Advert
Print
Saturday, November 3, 2012, 10:15 by

Fr Joe Borg

Will the real bigots please stand up?

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most prominent figure of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has just been named as Bigot of the Year at the annual Stonewall Awards. The gay, lesbian and bisexual charity conferred the award on O'Brien for his strong opposition the legalisation of  same sex marriages.

As is to be expected, the Church in Scotland is incensed. A spokesperson said that the award by Stonewall “reveals the depth of their intolerance and their willingness to attack and demean those who don’t share their views.”  Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, with whom Cardinal O’Brien crossed swords on many occasions because of same-sex marriage, said that the gay lobby was “clearly wrong to describe Scotland's cardinal in these terms, and in any case should reflect on whether pejorative titles like this do anything to enhance their cause.”

Andrew Brown, the well-known blogger of The Guardian wrote that “if all opponents of gay marriage are branded bigots, the word loses its force and risks becoming a jokey badge of pride.”  This is quite true considering that over six hundred thousand persons in Great Britain have this year signed a petition urging the British government not to change the definition of marriage.  Are they all bigots because they want the definition of marriage to remain that which has characterised human history that is the union of a man and a woman? This support for this definition of marriage is not done arbitrarily. It is a reflection of the complementary natures of men and women.

Don’t re-define marriage

The initiative was taken by the recently set up The Coalition for Marriage. This is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support the definition of marriage the way it has always been and they oppose any plans to change it. The Coalition is backed by politicians of different political persuasions, lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It reaches out to people of all faiths and none, who believe that marriage is the most successful partnership in history and should not be redefined.

The definition of marriage as between man and woman is not a passing convention but it is a deeply felt human necessity. This is probably why only ten out of the 193 member states of the United Nations have legalised same-sex marriage. It also probably explains why in all 31 referenda held in various states of the USA the people voted against the legalisation of same sex marriage.

The Coalition is the response to the drive to introduce same sex marriage in Great Britain. The Coalition is right to point out that such a step is not only about marriage between two men or between two women. The introduction of this institution means the redefinition of marriage; nay the destruction of the institute of marriage as humanity has always known it and benefitted from it.

Contradiction in terms

Same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.  The Leftist and radical former master general of the Dominican Order, Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP, in an opinion piece published in The Table of March 10, 2012, wrote:

 “The Catholic Church does not oppose gay marriage. It considers it to be impossible.  … … But ‘gay marriage’ is impossible because it attempts to cut loose marriage from its grounding in our biological life. If we do that, we deny our humanity. It would be like trying to make a cheese soufflé without the cheese, or wine without grapes.”

This does not mean that homosexuals cannot have humanly enriching and deep relationships. They can and in fact do have such relationships which can put to shame several relationships between heterosexual couples. It means that such relationships cannot be describes as marriage.

Civil partnerships: rights and duties

This does not mean that relationships between homosexual couples do not initiate rights and duties between the couple and with society as well as vice versa. There are several legal arrangements which can be set up to guarantee these rights.  Several civil partnerships already amply provide for the fulfilment of these rights without redefining marriage or without putting a civil partnership on the same level as a marriage. In order not to equate civil partnership with marriage same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt except perhaps in some exceptional circumstance. For example:  One could consider that a widower who had fathered children through marriage would be allowed to take care for his own children even if he would then be in a homosexual relationship. The children’s welfare is always the main consideration. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

Gay marriage: dangerous slippery slope

The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society, and that changing its definition would undermine that benefit and open up a slippery slope to other re-definitions of marriage. This is not fantasy. Consider these examples.

  • Holland introduced same-sex marriage in 2001. It has now given  legal recognition to three-way relationships.
  • Mexico City introduced same sex marriage in 2009. They are now tinkering with the idea of having two-year-fixed-term marriages. 
  • Canada joined the bandwagon in 2005. In British Columbia there is now an attempt to recognise polygamy using the same arguments used to justify same sex marriage.
  • Spain. A few years after the introduction of same-sex marriage in Spain the words mother and father have been banned from birth certificates and replaced by Progenitor A  and Progenitor B!

