Their own worst enemies
What a shame it is that all homosexual people are represented in the public eye by a crowd of individuals who come across as oddballs and misfits, by men who look like peacocks and women who look like dockers.
All the boring, ordinary homosexual men and women stay home at times like these, wearing their boring, ordinary clothes and going about their boring, ordinary business, dressed and behaving exactly as though they were boring, ordinary heterosexuals.
I surveyed the footage of last night’s gathering outside the Palace, and I couldn’t help thinking that if the aim was to persuade people that gay couples are fit to adopt, then they couldn’t have dispatched a worse set of examples to the front line.
I don’t think there is an adoption agency on earth that would approve Ignatius Farrugia, right there on the barrier, as being fit to adopt, for example.
Ray Calleja? I don’t think so. Cyrus Engerer? Ditto.
There were interviews with a few peacock pairs that didn’t help improve public perception much, either. The thought of them with a baby, a screaming toddler or a wild teenager was a bit much, and you got the impression that there isn’t room for anyone else in that narcissistic twin-set. One male couple even had matching dreadlocks and clothes, and the way they gazed at each other put me in mind not of a loving couple but of Narcissus looking at his own reflection in a pond.
The only one who was good and positive for the lobby’s image was the human rights lawyer Neil Falzon (at least I think it was him), who doesn’t pluck his eyebrows into arcs and who makes sense.
But the tragedy is that this is a cause which has him lumped in with Natius Farrugia, also there on the square.
And here’s the thing: nobody who was interviewed said anything about adoption or how thrilled they are to now be able to adopt children. Their focus was on ‘being equal with those others’.
Felix Busuttil tweeted from Manhattan that he can now propose to his boyfriend. Good luck to them; they’ve been together for years. But do they have room in their lives for a child? No, and they’ve lived too long without one. In any case, at 50+ Busuttil is too old to adopt.
But who cares as long as we’re equal at law if not in biology.
54 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I can’t fathom how men who’ve passed their due by date, classify themselves as good to adopt children.
Is Malta ready for all this?
To me it looks like these people have no idea.
At least Gabi dresses as stylish as Freddie Garrity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So9gS4LGwF8
She’d torture anyone within a mile with a ruddy folk guitar.
Monthly mass in college main hall something to behold, Arani Issa on the violin, Calleja strumming along and Paul Chetcuti SJ directing the assault on pubescent ears.
“nobody who was interviewed said anything about adoption or how thrilled they are to now be able to adopt children. Their focus was on ‘being equal with those others’.”
Is anyone surprised? This is typical MLP strategy. These people do not think with their own minds, they just parrot what the MLP propaganda machine/Super One tells them to repeat. Just have a look of the Facebook pages – they all show the same home page without any form of individual identity.
We observed this occurrence over the years – for example the nauseate repletion of “Partnership”, “evil click”, “movement”, etc, etc. Morons are morons, irrespective whether they are gay or heterosexuals.
Yesterday, I felt very sad when I watched part of the Palace Square video. This sadness was combined with the death of a girl of 15 at Dingli Cliffs, which exposes the state our society is in.
When we seem to be hitting the bottom we find out that we can go even further down.
Children are precious; they are not pets which now seem to have more rights than does an orphaned child ready to be adopted from some third-world country.
Maltese hypocrisy will be institutionalized when our president pays her first visit to Pope Francis who some time ago was saddened with the news of the gay adoption law in our country, which Marie Louise Coleiro Preca will be signing.
Yes, most homosexuals cringe when they see the politically-militant lobbies turning homosexuality into some kind of parody of the opposite sex.
Your average homosexual man still looks like a man and does not attempt to turn himself into a parody of women. Some would argue that it is a case of mocking the opposite sex.
Equally, the average lesbian does not try to imitate and parody a man in military fatigues. That square is full of the odd-balls who give a bad name to the majority.
The whole concept of the excessive and libertine peacock ‘gay culture’ these people embody so well is the reason why one acquaintance of mine found it so hard to come out of the closet, so to speak. He had a decent moral centre which he simply couldn’t reconcile with what he thought gays should act like in the public eye.
Coming out of the closet is something personal, but flaunting your promiscuity n everyone’s face is vulgarity.
