My Family & Other Animals

Mario Grech

Sep 22nd 2012, 17:14

The Church is discriminating against singles even though it is legal in both countries for them to adopt.

Because our law does not discriminate on sexual orientation, when a single person applies for adoption their sexuality is not questioned and rightly so. But of course, The Church could not let this be without getting a stomach ulcer.

Mario Grech

Sep 18th 2012, 16:39

I'm trying to fit your metaphor into the blogger's situation but I can't figure out one thing. Perhaps you can help - is the green healthy stuff you refer to, Tom, Dick or Harry ?

Joseph Aquilina

Sep 18th 2012, 18:47

@Mario Grech
I am used to people like you whose idea of a counter argument is to try and ridicule or worse write the first stupid thing that comes to mind and which most of the time has nothing to do with the subject, which no is not the green healthy stuff which so much impressed you!!.

My above comment means that here in Malta the government is NOT stopping anyone from having children and indeed saying “denies me the right to have children” is an insulting over exaggeration when considering the actions done by governments that REALLY DENY the right to have children to their citizens. Recently in the news there was a case of FORCED abortion in China just because the parents did not have enough money to pay the fee for a second child. In Malta the government literally pays you to bring children to this world!!

The truth therefore is not that the government in Malta is stopping anyone from having children but rather that the current administration BELIEVES there are a set of values that are important for the society of today and tomorrow.

Franco Farrugia

Sep 18th 2012, 22:51

To be quite correct, I THINK it was - is - only the Chinese Communist Party in government that does not allow families to have more than one child. I think the policy is in order, even if I do not agree with forced terminations - abortions.

estelle grech

Sep 16th 2012, 16:39

As far as I know the saying goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"
not the proof is in the pudding....just saying....

Franco Farrugia

Sep 15th 2012, 17:52

Go speak to the people working at Appogg; go speak to the people working with similar agencies and those working with young people who for their own good, are taken away from their families.... so numerous that there is nowhere to send them anymore! Go speak to the innumerable amount of hurt youngsters, because they have no solid family to base themselves on. 'Right to have children'! Pah! What a mentality!

Andy Farrugia

Sep 15th 2012, 19:21

Chillax, Mr F Farrugia, haven't you heard? This is the post-modern "fashionista" way of doing things, and they will shout and scream that it's their inalienable right. As for others, like us possibly, we as dead as the dodo and they''ll keep hollering that ...............we should GET A LIFE! Hilarious!

Josephine Borg

Sep 15th 2012, 19:48

Well said Franco Farrugia ... Those children and broken families are HETEROSEXUAL descent hence the discriminative point. Thank you once again to point that out in public ... I guess you may want to include the single mothers who seem to purposely or ignorantly keep procreate like rabbits to keep feeding off from the government's belly. Yet gay families are still seen in bad light cause of religion ... Oh yes .. of which this has nothing to do with it again ... Thank you once again to point that out clearly ... The state and religions are different entities ... So please Franco Farrugia please before blabbering, walk outside the door and look around you far away from your own nose tips, cause I would rather let my gay children marry and have kids as I know they would do it willingly and responsibly rather than selfish individuals who keep seeing what they will get out of that marriage and children.

B Ellul

Sep 16th 2012, 18:20

Josephine

hahaha.... gays have children? iva possible? please describe in detail how biologically it can happen?

Franco Farrugia

Sep 17th 2012, 10:28

@ Josephine Borg - Please, forgive me, but you write in such an angry manner that your message doesn't come clearly across. Talk about 'blabbering'. But anyway.

Actually, I don't need to follow your advice, for the simple reason that I know only too well what is happening around me. What is happening around me is that we have a few wise-sparks who have been given a page or so to express their 'beliefs' and in so doing, they try to shut up those who somehow don't agree with them.

What is happening around me is that we speak about adults' rights to have children without in any way considering the consequences of these rights. I always said that - and I mean no blasphemy - if God ever erred, he did so when he made it so easy for most people to bear children! As simple as that. That every stupid and dumb Joe-minute-citizen and Shakira-minute-citizen is able to beget a child ... or children, for that matter, is one of the world's greatest problems.

As for single mothers, of course I am referring to those many who follow on their own mothers' footsteps and on their granny's footsteps for that matter, and beget as many children as they can, sometimes from different 'fathers', in order to carry on the family business of living off the taxpayers! However, please note: not all single mothers are of this type for I personally know many single mothers who really deserve to hold their heads high, who make a living for themselves without even in the least requiring any assistance from anyone, the state included!