The institution of same-sex marriage is gathering support even in Malta. Even in Malta opponents of this move are being dubbed as bigots by the gay-marriage lobby. The appellative is also addressed against those who counter-balance their  position against gay marriage with their support the legitimate rights of those in gay relationships. This should not deter anyone, particularly Government whose proposed law on co-habitation adequately respects the balance there should between a definitive no position for same sex marriage and a definitive yes position for the respect of basic human rights of people in such relationships.

 

 

author

Fr Joe Borg

Fr Joe Borg, a well known commentator, university lecturer and winner of the Gold Award for Journalists will be blogging on general topics.

see all articles by this author »

Print
Advert

93 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.

Andy Farrugia

Nov 9th 2012, 19:48

Lost your cool, eh; now that's NEWS! And why are positing questions to someone needs to "get real and get a life"? And why use more than ONE exclamation mark? Do you really believe that it will make your inane nutterings (morphological derivative: nut(s) + muttering + plural, get it?) any more emphatic? ENDLESSLY HILARIOUS! Hahaha!

Arthur Soler

Nov 9th 2012, 20:40

No Andy ...I did not lose my cool. But I suspect that you probably did, althoiugh there is always some hope for people like you. Not much realy, but a little bit. " ENDLESSLY HILARIOUS! Hahaha! is hardly becoming of a learned person like you...unless you lost your cool of course.

So, my friendly advice to you is to "Get real and get a life!"

Andy Farrugia

Nov 9th 2012, 17:15

"Also, the study was funded by 2 anti gay groups"

Hahahaha! Typical, miserable attempts at demonising those who disagree with "our" wayward perverted agenda..........."pro-decency, pro-life, pro-marriage, becomes anti-gay"........hilarious, endlessly.

David Seychell

Nov 9th 2012, 21:53

Is it Liberal to impose on consenting adults a quota on the number of persons they can love? Even if they are willing to legally assume all the responsibilities of that relationship?

Arthur Soler

Nov 9th 2012, 00:50

Your selective interpretation of the facts is remarkable. "In his report, the investigator, Robert A. Peterson, wrote that he found “no evidence” of scientific misconduct in Dr. Regnerus’ study. But whether the study “possessed significant limitations or was even perhaps seriously flawed is a determination that should be left to debates that are currently under way in the academy"

Arthur Soler

Nov 9th 2012, 01:00

....Furthermore, because his study had not been subjected to scientific peer review prior to release, and because of the widespread criticisms of his conclusions, Dr Regnerus acknowledged that 'it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent.' What's this hahaha about anyway?

Arthur Soler

Nov 8th 2012, 18:12

@Charles Caruana

Apologies... Here is the accurate link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

charles caruana

Nov 8th 2012, 18:30

@ Arthur Soler
Your referenced wikipekia source is fairly brimming with balanced and impartial 'scientific sociological research ' is it? Not a single hearing given to opposing views. Read about the research of Marc Regnerus about the deleterious effects of same sex 'marriages' on children who are later expected to create healthy families of their own for the survival of society.

Arthur Soler

Nov 8th 2012, 20:09

@CharlesCaruana
If you think that my Wikipedia reference was not impartial, then you should click on to link below about Mark Regnerus, whom your referenced, who was an Evangical Christian recently turned Catholic. Please let me know if his research and conclusions on same sex marriage are impartial.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html

charles caruana

Nov 9th 2012, 11:24

Mr Soler, throwing scientific research at each other, which you started, will not get us anywhere. Any scientific research is provisional andopen to ethical interpretation. Neither science nor popular fads and votes can or should determine or dictate human morality. That I get from reasoned Natural law and revelation inJesus Christ. An atheist might at least start arguing from natual law.

charles caruana

Nov 9th 2012, 11:37

Does 'same sex marriages actually weaken heterosexual ones?' you ask? Does legalized and easy divorce weaken stability of marriage and family? Does legalized abortion weaken life chances of milliions in the womb and desecralise human life? Does legalised marijuana weaken the resolve to stay away from drugs? Does same sex marriage de-normalise real marriage in a society where anything goes?

charles caruana

Nov 8th 2012, 13:19

Thanks for the reference Mr Seychell. It reminded me of Christ' s warning in Luke 16.8 'the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light.'

