You can’t get married if you have a sex change
A Maltese woman who was born a man, and whose birth certificate has been changed so as to – in the words of the court – protect her privacy, is being prevented from getting married. This case has been going on for some time now, since the director of the public registry refused to publish the banns for her intended marriage.
Contrary to the popular romantic notion, you can’t just rush off and get married on impulse. The banns must first be published a few weeks ahead of the date to give people time to come forward with their reasons why the marriage should not take place. These must be reasonable objections – for example, he is married already – and not unreasonable ones, like ‘I fancy her myself.’ Nowadays, the banns are put up on a notice-board at the public registry, but in earlier times, they were read out on three successive Sundays in church in the parishes where the betrothed lived.
In this woman’s case, it was the director of the public registry who raised an objection, even before the banns were out. And when the director objects to the marriage and refuses permission, you can’t get married, because he is the one who decides these things. His objection is that the woman’s birth certificate may give her gender as female, but she was born male, and as far as he is concerned, she is a man masquerading as a woman. This means that she can’t marry a man.
You might ask how the director knows that her birth certificate was changed after what is now known as gender reassignment surgery. That’s because the public registry takes note of all changes to birth certificates and they go down on the record. It’s the same with adopted children. The birth certificate is changed to give the names of the adopted parents instead of the biological parents, but a note is taken and though the data is protected, the director of the public registry would have access to it – obviously.
So now we have a civil liberties problem here, with the director of the public registry using information to which he is privy to argue his case that a woman who is described as such on her birth certificate has no right to marry a man because he knows that she had a sex change.
It’s a civil liberties problem because this woman has a birth certificate that gives her gender as female. The birth certificate is an official document issued by the state. It should be the final word, and not subject to querulous objections or further investigation by public officers. If the director of the public registry can do this, then so can anyone else, and that birth certificate is worthless.
But it isn’t worthless, because it is the very document she needs to get married to a man anywhere else in the world, and the state was aware of this when it gave her the certificate that identifies her as a woman. No public registry anywhere else is going to object on the grounds that she had a sex change, because they won’t know about it – and in any case, in many parts of Europe those who have had a sex change can marry. The director of the public registry in Malta, on the other hand, is in the unique position of having access to this woman’s personal data, and he appears to be using it to back up what seems to be his own personal morality in refusing permission to marry. If he thinks that people who have had a sex change shouldn’t be allowed to get married, that’s his problem. He has no business using his official position to grind a moral axe, if that is really what he is doing. And if it is not his own personal morality, then why in heaven’s name didn’t he just let it go? Anything that adds to the sum total of human happiness is not to be fought against.
This was the first time that the public registry was faced with a case of this nature, and the matter went to court. Last year, the Civil Court ruled that the woman could marry a man because she is identified as female on her birth certificate. The judge ordered the director of the public registry to publish the banns. The director appealed against this decision, and yesterday, he won. The judge said that Maltese law allows marriage to take place between a man and a woman but does not define what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. He relied on the evidence of various independent medical experts who said that a person’s sex is determined by chromosomes, and by anatomical and psychological make-up. After a great deal of consideration, he concluded that the woman couldn’t be considered truly a woman in terms of the Marriage Act.
If we’re talking strictly about chromosomes, this is correct. All the gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment in the world can’t change male chromosomes into female chromosomes, so men who become women continue to have male chromosomes, and women who become men continue to have female ones. But we’re not talking about chromosomes here. We’re talking about two people who are free to get married and who want to marry each other – good news in these dire days. Yet the separate powers of this land are tripping over each other trying to find ways to prevent them from doing so. Why? Why not just let them get married, given that nobody is going to be hurt in the fall-out and no harm will be done? I can’t shake off the perception that this is somebody’s moral crusade.
I wrote about the case when it was in the news last year, pointing out that this individual was being denied the right to marry, and that the arguments of the director of the public registry were self-contradictory. On the one hand, he said that she can’t marry a man because she isn’t a woman. On the other hand, he implied that he wouldn’t allow her to marry a woman, either, because she isn’t a man and her birth certificate identifies her as a woman.
