Gay couples ‘deserve’ full marital rights

David Seychell

Jan 19th, 12:13

Ms Graham,
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not in favour of polygamy and I wasn't trying to ridicule your story. My point was that if the arguments present in your story represent a valid reason to introduce same-sex marriage, then similarly, it would also be a valid reason to introduce polygamy. Gays are a minority in Malta but so are Muslims. So where do we cut a line? Also, if there's something specific that I wrote here which you think the moderators should have censored, please explain.

David Seychell

Jan 19th, 12:34

"This is about rights that should be afforded to gay couples."

I'm in favour of granting more rights to gay couples, infact I'm in favour of introducing Civil Partnership but just like the majority of the People in this world I'm against redefining Marriage to include same-sex couples. I think I have a right to express this opinion just like you have a right to express your reasons why you're in favour.

David Seychell

Jan 20th, 07:32

Correction, I meant to say "Where do we draw the line?" not "where do we cut a line?", it must be my high fever.

David Seychell

Jan 19th, 11:11

Ms Borg, if my comments upset you so much, perhaps you should exercise your right to ignore them. Personal experience taught me that some people usually resort to insults when they lose all their reasoned arguments. Regarding your questions addressed to me, I'm sorry but I simply ignore persons who don't think that insults are no substitute for logical arguments.

Maria Borg

Jan 19th, 17:49

Jien ukoll ma fhimtix ta, jekk ma tkunx l-omm jew il-missier, min ser irabbihom it-tfal?

David Seychell

Jan 19th, 19:48

Maria Borg,

First of all, here's her statement:
"Whether a child has a mum & a dad; a mum & a mum; a dad & a dad; just a mum; just a dad etc...doesn't make any difference as long as the child is happy."

First of all, it isn't true that I interpreted her above statement to mean that a child should be brought up in the wild alone. Of course not. I understood her statement to mean that children don't need a mother or a father as long as they have at least one good parent. It is important here to understand that a parent or legal guardian may not necessary be a father or a mother but could also be an uncle or a big sister for instance. So I understood her statement to mean that if for example a child (let's call him Mark) has just his big sister as parent and this child is happy, then it matters not whether he's missing both his mother and father.
And so here's the question: if the addition of a father wouldn't make Mark's life better, than what's the value of fatherhood? If the addition of a mother wouldn't make Mark's life better, than what's the value of Motherhood? Using logical deduction, we would have to conclude that fatherhood and motherhood are valueless. But if the addition of a father or mother would make Mark's (happy) life better then that would mean that the above quoted statement isn't correct.

Ms. P.M Graham

Jan 19th, 21:28

to David Seychell;

why am i even bothering

but in some ways you are right.

a child doesn't need a Father or a Mother

a child needs someone they can count on, to be there through thick and thin. To teach them right from wrong and at the end of the day love them for who they are and that David is not gender specific

A child needs someone they can confide in, be honest with and have honesty given back. A child needs guidelines and boundaries and again thats not gender specific.

A child needs to know that they are loved and that anything and everything is worth discussing and that you will be there to listen, and understand, not judge

Again............... not gender specific, just good parenting.

Pamela Borg

Jan 19th, 21:37

Personal experience taught me that some people usually resort to 'not answering questions' when they lose all their reasoned arguments.

David Seychell

Jan 20th, 17:02

Ms Graham, you understood what I meant, unlike some others. But perhaps I can explain it better.

"Whether a child has a mum & a dad; a mum & a mum; a dad & a dad; just a mum; just a dad etc...doesn't make any difference as long as the child is happy."
In a nutshell, I understood the above quote to mean that what the child needs, is not the quality/characteristic that makes one a father or a mother but the quality that makes one a good parent and therefore the quality that makes one a mother or a father would be considered to be useless because even when a happy child has only -for instance- one mother, it is not the quality/attribute that makes her a mother that would be considered responsible for the happiness of the child, but the quality that makes her a good parent. In this sense, a child can do without the two different qualities that characterize the maternal and paternal figures but not without the quality that makes a person a good parent. In this context, my original (see below) quote should be understood.

"the very concept of a mother or father would be considered to be valueless and useless."

David Seychell

Jan 18th, 18:32

Mum and Dad (Jane and John) married for 6 years, are busily going about their day when a call comes from school that their youngest child has had an accident in the play ground and is being taken to hospital.

Dad is the one at home as mum is abroad on business and immediately sets off to the hospital to deal with everything.

Dad and Mums (Mahmud and Mary, Mari, Marianne, Marilyn, Miriam) together for 6 years, are busily going about their day when a call comes from school that their youngest child has had an accident in the play ground and is being taken to hospital.

Mum is the one at home as dad and mums are abroad on business and immediately sets off to the hospital to deal with everything. Or so she thinks. She is not the child’s biological parent, she doesn’t have the same last name, she can’t sign or give permission for any treatment required, she can’t even legally sit at the child’s bedside.

Jane and Mahmud return quickly from abroad but in their haste are involved in car accidents and are both hospitalized.

John immediately goes to his wife’s bedside and does what is required.

Miriam is left in the corridor with no rights whatsoever in regard to their child or her partner.