Gay families - which exist! - are seen in a bad light, not only because of religion but also because of the secular mentality in which they live. If the Church, tomorrow, had to praise homosexuals, there would still be people denigrating and insulting them. Since when do people follow what the Church says, anyway? Point made, I hope. Or perhaps not.

Your last comment says it all - and that's one of the main problems facing marriages today. Now THAT is where the Church should stand accused, together with the rest of society. You see, in a warped mind, people see nothing wrong with getting married, fully aware that deep down, they are gay. They see nothing wrong with playing around with an innocent person's life, his or her future, and marrying that person, while at the same time hiding their real sexuality. You see, the way things are in our society - obviously started off by the Church, no doubt! - there is an infinite pressure for homosexuals to remain closeted and to hide their real sexual orientation - generally, by getting married. That way, they would stifle that inner craving they have within them to act naturally - what is, after all, natural for them. They would also be satisfying their friends, peers, and family members. So, they get married in the hope that 'it will go away'. But it doesn't. No sooner their husband or wife turns their backs to them in bed for some odd reason, that they start looking out for possible gay encounters. With time, these encounters turn into relationships.
This is the stark reality, this is the truth but of course, nobody will be honest enough to admit it out in the open - especially the Church.

@ B. Ellul: Stop laughing and go get a book out!

Franco Farrugia

Sep 15th 2012, 17:52

That is why you should always look at the singer, before observing the song.

Alison Bezzina

Sep 15th 2012, 19:29

@Maria

If you think this is a revelation, you must have been living under a rock for the past 10 years or so!

M Vella

Sep 15th 2012, 19:49

Colombo.

Maria Borg

Sep 15th 2012, 20:42

"If you think this is a revelation, you must have been living under a rock for the past 10 years or so! "

Really? Can you point me to one of your earlier blogs where you already revealed it before, please?

estelle grech

Sep 16th 2012, 12:27

Can you please clarify what wanting quotas for women have to do with one's sexual orientation? Thank you.

Maria Borg

Sep 16th 2012, 18:34

@ Estelle grech

Oh come on now, you don't need to be a Jessica Fletcher to understand it. Ask yourself, who is less likely to object to preferential treatment for women at the expense of men? A man, a woman married to a man, or a lesbian woman in a relationship with another woman?

Who is most likely to gain an advantage from women's quotas? In Malta the rate of employment for women is just 37 per cent and is the lowest among EU member states. Why only 37 per cent of women work in Malta? Because many heterosexual women are married to a man and stay home to take care of the children. Lesbians on the other hand do not rely on men and many of them don't have children to take care of so the rate of employment for lesbian women is comparable to that of men. When we talk about quotas for women, we're talking about top jobs, decision-making jobs, we're talking about boardroom gender quotas. It's a question of who gets the promotion and this means a woman needs to be already working in the first place. The likelihood that a heterosexual woman is already working is one third, but for a lesbian it's much higher. A married woman has one chance of benefitting from gender quotas but has also one chance that her husband is discriminated against because of his gender. A lesbian has two chances of benefitting from gender quotas, one chance for herself and one for her partner.

estelle grech

Sep 16th 2012, 19:18

Thank you for your answer. This must be pretty much one of the most misogynistic comments I have heard in a very long time. I can assure that I am a happily married professional heterosexual women and your comments definitely do not apply to me or my peers.

Mario Grech

Sep 16th 2012, 19:28

@Maria

With your logic it would be safe to assume that you're against quotas simply because your husband / brothers might lose opportunities for promotion to women. Isn't that personal too ?

And should we assume that when a man is against quotas it's always because he is afraid of the competition, because with your logic there seems to be no space for genuine support without personal interest.

Robert Grech

Sep 16th 2012, 19:30

Maria. Whilst I believe that quotas should not exist, as everyone should be employed on their own merit, and not on gender, orientation or political affiliation, I do not see what your argument has to do with this. Also you state: "In Malta the rate of employment for women is just 37 per cent and is the lowest among EU member states. Why only 37 per cent of women work in Malta? Because many heterosexual women are married to a man and stay home to take care of the children. Lesbians on the other hand do not rely on men and many of them don't have children to take care of so the rate of employment for lesbian women is comparable to that of men."
If I had to dissect your argument I would conclude that:
- In Europe there are more "heterosexual women" that are NOT married to a man.
- In Europe there are more gay people
- The 37% of the Maltese women that work do so because either they're gay or are not married.

I don't think your argument holds much water. People like you madame, are a shame to your gender. Decades of women fighting for equal rights and then someone like you comes out with this load of hogwash.

