You can’t extend justification for something that exists in nature to cover also something that does not
Homosexuality is completely natural. It exists in nature. It is a fact of life. It is not an aberration or a fluke. It just is.
Civil unions have nothing to do with any aspect of nature. They are merely a contract between two consenting adults who are free to enter into a legally binding contract. Other people’s contracts, whatever they are, are not really anyone else’s business.
Two mothers and two fathers do not exist in nature, and the law should not be used to pretend that they do.
A single parent does not exist in nature either, but with single parents it is always assumed that there was another one at some point, precisely because there was. Adoption by single people, whether they are gay or straight, reflects this.
This ongoing drive to divorce parenthood from any connection to conception and birth is really quite offensive.
Adoption by a couple made up of a man and a woman honours and reflects the link of parenthood to conception and birth.
Adoption by a single person does so too.
Adoption by ‘two mummies’ or ‘two daddies’ does not. What it says, in effect, is that conception and birth are irrelevant and that the parenting process can be completely divorced from them, making a child a consumer product, a status symbol or a luxury item – literally an acquisition.
31 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
All this is narcissistic nonsense. Before civil unions were around, gay couple would go to a lawyer and draw a contract between them. Period!
But that did not ruffle anyone’s feathers so it does not count.
This adoption business has reduced children to glorified pets. It is nothing short of scandalous.
Exactly my thoughts. Even animals have a mother and a father. So from now on how will humans be classified?
Many surrogate motherhood arrangements between gay couples end up in tears and litigation when Mother Nature plays its role.
Thank you, Ms Caruana Galizia. Finally, someone making sense in the midst of this whole fiasco.
Existing in nature is not a justification for anything at all.
Joe Fenech, before labelling this as “narcissistic nonsense”, inform yourself. Issues may extend from obtaining a travel visa for your partner (if he/she happens to be non European) to go on holiday, to residence, to being able to visit your partner if hospitalised in some countries.
So while a hetero couple can get married and the non-European obtains citizenship, not so with gay couples. It IS about equal rights. Hardly narcissistic nonsense.
Re gay adoption, although gay myself, I also have my reservations.
This bill and many others like it in Europe open the door wide for a new very ‘modern’ role of men, namely that of sperma dispensers and a new and even more modern role for women, namely that of surrogate mothers. What is so liberal about these two roles? Feminists have vehemently fought these roles in the not so distant past. But the LGBT lobbies do not bother about the roles of men and women. They only care about their own interests.
In much of the West many men are already just sperm donors, only they entered into the contract thinking it was a life-long commitment.
Then they go on to surrender two-thirds of their income to the new daddy of their children and their ex-wife + children.
Fathers are now being viewed as unnecessary – much to the detriment of society. And excluding them is seen as hip and justified.
It is all political. Muscat has the so-called ‘gay community’ under his thumb. Good luck to them.
How right you are.
What a bunch of drivel.
The wikipedia article is quite informative on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus
It’s quite well-researched and cites a number of very credible sources such as:
“American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[28] the American Psychological Association,[29] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,[30] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[31] the National Association of Social Workers,[32] the Child Welfare League of America,[33] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[34] and Canadian Psychological Association.[35].”
Spot on as always.
This is flawed logic. By the same token, in nature you don’t see orphanages or foster care or offspring being raised by non-biological parents.
You seem to keep forgetting that children that are up for adoption will be in an orphanage whether or not there is a gay or straight person or couple to adopt them.
A child will always benefit growing up in a family environment, no matter the family type, compared to being raised in an orphanage or moving from foster home to foster home.
Allow me to say that It all feels like envy towards a more natural family. I do not contest that homosexuals aren’t a reality or that they are not able to love each other, far from it, but it is one thing loving each other and another trying to mirror a family made up of a mother, a father and a child.
I don’t want to generalise of course and call me homophobic as you please but still there is a good share of envy in all of this.
All for the sake of equality and extreme political correctness.
Guess how the left transmutates that with its core ideology.
And who gets to pay for the exercise of these ‘granted’ rights.
It will never stop, there will be religious discrimination, gender discrimination, racial discrimination.
It becomes ‘positive discrimination. Women reduced to a quota, loony clerics get funding to promote the burkha and Nigerians thrown in with Ethiopians.
In the end what matters is a fragmented society to each their own and please don’t ever disclaim the ghettoes.
Not so sure, most operators will tell you that what’s essential is for the adopted child to be loved and raised in a healthy environment.
Which reinforces the PN’s and most of civil society’s concerns anyway. Although it also undermines Muscat’s ideological propensity to categorise and by default render a cliche’.
