Advert
Print
Friday, March 2, 2012 by

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando

Give gay couples the right to marry

This country of ours is still struggling to free itself from the shackles that bind the political class with the Catholic Church.

Don’t get me wrong. The Catholic Church, locally, has had a profound, positive impact on our society. It has been contributing in areas which range from education to the care of the elderly and the disabled for centuries, often stepping in to fill the gaps left open by the government. However, the policies of our political parties should not be adapted in such a way as to ensure that the metaphorical feathers of the Catholic hierarchy in Malta, which leans towards the conservative when compared with the rest of the Universal Church, are left unruffled.

Our society has evolved more than our political class in this respect. This is evidenced by the result of the divorce referendum last year. Divorce would not have passed were it simply left up to Parliament.

The resounding support given to the Private Member’s Bill I co-presented with Evarist Bartolo in the House was simply due to the fact that the yes lobby won the plebiscite the Prime Minister called for, against all odds. Most MPs were averse to going against the people’s will after such a clear victory for common sense.

This should have served as a wake-up call. It didn’t.

Gay couples are still waiting for some, any, form of recognition in the year 2012 in European Malta notwithstanding the many and varied carrots that are periodically dangled in front of them to win them over when their political support is required.

I believe that gay couples should be given the right to marry. The reasons are identical to the ones the divorce movement I formed part of brought forward with respect to the right to remarry.

Why should a government, in its right senses, discourage those who want to take up the obligations and responsibilities of marriage? In the absence of a contractual bond of this kind, the government has to step in to protect and sustain those whose marriage has broken down or whose partner has died who would otherwise have been legally protected.

The only reason many are averse to the idea of gay marriage is simply a misguided one based on religious beliefs. Those who base their arguments on such beliefs should be free to do so. They should not, however, be in a position to dictate to others the manner in which they should live their lives.

A political party should never try to pander to the sensibilities of the “fire and brimstone” brigade by denying fundamental rights to minorities.

The first step in the right direction in this respect should be the immediate introduction of a cohabitation law that takes the needs and rights of the gay community into account. A cohabitation law was promised in the Nationalist Party’s electoral programme for the 1998 election. This government promised to ensure it was included in our statute books by the end of 2011.

It’s about time we kept our promises.

Hundreds of Maltese couples are suffering needlessly as a result of our procrastination. The homophobia that is rife in our society is being encouraged by the phobia our political class has when it comes to discussing and legislating in favour of gay rights.

Dr Pullicino Orlando is a Nationalist member of Parliament

Print
Advert

184 Comments

Post comment

Please see our new Comments Policy

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

For more details please see our Comments Policy

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Anthony Galea

Apr 8th 2012, 10:33

We said, during the divorce campiagn, that next will be gay marriage-and we were right. Now, we're saying that next on the agenda after gay marriage will be abortion-and, again, we will be right.
Indeed, we are already right-they are already pushing for embryo freezing and discardation, which ends human life.

Mr R.E. Saliba

Jun 27th 2012, 20:52

@Anthony Galea
... and might as well throw in legalisation of marijuana.

David Seychell

Mar 6th 2012, 16:23

You are of course right Kenneth. But you need to understand that not everyone is eloquent as you are. Some people have an opinion, but do not manage to express it clearly in words. Especially when they try to express it in their 2nd or 3rd language in order of preference. Later on, If I find the time, I will try to rephrase the "Nature" argument.

David Seychell

Mar 7th 2012, 15:47

What is natural is not necessarily healthy and what is unnatural is not necessarily unhealthy. Granted. (although not all of them) Homosexuals are made by nature that way. Granted.

The Natural Order.

Human Anatomy shows that the body of a male and a female are meticulously designed and
engineered by Nature in order to complement each other. "Uni" means "one" and therefore "union" means becoming one. The male and female body are designed by Nature in such a way, in order to become literally one. One body. The child, which is the fusion of one male and one female part. Therefore, the union of one man and one woman is a Natural union.

Some parts of the human body are called "organs" because they have a specific purpose. The male sexual organ is designed in order to complement that of the female, and not in order to penetrate a male's feces canal. In fact the rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses. Scientists say that sodomy is very high-risk and often leads to disease. Infact Scientific studies found that anal sex increase the risk of Anal Cancer by over 3,000 per cent. http://www.thedoctorsdoctor.com/diseases/anal_ca.htm


But when medical science does not match the Homosexual lifestyle, it is the science that is thrown out of the window.

Andre Giordimaina

Apr 21st 2012, 13:49

This is a reply to David Seychell.
So with that line of logic, oral sex should not be performed because it is also unnatural?

Emma Xerri

Mar 7th 2012, 05:39

BRAVA.