Interestingly, the appeal judge was struck by the same contradiction. He raised questions about what exactly the director the public registry was saying: that the woman can’t marry at all, or that she can marry a woman instead, given that he considered her to be a man? The judge reached the conclusion that the director thinks that somebody who undergoes gender reassignment surgery can marry no one. And yet the court found in the director’s favour.
You see, this is what foxes me. If she can’t marry a man because she’s a man, then it follows that she can marry a woman. It’s either that, or the state is issuing fraudulent birth certificates for the express purpose of deceiving others.
If she can’t marry a woman either, on the grounds that she is – what, a woman? – then it follows that she can marry a man. The director’s argument that she can’t marry a man because she is a man herself falls immediately he begins to argue that she can’t marry a woman either because she is not a man. To prevent this woman from marrying, he has to argue – and prove – that she is neither a woman nor a man. He didn’t do that, yet the court ruled in his favour, overturning the earlier judgement on the grounds that it was based on the ‘unrealistic premise’ that the two parties to the aborted marriage were not of the opposite sex. Well, if they’re not of the opposite sex, then they’re of the same sex – making this person a man who can marry a woman. But apparently not – because the Civil Court and the director of the public registry have between them created a special class of person of ambiguous gender – literally, a bridegroom – who cannot marry anyone at all.
The behaviour of the director of the public registry is disquieting. Yes, he has the power to over-rule decisions to marry, but in the contemporary world, surely he should be limiting this power to ensuring that there is no bigamy or incestuous marriages. If a woman comes along with a birth certificate that says she is a woman, is it his business to enquire further and discover that she had a sex change, to refuse permission for the marriage and, when he loses the case, to take it to appeal? It’s like a moral crusade, and it makes me squeamish.
Now here’s a thought. This woman can get married elsewhere, and return to Malta married. What happens then? This is aside from the fact that in the long run we’re all dead, and there is nothing to be gained from denying these two people a small chance at happiness while they’re alive. It seems to me to be little more than the pointless exertion of power over others just for the sheer hell of it.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
43 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Arggghhhh!!!
Twenty years of the great PN government Daphne, and these are the kind of civil liberties Malta offers…. Yet another disgrace… Please God of Liberty, make sure the new MLP leader spearheads civil liberties once and for all. I can’t stand this country any more.
Dear Ms Caruana-Galizia
Here in Australia the Law has only recently accorded Gay couples the same rights as Heterosexuals. The only difference is that gay couple’s marriage is not recognized by the state
In all other matters the stand on equal grounds .Matters of Superannuation and inheritance are treated equally .
Maybe marriage is not what these people you write about need.
MAybe marriage is nearing its “used by date”
[Moderator – This is not a question of gay marriage, because the groom is marrying a woman.]
What would be the legal position in the case of a hermaphrodite wanting to marry? Being neither perfectly male not perfectly female but being registered in the Public Registry as either male or female, is s/he entitled to marry once the other partner knows of the situation and gives valid consent? Gender reassignment in the case of a man who becomes what would be registered as a woman at the Public Registry, consists essentially in the removal of the male sex-organs and the construction of something looking vaguely like female external organs (of course, there are no real reproductive organs). Now, suppose a man loses his sexual organs in an accident, is he prevented from marrying? The Marriage Act contains no such prohibition and, as long as his bride is aware of it before marriage, the consent to marriage would be valid and the union perfectly legal.
This is the country where its citizens are still denied the right to divorce, where politicians want to introduce a ban on abortion in the constitution, where our children are denied proper sex education ….. the list goes on and on! Are we really surprised that big brother has once again intervened to meddle in the private lives of others???
Malta has come a long way to converging economically with the rest of Europe, about time we follow Spain’s example and converge with the rest of Europe socially. Malta’s citizens need to be granted civil liberties which are taken for granted in much of the civilised world.
Interesting that the judge should say that what determines “man” and what determines “woman” is chromosomal. The XY sex-determination system has only been known since 1905 and presumably the category “man” and the category “woman” where totally meaningless before that date.
