First of all, I never suggested obligatory parenthood, neither for those who choose not to get married nor for those who choose to get married. I suggested that the institution of marriage should not be open to those couples who can't procreate and won't adopt. And you suggested (not in this blog) the implementation of same-sex marriage and said you're not against polygamy in our country (for those who wanted it).

So, if I'm a totalitarian, as you said, you're an anarchist.

Joe Xuereb

Jun 1st 2010, 12:25

@ Richard Curmi. This is all hypothetical. If a historically disrespectful family contests a will, whoever I leave my chattels to will fight the case and expose them for what they are. Decency, not an automatic given, can be lacking in families. You're assuming the homosexuals don't fight back. Time was, yes. But not any more.
Typically, you protest you are not a homosexual. God forbid that Richard Curmi should be homosexual. Looking at the shambles that is marriage and its hetero practitioners, it's not the end of the world to be a homo you know Richard. Indeed some of the persuasion see it as a god-send. I'm glad I'd rather hug a man than beat him to pulp in a boxing-ring and be paid handsomely for it, and applauded. Sick or what!
Disapproving, uncommunicative families would not go near the death-bed of a homosexual family member, so, 'showing them the door' situation would not arise. If they did, solely to ingratiate themselves and fearful of losing everything to a total, unrecognised, unwelcome stranger - well, that only proves my point. Times have changed.
Time to get to know a few decent shirt-lifters Richard. You're self-assured. You'll ride the 'storm'.

Joe Xuereb

Jun 1st 2010, 11:03

2) Human sexuality is a thorny subject, a cross to bear. He who instituted marriage we're told - what! what! - knows a thing or two about thorns and crosses. But for the church to whittle it down to a 'thou shalt not missionary chore is surely missing the point....keeping in mind the it is what god saddled us with to do his bidding'. Perverse or what!?
Telling people 'tmisshiex ghax il-bambin igiblek in-nar' is really not an adult way to deal with the matter. Oh dear God, could you not have made procreation possible by us two sharing a pure glass of water from the Ghajn tal-Hasselin? (why couldn't procreation come about in a less anguished way?).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yp5W8DZgBE
Please note that the strong inference here is that 'the cross to bear' touches everyone, het and hom. So hets can stop being so smug and self-congratulatory for a start. We're all in this together boys and girls. Get over it.

Joe Xuereb

Jun 1st 2010, 11:00

1) Human sexuality (ie sentient) is a thorny subject. We all have to deal with it. The Church narrows it down to an impossibility even saying homosexuality is a disorder (paradoxically, it attracts it like a flame does a moth). Ignoring the anguish as described below. Instead it promises eternal life, with me sitting next to the likes of a Joe Zammit - profuse all over the place on these pages, who, in life, called me filth, and a David Seychell. And I'm expected to be self-denying and jubilant at this prospect. You can keep it AS IF IT'S THERE ANYWAY. If you're going to use a carrot to dube the infantiles, at least have the decency to have a real carrot not a hologram, a clever illusion.
Until fairly recently, women bore many children and then, raison d'etre fulfilled, conveniently died. Women live longer these days. Fecundity over, they bloom again. The husband's, not saddled with excruciating hormones, 'never went away' of course. His bloom never faded. What are they supposed to do, now that pregnancy does not levitate1 them heavenwards any more, - hold hands and wait for Godot? (Thank you Samuel Becket for inspiring me).
cont./

Kenneth Cassar

Jun 1st 2010, 09:21

@ David Seychell:

You will find that your own concept of marriage is just your own personal opinion of how marriage should be, and what should be its purpose according to you.

Both your writings here, and what you wrote in the page for which you gave us a link, are nothing but your opinion.

For a more accurate and comprehensive description of marriage (including its several varieties, and no mention of obligatory offspring), I would suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The article there addresses the questions of what is marriage, who created marriage and for what purpose. You will find that the answers therein have little if anything to do with what you wrote.

By suggesting obligatory parenthood, you are not promoting marriage as it was originally conceived or as it is traditionally held, but only how you wish it to be to match your totalitarian outlook.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Jun 1st 2010, 02:12

I am still waiting for Joe Borg to list which of his rights I have trampled on!

David Seychell

May 31st 2010, 18:38

@Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
"No doubt you will discriminate against the disabled also?"

No.

"Well if marriage is not about love, what is it about?"
What is marriage, who created marriage and for what purpose? I already addressed these questions here:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20100125/andrew-borg-cardona/marriage-lines

I invite you to click on the link and start reading from the bottom, and hopefully you will understand that my problem is not with gays, my problem is with trying to mess up with a very important institution that is there to promote, strengthen, and protect the very heart of the basis of society, the family.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 31st 2010, 14:04

@David Seychell By the way someone should tell David that you do not need to be married to have children. You do not even need to be straight. There is sex before marriage and there is such a thing as artificial insemmination. There is surrogacy. To mention but a few.

Richard Curmi

May 31st 2010, 12:06

Thanks, Joseph Carmel Chetcuti for answering my question.

I am not a member of the legal profession but Fr. Joe I can see that Mr Chetcuti has a point. Cohabitants in a non-sexual relationship most probably are very well protected by the law and/or would have taken care to put their affairs in order in ways endorsed by the legal system.

Cohabitants in a sexual relationship can be hetero or homo and more. The law has to cater for all types without giving any advantage to one kind over the others.

In this context I do not agree totally with Mr Joe Xuereb when he said "Don't bother. In the event, leave whatever chattels you have to whoever by writing a legal will ...." if this will could be contested by next of kin etc. Regarding the visits in hospital is the partner protected by law against objections by the family.

If these situations exist, then the legislators should provide a legal protection to homosexual and all cohabitants living in a sexual relation ship.

And no I'm not a homosexual and I do not agree with homo marriages.

Kenneth Cassar

May 31st 2010, 09:56

@ David Seychell:

Where exactly is it written that it is obligatory (or should be) that married people have (or adopt) children? It is ok for you to have your own definition of "marriage". But it is not ok for anyone to impose it on the rest.