Mr R.E. Saliba

Apr 7th 2012, 10:49

Well -said
I'd rather a loving gay couple than a hateful hetero couple.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 4th 2012, 13:07

I meant @ Ken Spiteri

Ken Spiteri

Mar 4th 2012, 13:34

Roger saw it pure egoism.... nobody is saying that we should discriminate against gays that should stop , but now we are going way to far.....

on the clip one says why he cannot have a child a be called papa, easily because he is doing something against nature.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 4th 2012, 18:57

@Ken Spiteri

Did you read anything I wrote on Alan Deidun's post? or was yours a knee Jerk? If you are going to argue that one ought to do only what is "according to nature" you are opening a Pandora's box of insanity. How can you use an argument used by Fascists, supporters of the Master race, and an argument used in favour of slavery, to make a moral argument about Gay marriage? Of course I'll keep up the Mic Kenny, because I have something decent, rational and unhateful to say; unlike what you have been posting.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 4th 2012, 19:05

If we are to do only that which is natural, then we should be walking around without clothing in whatever climate, not take any medicine, never visit a doctor, not use transport, not use artificial reproductive technologies, stop using plumbing and electricity, not cook our food, not get an education, not use the internet, subscribe to "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" and have only the Physically strong rule the Human Race (amongst other things)......

Ken Spiteri

Mar 5th 2012, 16:00

@Roger

what on earth an answer is that. are your serious you are comparing nature with being naked going to the doctor etc.. this proves how right am I.

first i do not hate gays I am against the discrimination of gays etc... but I cannot support such, humanity was born and it is based on men and women so together can pro-create

if we accpet this than we can accept everything

Emma Xerri

Mar 7th 2012, 05:54

@Ken Spiteri

Enough of human procreation already.

Gay marriage is about human rights. While you see marriage as a baby-making arrangement, there are other aspects of marriage, such as love and companionship, the right to partner's pension, household to be recognized as such by the State for income tax purposes and a hundred other things that married couples take for granted. I would even extend this to couples of either sex, that set up household together, such as siblings, who live their lives together and although they might not have a physical relationship are a couple in every other sense of the word. Why should these people be invisible and accorded the same rights? For one thing, they pay their share of taxes yet do not put any burdens on the State, such as for schools, daycare or children's allowance.

Emma Xerri

Mar 7th 2012, 05:59

But homosexuality is natural. It is estimated that between 5-10% of persons who are born into this world are gay. This trait is gene carried and is found also in many animals.

So saying it is not natural is incorrect. It is natural but in the minority, the same way blue or green eyes are a minority in humans.

Emma Xerri

Mar 10th 2012, 07:10

Judging by the tripe they present as entertainment on TV and what the Media is pushing to young people, that is exactly what they want - women with countless children from all races, some in orphanage, some in prison, some in prostitution and some beggars and criminals - surely this must serve some nefarious agenda.

Ramon Casha

Mar 4th 2012, 05:25

They already have the second. It's only the first that is a stumbling block.

Reuben Zammit

Mar 3rd 2012, 14:15

So how about this: politicians letting non-catholic gays marry away in peace? Or is the imposition of Catholic values on non catholics 'grace' too?

Reuben Zammit

Mar 3rd 2012, 13:34

Why is it necessary to stoop to the deception of glorifying cohabitation between two people of different sexes as a "marriage"?

Ramon Casha

Mar 4th 2012, 05:24

That's odd since you seem to be addicted to every word I say, dropping by to post something even when I write something entirely unrelated to religion, church or secularism. Awww come on, admit it - you love my writings don't you? :)

David Seychell

Mar 3rd 2012, 13:31

Taghtix kasu Mr Saliba.

William Calleja

Mar 5th 2012, 10:44

Attacking the argument of same-sex marriage by using infanticide, a counter argument that's completely off topic is a scare mongering tactic. I find that cowardly.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 3rd 2012, 00:12

This is non-sensical. Firstly, you should be supporting your views of why Gay marriage is rubbish with proper arguments and evidence, not "common sense". Secondly, what universal principles and Values? There were many like you who thought that owning an African slave was perfectly moral and compliant with the bible and here we are living in a time where slavery is abolished. Thirdly, reality shows that no matter how much you encourage "heterosexual unions" there will still be children from such unions growing up without either of their parents. What next? Do you want a widow to be forcibly remarried so that she would not deny a father figure to her child?

Regarding your last sentence...well I won't even go there. Your statement would re-justify the inquisition torture, slavery, the denial of fair trials, the denial of privacy, the denial of freedom of conscience, discrimination.....

John Schembri

Mar 3rd 2012, 11:11

Well done for your comment Dr Deidun.

@ Roger Tirazona : and you call what you wrote a valid argument?

I will not quote religion , (that’s convenient for the pro-divorcists and pro-gay marriages) , I just look at mother nature , if for a gay couple it is possible to pro create without heterosexual “help” then nature would mean to tell us that adoption is acceptable ....that’s common sense.