Which is why Labour’s LGBT and Calleja’s MGRM cannot remain the only ones deciding those children’s future. One can’t expect these to be employed to gauge Muscat’s ‘terremot’ to change society.
The PN mentioned concerns, not a negative stand. Perhaps Baxxter’s right, present an alternative proposal with commitment to avoid any mishaps those children risk.
In the end what happened was the same as divorce, the lowest form devised and imposed on an unwilling electorate.
The joys of the most becero of liberalism, a never ending wishlist sustained by condescending big government.
So we shall now have to either do away with birth certificates or at least have to add a ‘status’ certificate?
And how shall parents be defined under the ‘mother’ and ‘father’ labels and shall these just be chosen on a whim and are interchangeable since the gender shall be the same?
What a damning mess for children to go through.
To be even more confused than they are since they are already going through the trauma of being adopted, a by-product of either being abandoned by both parents or the sudden loss of both.
How long do we have to wait before we get a same-sex couple applying for a divorce?
Will the case be treated in the same manner as in a heterosexual case?
Or will the same-sex couple just go their separate ways until they begin a fresh relationship with new partners?
What would happen to adopted children in the case of divorce between same-sex couples?
Even those who favour adoption by same-sex couples should have argued for that matter to be considered separately from civil union legislation.
In the rush for social validation, couples who truly want to adopt children – as opposed to simply having the ‘right’ to do so to ‘be like everyone else’ – have been left with a host of legal and problems.
These are things which Simon Busuttil needs to start saying, now. Such arguments are what give sense to the PN’s ‘stand’ (abstaining), and he really needs to get a grip and get these arguments across to the public.
And, if I may add, these arguments need to come across to the general public, not just the LGB community.
Natural sciences student here, and I’d just like to point out one blatantly fallacious claim in this post:
“A single parent does not exist in nature either…”
Even a cursory glance at the literature on child rearing in the animal kingdom will reveal that single parenthood is, in fact, the norm. I am of the opinion that the idea that most animals form nuclear families stems largely — if not entirely — from gross misrepresentations in the media (e.g. popular and ubiquitous Disney classics such as ‘The Lion King’ and ‘101 Dalmatians’). In turn, this may have resulted from a need to reinforce the nuclear family model as an ideal. Equally, these misconceptions may have already proliferated to such a great extent that they were taken by film producers as axioms — which mirrors what you have done perfectly, I’m afraid.
On a slightly tangental note, there are a few interesting theories on the evolutionary basis of homosexuality:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
Electric light does not exist in nature. Computers and mobile phones do not mature on the vine in late autumn. The phrase “it does not exist in nature” as a justification for or against something became irrelevant when we first rubbed two sticks together and lit a fire. [insert technology of your choice here]
I hope you do realise you’ve just rendered homosexuality an artificial mental state enjoying the victory of scientific determinism.
Such is the confusion brought about by the frenzy two decades in the making.
If homosexuality is natural, it is preposterous to refuse nature’s design criteria in procreation. But I suppose spinning a coin to land it in conjunction with political expedience isn’t yours.
Alas, that’s where rational conservation of human dignity makes way for votes and lobbies blackmail. From yesterday’s Times of Malta;
‘…Asked whether the government is considering amending the law to allow surrogacy for gay (and heterosexual) couples, Dr Dalli said there was no intention to do so.
However, she added, a motion was approved last week in Parliament stating that no person can be discriminated against on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.
If a person decides to take the government to the European Court of Human Rights, the government would be obliged to comply with the ruling, as what would have happened with the case of transgender Joanne Cassar had the new government not settled her case out of court…..’
In an age where rights are made to trample each others’ holders, simply because responsibility is of fundamentalists, the vicious cycle requires arbitrary leaders whose position is continually reinforced with their benevolent Solomonic prowess.
Daphne the study below proves Simon Busuttil right that the PN adopted a cautious approach towards gay adoption and not gamble the interests of adopted children as Muscat did http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
A single voice reproduced by a notoriously anti-gay organisation. Yes, the report in question contradicts three decades of studies which come to no such conclusion. You should probably also read this article (and the links therein) about the report and it’s author too then:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html
“There’s one problem: Regnerus’ research doesn’t show what he says it does. Not remotely. No research ever has. Yet Regnerus, unchastened by a chorus of professional criticism correctly pointing out the obvious flaws in his work—including a formal reprimand in an audit assigned by the journal that published his piece—continues to make these groundless claims, knowing full well they are baseless.”
I cannot agree more, Daphne.
The adoption issue was handled very poorly by the current administration.
I wholeheartedly approve of the Opposition’s stand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGha10AIwCE