So thank you very much, but I'm married and will stay that way, and will not allow any busybody to dictate to me whether or not I shall have children. I believe we are past the age of dictatorships.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 31st 2010, 02:59

@ David Seychell. Well if marriage is not about love, what is it about? Sex? Companionship? Producing Children? Being seen to do the right thing by society's 'standards'? A contract? Surely there are many facets to love as there are many facets to being Maltese. One such facet of being Maltese is including those who have a foreign surname. No, I do not expect you to change your views about same sex marriage. Nor do you have to marry a person of the same sex if you do not want to. But for those who do want to marry a person of the same sex, do not be a stumbling block. What you demonstrate is heterosexism which is not the same as heterosexuals. And one other thing. So you will exclude from marriage those who are unable to have children? No doubt you will discriminate against the disabled also? What a lovely and mature man you are. Surely not all heterosexuals are like you! Open your mind and let in a bit of fresh air.

Joe Xuereb

May 31st 2010, 01:58

@ Hello Kevin. Thanks for responding. You're getting there. It's not so much that one is expected to be heterosexual. Rather, it's saying that he, macho hetero man, is superior by virtue of his orientation. I am inferior by virtue of mine and I should know my place (so that he, Mr. Manly can boost his self-image at my expense). In other words I am supposed to be ashamed of myself with no redeeming features at all, frightened to speak up because lacking backup of any sort, shunned by all including family (don't forget other minorities like black people, Jews and so on have the support of their families and wider community. The homosexual is on his own, very frightened growing up, sensing the difference. The homosexual is lucky if he live in a sizeable urban area and gets to know a few others. They will be closeted together, perpetuating their feelings of oppression, often self-inflicted. And what is unique to homosexuality is that all the negatives heaped on it are internalised to the extent that even gay men together perpetuate the negatives - difficult to eradicate.
So, overcoming the negatives one's proud. In spite of the hurdles.

Kevin Cassar

May 30th 2010, 21:57

@ Joe Xuereb

After reading your comments, I think I understood that it's not being gay that you are proud of but being gay when everyone expects you to be heterosexual. I can understand that concept which in no way disagrees with what I said myself. Even Joseph Carmel Chetcuti, who for some strange reason appeared to not take my comment positively is really proud to be out of the closet which is again different. So again, I agree with the both of you because I know that I cannot change my sexual orientation so I should never expect you to change yours.

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 21:14

2) It only becomes awkward when religious teaching is brought into the discussion. The ancients did not favour homosexuality as such because the security of the tribe/society depended on strong demographics. But religion did not have a say (that came later). So, the ancients learned how to accommodate homosexuality. Quite successfully in fact. What they did not like much was effeminacy in men; but then, women did not fare much better either. To them it was all about men, masculinity, warfare and machismo. In the present age we are more democratic. We do not differentiate betwwen the masculine homosexual and the more effeminate one (this applies also to heterosexual men by the way - see previous comment).
You may wonder, how does J. Xuereb know this stuff? Well, when one's sexual orientation is oppressed, one makes it one's business to inform oneself about oneself. Heterosexual do not need to do this. They take their orientation for granted because 'it is all above board, sanctioned by church and state'.

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 21:10

1) @DavidS. You've thought about the difference between heterosexual and homosexual but not quite deeply enough.
You rightly say that man came about for woman for them to 'get down and dirty' and do whatever nature intended, ie multiply. Homosexuality - and bisexuality as explained in my previous comment - is also 'natural. Obviously, between same-sex people, procreation is out of the question. So far so good. We're in agreement. But so far we've only looked at the physical aspect of sexual congress. What about the emotional/spiritual aspect of the attraction between two people? When heterosexual people 'get down to business' with no intention of procreating, in effect they are operating in exactly the same way, on a par even, with homosexuals, male or females, doing the same thing. Now I am sure that most heterosexual encounters have not procreation as their aim, any more than solo sex. So you see David, when one broadens the discussion somewhat, one has to conclude that, finally, sexual encounters of all permutations are all on the level. Except on the rare occasion when a man and a woman decide to procreate. It sounds complicated. In fact it isn't. Not if it's reasoned.
cont./

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 16:55

@ Kevin Cassar. Thank god you stand to be corrected. Hopefully, my last two rather wordy comments might enlighten you further. Further, some say we are perversely obstinate, evil, etc. for we choose a degenerate lifestyle. In any society, homosexuality is not exactly 'a piece of cake' (needn't go into detail). So why would a sane person opt for such a lifestyle. So you see, it is largely innate, whatever that means. As in natural(?). Yes. And no. The jury is still out. I say this because homosexuality (and heterosexuality for that matter) are not a separate nexus, one entirely divorced from the other. There is so much overlapping (popularly known as bisexuality). This is borne out but studies of physical types, a spectrum of 1 to 10. - taking into consideration musculature, distribution of body fat, overall frame, etc. -with one, e.g. the 'weakest' to 10, the most muscles, hairy, etc. No.1 could be a rampant hetero. No 10 a raging homo. And those in between. And that's only the physical aspect. For then there's the psychological aspect of the setup/s. But that's a different ball game. And it's when it becomes really fascinating.

David Seychell

May 30th 2010, 16:44

@Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
"If that is what your Church thinks, live by those standards but do not impose them on everyone else." I'm not a religious person, and it's prejudicious to think that everyone against same-sex "marriage" is also a religious person.

"Marriage is about love first and foremost."
Not exactly, the relationship between father and son (for example) is ALSO about love.

"... but do not expect me to accept what you say as gospel truth."
Never expected that, just like you should not expect me to consider same-sex "marriage" as progress just because someone says so.

"Malta will intriduce same-sex marriage in less than 20 years."
I will not argue with your prophetic abilities here.