Governments encourage heterosexuals to marry and to pro-create ; society needs children, without them there’s no future.

It is useless and counterproductive to encourage gay marriage ; what does society gain with a gay marriage?

I see this as a ploy for those who want a free ride from our already stressed pensions system.

Governments encourage married women to have babies by various ‘rights’ which men don’t have . Should we call this discrimination against men?

Having said that, I don’t mind people who live together having certain rights , like the right to inherit the person with whom they have been taking care for ages , or the right to continue living in the same house.

If we are ready to have gay marriages , I would seriously consider dismantling the institution of marriage and the removal of all the rights and obligations which go with it.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 3rd 2012, 13:10

@ John Schembri

" I just look at mother nature , if for a gay couple it is possible to pro create without heterosexual “help” then nature would mean to tell us that adoption is acceptable ....that’s common sense." - John Schembri

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy. With the logic of repeating what we observe in "Mother Nature" we would go on discarding the weak and the disabled. If we decided to repeat what is observable in nature and that alone, we would discard Benevolence, Justice and Social Values altogether. That's why people don't rely on your cheap "common sense"; yours OR Mr. Deidun's.

John Schembri

Mar 3rd 2012, 16:23

People around the world abort healthy babies , something which mother nature never does.

Where are the "Benevolence, Justice and Social Values” you’re mentioning in abortion.

It would be OK for me if it’s a free for all in marriage, but I find it hard to accept certain ‘rights’ for married gay couples to have .

1) A free ride on a widow’s pension when the spouses could never ever possibly add their children to the population who will be the future contributors to the economy.

2) Equal adoption rights to a gay couple where a child can never be born in a gay marriage.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 3rd 2012, 18:38

Abortion seems to want to creep in every liberal discussion since Divorce. Isn't there anything else to resort to, other than scaremongering, to try to convince people?

If you can't distinguish between the social contract that human beings have and the "law of the jungle", then you have a long way to go....a very long way. It would also explain many things about Maltese mentality as well if a lot are like you.

John Schembri

Mar 3rd 2012, 20:00

Who in his right senses in this so called civilised world ,would allow his siblings to be adopted by a gay couple in preference of a heterosexual couple.

I’m not scaremongering anyone with abortion , you mentioned the law of the jungle and I showed you that the so called civilised world applies the “survival of the fittest” principle in abortion which not even mother nature allows.

Every decision a government takes would be followed by a burden on the taxpayers , who would expect something positive towards society in return. Having children is something positive and should be encouraged with children’s allowance , tax breaks and what have you, so somehow (with some stretch of imagination) I can see why an old married woman who brought up two or three children together with her husband to be entitled for a pension. But I cannot imagine the same thing happening to the stay home partner of a gay couple, this would automatically lead us to reason that a pension should be 'inherited’ by the stay home carer of the breadwinner of two people living together.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 3rd 2012, 21:16

"I’m not scaremongering anyone with abortion , you mentioned the law of the jungle and I showed you that the so called civilised world applies the “survival of the fittest” principle in abortion which not even mother nature allows." - John Schembri

First of all I do not agree with your notion of what is being applied ethically and morally to justify abortion, but that is a discussion for another wall.

This conversation has completely expired for the simple reason that you are not making any sense, defeating your own argument and not even realising it. Let me point it out to you...actually let me try to spell it out:

You're saying applying the law of the Jungle Justifies abortion (even though it doesn't) and presumably you are against it. Therefore how can you use a naturalistic argument, to observe what is in nature, and wish to repeat it with an issue like Equality in Marriage or Gay Marriage? Don't you realise you are defeating your own argument? And I repeat what I said to Dr. Deidun. Your biases are obfuscating your mind and your thought (or lack thereof) to produce such a non-sensical argument. "Observe what is in nature and repeat" say Schembri and Deidun, only to later vilify the same thing they tried to put forward.

What burden to tax payers? More people marrying actually brings more stability and a LESSER burden on social welfare benefits. I also can't fathom how you manage to put in adoption in this discussion as well. You sure have a way of mashing up irrelevant things together. However if you want to know my views about Single Adoption and Gay Adoption here it is black on white on my Blog:

http://rogertirazona.blogspot.com/2012/02/single-parent-adoption.html

Roger Tirazona

Mar 3rd 2012, 21:25

@ john Schembri

I also find that your putting forward the idea that a person's entitlement (unsurprisingly enough you mention a woman) to a pension depends on whether he or she managed to procreate absolutely repudiating. It's as if the only way a person can contribute to society is by providing more worker drones for the State. There are many couples without children, or who lost their children; some are even trying hard with artificial reproductive technologies to have children as well, without any help from the state. And what if a couple decide not to have children? Do you want to deny them their pension after having worked, laboured all their life and paid taxes and national insurance regularly for 45 years?