Ron the stylist, of Charles and Ron, on Times Talk on the morrow of the Civil Union Law. When asked point blank ‘What difference does this make to you now? ‘His answer ‘ Fil-verita’, ftit li xejn… !’ Which is my argument. Nothing was impossible before the passing of the law which could not have been settled by a mutual authenticated agreement in front of a lawyer. All the euphoria had to do soley with ‘ Now we really can say that we are no different than the rest, and we can now impress our better half by proposing ( surprise surprise after being together for seventeen years Felix. Would it be a yes?).
We used to think:
“If a man is good looking, then he must be gay”
Cyrus and Ignatius completely destroys this long standing myth. Just look at them…or better not.
Yes, where does this idea have its origins? Is it because male homosexuality, with its deep roots in Greek mythology, is said to be a form of self love or narcissism?
I have heard the saying: too much vanity is not becoming of a man.
Mela l-ewwel tispicca iltim jew abbandunat mill-genituri, imbaghad ghax jigik ic-cans li jkollok familja normali bhal haddiehor, issib ruhek addottat minn koppja omosesswali!!. Minn guf ommok sfortunat!
You reminded me another famous couple in Malta, both of them hairdressers. They are not only exhibitionists but ridiculous. Age should be put into consideration before one creates his own image. “Dolce e Gabbana ta’ Malta”? Not a chance.
They don’t give a damn about children; it’s only about status and image. They fought for that, not for rights. Just image. Besides, who would want Nazju as a father?
“The elaborate celebrations held on Monday night at St George’s Square in Valletta cost an estimated €40,000, but neither the Malta Gay Rights Movement, nor the government, has admitted to footing the bill.”
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-04-16/news/questions-arise-on-funding-of-valletta-gay-party-4646076416/
Exhibitionism is far from being a good advertisement, and unfortunately, the LGTB agenda has been driven by exhibitionism and parades that do no credit to their cause of being respected, and not discriminated against, by the society in which they live.
And what a shame that MGRM didn’t at least acknowledge the vote on the Constitutional amendment lodged by the Nationalist Party to ban all kinds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
And its members present in Parliament for the civil unions vote barged out of Parliament precisely while the vote to ban discrimination against them was being taken.
What a shame.
Sections of the revellers were freakish to say the least. I would not be proud to have them as my daddies or mummies.
I just don’t know how the gay community does not realise that it has been used by Joseph Muscat simply to gain more votes. Our prime minister does not care about them or anyone else for that matter.
He combined two independent issues together knowing that the opposition would never vote in favour because of the adoption clause. His plan was not to give the gay community their rights but to make the opposition look bad and lose votes prior to the MEP elections in May.
In doing so he has also violated children’s rights.
I just wish that some people were more intelligent, less gullible and stopped playing into his hands.
I am a gay man myself. I have lived with my partner now for 8 years going in my 9th year. That’s almost since my teens.
Unlike most gay people, we try to act normally not differently from heterosexuals. And I think that is our formula of success, thank God for that.
I couldn’t watch the pitiful scene put on at St. George’s Square. That certainly doesn’t represent us.
I certainly wasn’t waiting for anyone to pass a law so that we can adopt. The way I see it is that if nature doesn’t let us have children then I shouldn’t try to change that. Children needs a maternal and paternal figure.
As well as this, in politics I like to see consistency, principles and vision.
I definitely fit in the Nationalist Party, and I’m really proud of it.
Thank you for your testimony. Finally, a true gentleman.
Yes, I wrote a comment in support of the vast majority of homosexuals above. If heterosexuals were represented by a mad bunch like this and indeed became the symbol of heterosexuality, I too would be embarrassed to say I was heterosexual.
Farrugia, is it possible that this whole same-sex marriage hype, at a time when marriage between opposite-sex couple is decreasing, is more about a sense of destroy what you cannot have yourself? Is this a case of getting the monotheist religions back for past wrongs?
The way I see it is that, seeing as a same-sex couple is incapable of having children which carry the DNA of both partners, effectively this is just a case of dangerous social engineering to the detriment of the child, who, of course, will not have a link to one whole side of her genealogy.
So where exactly does Mario Farrugia Borg stand on this issue? Homosexuality is BANNED under Islamic Law.
