Thursday, 8th October 2009
In defence of marriage
As I will write in my regular column in The Sunday Times (next Sunday 11/10/09) I cannot comment on the proceedings of the Doha conference held this week in Malta. I had to decline the invitation as this was extended to me on condition that I attend all sessions, a commitment which I could not make.
In The Sunday Times, I will be commenting on a number of aspects of the speech delivered by President George Abela. In this blog I will comment on other aspects of that speech and other contributions that I did not include in my column in The Sunday Times.
Marriage: only between a man and a woman
The President in his speech made use of the definition of family used in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society." Dr Abela says that "here, the family is clearly understood as being composed of two married parents, a male and a female, together with their offspring." And when later he uses a definition of marriage he adds that "So marriage does not mean relationships which involve two men or two women or a variety of other possibilities."
The President does not include the possibility of gay marriage among the family related issues that he thinks have become a political priority. Good for him since marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for expressing conjugal love and for transmitting human life.
This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife.
As the United States bishops said in one of their statements "same-sex union contradicts the nature and purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarily of male and female. It cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Because persons in a same-sex union cannot enter into a true conjugal union, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage."
Working mothers
President Abela made a reference to working mothers.
"We are witnessing an increase in the number of working mothers which undoubtedly puts new pressures on the family."
This sentence can be understood to mean that working mothers are a problem. I do not believe that the President wanted to communicate this meaning. New pressures are being put on the family not because mothers are working but because many husbands still expect the working mother to fulfil all the roles that were previously fulfilled by the non-working ones. (This term is not correct as mothers have a full time job at home.) Many husbands, for example, do not share in housework and child minding. Besides, many of those husbands who do housework think that they are doing something extraordinary or a favour to their wives. In those households where both parents work the roles of men and women have to be adjusted to this particular situation.
Society has not provided an adequate infrastructure that permits husbands and wives to balance their working life with their family oriented roles. To make matters worse, working mothers are made to feel guilty for all sorts of real or imagined evils. Husbands and fathers, who generally are to blame, are consequently let scot-free.
Unknown fathers
Social Policy Minister John Dalli's speech should be an eye-opener:
"The rate of births outside marriage by Maltese mothers has increased at an alarming rate in a very short span of time, from 12.9% in 2002 to 25% in 2008. One in every four births is from young mothers under 20 and 53% of these register their baby as father unknown.
"Another 30% are from mothers between the age of 20 and 24. Again even here a high percentage (39%) register the births as father unknown. The percentage of those who register as father unknown goes down to 24% and 23% respectively for those mothers who are in the 25 to 29 and the 30 to 34 age bracket but nevertheless this rate is still high. It is much lower after that."
Why are there so many unknown fathers? Any why are there so many when births are by young mothers under twenty? Is there a lot of promiscuity so people do not necessarily know who the father is? Is this happening only because the couple wants to benefit from social services?
The Minister's proposal to find what is really happening is a positive and sensible proposal. When will it be put into practice?
The beautiful contribution of the Church
Pope Benedict XVI in an August 2006 interview with German-speaking media said,
"Christianity, Catholicism, isn't a collection of prohibitions: It's a positive option. ... We've heard so much about what is not allowed that now it's time to say: We have a positive idea to offer, that man and woman are made for each other, that the scale of sexuality, eros, agape, indicates the level of love, and it's in this way that marriage develops, first of all, as a joyful and blessing-filled encounter between a man and a woman, and then the family, which guarantees continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet."
What will the Church do more to actualise this vision enunciated by the Pope?
Conclusion
For my comments on other aspects of the speech of the President please see my regular column on Sunday.
RSS
Comments
If only nice days happened in Malta and elsewhere like they do at McDonald's. At the drop of a drinkings-straw. 'Have a nice day. Don't choke on a chip'. The winter is drawing in and I have enough to cope with deciding what to wear to deal with the proverbial four seasons in a day; without worrying about other people's days. Not to mention the hundreds of demonstrators, not a million miles from home, all waving placards saying Europe will be theirs. It is alright for some who can put their feet up on Sundays and have their gurus and statues on street-corners allay their fears. I am not so lucky. I prefer my feet to be well-grounded. The link below may have passed muster in Malta(?). In Italy, I am not so sure. In UK, most definitely not.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
Quo vadis Malta? et Joe? et Debattista? I'll take this road. Everybody, anybody else, can then decide - me pleadingly - to take the other one. I can not be fairer than that.