The sexual relationship between homosexuals and heterosexuals is different for two main reasons. Firstly, Homosexual sex is unnatural in the sense that the male and female's sex organs were specifically designed by nature in order to complement each other and most importantly, it does not produce offsprings. That's a BIG inequality. Hence, if you seriously think that homosexual sexual relationship is equal to heterosexual sexual relationship, well, I mean, I wonder who really came out of a cave here.

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 12:53

I have not bothered to read all recent comment but I'll forge ahead nevertheless. Fejn nolqot nolqot, fejn ma nolqotx, I don't care. For years - and still - nobody cared for me so why should I? Arrogant you say? You bet! It's my turn baby.
I've been shot down with: 'why proud to be gay?'(insidious or what?!). Quite! But then, Why proud to be straight? Tell you why I'm proud. I'm proud because I'm not supposed to be. I'm out because I'm supposed to be in. I'm fearless because I'm expected to be cowering, shitting myself in a corner. For yonks that's where you wanted me, Church/State. Those days are over. I am glad and proud by default if nothing else. I look around me and look at the heterosexual setup, the shambles, the debris. AND THIS HAS BEEN MY OPPRESSOR IN THE PAST? Not all of course. Some follow biblical diktats, adopt missionary pose, look at the ceiling (if bottoming), or the pillow (if toping), and think of Heaven and competing with countless illegals who are winning, numerically speaking. And who'll take over eventually, according to Borg. More mosques anyone? Freedom-of-worship? Trampling underfoot,
more-like.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 30th 2010, 09:36

@David Seychell "I propose that before a couple is allowed to get married, they do get tested, and if the results say that it's impossible for them to procreate, and they also have no intention of adopting children, then they too are not allowed to get married. " Which cave have you come out of? Do you realise what image Maltese like you leave of Malta and the Maltese around the world? You paint Malta as insular and totally untouched by progress especially in the area of human rights. Do you seriously think marriage is just a factory for children? If that is what your Church thinks, live by those standards but do not impose them on everyone else. Marriage is about love first and foremost. If children follow, well and good. If you do not agree with me, well and good but do not expect me to accept what you say as gospel truth.
Keep this in mind. Conservatives like you have already lost. Malta will intriduce same-sex marriage in less than 20 years. Comparing passinbg "O" levels with human relationships! What next?

David Seychell

May 30th 2010, 05:29

Continued...

For example, I propose that before a couple is allowed to get married, they do get tested, and if the results say that it's impossible for them to procreate, and they also have no intention of adopting children, then they too are not allowed to get married.

The AIM of the English "O" level certificate is to certify/prove that the holder is sufficiently good in english language, hence, the idea that all those who sit for the exam would be awarded a pass mark regardless of the mark obtained is absurd because it betrays the purpose of the exam/certificate. The AIM of marriage, as created by society, is to strengthen the union of a man and a woman who love each other in order to encourage procreation and to create long term stability that children needs, hence, the idea that same sex persons should be allowed to marry each other is equally absurd because it betrays the purpose of marriage.

David Seychell

May 30th 2010, 05:27

Some people think that the state should allow same-sex "marriage" because couples(male-female) who can't have children are allowed to get married all the same. Analogically speaking this is like saying that since a small percentage of those not so fluent in english still manage to pass their English "O" level exam, then we should start awarding the English "O" level certificate to everyone who sits for the exam, independent of the mark obtained. No need to say this reasoning is highly inconsiderate.

The fact that some of those not so good in english still manage to pass their English exam, is not a good reason to start awarding a pass mark to everyone who sits for the exam, on the contrary it's a good reason for making the exam harder. Likewise, the fact that some couples who get married turn out to be unable to have children, is not a good reason for making marriage open to every kind of relationship, on the contrary it's a good reason to make marriage-related rules more stringent.

Continued....

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 30th 2010, 02:49

@ Richard Curmi. "Just a question: Should those cohabiting in non-sexual relationship have the same rights and duties in a cohabitation legislation as those who are in a sexual relationship?" The answer is "no" because the nature of the relationship is different. To give you one simple example. In Victoria (Australia), a same sex partner may (in certain circumstances) upon the breakup of a same-sex relationship apply for maintenance and/or a share in the other person's property.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 30th 2010, 01:58

@ Kevin Cassar. When gay men and lesbians say that they are gay, homosexual or lesbian and proud of it what they are really saying is this: We are gay! We are out of the closet! And we are proud of it. Heterosexuals have never had a problem with invisibility. We are also saying that homosexuality is not an illness, is not a sin and is or should not be not be a crime. Yes we intend to shout it from the rooftops and if you don't like it bad luck.

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 01:56

Supposing that housing was offered to two men living together as a couple with boudoir benefits. If it is a governmental decision, so what?! Sign of secularism at last maybe?
As for so-called gay marriage sanctioned by the church - forget it. The church is all a-twist over cohabitees and communion and its prohibition. Imagine accepting male shenanigans. The church can not make any concessions so as not to lose face and credibility. It is making itself ever rarer, 'precious'. It is a death-knell. It's damned if it does, it's damned if it doesn't. Not my problem.
To any homosexuals sweating over non-recognition of their relationships and problems with inheritance, visiting rights, etc. I say this.
Don't bother. In the event, leave whatever chattels you have to whoever by writing a legal will. If you're on your death bed in hospital and your 'mate' visits, and your family objects, gather enough strength to tell your mate to stay and tell your family, 'the door is over there - get lost'.
Life is too short and too precious to allow ourselves to be held to ransom by people who have more problems than they care to face up to.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 30th 2010, 01:53

@ Joe Borg: Which of your rights am I trampling on? Would appreciate it if you list them. As for my neighbours and my clients, they all know I am homosexual. I do not need to shout it loud on a microphone. They are sensitive enough not to assume that everyone is heterosexual. Your comments are merely an attempt to insult our intelligence. No, the living arrangement that exists between a gay or lesbian couple is different from the one you have with with father - at least I hope so! Conservatives like you give the appearance of being "liberal" and "accommodating" when in reality you are as intollerant as any other. We want recognition for what we are: HOMOSEXUAL. We do not need people like you to tell us what we want. Our demands are clear: Equality with heterosexuals (not "grown ups" living with their fathers) and Recognition as homosexual. I doubt your mate Gonzi will deliver that.