What next? Genetic tests before getting married?
@Fausto Majjistral – don’t be too surprised. It was suggested at one point that Maltese women should be given a pregnancy test on leaving the island, and another one on their return, to check whether they had an abortion while they were away.
This case is not to be taken lightly. It is more complex than it looks prima facie. How does the groom know he is marrying a woman ? Is he going by her birth certificate or has he carried out chromosome studies ? If she has had a sex change operation I presume she has surgically turned herself into a male, unless there is now a third sex I have not heard about, which is possible. If she were chromosomally male to start with than it is the birth certificate which needs correction. So what are the authorities to go by when authorising a marriage ? The birth certificate (which may be erroneous) the chromosome studies (which may be inconclusive) the anatomical appearance (which is often something in between especially after surgery) or what else ? I certainly would not want to be in the shoes of the Director of the Public Registry. The only easy way out would be to amend the law to allow anyone to marry anybody else hopefully of the same species.
[Moderator – Here’s a solution: disregard gender. Problem solved.]
@Caphenni
I never thought that I would see a comment containing the words ‘the PN government’ in this entry… but of course, you had to, hux? I struggle to think what the ‘PN government’ has to do about this, since it was (1) the Public registrar and (2) the Courts who have given rulings about this. I’m sure both PN and MLP MP’s have different opinions about this case.
Now about the entry itself, this case leaves one really puzzled. Why does he/she have his/her sex in a birth certificate? And why was this changed? Does it make any difference to civil society (of course, it does make a whole lot of difference to the person involved). And if the Public Registrar did not object to this person being classified as a female in the first case, why is it now objecting that this woman weds a male? And why raise up this hoo-hah in the 1st place?
I was always of the opinion that we live in a strange country…
How medieval. It doesn’t take a psychologist to realise that nowadays the rest of (at least the Western) world recognises psychological issues where these women do not identify with a male body. It’s psychologically and scientifically verified, and I do not think that it takes a genius to understand that once your birth certificate says you were born ‘female’, then that is that.
But anyway, us Maltese, with Ta’ Kana Foundations and courses, and the same degree of churches as there are Mc Donalds in New York are all experts in all fields which offend Jebus.
I haven’t read the full judgment, but the statement that gender is determined by chromosomes is not 100% correct. Some individuals with a Y chromosome do not develop male characteristics and appear female (and indeed *are* female, though a genetic test would give a different result).
A question: if somebody not born in Malta wished to get married here, would the Registrar have any way of finding out if they’d had a sex change?
[Moderator – No.]
@Anthony: technically there is no “sex change operation” as the chromosomes are not changed. It is called “gender reassignment”. Physiologically, a person who undergoes gender reassignment may always be distinguished from one who has not.
I would consider this a gay marriage. People like the transexual in question still need constant hormone “injections” because physiologically they are male. In other words, if this guy decided to stop his hormone “therapy” w’ll end up with a girl with a man with bulges in the wrong places.
Gender reassignment interventions are only physical – invaginations for men wanting to look like women and penile prostheses for women wanting to look like men.
As Daphne correctly mentioned the sex (23rd) chromosomes will remain unchanged and the tell-tale Barr body will never appear in this man’s chromosomal make up.
Then there is the psychological aspect. I am not competent in this field BUT what I can deduce is that these people who take such a decision are impelled by forces greater than reason to do so. Their choice makes their life infinitely difficult, so why do they even think of going there?
My question is: why does this guy want to marry? Definitely not to have children. I don’t believe he wants to get hitched for the sex. For a lifelong commitment? Or to prove a point perhaps? Bad battle to pick in that case, because nature’s and society’s norms are heavily againt him.
We have to be compassionate towards these people, however we must also bear in mind that they are a minority. Just as we cannot force our choices and ways of life onto them, they must accept that (tragically) their way of life is not something with which many people are comfortable.
Despite the open-mindedness expressed by many people I am absolutely sure (because I have seen it happen) that when push comes to shove the perentage of people HONESTLY accepting such a proposal is much lower than one might think.