Oh but Gabi Calleja can do without the opposition, now that she’s got her squadristi.
I presume we’ll get a Xarabank in the future with Natius lamenting discrimination at not being accepted to raise some Philippine orphan. Footage from the Catholic orphanage et al. Alison Bezzina, (ever the undecided moaner) is determined to have our ministry of foreign affairs see to it.
And when doesn’t work onto state sanctioned IVF then.
Anything the opposition did to establish consensus and formalise within the constitution any role her ‘followers’ would like for themselves in this country contradicting her design.
Fancy that, settling for an event glorifying love and letting Claudette Pace off, lest it disturbs Muscat’s moment of glory. Why, he grabbed the microphone to put in a soundbite at Helena Dalli’s expense, then got Deborah Schembri to sit on ‘his’ bill and design for the Malta he wants.
A design I’m sure most gays refuse to wear. Unless the FKNK is right.
Duh.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-04-16/news/questions-arise-on-funding-of-valletta-gay-party-4646076416/
How’s that for working together for their baby?
‘….The elaborate celebrations held on Monday night at St George’s Square in Valletta cost an estimated €40,000, but neither the Malta Gay Rights Movement, nor the government, has admitted to footing the bill….’
Hilarious, of course not Calleja, that bill’s on me.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-04-14/opinions/holy-mess-in-the-south-4620877825/
Green politican of 2014.
I agree. The gay people I know are certainly very different to the ones that always turn up for these celebrations, and lead lives that are very ordinary and similar to mine.
For them I was glad for the unions bill but I have to say that they are not too crazy about the adoption part of the law either. They know their lives are more difficult and complicated than normal and wouldn’t wish that kind of hassle on a child.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGha10AIwCE
and this came from the mouth of who passed the law this week
You are so right.
I admire Alessandro Cecchi Paone, a confirmed homosexual, for his intelligence and intellect.
I could name so many others whom I judge from how interesting they would be to hold a conversation with and since it doesn’t bother me their sexual orientation does not come into the equation at all.
On the other hand I wouldn’t be caught dead with any of those freaks who went wild in Pjazza San Gorg on Monday let alone ever dream of allowing them to adopt a child.
http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/spettacolo/2010/04/30/alessandro_cecchi_paone_vita_per_la_scienza.html
http://moonbattery.com/?p=28598
Had Joseph Muscat’s parents been two men would he have been Prime Minister today or would his chances have been dashed by the trauma?
Although not all people who experience a potentially traumatic event will actually become psychologically traumatized the fact that some might do, will diminish this groups chances for full promise rendering them unequal to others.
So much for equality.
Id-dizgrazzja hi li kull koppja gay se jkollha dritt taddotta. Jekk koppja ma tghaddix mit-‘test’ biex taddotta, malajr jifthu kawza l-qorti fuq diskriminazzjoni ghax suppost kullhadd ugwali.
So now that everybody is equal regarding adoption. When it comes to the children themselves how could one say that he was fair, when giving one child to be adopted by a man and a women and another adopted by two men. Nobody in his right senses would say that both children were treated fairly. A child needs a mother and a father.
Really Daphne the celebrations were not about adoption but mainly about giving equal rights to same-sex couples. You seem to constantly miss the point that what civil union means to gay couples is the right to file joint tax returns, to move freely beyond borders without visa issues, to be next of kin in cases of hospitalization of one partner, and a long list of benefits straight couples take for granted in their basic lifestyle.
[Daphne – I don’t miss the point at all. On the contrary, I am utterly fascinated by your (that’s a general ‘your’) naive or uncomprehending belief that marriage isn’t too high a price to pay for the wonders of filing joint tax returns, moving without visa issues or being able to visit somebody in hospital which is never an issue anyway. Do you even understand what marriage is? Clearly not.]
I agree with you that the types in the square seem unlikely to be dedicated parents but rest assured that the majority of those in the square are not intending to adopt a child.
I know many of them so I know what I am saying. Let’s not turn this important move for Malta into some tabloid-like discussion that seems only intent undermine the credit due to this government. Like you I doubt many of this government’s actions but they did get this one right.
I certainly understand marriage Daphne. I highlighted the “mundane” benefits of marriage because they are stuff people like you take for granted but which gay people could not.
