Gabi Calleja, coordinator, Malta Gay Rights Movement, Mosta
The causes and consequences of divorce: Church versus state (4)
In her article The Family In Europe Today (February 2), Christine Galea makes a num-ber of assertions, many of which are dubious and unsubstantiated.
The first is the rather generic reference to the “decrease in the ability to reflect”.
Considering that the number of people who complete at least compulsory schooling has risen consistently with, in many European countries, over 75 per cent who continue to post-secondary and tertiary education, either our educational institutions are failing miserably or else Ms Galea does not in fact believe that a good education enables individuals to think critically and reflectively about their lived experiences.
There are any number of reasons why divorce is more likely in today’s world. These include, among others, more women aspiring to egalitarian relationships and careers as well as their ability to walk away from failed marriages and live their own lives or start up new relationships; a more diverse society with individuals understanding that there exist various family forms and a myriad ways of constructing relationships; a far longer life expectancy, which means the likelihood of relationships breaking down increases; and a loosening of the stranglehold Churches often held over societies and a weakening of the religious mores that often went unquestioned and uncontested.
Ms Galea posits the evolution of same-sex unions as a problem without stating in what manner marriage equality interferes in the marital bond of heterosexual couples. Is she implying that a heterosexual married couple in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Belgium or Holland would consider their marital relationship of less worth, or love their spouse less, because a same-sex couple next door could now get married? What a cop out!
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gabi Calleja
Feb 16th 2011, 18:09
@ Christine Galea
You once again fail to explain how the introduction of marriage equality for same-sex couples has contributed to the destruction of the institution of marriage. If you did not wish to have your statements challenged then I would suggest you do not make disparaging references to same-sex marriage in your opinion pieces.
G Borg
Feb 16th 2011, 18:36
Dear Gaby. Let's call a spade, a spade, shall we? There's NO NEED for Ms Galea to explain anything, because same sex marriages DO UNDERMINE the institution of marriage, and its values! Unless you want to revolt against nature, WHICH FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES, CREATED COUPLES TO BE MAN AND WOMAN. I'm not saying that those who want to live together cannot, BUT PLEASE DON'T TRY TO CHANGE ALL CREATION.
Joe Zammit
Feb 16th 2011, 17:05
Par.2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
In homosexuality there is no love but lust. Sin reigns supreme in homosexuality. Homosexuality is completely unnatural and against God's loving plan for us.
Shaun Azzopardi
Feb 17th 2011, 22:00
Just because homosexuality is a sin according to the tradition you adhere to follow doesn't mean homosexuals same-sex unions present a problem for heterosexual couples.
You're comment is out of place.
Also, it is full of empty claims. How can the Church say that there is no genuine affection between homosexual couples?
And what about the sexual complementarity?
Joe Grima Brussels
Feb 16th 2011, 16:56
'family - group of parents and children. From: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Gabi The gay movement has ALREADY highjacked and changed the meaning of a word we used to use often, in my younger days: gay. We used to say that 'We are a gay group at school'. We later HAD to change it to 'We are a happy group at school.' Now they are trying to highjack the word 'family'. Probably in future, we would NOT be able to say that 'I went out with my family,' but possibly 'I went out with my wife and my kids.' If we start to classify anybody who lives together as 'family', then the German who locked his daughter in the basement, and fathered several children from her, 'might' be classified as 'family'.
Shaun Azzopardi
Feb 17th 2011, 22:03
Words change meaning over time. That's a fact. Why are you characterizing as such a bad thing?
And you're engaging in a slippery slope. Which is a fallacy. Which means you're 'argument' is invalid.
Joe Zammit
Feb 16th 2011, 16:36
Par.2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” In homosexuality there is no love but lust. Sin reigns supreme in homosexuality. Homosexuality is completely unnatural and against God's loving plan for us.
Christine Galea
Feb 16th 2011, 16:33
@ Gabi Calleja “Ms Galea does not in fact believe that a good education enables individuals to think critically and reflectively about their lived experiences”. I cannot deny that a good education can help individuals to think critically and reflectively, yet to a large extent education is focused on simply getting students up-to-standard academically on the various aspects of the curriculum. I feel that there should be more tasks that encourage students to apply their new-found knowledge by thinking creatively and critically, hence providing them with opportunities for self-assessment and reflection. “Is she implying that a heterosexual married couple in [several countries] would consider their marital relationship of less worth, or love their spouse less because a same-sex couple next door could now get married?” In no way did I imply this. I wrote: " the evolution of same-sex unions has dealt a blow to the family based on the conjugal bond” in the sense that it contributes to destroying marriage as an institution. With all due respect, I do not wish to enter into a full-blown discussion on hetero-sexual vs same-sex marriages. This was not the aim of my article at all!
J Borg
Feb 16th 2011, 16:24
I fully agree with Ms Evelyn Cassar. By nature, there is ONE family: man, woman and children. All others are UNIONS, or call them what you will. Of course, by pulling here and there, one MIGHT try to make us believe that a family consisting of man, woman and children, is equal to a gay union!
Anyone remembers back in 2009, when a certain Indian gentleman, because of the lack of women in his village, MARRIED A COW? I hope he does not call THAT as a family!
Zachary Stewart
Feb 16th 2011, 16:36
JBorg, you ignore the issue of consent in your spurious and tired cow analogy. I suggest that before you pass judgment, you should hear from a child raised by same-sex parents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
m attard
Feb 16th 2011, 17:06
A man and a woman who have no children also make up a family, Or is it the children which in your opinion creates a family?
J Borg
Feb 16th 2011, 18:22
Zachary, Yes, I saw that clip. This young man has NO EXPERIENCE of a proper family, having a father and mother as parents. Don't children have a RIGHT to live with their natural parents? Having two mothers is far from 'natural'. His right of growing up with his natural father and natural mother was taken away from him. Obviously, YOU see no problem in this, and will admit none. M Attard. J Grima Brussels gave you the answer. In ANY dictionary, (it is obvious that you haven't looked it up yet!), the definition of family is 'parents living with children'. I didn't publish ANY dictionary myself, so please, don't blame me! So NO, it is NOT MY opinion, but COMMON KNOWLEDGE!
Shaun Azzopardi
Feb 17th 2011, 22:15
Why the focus on words?
The word family is not important. At all. It's just a word. The meaning you imbue in it is important, and since you imbue it's meaning you should not care what other people imbue into it. It's their problem if they're wrong.
Anyway, by nature only a man and woman can reproduce. And at that, not all men and women. Also let's not forget intersex people.
That doesn't mean that nature means for the man and women who took part in the sexual act to raise the child. Sure, it is in their evolutionary interest to raise their own offspring, but that doesn't mean they should. Meaning and purpose is not imbued by nature, it is imbued by humans and/or god/s.
Concisely, not by nature family, but by modern human custom family. And by family I intend to mean a man, a woman and their offspring.
Of course same-sex unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. It doesn't make them worse. They're just two different, but essentially the same, types of unions. Unions which are effective in the same way in raising children, as multitudes of studies have shown.
Evelyn Cassar
Feb 16th 2011, 15:10
No Gaby, there exists only one family form. A family where there is a woman and a man as parents. All others cannot be considered as a family. Same applies to marriage. You can call a union between two homosexuals or lesbians anything but not a marriage.
Zachary Stewart
Feb 16th 2011, 16:31
Really Evelyn? If the only acceptable family is a man and a woman as parents, then what would you call a man and a woman who are married, but cannot or choose not to have children? Is this family lesser in your opinion as well? And who exactly made you the arbiter of such things? Our families are just as valid as yours and they deserve equal protection under the law. Equality now!