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 01:34

@ Borg, Joe. quote: 'It's your RIGHT (my caps.) Dr Chetcuti and there are one hundred ways to do it. Why not a large poster on the facade of......and pathetically so pathetically on. Sarcastic because implausible and impractical, uttered in the same breath conferring Dr. Chetcuti his RIGHTS.
Further down you end saying: 'I don't want to keep you or anyone else invisible but I object that you trample on my rights'. I'd say your concessions to us queers' rights are rather hollow. Yoru perception of this social housing issue is that your rights are being trampled on. Good! Now you know what being discriminated against feels like. As for you not wishing queers' and other minorities' invisibility sounds very christiany charity. Of course it don't wash; was I born yesterday? I'd say you, and generally in Malta, people would rather we were invisible. We're threatening to fragile/transparent facades. No need for self-declaring banners from balconies Borg, front doors would be set alight (great Maltese tradition). Because even criminal-minded socio-paths, self-professed catholics but evil would say, 'even Borg doesn't like them'. And that's how churchy damage to us and others shows itself. And religion has the gall to preach love.

Joe Xuereb

May 30th 2010, 00:51

@ Jessica Debattista. quote: re: gratification between or on the sheets, 'but this type of (wedded M+F)union has the added duty to provide a stable relationship wherein the couple can bear and raise children for the state'. This also means that every time congress is not for procreational purposes, such congress is for pure gratification. Unless of course the Church concedes this reward in recognition of the rest of the time when a M+F do make and raise children in a stable relationship. And if the planning is strictly according to churchy teaching, ie must always have procreational intent, never for pure pleasure, does this mean the couple are out of bounds to each other for months, or even years, on end? During these long periods of sexual carestia, what happens to god-given sexual drives? Make do with hand-holding at the supermarket?

Fr Joe Borg

May 29th 2010, 19:44

@Joseph C Chetcuti. " Gay men and lesbians are tired of being left invisible. We want to be seen for what we are: HOMOSEXUAL and proud of it! " It's your right Dr Chetcuti and there are one hundred ways to do it. Why not a large poster on the facade of where you live? Why not send flyers to all your neighbours? Why don't you have a loudspeaker on top of your balcony and every one hour or so shouts that those living in that house are homosexual? I have no objection to all of this. The only objection I have is that one type of cohabitating couples get an advantage - e.g. for social housing - over another just because they have a sexual relationship. I don't want to keep you or anyone else invisible but I object that you trample on my rights.

Kenneth Cassar

May 29th 2010, 15:39

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Yes it is, but this type of union has the added duty to provide a stable relationship wherein the couple can bear and raise children for the state".

Not really. Infertile married couples cannot bear and raise children "for the state". Incidentally, I find bearing children "for the state" very out of place...reminds me of Stalinism. But perhaps that is not what you meant.

Jessica DeBattista

May 29th 2010, 12:38

@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti: "So one is about sexual gratification and the other about duties! Is a relationship between a man and a woman also about sexual gratification?”

Yes it is, but this type of union has the added duty to provide a stable relationship wherein the couple can bear and raise children for the state.

Richard Curmi

May 29th 2010, 12:26

@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti: Just a question:

Should those cohabiting in non-sexual relationship have the same rights and duties in a cohabitation legislation as those who are in a sexual relationship?

Kevin Cassar

May 29th 2010, 12:15

@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

I have only one objection to what you said. I quote: "Homosexual and proud of it". While I can understand the underlying factors that may lead one such as yourself to make this statement, it is still baseless. I am a heterosexual man and I am not proud of it because it was NOT MY CHOICE. You can only feel proud (in my opinion) for the things which you accomplish like: I am proud of a photo I've taken, or proud of my wife (meaning proud of the choice I made). I cannot feel proud of being a man because I had no say in it. If homosexuality was a choice for you, then you may by all means feel proud but I would think it was not. I stand to be corrected.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 29th 2010, 11:33

@Jessica DeBattista I have not misunderstood Borg's stance. It is not an uncommon practice among conservatives (and Borg is one of them) to dilute the demands of the gay and lesbian movement by introducing other relationships that are intrinsically different. Two men (or two women) living together in a realtionship are not the same as a son living with his father. Gay men and lesbians are tired of being left invisible. We want to be seen for what we are: HOMOSEXUAL and proud of it! So one is about sexual gratification and the other about duties! Is a relationship between a man and a woman also about sexual gratification?

Jessica DeBattista

May 29th 2010, 10:21

@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti:
I believe you are missing the point that Fr. Joe put forward for discussion: People committed to live together either for sexual relationship or filial/familial duties do have something in common and that is commitment. But where one is committed by the call of love with its ensuing sexual gratification, the other is committed by the call of filial love and its ensuing duties. I would say there is more nobility in the latter than the former.

As Kevin has mentioned earlier, ultimately we all perform for self -centred reasons. In this case, the common denominator is “love”. But isn’t filial love more of an altruistic love than the other. So why should there be a distinction, or rather a bias in preference to couples who are in a sexual relationship?

By the way if Fr. Joe does “start his own movement for "grown ups" who still reside with their parents”, I am tempted to start one against abused grandmothers.

Steve Pace

May 29th 2010, 08:01

@Charles Crauana. Could you kindly explain in what sense my comment was judgemental ? or did i not understand you well ?

Richard Curmi

May 29th 2010, 02:43

"P.S. I will not for now enter into the controversy about the reception of communion by couples whose cohabitating has a sexual dimension." Fr. Joe if you really did'nt want to enter into this controversy all you had to do was just not to mention it. I don't see the reason behind this P.S. unless it was meant as 'una provocazione' as they are won't to say on Italian TV when they say they do not want to say something that they actually say.