As I said.... non-sensical. And as I said... I'm not surprised you want to resort to the law of the jungle.

Ken Spiteri

Mar 4th 2012, 08:58

very well said Alan, Roger keep up the microphone.....

Paolo Bugeja

Mar 6th 2012, 00:54

@ Alan Deidun

And you have the liberty to do so! Have a happy marriage with your wife and enjoy your children.

Karl Consiglio

Mar 2nd 2012, 20:29

Yes many gay folk enter heterosexual marriages for those reasons already.

JOSEPH MUSCAT

Mar 3rd 2012, 11:27

JOSEPH P BORG I agree with you marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman and I hope it stays like that. If gays and lesbians dont like it they can always change their christianity faith to MUSLIMS.they will be very wellcome in IRAN.

Joseph P. Borg

Mar 2nd 2012, 19:00

Ms Ivana,
Your extensive comment had nothing to do with my comments. I have nothing against any sort of union that individuals choose, and I respect their decision. However I object to the use of the word "marriage" for a union that is not between a male and a female person. For other unions between same sex couples another word would have to be used to indicate the difference with a "marriage" as has been defined for centuries . Marriage has always been monogamous. Same sex unions should not pretend that they are to be categorised in civil life in the same category as that between a man and a woman.

Ramon Casha

Mar 4th 2012, 05:21

I suspect that you are not a naturalist or botanist. In nature, there are some species in which one male and one female form a lifelong bond, others in which they form a 1-year bond, others in which there is a single alpha male or alpha female, and many other variations. In most cases there are also exceptions. Where there is a pack structure with one alpha male there are other, independent males that take whatever opportunity presents itself to impregnate one of the females. In the male-female bonding species there are cases where two males or two females bond instead.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:25

"Anyone who is against civil partnership or gay marriage is a selfish bigot."

Wow! Full marks for your 'logical assertion': any evidence to back this up? Or is it your style to hurl insults right left and centre?

P Bonnici

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:46

Andy Farrugia, what do you personally have to lose if civil partnership or gay marriage is introduced? Give me at least one valid reason.

I assume that you would not mind seeing an old gay couple and who spent 50 years together in the same house. One of them (the owner of the house) dies intestate, the other would get thrown out of the house by the relatives of the dead partner. Don't you think this is heartless and in this case the state should intervene?

Andy Farrugia

Mar 3rd 2012, 10:15

@ P Bonnici

Do me a favour, P Bonnici, please don't try to play silly games with me by shifting the grounds of my comment. I asked for evidence for your bald statement and you provided none. I note it is your style to hurl insults at those who disagree with you. Very tolerant of you!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2012, 12:39

Andy Farrugia getting all heated up because, after challenging people for evidence to back up one's claims, he is given none. A taste of his own medicine. Hilarious.

Karl Consiglio

Mar 2nd 2012, 20:27

We meant it in a positive way.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 3rd 2012, 11:06

@ K Consiglio

"We meant it in a positive way. " We, meaning who, exactly? Assorted nihilists?

Karl Consiglio

Mar 3rd 2012, 15:52

Yes yes

Wilfred Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:33

No thanks. We are more sensible!

Evarist Saliba

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:57

What makes you label opinions which disagree with JPO's opinions as subjective, and hence should not be expressed? Are JPO's opinions not subjective as well?

rodolfo buontempo

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:20

@evarist - for the simple reason that the subjectivity used by the commentators is one expressing hate and increasing intolerance. Instead fighting for unity, it seems that we are fighting to increase discrimination and hatred

Evarist Saliba

Mar 3rd 2012, 10:25

What on earth has "subjectivity" to do with what you are writing?
Stop rambling, and tell me in which way you feel justified to call those who disagree with JPO, and that includes me, people who instil hatred and advocate intolerance.

rodolfo buontempo

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:10

Can we please not compare one issue to another. This is not a question of whether for us to be European we have to include all other 'bad' laws as you seem to be putting it, but a question of an individual right, a question which concerns the emotive and mental health of many..

P Bonnici

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:53

Henry S Pace - let's start burning gays, lesbians, divorcees, prostitutes and drug users at the stake.

Henry S Pace, you are intolerant.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 3rd 2012, 10:10

@ P Bonnici

I notice that you are quite adept at shifting the grounds of other people's comments (Mr Pace never mentioned anything at all about "burning people at the stake") so as to have some kind of basis to hurl insults at others ("Henry S Pace, you are intolerant"). Where did you learn this kind of tactic, P Bonnici?

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:54

If you agree to EVERYTHING about gay marriage EXCEPT the semantics of how it is called then you should revaluate what's important and what isn't. Does what other people use their words for really affect your life ot the point of trying to impose yoru view of language onto others?