Have a nice day you lot. And Madam, you needn't respond to the appeasement bit at the start. This is all so tedious.
Yes I do flatter myself and you are giving me reason to.
“Magnetism”? I think I have it too. Look at you! - still trying to get me to respond after I have made it obvious by keeping away for more than two days. You just can’t keep away, notwithstanding that you have weeded me out from the word ‘Go’ :-)) Come on Mr. Xuereb, it's a lovely day. Let's not spoil it!
otherwise why should we persist in carrying on this exchange when we seem to have trashed out all the points relevant to this discussion?.....With you I have not trashed out anything. You merely provided the pointers, the bait. Which can be contained in a nutshell in any case but once one opens the baiting-box where they are kept, the sky's the limit. Infinite, the pointers. As I said, I comment to redress what I interpret as gross misinformation. I respect your right to express your opinion like you do mine, I hope. Respecting what you express is of course, a different kettle of fish(y symbols in the dust, on the ground, trampled underfoot).
PS We may have one thing in common (magnetism?). I feel that if we both went after it, I would, if I could be bothered, get it without lifting a finger. Men are so fickle.
I notice that you are adopting a tactic uniquely Maltese, one where an irrefutable point is not taken up other than to accuse one of attack, diatribe, incoherence, density. Anything but admit that the other is in fact right. Strong tactic but transparent. It does no favours, least of all the one who feels a bit shakey, in doubt. There are gurus you know.
There is a certain magnetism between us notwithstanding that we are so diametrically opposed, otherwise why should we persist in carrying on this exchange when we seem to have trashed out all the points relevant to this discussion? I am wondering why you have not yet weeded me out! I certainly do not conform to your “terms”.
I write what I write to re-affirm what I am about. Some may read me. Up to them. Some may take me on board. Up to them but risky. Some may find me funny, if a bit dense in style. Well, I cannot win them all. Nice to be able to raise a smile. But I'm nobody's clown. The Joker on the table is definitely face down. LOL.
If a friend embraced my proclivities I would have them in high esteem. If I found out they were practising Catholics, I would withdraw that esteem. Compromise and esteem are bad bedfellows.
I frequent heterosexuals, male and female. But on my terms. Some stay away. Of those that stay, I weed them out. It's called a sixth sense.
If I sired a child - as if! - I would enjoy the moment. Forming it would be the real test. I have maternal instinct aplenty (as a homosexual male, you understand). Imm'Alla refaghni minn xaghri. I leave breeding to others, hopefully more competent than I could ever be. Certainly, I would never allow Society's opinion of me override my opinion of myself, my self-esteem. In other words, I''d never marry (man or woman).
If I read something that sowed doubt in what I stood for, I would stop reading and revert to Enid Blyton. Or I'd consult a trusted guru who might allay my fears. On a wing and a prayer, it could happen.1 cont./
Mr Xuereb, at times, I find it hard to understand the flow of thoughts as you expound them. Your tendency to attack (hence my use of the word “diatribe”) can very easily put one on the defensive which I am realizing is not a good strategy when one is dealing with a person who obviously enjoys a counter attack.
I think you have found the wrong target to fire your attacks at however, because, once I have made my point, I no longer have the desire to pursue the issue further.
As a parting shot, however - I do not have the right to condemn anyone, so I don’t. And any friendship I make always comes from the heart.
RE " I would say that the child would grow up feeling the lack of the figure that does not complete the model as he/she conceives a family to be" It is more the case where society, at a particular point in time, dictates who can be high on intimacy and who is expected to be high on independence.
Sorry if you view the truth as diatribe. I empathised with your angst over what you see as promiscuous behaviour. I tried to provide insight into the phenomenon. Was this a diatribe too?
A man sires a child and a woman carries. Could not be otherwise. But it is naive to assume that the makers of a child are automatically bonders. To ignore this fact is, as I said, naive. As naive indeed as believing - being made to believe in fact - that falling in love means having found one's life partner. Not true.
Voting is not such an old institution as marriage. It only entered with democracy which is quite a recent development historically speaking.
In various cultures there existed, and still exists in some, the matriarchal system of government. The type of government has little to do with what human nature is. In all cultures marriage has always been between male and female as the most natural thing. And because nature is not perfect, it sometimes plays its tricks and therefore other types of union existed too, but these were given their proper name.