Andy Farrugia

Nov 8th 2012, 16:44

Thank you for the reference Mr David Seychell.

David Seychell

Nov 9th 2012, 10:05

The paper I linked to gives an idea of how those who have mastered the art of deceit are bullying member states into implementing their radical and self-serving agenda.

S Scerri

Nov 9th 2012, 13:49

Gosh, how enlightened you are!

CJohn Zammit

Nov 6th 2012, 17:28

Mr. Seychell, your distorted interpretation of the UDHR is outrageous.

David Seychell

Nov 7th 2012, 12:04

"Whether the term ‘family’ has the wider meaning attributed to the term in Article 8 is unclear but it is clear that the right to found a family refers to the right to have children."

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-12-right-to-marry-and-found-a-family.html

Further reading:
http://works.bepress.com/jakob_cornides/32/

David Seychell

Nov 7th 2012, 13:54

"Mr. Seychell, your distorted interpretation of the UDHR is outrageous."

What I find to be outrageous is your distorted interpretation of the Maltese Constitution, where you say that under the Maltese Constitution, women have a right to abortion. Check your own comments here:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120819/blogs/rekindling-the-debate-perhaps.433390

Andy Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 15:36

@ David Seychell

Your riposte to CJohn Zammit has reminded me of the fact that the latter brags that he lives in a "wonderful place"......ie Canada.....the place where all possible forms of aberrations are allowed by law. Such a wonderful place!

Jessica Debattista

Nov 6th 2012, 09:49

It is not a question of being threatened! One has to objectively look at a union between the same sexes and truly believe that it is no different from a union between man and woman. The former is a sterile union by nature, whereas the latter is open to procreation. The two states have to be identified by a different term since they are intrinsically different one from the other.

charles caruana

Nov 6th 2012, 11:21

The family predates the state as a natural institution, and by nature families require the union of man and woman - hence marriage. Not all variations of marriage are equally viable or valuable for an evolved society -that is why polygamy is not acceptable even to a liberal society. You can't feel threatened because you don't see beyond your personal happiness - see the social engineering behind.

Arthur Soler

Nov 6th 2012, 15:48

@Jessica DeBattista

Quote.."The two states have to be identified by a different term..." What's in a name?

Call it whatever you want and let same sex couples call it whatever they want. What's essential in a liberal society is that same sex couples are accorded the same recognition and equal rights. Of course, the Church will never accept same sex unions/marriages.....but the State should.

Arthur Soler

Nov 6th 2012, 15:56

@Charles Caruana

."....that is why polygamy is not acceptable even to a liberal society." I agree 100% ..poligamy is not beneficial to society for many obvious reasons.

...."You can't feel threatened because you don't see beyond your personal happiness" I disagree 100%. Beyond your religious reasons, please explain why same sex marriages are detrimental to society in general.

Jessica Debattista

Nov 6th 2012, 18:34

@ Arthur Soler:
The function of language is to communicate meanings, and the term “marriage” conveys a specific meaning reserved for the union of man and woman. Same sex union called by a different term is essentially different. It should be recognized and accorded rights but the fact that the terms are different (for the functions are different) calls for different rights.

charles caruana

Nov 7th 2012, 11:23

Why is polygamy not beneficial while same sex marriage is? Because it is more expensive for the state or more harmful to children? Your liberal obviousness is not so obvious. In Holland they are already clamoring for multi-parents. And why should the state ignore the religious reasons of its citizens in formulating its policies? State neutrality is a myth -liberals have their own 'moral' agenda.