Maria Borg

Sep 16th 2012, 21:44

@ Mario Grech

"With your logic it would be safe to assume that you're against quotas simply because your husband / brothers might lose opportunities for promotion to women. Isn't that personal too ?"

I have two sons Mario, and they worked very hard to be where they are today and I would hate it if one day they don't get a promotion that they would have merited simply because of their gender. So yes you could say that it's personal but it's also fair for everybody, men and women. I'm not asking for preferences or quotas just equal treatment as it should be. We women don't need quotas, we need family-friendly measures.

@ Robert grech

You misunderstood what I wrote. Quote the rate of employment for lesbian women is comparable to that of men unquote. This does not mean that the number of lesbians working is equal to the number of men who works. That would be absurd. The "rate" is a percentage. This means that say, 9 out of every 10 lesbians are employed and this rate is comparable to that of men. So you got all your conclusions wrong.

Maria Borg

Sep 16th 2012, 22:58

@ Robert Grech
"Decades of women fighting for equal rights and then someone like you comes out with this load of hogwash."

Equal rights, are you serious? Quotas for women is NOT women's rights, it's an insult to us women. We're not handicapped, we don't need quotas. The main reason why the rate of employed women is low is because many women chose the family over the career. That's the problem that we should try to solve. Women should not be forced to choose between the family and the career. That's why we need more family-friendly measures and we also need to educate our children, at home and at school, that the responsibility of the family needs to be shared equally between both parents. Of course it takes time to change a mentality, but eventually we'll get there.

estelle grech

Sep 17th 2012, 13:15

I wonder what your take on women's quotas wouold be if you had daughters instead of sons. Women have been discriminated against on gender bias for decades and quotas are simply a way of redressing this balance.

Maria Borg

Sep 17th 2012, 16:58

@ estelle grech

"Women have been discriminated against on gender bias for decades and quotas are simply a way of redressing this balance."

Women have been discriminated against for centuries but now the situation is different. We have equal rights and opportunities and there are anti-discrimination laws in place. The mentality is also different, parents encourage both their daughters and sons to continue their studies and for every 2 males who graduate from our University we have 3 females. Men tend to advance more in their career because they generally have more time to dedicate to their career whilst working women usually have to balance their time and effort between the family and the career. This is the main issue here, and quotas does not address this issue, it simply sells the idea that women are not equal to men and so they need positive discrimination to compete with men.

The story and life of Judit Polgár and her sister, is an example that show that women can compete with men at the highest levels if we invest in our daughter's potential as much as we invest in our son's.

"I always say that women should have the self-confidence that they are as good as male players, but only if they are willing to work and take it seriously as much as male players," -Grandmaster Judit Polgar

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

estelle grech

Sep 18th 2012, 11:30

Unfortunately some employers with narrow minded tunnel vision like yours assume that unless she is a lesbian, a woman will sacrifice her career for the sake of a family; thus a hiring a woman for top positions is not a good investment for the company. Whilst this is certainly not the case for many professional women, quotas are needed to protect women from such discrimination and place both genders on an equal footing.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120918/local/Tedesco-Triccas-set-up-for-Busuttil-s-MEP-seat.437353

M Vella

Sep 18th 2012, 14:18

@ Maria.

Your arguing logic fascinates me. Your whole point is based on the sexual orientation of the author. Which should be irrelevant in all cases whether you're discussing child adoption, work place discrimination etc. What if a straight man wrote the article? I guess you'd wonder if he's got a lesbian sister hiding in his pocket.

Michaela Farrugia

Sep 18th 2012, 18:30

It is an indisputable fact that when women are discriminated against (and the truth is that they are) the reason is because of their family / children responsibilities, which often also means that they can't mingle as friends with their co-workers and make deals over a bar counter. Go round and round and this is the truth and nothing but the truth. BUT when women have no children to care for (and in the case of lesbians this is mostly the case) there's no such discrimination, they are a safe bet for all employers even if they are still at child rearing age, they are unlikely to have children, so if they're qualified and able, they're in, stay in and are valued. Out of all women they are in fact the least ones who need quotas to make it to the top, they can make it on their own steam. It's other women who are always side lined because they have a functioning uterus, have to be home by 5pm sharp, or have to leave the office for an hour to pick up the kids from school who will never make it to the top unless our bosses are forced to put us there and introduce family friendly measures to keep us there. Quotas are the best and most effective way to force employers to introduce family friendly measures, doing it the other way as in introducing family friendly measures and then see the results will never happen and will never work because employers are too short sighted and look at the short term bottom line results before anything else....and who can blame them really?