What, in my opinion, the debate should be about is whether all the diferent unios should be put in the same bundle and be given the same rights and privilages.
Mr. Portelli, I never for a moment assumed that children brought up in an environment other than the one provided by a heterosexual union would grow up to be deviants or develop a warped personality. That is only something - alien to my thoughts - that, perhaps, you want to pin on me but which I am here rejecting.
I merely stated that a child needs to relate to a mother figure as well as a father figure. If he/she doesn’t find it in the immediate family, he/she will look for it outside the family. Rather than growing up “warped and deviant”, I would say that the child would grow up feeling the lack of the figure that does not complete the model as he/she conceives a family to be. It might be conjecturing on my part but then, so is yours.
Thanks for the excellent illustration of "highfalutin political gibberish" ... Failing to offer adequate evidence of single moms being a burden on society, you have resorted to shaming me into submitting to your absurd myth by referring to a higher authority - the authors - who may share your warped views ... or, for all I know, may not; and you are misinterpreting what they wrote in the same way you have misinterpreted the Budget.
I just hope that you, and all those who share your views, never have to go through the experience of having to raise children on your own. But if you do, through some tragic event such as losing your wife, you'll be singing a different tune.
For now, try hunting witches.
@ M. Portelli:
You have a very relevant point except that you ignore the fact that for the child - notwithstanding that the father is hardly ever present during his/her upbringing - his/her family model is nevertheless based on a male and a female. As regards, same-sex parents the child will have to look outside the family for the counterpart.
The problem with such a discussion is that any counter argument seems to compare the presumed “idyllic” marriage of a same-sex couple with a “turbulent” heterosexual marriage. Can’t we try to put on the scales the different unions when both enjoy a normal loving relation? Only by being objective can we truly say that we are trying to have a mature discussion.
In such a case as you mention I tend to agree with you, but you cannot rule out that a homosexual couple could go through the same “marital” problems as any heterosexual couple, and where does that leave the child? - Exactly in the same trauma. So I don’t think that is a valid counter argument.
@ J. Debattista
" I wonder whether such a situation could leave any negative effect on the children themselves. "
Don't go into overkill like Father Borg and Progett Impenn with the deification of the 'Maltese traditional family' . For centuries Maltese women have had to face the problem of the absent Father you know the one who absconded/, emigrated, and his modern counterpart who still absconds/emigrates and the one " li jahdem ghall-familja' and is never home till the children are asleep. Single parent families are not a phenomenon of present day Malta only they were about for centuries . A true picture (rather than myth) of the heterosexual Maltese family has yet to emerge. I am sure gay parents/families will be an improvement on this. Wherein lies the problem? A good number of Maltese homosexuals were accultured in Maltese families in local Maltese communities where we loudly proclaim there is a strong family tradition steeped in the Christian values of love and solidarity. Why wouldn't they be excellent caregivers and parents? You otherwise have to pass the buck back to the 'traditional family' and the Christian tradition these individuals were raised in.
The subject in question is not the Hallmark of politicians.
In effect the subject is the Sociology of Social Security. There is an interesting book written on the subject by Adler, Bell, Clasen & Sinfield. Read the book and learn.
The very scope of classifying a social security cheque as a pay cheque is self defeating.
Every beneficiary should take the approach that they need help to assist them with their current situation so as to be able to climb out of their present situation into a more realistic and productive situation.
Single mothers should also contribute further to the single mother cause by paying additional payments, when possible, back into the social security system. They should always respect the help given to them and they should also understand that the situation will in all probability continue to accrue in the future.
This approach is certainly not a drop in the bucket but a frame of mind which will be beneficial to all.
Single mothers and other beneficiaries should understand better that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but rather we loan it from future generations. (Monument – Sliema front).
Mother and child.
It seems we all got blocked here whilst the real juice is in his article
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091011/religion/more-than-just-a-presidential-
agenda
As he said "In The Sunday Times, I will be commenting on a number of aspects of the speech delivered by President George Abela. In this blog I will comment on other aspects of that speech and other contributions that I did not include in my column in The Sunday Times"
Tistaw tkomplu issa ! ;)
I am in general agreement with the comments in your last post, and you raise an interesting question in your last paragraph specifically, “What I question is whether they should have the right to raise children, and that is only because I wonder whether such a situation could leave any negative effect on the children themselves.".