Once it has been mentioned; I noticed that the Bishops in their statement seem to put the onus of deciding to receive or not receive communion on the individuals concerned. If I am correct they never mentioned the administration of the Eucharist/distribution of communion
indeed this is what they said "however, the Catholic Church reiterates that those couples who live together outside of marriage are not to receive the Eucharist" . The onus seems to be on the receiver as with all other cases where sin is involved. In fact according to the church's teaching one should not recieve communion if one is in a state of sin.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 29th 2010, 00:24

In 1997, I declared on Xarabank that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is the greatest enemy of homosexuals. I was wrong. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is also the enemy of heterosexuals and bisexuals. It can't stand seeing people happy on earth. Let's make a heaven on earth and stop speculating on an after life. Oh and what about denying cohabiting couples communion and then saying it is not a punishment. Well, what is it I ask ................. really! Do these clowns take us for fools! The Roman Catholic hierarchy is a master at spin.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

May 29th 2010, 00:17

Should someone tell Borg that living with another man or a woman and in a (homo)sexual relationship is somewhat different to living at home with your father? Borg can start his own movement for "grown ups" who still reside with their parents if he so wishes.
What the gay and lesbian movement maintains is simple: homosexual relationships are of the same dignity as heterosexual relationships whether recognised by the State or not. Gay and lesbian cohabiting couples should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.
My message to Borg is this: don't try to belittle gay and lesbian relationships by comparing them with others that are intrinsically different. Any legislation introduced by the government MUST make mention of gay and lesbian couples. Failure to do so only demonstrates that the government is gutless and hellbent on reinforcing the invisibility of gay men and lesbians.

Joe Xuereb

May 28th 2010, 22:08

I was going to ask, what of marriage before it was instituted as a sacrament within the christian faith? Then I thought I'd do a Wikipedia search. Detailed is not the word as I started to wade through. And it became more and more of a clay-footed plod as I scrolled down. Superficially at least I read it as someone who thinks that the setting up of households is a social necessity to maintain social order but otherwise not particularly natural other than the invariable 'falling in live' - the chemistry thing - for the purpose of the obvious. And as far as 'Nature' is concerned, that is where it starts and ends, job done.
Kenneth Cassar is, of course, quite right. Promiscuity is inadvisable and spells trouble. But what a demon to have to deal with. God given. And nobody, and I mean nobody, is spared. Interestingly, it levels any perceived differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (gay and straight for short). As in, 'we're all in the same boat' together. Not togethe together. With some overlapping, the ones in the pruwa (prow) and the others, a sizeable minority, in the poppa (stern).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

charles caruana

May 28th 2010, 21:45

@Steve Pace

'Unfortunately the bishops statement incited more hatred than love and peace, invoking judgemental comments and a high level of chauvinism .'

How is that for a judgemental comment? And sanctimonious to boot.

Doctor, heal yourself!

victor rodenas

May 28th 2010, 20:36

I am sure that this is a very important issue.To live comfortably one needs a certain amount of money so to put people`s heads at ease this subject has to be very well explained from the horses mouth.There are two cases of issue here. Case one:.........cohabiting couples who just register with the bill..............Case two........two people who`s better half died and they want to marry....in both cases...will any pension be lost ?

Steve Pace

May 28th 2010, 20:19

@Robert Aquilina - He simply suggested that people should not be judgmental of others and whether a person receives communion or not is ultimately between him and God.

In a comment by one blogger this statement came out


" No 3. Scandal is a grave sin. So even if cohabitants are in the state of grace, they can receive Holy Communion in a place where no one knows them. "

How's that for a Christian approach eh ? Unfortunately the bishops statement incited more hatred than love and peace, invoking judgemental comments and a high level of chauvinism .

Their assumption is also that cohabiting couples' only motivation is sex .

P Pace Balzan

May 28th 2010, 20:04

@ Fr Joe Borg @Victor Rodenas
It is clear that there is a misunderstanding between a Widow's pension, a Survivor's pension and a Retirement pension.
If a widow remarries she is still entitled to a widows pension for a 5year period.
In any situation the NI contributions made by her deceased husband (if the widow never worked or paid NI) are not lost.
Perhaps this blog may help people out. They should clarify the facts with the social security dept since many factors come into play - the main one being age.
These are a few of the benefits offered to married people since as a general rule married people are not favored by legislation.

Robert Aquilina

May 28th 2010, 19:12

Fr Borg, My opinion is that the bishops left so many things unsaid in their statement. Such as people who are being continuously judgmental of others and I believe that is not one of the teachings of the church. The Statement by the bishops was perceived by many as a form of disassociation from what Fr Dalli said on Xarabank. As far as I know Fr Dalli didn’t encourage cohabitation or said that there is nothing wrong. He simply suggested that people should not be judgmental of others and whether a person receives communion or not is ultimately between him and God. There are other matters but the space is limited.

From a PR perspective, the timing of the statement was such that the statement should have included much more than that and avoid getting the wrong message across or else more timing sensitivity should have been taken into consideration. Notwithstanding the above I have no doubts about the good intentions of the bishops, but good intentions are not enough for a message not to be misinterpreted. That’s why I believe that it was a PR flop and I would sincerely like to know your opinion on the matter.

Fr J Borg

May 28th 2010, 18:39

@ P Pace Balzan. If a widow has a right for a pension after re-marrying then there is no wicc tost. It is their right and there is nothing wrong. My understanding of the comment of Mr Rodenas, to which i replied, is that a different situation is portrayed. If i understood him correctly he was referring to the case where a widow does not have the right for the pension if she re-marries. I can understand that the situation mentioned by Mr Rodenas can put some people in a dilemma: what should they choose between the pension and marriage? The answer cannot be both unless there is a right for the pension as you state.