Maria Borg

Sep 18th 2012, 20:44

M Vella

When someone fervently campaigns in favour of someting, chances are, it's for personal interests.

"What if a straight man wrote the article?"

No, I wouldn't automatically think that someone is homosexual simply becuase she or he defends gay rights. There are heterosexuals who write in favour of quotas or gay rights simply because it's a matter of principles for them. These write in a different tone however, they are not fixated on the subject and they argue in a rational and detached tone. Ms Bezzina blogs about quotas and gay rights are clearly emotional that verge on the hysterical. Her arguments don't even deserve to be called arguments, they are sorry excuses. For instance did she back up the claim that the Church adoption policy is illegal and that the government is an accomplice in this illegal activity? When someone goes out of his way like this, repeatedly, it's obvious that there's something.

J Muscat

Sep 19th 2012, 09:53

@ Maria
I can safely say that I've read 95% of Bezzina's entries and she's written more often and with more anger and emotion about animal rights, animal cruelty, social media and racial discrimination than anything else. Would you suppose that this is because she's a tiger at heart or is she related to a Somali or perhaps she has shares in Facebook?

As for the adoption case, I recall the issue being discussed on Xarabank and many other programs, neither the Church nor the state could negate the situation that Bezzina revealed. It was also agreed by various lawyers on the panel that since Malta's Adoption Act permits adoption by married couples and single persons the instruction to stop single adoptions is in fact discriminatory and therefore illegal , however to prove so one would have to sue the Gov and The Church.

The only revelation I find in this blog is that Bezzina doesn't make a living writing, someone like her should and could.

Maria Borg

Sep 19th 2012, 15:19

J Muscat
"As for the adoption case, I recall the issue being discussed on Xarabank and many other programs, neither the Church nor the state could negate the situation that Bezzina revealed."

They did not negate it because it's not illegal to give precedence to married couples!! In fact the Ethiopian law request it. But hey, if you want to believe that the Church admitted -on Xarabank- that they are acting illegally, I mean, you're a hopeless case.


If I remember correctly, I recall Ms Bezzina on Xarabank saying she was interested in adopting a child from Ethiopia but "accidentally" she forgot to tell us that... "Ethiopian law prohibits adoption by gay and/or lesbian parents."

How very convenient of her!!

http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_info.php?country-select=ethiopia

J Muscat

Sep 19th 2012, 16:22

Maria, if I had to apply your own logic, given your high emotions in this matter I'd have to think that you have some form of vested interest.... what is it?

Anyway, just to clarify, the change that The Church instigated and The State enabled was to stop SINGLE adoptions from Ethiopia not gay or lesbian adoptions. Whilst married couples had always been given preference, single people had been adopting the 'unadoptable' for years - but now they can't, and certainly not because there's not enough supply of such children.

Maria Borg

Sep 19th 2012, 20:07

estelle grech

In the last MEP election, no women were elected. The simplistic-minded would conclude that it's because male voters discriminate against women or because female voters are misogynist. The real reason is that the female participation was low compared with the male's. Female candidates were outnumbered 1 to 4. And if it were not for the lucky surname of Attard-Montalto, we would have had 1 woman out of the five mep's elected. 1 out of 5 means 20% which is very close to the female participation which was 25%. If we want to see more women occupying top posts, we need to increase the female participation first.

Maria Borg

Sep 19th 2012, 20:26

J Muscat

"Anyway, just to clarify, the change that The Church instigated and The State enabled was to stop SINGLE adoptions from Ethiopia not gay or lesbian adoptions."

The Church has no power to stop single adoptions from Ethiopia and the law still allows single persons to adopt.

In her blog "Children of God?" Ms Bezzina bashed the Church because according to her, the real reason why it halted single adoption from its orphanage was to stop gays from adopting as if not allowing gays to adopt from Ethiopia was something discriminative and illegal when the truth is exactly the opposite, it is illegal for gays to adopt from Ethiopia!

Mario Grech

Sep 20th 2012, 11:02

The Church SHOULD not have the power to stop single adoptions from Ethiopia because the law still allows single persons to adopt but just ask Apogg how many single adoptions there have been from Ethiopia since the Archbishop gave out these instructions and I guarantee you that the answer will be NONE.
Apogg will also tell you that the Church’s orphanage in Ethiopia is now only accepting adoptions by couples, regardless of the law allowing single adoptions.

estelle grech

Sep 20th 2012, 13:01

" many heterosexual women are married to a man and stay home to take care of the children."

If there ever was a simple minded assumption, this is it!

It looks like you have been away from the workforce long long time!