My view on this is that homosexual couples (gays or lesbians) should have as much right to raise children as heterosexual couples, provided they are capable of doing so…..i.e as long as they ( homosexual couples) are loving, caring, considerate etc. and financially secure. I believe that there are many single fathers/mothers, and indeed heterosexual couples who are totally incapable of raising their children, even though they have the "right" to do so.
Seems to me that a child growing up in a loving and stable home of gays or lesbians has a better chance of developing into a normal individual, than that same child growing up in dysfunctional home of heterosexual couples.
It's our prejudices that prevent us from accepting the fact that gay and lesbian couples can be just as loving to each other and to children, as “normal” heterosexual couples.
I'd just like t oanswer your query. Research had shown quite clearly that being raised by a gay couple is no worse then being raised by a straight one. And for those who are curious, no there isn't a greater chance of them being gay when they grow up. Hope this helps.
Part 2.
Mr Xuereb, I have had homosexual friends at university – artists – and students I taught, who are now grown up and with whom I can safely say I am held in esteem.
In my post I said that I number as ‘personal’ friends, and not “GREAT” friends as you say, so I am not ‘buddy – buddies’ with them, and whatever they do behind closed doors is not my business.
I would appreciate if, before you go on the attack, you take the time to check the terrain and see whether it is your enemy you are fighting. You have to review quite a few earlier blogs, and then maybe you will find that I have been quite consistent in what I have so far been saying. To spare you the job, in a nutshell, I can say that I empathize with the homosexual cause and their right for a stable union. What I question is whether they should have the right to raise children, and that is only because I wonder whether such a situation could leave any negative effect on the children themselves.
Part1.
Mr. Xuereb, What a diatribe!!!! I don’t know where to begin!!!
You seem to resent me referring to a few homosexuals I know as friends. Don’t you have any heterosexuals as your friends?
To be sure, I do not “collude” with them for I am married, with a family that keeps me pretty busy. Besides, I have other interests that take up a lot of my time, when I am not writing in this blog, which, incidentally, I find very interesting because it opens up other perspectives about how I should view life.
Continued….
The Times is a family paper so this is as blue as it gets.
.......and leave Franco alone.
Ms. Debattista, you have a strong sense of rationale, you could argue me under a table any day. I also note that you have this think about promiscuity, single mothers etc. You remember(?) the Feminist Movement, the campaigning for equality. It drew many lesbians who had nought to lose. They were not beholden to men.
You have homosexual friends you say. Admirable. They're entertainers and dabblers in fashion. Great friends you say. But do you approve of what they do in private? It's sinful to collude with them remember. Maybe they are just people you spend the time of day with, rather different to friendship you know. Recipocral respect you say? In UK we call women who hang out with gays, fag-hags. Not very nice label. Maybe you don't mind? cont./
The hallmark of politicians is: Conflate, obfuscate, confuse.
When the going gets tough, they appeal to the fears of the people, quote meaningless percentages to inflame the burdened citizen and present an easy target or scapegoat. Thus, fiction becomes fact. In plain English, they are, like the Minister, full of it. "It" denoting the unprintable.
There are only three types of budgets: Balanced (Expenditures = Revenues); Surplus (Expenditures < Revenues); Deficit (Expenditures = Revenues + Borrowings).
Note the plural, that is, all units of the equation(s) consist of more than one component.
€8Million (paid to single moms) is a component of Expenditures (€2.875Billion) and represents a drop in the bucket. No amount of highfalutin political gibberish is going to change that fact.
Sadly, like them, you are trying to fill the bucket with just a tiny drop. It's impossible, even if the Minister tries it.
f you want to take me for a ride to the Stadium of the Absurd, even if it's on your private jet and with free tickets to watch my favourite football team play, I'd say, "Thanks, but no, thanks."
Single moms, like all moms, deserve a paycheque. Paycheques are not refundable.
Franco you have a knack of rubbing people the wrong way. If only you refrain from using sarcasm when delivering a point, you might find that many people share your views, and would very gladly be ready to enter into a discussion with you. But if you persist in using phrases such as “Holier-than-thou”, which is so misplaced in what is supposed to be an objective discussion, then you have only yourself to blame.
The bulk of your reply is based on the fairness of a ‘balancing equation’.
In reality does it balance? Is there a level playing field?
Retirement age has increased (6.5%), weekly contributions have increased, pensionable payments have increased from 30years to 40years (33%) etc… however the equation still does not balance.