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:56

Largely because the PRC authorities have found an alternative disparaging hateful and illogical excuse to abuse and ignoe the plith of their people, liek most other authoritative single party systems are won't to do. also in the PRC the government cannot allow an organised religion to compete with it for control of its people.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:57

Interesting assertion, also invalid and pointless, I'm quite sure that is tehre was political fallout to be had because someone DARED TO SPEAK, it will surely fall when the aforementioned PM returns to the island.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:02

"Nature says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even animals have that instinct. I do think that what he means is a union two people of the same sex living tofether."

Homosexuality occurs a lot in nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

"This is another challenge thrown at Dr Gonzi's face. Dr Gonzi always stood by his morals irrispective what his MPs say. No catholic individual can compromise with the Lord's Teachings"

Indeed, catholics cannot compromise, thankfully not everybody on the island is catholic and thsoe people that aren't would like equal rights.

"We will sonn see JPO going down Republic St surrounded by the press with a draft of a 'Private Members Bill going hastily to the Speaker's chambers to present such a Bill."

Yes because you know, its his job, pushing for legislation, he's paid to do that. If anything he'd be one of the few that try that.

"Then we see Joseph Muscat taking full advantage to support such a bill and make it his own. This will be done as long votes are well invested for the forthcoming General Election"

Apt political analysis, so yoru prediction is that a politician will try to get political mileage out of a situation. to which I ask... and? it's what ALL politicians do

"Todays politicians have no real issues to bring about to the people but such ventures are now the order of the day. Next will be Abortion on the agenda."

And of course, since you have no real argument to make you inevitably bring infanticide into the discussion becasue there's nothing that you can pin against homosexuals getting married.

"We shall not vote to whoever support such issues."

If by we you mean 'We right wing ultra conservative extremists' I say, well yeah of course you won't. Luckily we live in a country populated by half a million different opinions, as democracy wills, WE will vote according to our diverging ideals.

Ramon Casha

Mar 4th 2012, 05:17

"Even animals have that instinct."

Well there are gay animals and they do form life-long bonds which are as close to marriage as animals get.

"No catholic individual can compromise with the Lord's Teachings."

So you're saying that no catholic ever uses a condom right? Besides, count the number of verses in which Jesus spoke about homosexuals or homosexuality. Hint: It's a round figure. In fact, it's the roundest figure there is.

Karl Consiglio

Mar 2nd 2012, 20:25

Want me to sign?

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:05

"It is those who try to give marriage to those whom it would not suit who devalue it."

Ultra right wing conservative rhetoric coming form the mouth of somebody convinced to be able to decide the fate and worth of others.

rodolfo buontempo

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:12

who gave you the solemn authority to say that gay couples do not believe in marriage?

Ramon Casha

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:13

The church is the primary entity that stands against equal rights, but you're right, it's not the only one and in fact I didn't mention it myself.

Marriage is devalued every time it is denied to a minority. It was devalued when it was denied to black people, it was devalued when it was denied to couples of different races or classes or castes, and it is devalued today when it is denied to couples of the same sex.

David Seychell

Mar 2nd 2012, 19:55

"Marriage is devalued every time it is denied to a minority. It was devalued when it was denied to black people, it was devalued when it was denied to couples of different races or classes or castes, and it is devalued today when it is denied to couples of the same sex."

Nonsense Casha.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Infact, some homosexuals do get married in Malta and have children. Couples of the same sex are NOT denied Marriage because Marriage is not a union of two persons of the same sex. Same-Sex Marriage does not exist in Malta. You cannot deny something to someone that doesn't even exist. Polygamy does not exist in Malta and therefore a Muslim and his six partners cannot claim that they are denied Marriage because Marriage is not a union of three or more persons in the same way that Marriage is not a union of two persons of the same sex.

If it was logical to say that couples of the same-sex are denied Marriage, then it would also be logical to conclude that Muslims are denied Marriage.

Ramon Casha

Mar 4th 2012, 05:14

@David Seychell: That's like saying "Black people have the same right as white people - to marry someone of the same colour"

David Seychell

Mar 4th 2012, 17:38

@Ramon Casha

Your 'race is to sexual orientation' analogy does not hold water. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is NOT a union between one man and one woman of the same race and therefore, not allowing a black man to marry a white woman would be discrimination based on race. Your analogy would have been correct if a person of say sexual orientation X is not allowed to marry a person of sexual orientation X or Z or whaterver. But since a person of any sexual orientation is allowed to marry a person of any sexual orientation, there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation and therefore your analogy is incorrect. Infact, a homosexual is allowed in Malta to marry another homosexual person. A bisexual can marry a heterosexual or homosexual etc. Every combination of every sexual orientation is possible and therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation does not exist, unlike discrimination based on race which was practised in other countries in the past.