Having said all this, it is our moral obligation to support these people who, after all, have a right to a dignified life like the rest of us.
freethinker: “Now, suppose a man loses his sexual organs in an accident, is he prevented from marrying?”
Well, the law does say that impotence at the time of marriage renders it void (that is, the marriage may be annulled for this reason). It doesn’t say that the registrar needs to check this out before accepting a couple for marriage, though!
Much has been said about Gender Equality, Sex change, same gender marriages and gays rights!
It is not a question of morals, values, logic or freedom.It is a question of how any person looks at the topic.As always, there are plenty of pros and cons.
In the meantime, would anyone enlighten me on Sandro Vella’s relation with Maltafly.com pls. Thanks.
[Moderator – Do you realise that everything you’ve just said is a jumble of contradictions?]
@Mod Maybe Peter Muscat was writing while trying to find himself.
Zizzu: Just as we cannot force our choices and ways of life onto them, they must accept that (tragically) their way of life is not something with which many people are comfortable.”
Maybe you missed the original point. The people involved in the case want to get married. They are not trying to force anyone into undergoing gender reassignment surgery.
I am not comfortable with the discourse and line of reasoning you adopt. Is that enough reason to deny you the freedom to do so?
I read in some news report that the court’s decision was in direct violation of rulings of the European Court. Seems to me that if this judge’s decision is appealed then the Appellate court will have to overrule the decision and if the Appellate court doesn’t do so then the European court will. I’m puzzled as to why the court allowed the birth certificate to be changed in the first place which presumably acknowledged the individual’s right to have all civil rights accorded to a person of the new gender including the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex and then effectively reversed itself.
@Zizzu
“My question is: why does this guy want to marry? Definitely not to have children. I don’t believe he wants to get hitched for the sex. For a lifelong commitment? Or to prove a point perhaps? Bad battle to pick in that case, because nature’s and society’s norms are heavily againt him.”
First of all this is a woman not a guy. Secondly it is none of your business why she wants to marry. Thirdly, it is likely that she wants to get married so that she could bring up children, possibly adopted ones. Also, the lifelong commitment is a given. As for “making a point”, she wouldn’t need to make a point if she was allowed to get married, and I think if someone was preventing you from getting married you would do the same.
Lastly, it is not a bad battle to pick, because norms in society as well as nature are constantly changing thanks to developments in technology, intelligence and science. As humans we are constantly progressing and therefore so are our norms. They are being updated according to our needs.
So insomma, all your points are invalid. I suggest you stop posting altogether and get a manual job.
[Moderator – As opposed to an automatic one?]
@ Corinne Vella
I do not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it, as the chappie said.
People may not be comfortable living in a society where transexuals can get married to people who have not changed their sex since birth. That is the issue that is being “forced” on a “wider” public.
Sexual identity is an untouchable part of “the human condition”. Many Western societies still “frown” on “unusual” sexual practices and unions. People whose sexuality deviates from the “norm” have to be “defended” against varying degrees of attack. Why else would there be Gay Rights Movements, for example? Others, who feel that their sexuality will come in for a good deal of stick, prefer to hide it.
The case being discussed is of a man who feels he has to look like a woman. No big deal about it. We say “he has a right”. Equally important (and equally valid) are fetishes, coprophilia, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia … here I would expect a large proportion of the population to stand up and scream blue murder. Where we draw the line is totally subjective and depends on what we call sexy, perverse or outright wrong.
To the person engaged in such practices there’s nothing “wrong” with them and, to complicate matters, establishing “wrong” or “right” in sexual matters is a bit of a minefield. Unluckily for the person involved, s/he has to accept the norm and move on.
[Moderator – Unluckily for the country involved, we have to accept the European norm and move on. If you’re going be conformist then set your standard by the most progressive, not by the most backward.]
Zizzu: Just as we cannot force our choices and ways of life onto them, they must accept that (tragically) their way of life is not something with which many people are comfortable.”