What appears to balance is that payments to single mothers are increasing along side with the structural deficit.
Your last statement or suggestion is unjust. Your ‘what if’ statement should read as follows:
What if all Social Security payments (to single mothers, unemployed etc..) are recorded as a liability due by the beneficiary to the state and repayable when possible or if ever.
This will imply that when they (single mothers, unemployed,etc..) are in a position to repay (inheritance, unknown father becoming known etc…), the state can then start to recover the debt.
If this is implemented the equation might start to balance.
Apologies accepted. :-))
My post was meant to show that facts do not support what is being proposed by this blog.
Neither does my post imply that Canada is perfect. Perfection is not of this Earth. But in spite of its warts, social imperfections and liberal attitudes, Canada is a good yardstick to measure up to.
@Mr. Pace Balzan
Your division and multiplication are correct, but you have stopped short of completing the picture.
The 2379 NI contributors represent slightly less than 1.4% of the total workforce (170129).
1.4% is still very much a drop in the bucket.
Throwing in the other factors does not change the equation. What is added to one side must be added to the other side. Thus, MP's receive, in addition to their honorarium, other perks. And so do civil servants, educators, healthcare workers, police, armed forces, the judiciary, etc. etc.
The truth is that single mothers are performing a much needed service within the community. As far as taxpayers are concerned, the single mom represents the best bang for the tax€uro.
What if single moms decided to "go on strike" and make their children wards of the State? Then you'll have something to complain about.
Sorry Jessica. . What i should have said is that IN ADDITION to all the points that you made with which i agree, I believe that we need to ensure that we teach sex educaton in all Maltese schools. Furthermore, condoms should be broadly available. These two activities could materially reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.
I apologize if my comments upset you in any way.
They were a reflection on your first para that referred to promiscuity. Within this context I read promiscuity to include the whole array of 'progressive' taught that included inter-alia divorce and gay marriages. The subsequent para appeared to deal with one example of promiscuity.
If promiscuity was limited to the issue of fathers unknown, than I apologize once again and state that I am in agreement with your views on this specific issue. anzi I am convinced that the main reason for the state of affairs is the present support- structure that dishes out cash. I think that the rate of unknown fathers will contract if this were to happen.
The importance of education and the development of a culture that respects the individual and society is of course as important.
my apologies once again.
A drop in the bucket?
The maximum NI payable is at present Eur64.66 per week (Equivalent to Eur3,362.33 per year).
If you divide Eur8,000,000 by Eur3,362.33 you will get 2,379.
In other words the NI contributions of 2,379 working people is given up purely to single mothers.
May I remind you that you totally excluded the housing aspect which will effect these figures.
You have also excluded the fact that these amounts remain payable for app 16-18 years.
For good or bad,divorce.WILL.come to pass.Why.continue.with.the.misery.for.many.couples?
And I cannot imagine marrying a person of the sex,but that does not mean that I should deny the right of these people to be happy in life.I would stop them adopting children however,since it is not the err... 'natural way' (Apologies.Difficult to put into words without hurting people.)But then again,who am I to deprive others?
I am a firm believer in our Lord,but even I can see that certain decisions have to be avoided by the church.And one of them is the intrusion that the Catholic Church here has over everything.Including intruding in state affairs.
Young people unfortunately are shying away from God, and in this, the Church must hold up its' hand in acceptance of the blame.You know what? People do not care anymore about the church.
Let's see how many children keep going to the Muzew until Confirmation.Who decided that?..Idiotic...my.opinion...BUT...also.shared.by.thousands.of.other.parents.
Yes, it is disheartening to have individuals quoting comments out of context, giving a different slant to what the commentator actually means.
And yes, it is disheartening to hear that we have to gauge progress by what is happening in other countries almost as if these countries are sailing on cloud nine without any problems related to their avant-garde mentality.
Eventually Malta will be tagging along because that is the general trend of history and
many will be singing victory. Time will tell, however.
Let's see ...
This year's projected total expenditures amount to €2,875,588,000 (source: Budget 2009 Website)
Welfare payments to single moms: €8,000,000 (source: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/10/11/t5.html) which is equivalent to slightly more than one-quarter of one percent of total expenditures. Or, in simpler language, a drop in the bucket.
If that represents a burden to the taxpayers, then I live on Planet X.