You also said that Marriage is denied to couples of the same sex. Again, this is incorrect. It is true that same sex relationship is not officially recognized by the State but Marriage is an offical union of a man and a woman and therefore, as per your own admission, it is not Marriage that they are denied but something else, a union of persons of the same sex. For this reason I'm in favour of Civil partnerships that would legally recognize those who are partners in life, as such.

Marriage is not whatever you love in whatever quantity, if that were the case, a man who loves his dog would be able to claim that he is denied Marriage.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:36

Mr Vincenti, keep abortion fear mongering away from an argument that is completely divorced form it.

Lina Caruana

Mar 3rd 2012, 10:38

you have just proven that marriage is a kernel issue and that the family is the basic cell of society

Ken Cowan

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:13

Because, Mr Borg, as Shakespeare wrote over 4 centuries ago: " Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments".
He could easily have been talking about gay marriage today... true minds which love each other should be allowed to marry. Mr Borg's narrow and self-serving definition are exactly just such an impediment. The word "marriage" simply means "union" - why shouldn't gays be united like straight people?
THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE ARGUMENT TO REFUSE; does Mr Borg really think that semantics is a good enough reason to refuse people the equality which a democratic Constitution basically offers them? Surely he jests.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:32

Literary core of the word marriage is the union of two parts.

Edward Mallia

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:48

A precise comment showing up JPO's scrappy aproach to such things. Not even his semantics are up to scratch. And can he please indicate which part of [the rest] of the Universal Church would not have its feathers ruffled by his demand that approval be given to "gay marriages"? That homosexual couples should have some form of legal framework to regulate their relationship is a civilised suggestion, which can be applied to co-habiting heterosexual couples as well. To use the term 'marriage' for either of these two situations, and particularly the former, is going too far lingustically. Interested parties should be more inventive; after all they are already in serious deficit with the use of 'gay' for homosexual.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:10

@ william calleja

"Literary core of the word marriage is the union of two parts."
And from which etymological / semantic source did you get this ?

Karl Consiglio

Mar 2nd 2012, 13:51

Yes, I agree abortion should be next. Then euthanasia, removal of crosses from public schools, legalize cannabis, regulate prostitution, have a local porn industry, a lot needs to be done.

Ken Cowan

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:19

Yes, Ms Debattista... once superstition is put aside and LOGIC enters the discussion, why NOT gay marriage and abortion?
Until the Church and various politicians can figure out a way to get past raging hormones - either you give people proper sex education and easy access to contraceptives (why not condom distributors in all the school washrooms for example?) or abortion - like divorce before it - remains a totally possible solution - but only to those who are rich enough to be able to go abroad. Do you really think it is fair that those with money can find a way around regressive Maltese laws but the "ordinary " folk must submit without protest?


Andy Farrugia

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:32

@ Karl Consiglio

Ehe! U dan kollu ghax jghidu xempju bhalek?

Wilfred Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:31

Yes Karl Consiglio. It's about time we make Malta hell on earth!

P Bonnici

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:02

Wilfred Camilleri, I take it you are comfortably living in heaven now and do not want to be deprived of that right.

Joseph P. Borg

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:03

Most probably because you are not understanding what the word "marriage" has been used and referred to for centuries on end by all persons of different cultures

john aguis

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:19

To carry on our existence! Unless men start having kids, not hard to work out eh

silvio loporto

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:41

Could be you are not searching at the right places.
Happened to a friend of mine,, No matter how hard he tried,he just couldn't find a rabbit in the sea.
He is now happily settled at Mount Carmel.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:39

Mr. Borg, the word 'marriage' has only been used by english speaking cultures and the prevalent use of 'english' has only been a reality for one century and not many centuries. Humanity has been around for millions of years, language has been around for thousands of years, and the significance of words change in a matter of decades to accomodate the needs of humankind and not vice versa.

Ramon Casha

Mar 4th 2012, 05:13

@john agius: I didn't realise humans had become an endangered species.

Wilfred Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:33

Of course you're using the word "honourable " loosely in this instance.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:40

No, they wouldn't open any pandoras box since the legislation affect only individuals that want the option and will not affect individuals that don't wnat the option. By allowing others a choice we do not limit our choices.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:44

Why do you seek to demonise a point of view that is different from yours?

Mr Andrew Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:54

And do you know what, Mr. Vincenti? When JPO proposed divorce and the NP Govt proposed a referendum, the result was a very clear majority in favour. So please stop this scare-mongering and treat your fellow Maltese citizens with respect - respect their opinions and do not try to impose yours on them.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2012, 12:32

You don't have to accept them. You're not that important.

Ken Cowan

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:27

You "warned" people - and you were right.
But so what? What they are asking for is simply logical. Once we have started down the path of LOGIC why shouldn't we continue?
Oh, and by the way, one does not need to be "radical" nor "on the left" to believe in FAIRNESS, DECENCY, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE, and REALITIES instead of ideologies based on superstition and ignorance.
As for those, like Mr Borg, who keep dredging up the word "tradition"... well, traditions change.
400 Years ago marriages were mostly arranged for property reasons. IN some countries tehy still are today - and we think of this a s backward. And women were seen as chattel.
Why not go back to THOSE traditions too? I'll tell you why not - because traditions CHANGE and EVOLVE. They always have and they always will.
Deal wih it!