Their way of life hurts noone, makes no demand on anyone elses lifes and, especially in this case, would not even be known to other people if it weren’t for the bizarre state of affairs surrounding it.
Zizzu: “My question is: why does this guy want to marry? Definitely not to have children. I don’t believe he wants to get hitched for the sex. For a lifelong commitment? Or to prove a point perhaps? Bad battle to pick in that case, because nature’s and society’s norms are heavily againt him.”
Her reason for marrying is as much of our concern as is the shape of her reproductive organs. She is set to marrying a man, who in turn is set to marrying her. Whatever reasons there are behind it is none of our business. It was a sad thing to read in the sunday Times how a, comparatively, large number of gay people actually end up marrying a woman just “to fit in”. Can anyone explain the logic of sustaining this unhappy state, rather than letting them enjoy the rights and privileges the rest of us takes for granted.
Being a foreigner I don’t like making snide remarks about locals, but I do feel there is a tendency for people to force their own morals and view upon anyone who does not fit the norm. What two consenting adults do between them is the concern of themselves and noone else.
a) you have to separate the action from the agent i.e. if somebody does something we don’t like you have every right to condemn the ACTION but you have absolutely no right to judge the person.
EXAMPLE:
John kills Roy. I strongly condemn what John did but I have no right whatsoever to claim that John is a bad person. All I can say is that John committed a serious crime and that’s that.
b) morals cannot be forced down anyone’s throat, but persons with different priorities and with different morals have to respect each other.
EXAMPLE:
My friend Arachne strongly believes in fidelity in marriage. I don’t. She can’t convince me to be faithful to my wife, not can I convince her to be untrue to her husband. Neither do I try hitting on her, because I know what she thinks and I respect her. If I make a pass at Arachne just the same I am not being liberal or progressive, but a boor. Same goes if every time she sees me hitting on another girl she barges in to stop the attack.
I hope that these concepts are clear in the minds of people reading this blog post, because in our haste to point fingers and label each other throwbacks and troglodytes many of us are overlooking the most basic tenets of logic and compassion.
[Moderator – Were you educated by Peter Muscat?]
@Zizzu: “The case being discussed is of a man who feels he has to look like a woman.”
No it is not. The case is of a woman being denied the possibility to marry. You, on the other hand, are thinking about male cross dressing, where a man does not deny his male sexuality or identity but simply prefers to dress up as a woman. A cross-dressing man may or may not already be married and if he is not, his inclination does not legally bar him from marrying.
Your thinking, such as it is, is not only misinformed, it is also unsound and grossly offensive. You put a trans-gendered person’s desire to marry on the same level as a sexual obsession with excrement and an inclination to have sex with dead bodies. Maybe you’re actually suggesting that people should be legally enabled to marry excrement or corpses, possibly on the grounds that they are not married to anyone else and therefore free to marry?
@Zizzu: “persons with different priorities and with different morals have to respect each other”
Nice words – and they’re in contradiction to your earlier argument that obstructing someone’s desire to marry is justifiable on the grounds that the marriage would make other people feel uncomfortable.
In my opinion there is nothing to debate really.
This person has really had alot of, and will continue having, struggles in life, due to her condition. We as a society should only help her to get through these moments and making her stronger and better. I am pretty sure that many faced with similar difficult situations would not be as brave and give up into living an inferior life or may decide to stop living.
Let them get married and then let’s all be happy for them, what damage are they doing to anyone? If somebody is bothered by their unification, it implies that they should really get a life and stop interfering with other people’s private lives.
A friend of mine co-habits with two women. Yes, such individuals exist, those who feel sexually attached to more than one person. And what’s wrong with that? Why should marriage be restricted to two? Why should the state dictate our life-style? This is all medieval close-headedness if you ask me! This good friend of mine is simply appalled, and rightly so, that the law does not permit him to marry them both. He is even more appalled that not even in the liberal, open-minded EU is this allowed. And he wanted Malta to join the EU precisely so that a “wind of change” would blow over the island. But in this matter the doors are simply shut!