If the Minister is looking for ways to reduce expenditures, then perhaps, he could start by reviewing the salary -- er, I mean, honorarium - of parliamentarians who receive more than three times the average wage, for part-time work ... on top of their earnings from business or professional practice.
As to the perceived widespread promiscuity, one must recognize the fact that different persons, in the same situation, react in different ways. To expect all teens to be "responsible" is wishful thinking.
And why is it so important to know who the father is? There is a child involved, and a mother.
It's "Mandragg Mentality." But of course, we need scapegoats.
Whilst opinions are always valid, stating facts when they are not facts is ridiculous. It is also appalling that the church still has such a hold over the government - Malta will neevr make progress and will continue to be seen as a backward country.
Mr. Attard, you choose to lift part of what I said and apply it to other issues which were not what I was discussing at the time. The quote you mention related to the problem of single mothers, and fathers unknown. So I do not think I warrant your objection.
Regarding the other situations you mention, I have already expressed my views in various other posts, and if you care to look them up, you might find that we are not so much at odds about.
@ Arthur Soler:
I am glad that you agree with most points I raised. Regarding your objection: I do not think I ever contested the need for sex education at school, so I find your comment rather out of order.
Greetings.
Quote-I feel so disheartened at times when I read certain contributions where people seem to take for granted all the man-made problems u.q.
I do not agree with your observation.
Here i see people discussing man-made problems in an effort to improve things.
two examples.
two gays want to commit to each other. why do we insist on strewing their path with so many person-made hurdles?
responsible parties to a failed marriage have an opportunity to commit to a new relationship. Why do we insist on making their experience so difficult?
re expect the State to shoulder the financial burden
i am in total agreement with you. Each individual must take full responsibility of one's actions. Should an individual need state help, such help should be given in full respect of one's dignity, should be underpinned by a spirit of education and awareness of social responsibilities, should empower the individual to repay the support given by the state, which support must be only made available in kind and not in cash.
I am in complete agreement with everything that you covered in your last post...with one exception. I think that sex eduction should be openly taught in all schools in Malta along with the responsible use of condoms, and other birth control methods, including the pill.
It is laudable that single moms had chosen to have the child and not opted for abortion but how can we stem this wave of single moms and fathers unknown? I do not think it is the lack of sexual education for today’s youngsters are street-wise enough to know what they are going in for, neither is it the Church’s teaching in relation to condom use for today’s youngsters, again, do not really care what the Church says. They go ahead as they please. Can’t we try to be constructive and analyse this sad situation and maybe work towards bettering it?
Steve, I am not sure I agree with you that “there is a home in every woman’s heart” but when a couple decides to have a family, care for the children takes precedence. It is at such times that women should be helped by making it possible for them to work from the home, at least until the children are grown up enough to understand that the mother needs to go out to work. It is hard enough for a woman to have to absent herself from the place of work for several months or to give up a job which had likely given her a sense of fulfillment. You have to know that men are not the only creatures who crave power and advancement, but life seems to favour men. And, MINDYOU men are not in a hurry to change things either! Some men resent a wife who can hold a better job than them and this could create friction between them.
Society will eventually change for the new generation has a different upbringing and women have proved that intellectually they are at par with men.
The drift away from the church will continue to grow as the figures Fr Borg quotes indicate. The church and its arcane practices are seen to be increasingly irrelevant to a younger population. Ongoing interference by the Church in the day to day affairs of the people remain a constant irritation to many. Why for example is there no divorce in Malta? Why can't a couple living in a common law union name the child y the father's surname?
Malta may have moved on from the Malta of the 1950's yet in many ways the power of the church ensures it a dominant place in Maltese society. We need a secular state with sparation of church and state; then we might be able breathe easy and look forward to true social justice especially in family law and gender equality for all.
In the Catholic pew, the acceptance of marriage as being a bond between one man and one woman, is universal. But on the street, especially in progressive countries such as Canada, and The Netherlands, marriage means, "the legal union between two persons."
Experience shows that street-values are more reflective of truth than those gushing down from the pulpit.
In a democratic secular state, there is no earthly reaon why gays should be denied equal rights to marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.
If heterosexuals feel the need to bar gays from the institution in order to, presumably, "defend marriage", then heterosexuals are skating on very thin ice; they should seriously examine why their own union is leaking and their ship is sinking. Gays, married or not, have absolutely no bearing or effect on traditional marriages.