Franco Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 12:13

@ Jessica Debattista: Quote: 'The former (beetween the same sexes) is a sterile union by nature, whereas the latter (between man and woman) is open to procreation.'
Really? And what about the union between a man and a woman where both know there can be no children? Or, between a man and a woman whose senior age precludes having children? In your fine wisdom, ma'am, what shall we call that?

Franco Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 12:17

@ Mr Soler: We ARE threatened by same-sex, so-called 'marriage' because there is proof, with statistics, that shows that a very high percentage of people would rather have a relationship with someone of their own sex, rather than having to resort to a false relationship with a person of the opposite sex called 'marriage'. This is FACT. And the Church knows it, through the confessional.

Jessica Debattista

Nov 7th 2012, 13:43

@ Franco:
I would still hold to both situations as being proper marriages. One of the prerequisites of marriage is a union between man and woman. Both situations you mention satisfy it.
Same sex union cannot satisfy said prerequisite therefore in my “fine wisdom” (as you call it) I would not refer to such union as marriage. I think it should be defined by an other term.

Arthur Soler

Nov 7th 2012, 15:05

@ Jessica DeBattista

"..the term “marriage” conveys a specific meaning reserved for the union of man and woman."

Who exactly "reserved" this term and what authority has the right to apply it only in this context? Languages and words evolve. Marriage is a legal contract betwen two people...in your context, a man and a woman ( or women?). In other contexts, two men and two women.

Arthur Soler

Nov 7th 2012, 15:24

@ Charles Caruana

"And why should the state ignore the religious reasons of its citizens in formulating its policies?"

The reality in that in today's Western world there are multiple religions with very different moral values/standards ( just think about Sharia law). The State's responsibility is to enact laws that are beneficial to ALL of society, not just religious majorities.

Jessica Debattista

Nov 7th 2012, 17:15

@ Arthur Soler: If I were to research the origin of the term “marriage” I am quite optimistic that the said term will apply to a man/woman relationship. It is definitely a contract between two people and maybe it won’t be long before we catch up with other countries who regard same sex unions as marriages. "Languages... evolve" – true. But they are also corrupted.

Andy Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 18:24

@ Ms Jessica Debattista

"Languages... evolve" – true. But they are also corrupted.
Perhaps "corrupted" might be a tad too "politically incorrect"; let's just say that words might be "twisted, hijacked, rendered devoid of their original denotations and connotations, sacrificed at the altar of the almighty orthodoxy of newspeak". Still, I get your point and agree with you.

charles caruana

Nov 8th 2012, 13:36

@ Arthur Soler

I repeat, truth is not a question of majorities or minorities, religious or not. To be 'beneficial to ALL society' the first duty of the State is to ensure the survival and generational continuity of that society, and this can only be secured by the strengthening of stable heterosexual marriages and families. Any law that weakens these core institutions is a threat to society.

CJohn Zammit

Nov 6th 2012, 17:10

"It does not matter how many have voted for the evil demand."

Can you explain how, desiring marriage is an "evil demand"?

charles caruana

Nov 7th 2012, 11:12

It is not desiring marriage that is the 'evil demand', but desiring a simulacrum of it that is. Nature, history and culture all over the world has always understood the definition and reality of marriage as the union between a man and a woman, in spite of the many variations on this basic theme. Re-defining is not a matter of words, but of dangerous social engineering with real effects on children

CJohn Zammit

Nov 6th 2012, 17:15

the "basic structure of marriage" is a contract as per the Law of the land -- in Malta, Chapter 255 -- Marriage Act.

What is so ridiculous about citizens demanding that they be allowed the benefits of the Law?

Franco Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 08:25

@ Jessica Debattista: What is the 'basic structure of marriage'? Troubled relationship between a man and a woman? Violence within the couple as we see so much around us but which is comfortably wrapped up in case anyone outside sees it? IF only you were a teacher, you would see for yourself - and 'enjoy'? - the 'ridiculous' state of many hetero marriages around us. So, careful what you say.