Andy Farrugia

Mar 2nd 2012, 14:59

JPO believes that this is his last hurrah, he thinks that he will bow out with a "bang"; truth is that it will be a "phut" rather than a bang. Roll on the months, soon it will cleansing time.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:50

Marriage vows by heterosexuals are broken on a daily basis, sometimes ot the direct detriment of the progeny that come through such unions, and I don't mean simply the trauma of seeing your parents apart, I mean one of the parents physically, sexually or fatally abusing one of th progeny. Thsi week alone gave us ample examples of how truly 'sacred' traditional marriage is. Lets stop callign marriage sacred, cause the thigns that happened this week have always happened as long as marriage was around. Marriage is not a magically sacred institution that automaticlaly turns individuals into moral and uplifted beings, its an agreement between people to treat each other kindly and lord knows we ned more people tyring themselves to such agreements.

Mr Andrew Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:56

Mr. Farrugia, pls stop shooting the messenger.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 2nd 2012, 18:53

@ Andrew Camilleri

"Mr. Farrugia, pls stop shooting the messenger." Messenger? Who? JPO? Harbinger of what, exactly? As for "shooting" anything at all, it is something completely alien to me, both literally as well as metaphorically. I tend to think it more consonant with certain types and certain ideologies.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:47

Public referenda do not equate good governance as our politicians are quick to remind us with their actions, the majority can be VERY wrong. Besides, we do not want to see another cavalcade of hate speech and demonising propaganda by our local institutions.

Alex Ellul

Mar 2nd 2012, 13:09

As usual, appealing to your great authorative knowedge declaring those who do not agree with your dogma as ignorant. Now tell me: Do I have the right to legally marry 10 woman? Just a simple yes or nor answer please.

Joseph P. Borg

Mar 2nd 2012, 13:56

Ivana, were you looking at a mirror when you concocted your comment. ? Why do you have to degrade yourself when you cannot criticise the arguements and comments of others?

Mike Abbot

Mar 2nd 2012, 15:20

Alex Ellul - the answer is no but your question is pointless. you may as well ask if marrying a toaster is legal.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:46

If yoru quarrel is with language Mr.Debono you should really start questioning yoru arguments, Besides, changing our language to describe people based on superficial differences that eventually make no difference to yoru personal life is ignoral and bigoted and should be removed from our society.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:44

"Yes, I know that abortion, infanticide, and assisted suicide are not the same as changing the concept of marriage to accomodate the presumed rights that go with two persons of the same sex who want to live together.Yet, there is a common thread, and this is the liberal attitude which tends to evolve into libertinage."

It is quite a fallacy and cowardly to bring in the argument of infanticide when arguing against homosexual unions, especially since you are the first to admit that the creation of a child by such unions is impossible to begin with. Besides, what's with this sanctity of marriage business? marriage as we know it today has been aroudn for a VERY short time, slightly over 60 years ago women where little more than chattel to be traded as commodities controlled by their parents, often the patriarch. Universal sufferage is quite recent and still very poorly implemented and throughout our history homosexual unions have been both common and in some societies the norm. as you can see fo ryoru self, humanity didn't only survive, but it thrived to the point of teethering on the brink of overpopulation. As for biological imperatives go, no, gended is not an on and off state, it's a scale, every human being is biologically representatives of both genders, where in most cases one is more predominant than the other but like all scales things exist also in the middle. Just because this is a minority doesn't mean that they have less rights.

Evarist Saliba

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:40

@ William Calleja
Will you please enlighten me in which way I am acting in a cowardly way?
The loose way in which you express yourself does you (and your arguments) no credit.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:39

Dear Senior Cauchi,

'Marriage' is a word in the english language that describes a union between people. If yoru quarrel with same sex couples is the language that they use then I suppose you ought to start questioning your quarrel better. Calling the manifestation of shared lvoe and respect between individuals in any different manner than yours jsut because in your eyes its different is both ignorant and bigoted and I would caution against it. Besides, sanctity is also a human made construct that is barely enforced and quite irrelevent especially with the amount of heterosexual marriaged resulting in child abuse of sexual, violent and quite recently fatal nature. Maybe we should stop calling marriage sacred and start calling it by what it really is, a convenience for people who care for eachother.

Ramon Casha

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:48

"Gay couples should have the right to be legally united in a civil union and enjoy all the same rights as of other married couples, but never united by the word ‘marriage’!"