Fathers Unknown: The minister's alarm, endorsed, sadly, by Fr. Joe, is nothing short of econo-terrorism against the most vulnerable segment of society: the single moms, who are doing, as expected of them, the single-most important job in society. They deserve a no-strings-attached paycheque; not a handout.
It seems that, in the warped world of Maltese Politics, the sperm has more value than the offspring.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Since in your opinion, the single parent household of a widow or widower and offspring is still considered a family, how would you define a family? What is the difference to other single parent households?
Unfortunately it seems you missed my question whether a cohabiting couple of a man and a woman can be considered as “cooperating with God to create new life"? Likewise would Catholics who contract a civil marriage rather than a Catholic one, be considered as “cooperating with God to create new life”? Would the same apply to any other non-Catholic couples contracting a civil marriage?
The answer to your first question is obviously in the affirmative.
An oft quoted proposal is to have women (where possible) carry out work from their own home.
From a woman’s point of view I can see that such a set up has a lot going for it.
Children would be brought up by the mother – not the grandmother, or what’s worse, by a babysitter. The bond with the mother is strengthened, and the respect due to her as children grow older can only produce positive results. Many youngsters nowadays, have slipped out of their parent’s control and do not think twice of throwing jibes at them for not being present when they were growing up. What can we expect from such an attitude but frustrated parents, and rebellion from the children. Is it any wonder that we get so many negative repercussions?
It has become necessary for women to join the workforce for reasons more than just to keep up with domestic financial problems.
Whether we want to accept it or not, this fact has produced many of the malaises of which our society is suffering from.
Up to a few decades ago, the role of the father as the bread winner had been uncontested and the wife’s job was to keep house and take care of a growing family.
Times change and society adjusts accordingly but not without its negative consequences along with the positive ones.
Just for the sake of a debate and not necessarily because I hold such views, one would think that keeping the woman, as long as possible, in the home so that the way of life of a growing family is not disrupted is something to be given primary consideration.
Continued….
in your blog you box from your corner for an opinion you want to become law. You call upon the President to testify in support of your views.
There are other views that are not being represented in your argument, and hence the President is here being made to look as if he is pitching for a sectoral view against other views prevailing within maltese society.
In my view, I do not think that the President is required to be couragous in expressing any views, especially when such views are already being expressed, say, by the church.
He needs to the the symbol of national unity in diversity where all maltese have a legal platform that permits them to experience life in a culture of responsibility and love.
should the President climb down to become just another member of our debating class, than we may have lost the only symbol that seeks to embrance the whole of society.
I don't plan to turn this into a long-winded debate (I've learned better...usually the civil debate turns sour as others join in).
I will just say that definitions may change in time (that's why dictionaries are updated). It is humans who define things and not the other way round. In any case, if one is not happy with using the term "marriage" for homosexual unions, one could always invent a new term with the same rights and duties.
And anyway, I am also not implying that the Church should redefine or rethink her own concept of marriage. I consistently claim that if one does not like the rules of the Catholic Church, one is free to leave it. But where it concerns the state, things are different.
The President says "..the family is clearly understood as being composed of two married parents, a male and a female, together with their offspring."
What happens when one of other of the parents unfortunately dies? Is the remaing parent and the offspring no longer a family?
The US bishops said that "same-sex union contradicts the nature and purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarily of male and female. It cannot cooperate with God to create new life;" How does celibacy "cooperate with God to create new life"? Furthermore would not a cohabiting couple of a man and a woman "cooperate with God to create new life"?
Franco, I hope you are not equating the plight of slaves with the homosexual condition for if so, I beg to differ greatly. We are led to believe that homosexuals are discriminated against and that they are suppressed and denied rights. I happen to number as personal friends quite a few homosexuals and the general idea I get is that they are ruling quite a few fields, particularly the entertainment and fashion industry. I happen to have a great deal of respect for them and I feel sure that it is reciprocated.
I think that they are playing a power game. For a long time they had to keep a low profile and many of them found it hard to come out in the open mostly because of family considerations. Once they overcame that, they asserted themselves quite emphatically in whatever they endeavoured to undertake. “Good for them”, I say. It is very much like what women are trying to do in this day and age. The only difference is that homosexuals have the ‘devil may care’ attitude which is rather missing in females.
I am not contesting that homosexuals should have rights.
By all means I am all for a type of union by which their relationship can be felt to be more stable, and binding, but this kind of union cannot have the same definition as the definition we give to marriage. We all know what marriage stands for and a union between persons of the same sex fails to qualify.