John Mayger

Jan 20th, 02:57

In civilised first world countries like Australia both mothers are included on a child's Birth Certificate. We, in NSW, are currently investigating to include additional parents on a Birth Certificate. MY Maltese daughter has 2 legal mums because she was born in an advanced civilisation like Australia. Soon she will have 3 legal parents.

David Seychell

Jan 17th, 21:00

"Whether a child has a mum & a dad; a mum & a mum; a dad & a dad; just a mum; just a dad etc...doesn't make any difference as long as the child is happy."

At least you're being honest and are confirming that I was correct when I said:

"Society would be declaring that children don't need a mother or father, whether biological or not and therefore, the very concept of a mother or father would be considered to be valueless and useless."

David Seychell

Jan 18th, 06:16

Ms Tedesco Triccas,
"What difference does it do to you if Adam and Steve want to be in a loving relationship?!If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't get one!Live and let live!You have no right to decide whether people should be happy or not!"

If you don't mind, I'll ask you the same question. If a Muslim loves his three or more partners, and ask to marry them (polygamy) would you agree to allow him? What difference does it do to you if Adam, Eve and Jane want to be in a loving relationship?!

Yaz Tabone

Jan 16th, 23:20

Clayton.. people your age should not be using computers unsupervised

Mr Nicholas Galea

Jan 17th, 08:29

Ignorant and closed minded. People like you are the reason Malta's society is taking more time to completely accept people for who they are. Your logic is disgusting and I suggest you go live in a hole where you can judge people all you want without affecting anyone.

Good day, sir.

David Seychell

Jan 18th, 06:12

Mr Nicholas Galea,
"People like you are the reason Malta's society is taking more time to completely accept people for who they are."

Mr Galea, do you completely accept pedosexuals for who they are?

Martin Saliba

Jan 17th, 13:43

Nature has been around for quite a few million if not billion years before marriage was invented so which corrupted which? If you think about it you would notice that it was nature itself that gave all animals , humanity included , a divers sexual orientation.

Morana Axisa

Jan 17th, 16:55

We are not talking of parenthood here. We are talking about the union of two people and the rlegal ights they will have as partners in a society. Ejja ma nhalltux il hass mal bass hawn pls. Erga aqra l artiklu Mr Seychell, ghax ma nahsibx li fhimtu.

David Seychell

Jan 17th, 20:46

Morana Axisa, we are not talking about civil partnership here but about Marriage, if only you would know what is Marriage and what it is for, you would understand that procreation is an intrinsical part of it.

David Seychell

Jan 18th, 06:06

Morana Axisa,
I have just finished re-reading the article as you suggested, and here's what it says: "Dr Falzon noted that allowing gay people to marry civilly would grant them full equality and access to a whole range of rights that come with signing a marriage contract. The rights – such as adoption, inheritance and pensions – were not necessarily covered by the cohabitation law the government promised, he said."

I really don't understand how you can say that "We are not talking of parenthood here" when the word "adoption" automatically implies parenthood. Perhaps you're the one who need to re-read the article.

Ramon Casha

Jan 16th, 20:40

So they would be equal to a couple where one is infertile or past child-bearing age. We still allow these to marry though don't we?

David Seychell

Jan 17th, 20:40

@Ramon Casha

Regarding infertility here's what the Marriage Act (Chapter 255) has to say:
"
Validity and annulment of marriages

19. (1) In addition to the cases in which a marriage is void in
accordance with any other provision of this Act, a marriage shall be
void:
(e) if either of the parties is impotent, whether such
impotence is absolute or relative, but only if such
impotence is antecedent to the marriage;
"

When the Institution of Marriage was created, it was not meant for old people[1], but they are/were allowed to marry because first of all just because a couple is old, doesn't mean that they aren't mother and father of a lot of children, some do get married after having children. Secondly, we never had a Civil Partnership in place and hence it would not have made practical sense to prohibit them from getting married, especially if you consider that traditionally they always were allowed to. Thirdly, because of its negligible impact on society and the institution of Marriage itself. An old man and woman getting married represent the limits of the institution of Marriage, this is where the border of Marriage lies, the point where from white we start to move towards grey. The definition of White cannot encompass all colours. If we redefine Marriage so as to allow same-sex Marriage then the Institution of Marriage would become in theory, borderless. In other words, we would make it open to other type of unions, with the most obvious being polygamy, after all muslims are also a minority in Malta.

Same-sex Marriage, on the other hand would have radical and negative implications on Society and on the rights of children. Not only the rights of children, but I would say their humane dignity itself. Every human being is and always was the product of a male and a female but once we introduce the principle that a same-sex couple is equal to a male-female couple, sooner or later it may be the genetic makeup of a child itself that would be considered to be flawed because of its heterocentrity. Equal and full rights to same-sex couples implies the right of reproduction and for this reason some scientists are already working on genetic engineering techniques that "hopefully" would prevent a child from having a mother or father at the genetic level.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2058248/New-Scientist-SameSex-Reproduction

[1]I already discussed at lenght the intrinsical purpose of Marriage here http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120113/local/civil-unions-should-not-remain-gender-specific-mgrm.402181

Yaz Tabone

Jan 16th, 23:22

opinions? these are not mere opinions.. these are human rights!

re the gay pride.. you should realy see what goes on in other countries.. amazing stuff :)

Yaz Tabone

Jan 16th, 23:23

get out