Why is this restriction in place? Is this the freedom we say we have? My friend will not hurt anyone in doing that. It will be a private matter between him and his two wives, who are more than happy with the situation.
I think it is irrelevant if the person in question is biologically a man or a woman. Why should the state decide on whether 2 consenting (emphasis on consenting) adults can get married or not.
I can understand the church having it’s own views on the matter and do not expect it to change them. But the state is something different.
As Daphne said very well ‘in the long run we are all dead’. What is to be gained by having a section of our society denied their shot at hapiness?
They might fix it …. but …
http://www.maltastar.com
… its just all the rest that isn’t.
@ Albert Farrugia. Are you intentionally stirring up the pot? Point taken – it’s all a matter of cultural norms. Is our culture ready to accept this variation on customary marriage?
@ Daphne. Help me out here, I don’t recall who suggested that women should be given pregnancy tests when leaving and re-entering Malta to make sure that they do not have an abortion.
Albert : “My friend will not hurt anyone in doing that.” Won’t the women run out if everyone starts marrying more than one?
[Moderator – In the same way that cattle will run out if people eat too much meat, perhaps.]
Albert – there is no such condition of “must-get-married-to-two-people” – you cannot pass this off as a sexual variation and use it as an argument against gay marriage or transgender people wanting to get married.
Homosexuality and being transgender are both a part of the human condition. About 10% of all populations are homosexual, while a much smaller percentage are born in the body of the wrong gender.
Wanting to be married to two lovers, although plausible, and although I have no concerns with it, cannot be put on the save level as gay marriage as an argument against it.
Can the contributors of this blog define what is marriage?
Don’t people marry with the intention to pro-create?
If s/he wants a civil union , I find nothing wrong with that, as long as the couple would not adopt children.
The funny thing is that many heterosexual couples are cohabiting while gay or transsexual people are fighting this battle to look ‘normal’!
And nowadays, what is ‘normal’?
[Moderator – Marriage is a contractual agreement that gives legal recognition to a relationship between people. My guess is that most people marry for financial security, and even when they have children, they do so with the intention of securing an heir, especially since children born out of wedlock could not inherit equally up until recently. The only people who marry to look ‘normal’ are gay men and women who deny their sexuality, only to lead a miserable life until their marriage eventually breaks down. When you reduce the struggle of people who want to give legal recognition to their marriage to an attempt at looking ‘normal’ you only come off as condescending. Can you imagine living with someone for 50 years and then seeing the estate of your partner disappear into the hands of some distant cousin, all because the state would not recognise your relationship?
The argument that the couple should not be allowed to adopt children because they are somehow ‘not normal’ is difficult to sustain, because what you perceive to be ‘normal’ couples are just as likely to be fraught with a perversion that could harm the children. That is unless you define the couple as perverted by its very nature, which I think you do.]
@ Corinne Vella
Perhaps I didn’t explain my point clearly enough…
I will not stand in the way of anyone marrying anything. What anyone does is his/her own business BUT I don’t have to approve of all choices people make. Live and let live, sort of thing. However, bear in mind that some things, although acceptable to a minority, may not be acceptable to the population at large.
EXAMPLE:
a group of 10 ppl discussing how to spend a saturday afternoon out. 2 like football and 8 like the countryside.
there are 3 ways to resolve this without a compromise being reached:
A everybody watches football (very unfair)
B everybody goes to the country side (unfair but less so than A)
C the group splits (nonsensical if the group is to remain as one)
Democratic societies are based on option B. It is unfortunate that the football lovers will probably end up going to the country side. But it’s a price they have to pay in order to not split the group.
Your objection to the comparisons between the various unusual practices mentioned is purely subjective. It’s where you draw your line. Others can take more and others less. Whose standard should we apply? To create the smallest number of unhappy people we’ll have to choose the limit as established by the largest number of people.