"Kenneth, in my concluding paragraph the emphasis was on the ‘rules’. The right for women to vote, to obtain gainful employment and to take public office has nothing to do with ‘rules’. They were women’s rights which were ignored because women were considered inferior to men".
True, with hidsight, you can say that they were rights denied. In a similar way, gay people (for instance) will claim that their rights (to marry, for instance) are being denied.
In the past, we did have the following rules:
1. Women cannot vote.
2. Women cannot get gainful employment.
3. Women cannot take public office.
They were clearly rules that, if broken, the offender would be punished. However, enlightenment nullified these rules, but not before a rightful struggle.
Same is happening today in the question of gay rights and other issues.
I think that the President showed courage and insight in his comments on the subject which should be discussed and concluded. We have been discussiong it for a long time and different options had been proposed. We now need a legislative framework.
Celibacy does not claim to be marriage so it cannot be debated on the same terms. Christ spoke very clearly in support of celibacy and verginity. I dont think that a better witness can be resorted to.
It is interesting that you applaud the President for arguing against same sex marriages but chose to omit the President's reflection on cohabiting 'couples' and reconstituted families. (Sunday is still a day away).In his words
" should the term “family” be solely used in the case where a couple is officially married or are we to consider stable unions also to fall within the definition of a family? Are these unions to be considered merely as social affectionate aggregations giving rise to certain rights and obligations without however being put on the same level to a family? This begs again the original question as to what we understand by the term “family” in the present day context. (DOI – 06.10.2009) The President certainly goes a bit further then you and Progett Impenn. Good for him!
PS.
How does celibacy reflect the 'natural structure of human sexuality’? How does celibacy 'cooperate with God with regards to procreation and the natural purpose of sexual union'? Or could you please define the 'naturalness' of the celibate state? How does celibacy then guarantee, "continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet"?
on a different note, i am taken aback by the President's speech. Was he expressing his own values, Government's, or the 'nation's'? Would a President have to clear such a speech with official policy? I would think that the values xpressed in said speech would reflect those of the Government of the day.
Kenneth, in my concluding paragraph the emphasis was on the ‘rules’. The right for women to vote, to obtain gainful employment and to take public office has nothing to do with ‘rules’. They were women’s rights which were ignored because women were considered inferior to men.
Interesting observations. However, regarding your concluding paragraph, by the same token, the following questions could also be asked:
Didn't we unbalance a certain order that had been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years when we gave women the vote, the right to obtain gainful employment, and the right to take public office? The answer is yes. So did we do the right thing then? The answer is also yes.
Of course, the transition from "old systems" and new ones is never easy, but it should be done if it is the right thing to do. That said, a distinction should always be made between civil and church marriage. The former is a contract, the conditions of which may be changed in time. The latter is religious, and bound by the dictates of the Church.
And to add to your clarification...your partner's child (and why not?...your child as well) is lucky to have you regarding him or her as family. I'm confident that you provide a far better suitable and caring environment for the child than many "traditional" families do.
To clarify my previous post I live with my partner and her child. We are a family regardless of how others may choose to define us.
You are wrong. Conjugal love can be expressed in any way the adult couple thinks appropriate. Let me try to express myself in a polite and delicate manner: so, in Joe Borg's words, a traditionally-acceptable married couple does not express its conjugal love in a way that does not, strictly-speaking respect the 'natural structure of human sexuality' of which Joe Borg speaks about?
Another point: so, if a traditionally-acceptable married couple for some medical, psychological or other reason refrains from expressing its conjugal love within the 'natural structure of human sexuality' that Joe Borg has in front of him, does that couple stop being a married couple?
If I have not expressed myself clearly, it is due to the fact that I found it hard to express myself in a polite and proper manner, without using the erotic lingo I have in mind right now.
In conclusion, Joe Borg obviously limits marriage (whatever that means, that's another story!!!!!) to a man and a woman. Perhaps the President thinks the same, I don't know. I still say: Whatever! Who cares?
When are you going to learn that you're neither the state law nor the nature law? You have every right for an opinion but not to state these as facts. If a gay wants to get married just let him to do so. What's he gonna take from our pocket? No one is going to put a gun to my head and force me to marry a gay myself! Just let them be happy the way we can be! You have no right to influence the state on a decision like this, unless you want to be selfish of course...