P Pace Balzan

May 28th 2010, 18:20

@ Kevin Cassar
From what you have written it is clear to me that you have very little knowledge of the subject matter.
The main aim of NI payments is to actually give piece of mind to the elderly (60+) who choose to stop working due to age. This is known as a pension. It is an earned form of income and it is due by statute. It creates a timetable for all. Teens end at nineteen whilst pension starts at 60.
Mismanagement and greed is the reason why our present pay-as-you-go system is not functioning. The funds have been used for the wrong purpose/s. Little thought was and is being put into the process of keeping it in a functional state.
The easiest way out, for most governments, is to fiddle the actual retirement age.
This is child’s play and not management.

Kevin Cassar

May 28th 2010, 16:19

@ P Pace Balzan

"A widow has every right to have the NI contributions (bolla) of her ex-husband transferred to her.
Whether the person re-marries or cohabits is totally irrelevant."

No it is not. Unfortunately a lot of people (possibly the majority) have the misconception that we pay the National Insurance for our own pension/health benefits when we retire/die. That is not the case. National Insurance is not the same as a pension/health plan. The latter is taken in order to safeguard the payer's own interest while the national insurance serves to provide the current pensioners and health beneficiaries. Each generation of workers supports the concurrent generation of pensioners and that is why pension can become a problem for the country if the number of pensioners increases more than the number of current workers. If people live longer, there will be a large increase in pensioners which if not countered by a similar increase in the workforce will eventually make government pension unsustainable (as we are fearing will happen quite soon).

victor rodenas

May 28th 2010, 16:10

Fr.Joe Borg(about the pension bit).Is it just your opinion or are you sure it`s going to be that way.I know that now if a widow marries she will lose her husbands pension,the amount can be....600,700.800 euro per month,a lot. I know some widows who have a partner and would like to marry but because of this loss they remain pogguti.Maybe their partner`s pension,if they marry is not decent enough for two people to live with,we are talking about old people here.It will not be just.

Kenneth Cassar

May 28th 2010, 15:05

@ Fr Joe Borg:

"I am certain that AD is against discrimination but in practice this proposal would mean that gay couples would be favoured as compared to other couples living together e.g. father and son".

One of the functions of marriage (though obviously not the major one) is to regulate sex. Simply put, society in general would not benefit from promiscuity (which I define as having sex with multiple partners). Hence, the state confers benefits to both married people who have children, and even those who decide not to.

Homosexual partnership/marriage is different from a father-son relationship in that in homosexual relationships it is growingly accepted that gay couples may have sex, and is in fact legal for them to do so. In the case of a father-son relationship, sex is both out of the question, and as far as I know illegal.

It is in society's best interest for couples (be they gay or straight) to commit to single partners as much as possible. Hence the need to regulate gay unions through voluntary marriage (and all the attendant benefits and duties).

Daniel Vella

May 28th 2010, 12:46

If gay unions/marriages were recognised by the state, I wouldn't think this column would have been needed.

As regards to the "PR Flop"... How was it not a flop? You are essentially alienating a whole group of people - a group that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society.

P Pace Balzan

May 28th 2010, 12:36

@ Fr Joe Borg
A widow has every right to have the NI contributions (bolla) of her ex-husband transferred to her.
Whether the person re-marries or cohabits is totally irrelevant.

Why 'Wicc Tost' father? What is your reasoning in this situation?

Joe Xuereb

May 28th 2010, 10:49

Hello Kevin. I'm Joseph (meaning, the prolific. Not of the usual, that's for sure. Maybe verbosity - I've stood accused but it's in the blood), your brother Kenneth's friend (but he don't communicate much these days.
I wonder if altruism exists in any form. Sometimes we do/think a good deed and we feel better, self-congratulatory. Damn!! there goes altru-che`!
Kevin, about heaven. I am not so sure that people who actually do believe in a white sand beach with palm-trees swaying in the breeze and a constant stream of pinacoladas. They think of heaven but don't linger. What motivates them is making sure they don't end up in, what's the word now?! ah! yes, hell. Which I can well understand (unless I misunderstand this thing about heavenly love, I tend to often misunderstand abstracts) - I mean, forever and a day (that's a mighty long time by anybody's reckoning) worshiping a deity. Prosaically expressed, I don't find that particularly appealing. No, hell-fire and the dread thereof is where it's at. Methinks.
Apologies if this is the opposite of lugubrious. It's the weather at last. Love's in the air. I think I'll get me a live-in lover. Rent payable in advance.

Fr Joe Borg

May 28th 2010, 10:41

@ Robert Aquilina. I would like to know why, in your opinion, the Bishops' statement was a PR flop.

Fr Joe Borg

May 28th 2010, 10:40

@ John Grech. Your questions make a lot of sense. I think that it is essential that society guards and strengthens marriage. It would be a great loss if the institution of marriage is not well guarded. Other relationships which are not marriage should not be treated as if they were marriage.

Fr Joe Borg

May 28th 2010, 10:37

@ Victor Rodenas. The widow you mention wants to have her cake and eat it. She wants to live as if she was married but be treated - for pension purposes - as if she was a widow. Isn't that a bit of a wicc tost?

Fr Joe Borg

May 28th 2010, 10:33

@ Raymond Camilleri. Are you denying that AD were in favour of giving extra points to gay couple who apply for social housing? I am certain that AD is against discrimination but in practice this proposal would mean that gay couples would be favoured as compared to other couples living together e.g. father and son.

Kevin Cassar

May 28th 2010, 10:12

@ Jessica Debattista

"To me being abused means being taken advantage of and I cannot see myself being happy if I am being taken advantage of".

Let me elaborate a bit. There is a saying "Ignorance is bliss" which is very true since you cannot be unhappy if you don't know better, if you think that your life cannot be better. A clear example for this is the recent case in Austria, where a woman was kept in her father's basement for some 18 years (all her life), bore him some 7 children and lived in conditions that none of us would accept. Similarly women in India for example were promised in marriage. I don't think that they were all unhappy but it only takes one of them to learn about how women in other countries choose their partner, to realize that it was against their rights and feel unhappy. Women, a century ago, knew only one way of life - that of getting a husband and submitting totally to his wishes and bear him children. They had no concept of equality and so did not feel abused and were happy. Today we know better.