[Moderator – What a miserable comparison. The example you gave consists of events that are mutually exclusive, meaning that one event cannot occur at the same time as another event. You cannot simultaneously be watching football and walking in the countryside. Marriages are the opposite: they are mutually inclusive events, which means that the occurrence of one does not preclude the occurrence of the other. Not only that, but in this case the happiness of the minority is not mutually exclusive to the happiness of the majority: they’ll go ahead and get married, and you’ll never even notice. There is no logical way that any other person’s marriage can have an overarching effect on your life, and please stop trying to use logic to argue emotion.]
@ John Schembri
You picked a good starting point in asking for a definition of marriage, and the moderator gave you his/her opinion – which many will see as valid. And why not? BUT can we all have our opinion or do we have to accept an arbitrary definition of marriage?
The other question is: which definition of marriage has the best “scientific” value? If my opinion is far from the “standard” definition of marriage should it still be considered valid? You may argue that I have the right to be wrong. But what good will it do me unless it makes me review my opinion?
[Moderator – Marriage is a contract that gives legal recognition to a relationship – that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. The law is the law.]
@ Caphenni
You argue that
“Wanting to be married to two lovers, although plausible, and although I have no concerns with it, cannot be put on the save level as gay marriage as an argument against it.”
Why “cannot”? who says it’s not equally valid? Isn’t it just another expression of a sexual preference? Why is a gay marriage OK and a menage-a-trois not? Or is that where you draw your line? (MInd you, bigamy is illegal too)
[Moderator – If a menage-a-trois is your sexual preference, no one is stopping you from having one. But marriage is not an expression of sexuality – it is a legal status, and the law should not recognise sexuality.]
@ moderator
Of course it won’t affect my life – as long as i’m not forced to do it.
I don’t see what you’re getting at.
[Moderator – Of course you won’t. You clearly can’t understand logic.]
@Zizzu
Being gay is not just a sexual preference. It is not a kink. It is not a fetish.
Below are some links to a funny and intelligent approach to the debate of gay marriage that I think will stimulate this discussion further:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=110195&title=gay-marriage-ban
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=127075&title=bill-bennet-pt.-2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156320&title=mass.-hysteria
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=112394&title=gay-marriage
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=130444&title=gay-marriage-stand-up
It seems that the argument has drifted towards gay marriages and their legitimacy. Well I believe that this is irrelevant to the original argument. That is, does the State recognise its own documents? If the State deems it Ok to change a persons gender on his/hers birth certificate, why does the same State refuse to acknowledge the consequences of that change? But talking about gay marriages in Malta now is really rendering a disservice to the local gay community who, by means of wise tactics keeping a low profile have won a considerable amount of acceptance which one could only dream of like 10 years ago.
[Moderator – What is the gay community?]
Here’s an interesting one.
A Mosta Mayor refuses to conduct givil marriages on moral grounds, a registrar is afraid that marrying a transgender person would ‘allow’ gay mariages through the back door (pun intended),and Greek mayor says stuff all this nonsense, i’m marrying them anyway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7432949.stm
I know whose side i’m on!
@ Caphenni
being gay, as you say, is largely a state of mind. In the vast majority of cases the person has no choice. I mentioned kinks and fetishes because as you may be aware, transexuals, transvestites and intersexuality all play significant roles in the gay debate, yet in popular culture they are classified as “fetishes” – with total disregard for the person having the condition (in the case of intersexuality) or the particular psychological state (transexuals and transvestites).
At the moment I cannot look at the links you suggested, however I will do so as soon as I can.
Isn’t it clever to be ‘logical’ through illogical means??!!
However I do read your positive aspects in your negative postings!
NB; The above might be too heavy for weak minds.
Peter Muscat: In which case how can your mind bear the weight?
Corinne : The wieght my mind can carry much more then a 1000 of your likes. Be assured!Even the tiniest part of my brains are too much for you to carry.
But of course, you are happy judging yourself in from of a shattered mirror!
Just to remind you that “One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.”
And from Japan I bring you a word of advice:”Do not follow the ideas of others, but learn to listen to the voice within yourself. Your body and mind will become clear and you will realize the unity of all things.”
Try!
Read what she has to say in all this:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080604/local/i-am-a-woman