So it's the word "marriage" that you object to? There's a simple solution for that. ALL references to marriage in all laws would be replaced by another term (eg. "civil union") whether same-sex or opposite-sex. No law or official document would contain a reference to "marriage". Then everybody would be free to call it whatever they want.

S. Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:59

Now this is what I call a serious proposal. Anyone equating refusal of gay marriage to homophobia is playing with people's emotions and trying to get into the pants of the gay community (pun intended) for electoral or other self serving purpose.

I have no problem with a person being gay. I will work with a gay person ( as long as he does not make a pass at me!) and abhor any human/work etc discrimination of such persons. They have a right to be so inclined as they do to live with a member of their same sex. HOWEVER this does not mean that society has to overhaul its rules and norms to accomodate any individual's right to live outside these norms. Marriage is an institution regulating a man-woman union for a number of things including pro-creation. If a woman can opt to inject herself with semen to have a baby .. that is her prerogative but also her obligation to support that child without whinging. Likewise a gay person should be able to live with his/her partner without fear or discrimination. But it is a choice that is not marriage.

JPO should stick to pulling teeth

N. Aquilina

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:19

Mr. Gelfo
Here we are not talking about marriage in church but a state marriage. I can accept the fact that the Christian church with its beliefs will not allow same sex marriage, but the state has an obligation not to discriminate against minorities. This is what its all about.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:32

Actually biological imperatives of gender are not an on and off switch with one state or another and are actually in fact a gradient slider of scales of masculinity and femmininity. In effect every human being is both genders in different amounts. While a trend towards one gender being more predominant than another is observable, this doesn't mean that the other gender is completely missing from a person, even if they declare themselves as 'hetero'. In fact transgender human being not only are possible but also quite natural, the only reason why they are rare is because of the trend to lean towards either gender. Also, when making biological references we should look at scientific books and not religious books.

Roger Tirazona

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:53

Dear Victor

I went to check on the Bible for some answers regarding the family and found some other interesting stuff namely;

That I can sell my daughter according to Exodus 21:7
That I should not shake hands with a woman that is menstruating according to Leviticus 15:19
That I may possess slaves according to Leviticus 25:44

With regards to the Koran I consulted Sura 4:34 about marriage and found this:
"The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then deserting them in bed, then you may beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them."

Indeed consulting ancient books about relationship skills and Humanity is enlightening.

Ramon Casha

Mar 2nd 2012, 12:07

"therfore it fails to deliver one of the reasons of marriage i.e continuation of the species."

Fair enough. What about the other reasons of marriage? After all if it was purely for procreation we'd prohibit those who are past child-bearing age from marrying.

Wilfred Camilleri

Mar 2nd 2012, 16:42

Now Roger, read the New Testament and see if there's mention of any of the things you say! Did Jesus say or teach any of the things you quoted? He did teach about hypocrisy however!

Roger Tirazona

Mar 2nd 2012, 17:49

@ Wilfred

Now Wilfred, you know the New Testament is not only about Jesus. The new testament Justifies slavery in 1 Timothy 6, where slaves are taught the ethics of how to be a good slave.

How about Misogyny in the New Testament? "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." 1 Cor 14:34

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." 1 Tim 2:11

Romans 1:21-27, Corinthians 6:8-10 and Jude 1:7 are some of the main reasons for Homophobia in the Western World (apart from the obscene homophobic lines in the Old Testament)

On the other hand, Jesus never spoke in favour or against homosexuality in the books that we have available.

No Wilfred et al, I can safely say that if you want to argue this from a Biblical point of view, you are doomed to failure.

William Calleja

Mar 2nd 2012, 11:35

Institution of marriage? What institution? A marriag eis nothing more than an agreement between parties to share burdens and profits for mutual benefits with conditions imposed on all parties involved that all parties agree upon, be they fidelity, sexual exclusivity and the aforementioned sharing of responsibilities and holdings. If you yourself participate in one such agreement you have nothign to worry about since the agreement that same sex couples make do not limit your right to run your marriage agreement in any way.

Ramon Casha

Mar 2nd 2012, 12:06

Marriage is devalued by denying it to a minority.

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Too young to have rights

  2. Stop the funny talk and get on with it

  3. Sex, Evarist Bartolo and rock ’n’ roll

  4. Labour’s bad start in Brussels

  5. The PN’s long march

  6. Malta Tagħna Lkoll no more

  7. Malta banking different to Cyprus

  8. Change is in the air for the PN

  9. The Nationalist Party crisis

In Discussion

  1. The case for the prosecution

  2. Independence, Republic, Sovereignty

  3. Abortion opposes right to life

  4. Fundamental right to life

  5. ‘Aliens’ in an EU country

  6. Busuttil ticks all the right boxes

  7. Wrong to penalise depositors

  8. Safe haven for the unborn

  9. Let there be a Piano Parliament

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 19-05-2013 - Printed content is for personal use only, and should not be distributed