Kenneth Cassar

May 28th 2010, 09:44

@ Jessica DeBattista:

I get your point, but you will understand that the more rights that are acknowledged, the greater the expectations. And people who do not know their rights suffer in silence.

Jessica DeBattista

May 28th 2010, 09:23

@ Kenneth Cassar: “What if you didn't know that you were being taken advantage of? That was Kevin's point. One has to know one's rights before realising (if that is the case) that one's rights are not being respected.”

Hi Kenneth! I have only time for a short note this morning.

We assume that we are today living in a democratic society where our rights are being protected. So we assume that we are living in a sound society.

How can one say in 50 years from now what other rights we would be expecting from society?......I might elaborate later on.

Kenneth Cassar

May 28th 2010, 08:25

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"To me being abused means being taken advantage of and I cannot see myself being happy if I am being taken advantage of".

What if you didn't know that you were being taken advantage of? That was Kevin's point. One has to know one's rights before realising (if that is the case) that one's rights are not being respected.

Jessica DeBattista

May 27th 2010, 22:40

@ Kevin Cassar: “Just because one is happy and does not think that he/she is being abused does not mean it is so.”
I am afraid, I do not see it that way. To me being abused means being taken advantage of and I cannot see myself being happy if I am being taken advantage of. If in the course of progress, there is a different way of looking at things which leads to an awareness of a better way of living, then I would expect to live a life according to the new mode of seeing things.

“This does not mean that the progress was wrong, but it mean that people are abusing their rights. This happens because of ignorance which leads to egoism.”
I am all for progress but not at the expense of other people’s suffering. It is not ignorance that leads to egoism, it is an attitude that is self-centred to the extent that one ignores the needs of others.

Jessica DeBattista

May 27th 2010, 22:38

@ Joe Xuereb: “The 'unhappy' woman of yesteryear …..often offers, indeed insists, on looking after the little ones. In a way she still sees herserlf as a baby-factory.”

The woman of yesteryear might have offered to help out the children as they raised the kids but she was not obliged to do it. Nowadays some grandmothers cannot escape it. It has become a necessity unless the other option of trusting them to baby sitters is taken.

Incidentally some women prefer to go out to work and pay practically the whole wage to a babysitter rather than stay at home and raise the children.

Having said that one might argue why should it be the woman who has to give up a job and not the man? And it is a fair question, for the child is sired by both.

Kevin Cassar

May 27th 2010, 16:54

@ Jessica Debattista

.....cont

We are all self centred, no matter how or what we do. Think of any altruistic action and evaluate it. You will eventually find (if you go deep enough) that it ultimately benefits the person doing it. Since we are social beings, the welfare and quality of our society is our concern, because we each benefit from living in a better society. Even if a person does not realize it, anything we do is ultimately for OUR benefit. I'll try to give an extreme example: I love my son unconditionally - so at first glance this seems to be something that is not self centred. When you analyze deeper, you find that by that action, I have improved the society I live in and this may lead another person to do the same etc etc. If you form part of a "group" and the group improves - you have automatically improved with it. Religion makes this even more obvious because if you believe in heaven, then everything you do is beneficial to you.

Robert Aquilina

May 27th 2010, 16:50

Fr Borg, You said that you will not for now enter into the controversy about the reception of communion by couples whose cohabitating.

I am eagerly waiting for your opinion on the matter as in my opinion whilst the bishops were correct in many aspects, I believe that they did what we call a PR flop.

Kevin Cassar

May 27th 2010, 16:27

@ Jessica Debattista

On part 1 - Just because one is happy and does not think that he/she is being abused does not mean it is so. When in the old times women has less rights they obviously felt less abused. I think you will agree that someone who has no rights(theoretically) cannot be abused. Also if you ask muslim women, they will say they are happy too and their rights are not being abused (they feel).

On part 2 - I agree in general with your views and the side effects of progress you mentioned are common. This does not mean that the progress was wrong, but it mean that people are abusing their rights. This happens because of ignorance which leads to egoism.

Part 3 - Every living being, animal or human is by nature self centred. People mistake this for something evil or bad when it is linked to our surival instinct (just as all the other animals). But apart from being self centred, we are also social creatures. I'll go into this in more detail -

....cont

Joe Xuereb

May 27th 2010, 15:52

@ Ms.Debattista, well thought-out argument but not quite enough.
Women of yesterday had fifteen children(often). That took a toll on their health. Not good. Pious women tended to marry even more pious men. These were not violent but they invested their energies in baby-making. Always missionary position of course. What else? They were pious. The 'unhappy' woman of yesteryear grew old (but not up enough for self-assertion), and, having seen all her brood settled with decent(?) spouses, she often offers, indeed insists, on looking after the little ones. In a way she still sees herserlf as a baby-factory. And hardship in her old age is only more of the same when she was - making babies. So, on the whole not such a rosy picture. Of course it had its ups. And today's certainly has its downs. But we can not return to the yesteryears. It wouldn't work. Because it cannot.
Please note that all the above is from personal experience, current, now. I will not go into details having to respect my family.

Jessica DeBattista

May 27th 2010, 14:52

Part 3.
We get mothers nowadays (unmarried), often cohabitating, who want to carry on with the way of life that they were used to as singles. They have sex with their partner and if a pregnancy results they expect the grandmother to raise the child. They are so self-centred.

What’s worse is that the grandmother is guilt-ridden if on a bad day she let it be known that she cannot take it any more. Doesn't the grandmother have rights?

By the way, domestic violence happens nowadays as much as it did at any era. So let’s rule that out

Jessica DeBattista@gmail.com

May 27th 2010, 14:47

Part 2.
Lest I am misunderstood, I would like to point out that I am very happy to be a woman of today and had a say in the way my husband and I planned our family and I am also very happy that I have been exposed to this type of way of life which has helped me assert myself in more ways than one.