Jessica Debattista

Nov 7th 2012, 10:32

A man/woman relationship is a structure that is designed to produce children and to create the right environment for them to develop their personality by having a balanced male/female model. Like any structure it can be based on weak foundations which will make it wobble or even fall. But that is life! Are you by any chance, Franco, suggesting that same sex unions are the epitome of bliss?

Franco Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 15:31

@ Jessica Debattista: No, I am not. But you seem to imply that man/woman relationship is the only one that deserves existing.

Jessica Debattista

Nov 7th 2012, 17:46

@ Franco Farrugia: “No, I am not. But you seem to imply that man/woman relationship is the only one that deserves existing”.
Not at all! How can I be heartless and deny that same sex relationships are sincere.

Andy Farrugia

Nov 4th 2012, 17:54

A particular political group in the Netherlands considered it their human right to found a party called Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, PNVD): the paedophile party . It was STOPPED.

Franco Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 08:21

Unfortunately, God does not think the way we do. God does not judge the way we do. Our concept of 'God' is quite alien from the true God according to Scripture. Many of us will be shocked when they really meet the true God.

charles caruana

Nov 4th 2012, 17:49

O yes, I'm sure that CNN/ORC came by those figures by checking with every american, one by one, and therefore same sex marriages must be natural, moral, child friendly, socially beneficient and exactly eqiuvalent to heterosexual marriage, if not evenbetter. Hurrah!

David Seychell

Nov 4th 2012, 11:45

" Human rights must be defended legally and peacefully. Reason prevails over ideology."

You omitted one crucial detail Mr Waschnig. Same-sex Marriage is NOT a Human Right and the European Court of Human Rights already established that in previous rulings, and pretty recently too. So why misinform the public?

Andy Farrugia

Nov 4th 2012, 15:54

@ Mr David Seychell

You ask Herr Kurt Waschnig : "So why misinform the public?" Perhaps because Herr Waschnig is very liberal with facts and the Truth? And that's putting it mildly!

Louis Saliba

Nov 4th 2012, 00:00

Your logic is completely wrong. All the examples you mention involve the interaction of man and woman. To conclude from them that it should also apply to same-sex couples is senseless.

charles caruana

Nov 3rd 2012, 18:22

Is Obama your idol now? Why am i no surprised?. Get your facts right before making the absurd claim about the majority of Americans - check the number of states that have actually legalized gay marriage, and those where the people have massively voted against them in their majority. Catholic morality is not decided by show of hands,or your three cheers - not even by your whistling in the dark.

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Nov 3rd 2012, 21:31

Oh dear me! They have learnt much of these tactics from some of the early Christians. I mean see how they demonised those Christians such as the Ebionites who did not agree with them. They called them heretics. Are you familiar with Tertullian?

Ramon Casha

Nov 3rd 2012, 17:19

I hope you are aware that the word "gay" was initially applied to homosexual people by homophobes - it was intended as an insult, since "gay" implied promiscuity. Same with "queer". The homosexual community, instead of being insulted, adopted both words and made them their own. Homophobia on the other hand didn't change its meaning.

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Yes, the Maltese patata rocks

  2. Time for another switch: from billboards...

  3. Chiara’s Zarbun

  4. Exiling the 'illegal immigrant'

  5. HAPPY NOW?

  6. Dr Gonzi: the time for dignity has gone

  7. THE TRUE MEANING OF MERITOCRACY

  8. ENOUGH, NOW

  9. BLOODY AMATEURS

In Discussion

  1. Exiling the 'illegal immigrant'

  2. Yes, the Maltese patata rocks

  3. WHY, INDEED?

  4. THE TRUE MEANING OF MERITOCRACY

  5. Thou shalt not vote for ... ...

  6. Animal rights: hype and reality?

  7. A few questions and facts … no comments

  8. HAPPY NOW?

  9. OH ... REALLY?

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 22-05-2013 - Printed content is for personal use only, and should not be distributed