But are today’s families any happier?

It is true that tody’s woman is so much more advanced and is on the way to getting to be on a par with the man. But at what price!
Today’s woman is well educated and can hold a good job but can she juggle both roles –that of a mother and that of a career woman?

Offspring nowadays are often raised by the grandmother. But is it fair to have the grandmother raise the children? Shouldn’t the grandmother be at a stage in life when she can dedicate some time to a dream which she could have put on hold for so many years? Isn’t that egoism on the part of the mother? Hadn’t the grandmother done her share? Why burden her?
Continued....

Jessica DeBattista

May 27th 2010, 14:43

Part 1
I have been reading and weighing the comments trying to gauge how much improved the lot of woman is now when compared to 50 years ago. I am trying to recall my mother and both my grandmothers to mind trying to find evidence of mistreatment by their husbands. I don’t see any!

Actually from what I remember and from anecdotes related by my immediate relatives regarding them, all I can deduce is that they all married the men they loved, and were the queens of their respective households. Possibly the only thing that they would have preferred was a less numerous family, for the fact that for the first 15 to 20 years of their married life they were often pregnant; and we all know the hardship of raising young children.

Keep in mind, however, that in such numerous families, very often the older children were called upon to lend a helping hand, which alleviated the hardship somehow. Besides children grew up considerate about their mother and not “spoilt brats” such as we have today.
Continued…..

John Grech

May 27th 2010, 14:29

Fr.Joe, a very interesting and moderate reflection on cohabitation. Some questions I would like you to take in consideration if they make any sense at all. Can we as a society keep our laws respect the sanctity of marriage while open up to the new realities of our time and day? Could it be that the civil law gives a person the right to get married once while if that fails he/she can enter some other form of union without leaving aside the obligations the marital contract carries with it and honoring the new contract? Does the word marriage still carry with it the meaning of two people who say they promise fidelity until death? Can they word death in the vows of marriage mean the DEATH OF THE RELATIONSHIP?

Richard Curmi

May 27th 2010, 09:36

"The rights and duties that should be sanctioned by cohabitation legislation should not be rights and duties emanating from the sexual relationship but should result from the fact that there is a relationship, even if it is of a non-sexual nature."
Question: Are a man and a woman cohabitating and in a sexual relationship considered to be in a 'de facto' relationship with the same rights and duties of a married couple?

I agree that any cohabitation legislation should be extended to all kinds of relationships.

It is an area that needs careful and immediate attention.

It was very sad to read in yesterday's issue that there were 169 reports of domestic violence to the police and 58 reports of violence on children. And I bet the real picture is even worse.

Such incidents are destroying families, ruining children's lives and hurting the victims not only physically but also psychologicaly and rendering them traumatised for the rest of their lives.

victor rodenas

May 27th 2010, 09:17

will a widow who is cohabiting lose her pension of her ex-husband(dead) if she registers with the new bill?If the answer is yes,then it is not fair,I doubt if such persons would register then.

Joe Xuereb

May 26th 2010, 21:32

Things change because that's what things do. In the past people were more religious, more innocent, less worldly. The husband was the head of the family and his wife kept house, etc. The two roles were clearly defined and marriages were 'successful'. Like a perfect folmula in fact. At times, behind closed doors, the woman was made to suffer any number of indignities. But she lacked the vocabulary to make her feelings known. What else could she want to be different when any reasonable alternatives did not at the time even exist. Things changed. Marriages like those - talking about my parents' time not a hundred years ago - do not exist anymore, nor can do, nor should they. In modern times cohabitation has become a viable option. People are not innocent anymore. And modern woman returning to a subservient existence? It is pointless to say things were better once upon a time. Things were NOT better at all. Because I know they weren't.

Kevin Cassar

May 26th 2010, 20:28

Cohabitation, Divorce, abortion........ terrible things they say! The world has lost it's values they say! Let's take a trip back in time to see what those values were and why we did not have this sort of "evil" shall we? How about we go far back to the time when woman were worth half a man, were treated as possessions and were traded by their families (promised in marriage). Let's also get closer to our time say 50 - 100 years ago, when a womem were married to a man they did not even know or go out with, with the reward of being his maid, his cook and his child bearing machine. How lovely eh!! Those were the days eh!? Of course there were few marriages that failed - Marriage was a contract signed by the woman who accepted slavery to the man, who beat her up if she "disobeyed". How dare these women demand rights eh?!? What do they think they are......human beings?!?! No further comment needed - everyone who can think can make his/her own conclusions.

Steve Pace

May 26th 2010, 17:49

@Fr. Joe. The title of this article says it all. Yes there is certainly more to a relationship than just sex. Couples who cohabit are putting a lot in their relationship with their partners whether they have been married in the past or not. Some argue that cohabitation is a neccessary thing to evaluate truly whether the two future spouses are compatible. Others cohabit because they cannot get married or simply do not feel the need to. In Belgium , Germany and many other countries cohabitation is the norm rather than the extra ordinary.

Cohabitaion should be registered in my opinion and every individual participating should be legally responsible and protected. Especially when children are involved.

In this blog we will have countless bible quotations that cohabition is a grave sin and that the infalible teachings of the church goes against it for a multitude of reasons.

What we will not hear from these particular bloggers is that in cohabitation there are human beings who deserve dignity respect, and acceptance .

What i wish to clarify is that i do not expect the church to accept either cohabitation or divorce. But at the civil level both of these should exist.

Raymond Camilleri

May 26th 2010, 17:03

Fr Borg manages to twist facts about AD (x'kumbinazzjoni!!)... NOBODY should be discriminated against re. sexual oreintation, colour or creed... it does NOT mean that someone is given extra points because of any of these... but of course as long as Borg puts in a good word for the PN it doesn't really matter does it?