[Daphne – That’s my point exactly. Those who aren’t married assume that marriage is a blissful state in which everything can be taken for granted, unlike living together without being married. In fact, those who take anything for granted are doomed.]
Imagine Daphne that you are unable to live for more than three months with your lover because he has to leave the country as a tourist or else pretend to be studying English in Malta. You will argue that these are an absolute minority of cases. But is not equality to minorities what this is all about? Please answer.
[Daphne – Love, regardless of what some people will say, is a choice. People like to deny it, but we all use filters when choosing a mate: wrong social background, wrong educational background, nothing in common, no common language, no shared sense of humour, too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, too damned ugly, hate the hair, hate the dress sense, wrong culture, wrong religion, wrong ethnic type face. Add another filter: wrong passport. Most people do it automatically. It’s not absolutely essential to scrape the bottom of the barrel when looking for a mate. Bear in mind that Romeo and Juliet were 14 or 15. Ten years later on and they’d have said, ‘Screw this’ and found somebody more suitable.]
Haha I must admit you made me laugh. My first reaction was “oh know she really doesn’t get it” and “I’m gonna give up” with your argument that gay people don’t need to get married and people take too many things for granted etc.. But then your “filter” explanation was really amusing. No sarcasm intended. I have a couple friends who are also very pragmatic about choosing their mate. They may not say exactly that Love is a “choice” but they would turn their back on any nice “bait” (dare I use that word) if the passport is wrong. Then there are those ‘sad’ souls who left Malta to live with their mate in a country that treats gays and straights as complete equals in every way. You have to be in their shoes to really know the feeling of freedom and value and respect which is so exhilarating in a country that is open minded. I do not think you will completely understand this as well as a gay person will. I must also point out that it is really unfair and ignorant to assume that those festive gays in the parliament square are a good example of gay people in general. It is like saying that the religious extremists at the birgu feast who shout private ‘poems’ to statues in a crazy mantra-like manner are emblematic of the Maltese people.
[Daphne – If you’re the sort of person who thinks that marriage is there to allow you to keep your ‘nice bait’ in the country with you, you really have a lot of growing up to do, and you also give weight to the arguments of those who say that same-sex marriage debases marriage itself. The exhilarating feeling of freedom you describe has nothing to do with acceptance of homosexuality; it is what everybody who grew up in a highly invasive small society experiences as truly novel when living in a big place where nobody knows him, his parents and his extended family. Believe me when I tell you that even Maltese heterosexuals feel that way.]
You found your husband from a pool of say 40000 unmarried men in Malta at the time of your dating. A gay guy would have a pool of maybe 4000 gay men to choose from. Now presuming the gay guy doesn’t date all of them (which is impossible) as much as you did not date 40000 men, but the figures show how difficult it is for a gay guy to find his match in Malta. How dare anyone force him to choose his mate by passport….true love and a real working marriage can truly be BLISSFULL.
[Daphne – Compare like with like. Young heterosexuals mate (I use the word in its pure biological meaning). Young homosexuals don’t. The criteria used by young heterosexuals for finding a mate are ENTIRELY different to those used by young homosexuals for finding somebody to pair up with. Not only is it extremely difficult for heterosexuals to find a lasting mate, as the large number of failed marriages attests, but the consequences of failure are catastrophic because the purpose of mating is to build a family unit, which then collapses. You can in no way compare this to same-sex marriage for the purpose of ‘rights’. ‘True love and a real working marriage can be truly blissful’ – there speaks somebody who has never experienced either.]
Really Daphne, sometimes you are great but at other times you just make me laugh out loud. So love is a choice? So you just choose to start and stop loving someone, just like that? So if you ‘chose’ to, you could just start loving, for example, Alfred Sant or Erin Tanti? Hallina Daphne.
[Daphne – You are being deliberately obtuse. I did not mean that you can just decide to love somebody or not to love them, but that everybody deploys a massive system of conscious and unconscious filters when selecting a mate. It is only after those massive filters have been deployed, whether we are aware of it or not, that our mind ‘allows us’ to fall in love. The reason why Roman Abramovitch hasn’t fallen in love with a short, fat, ugly, alcoholic tramp is not because he hasn’t yet met the right one. Would women be more likely to fall in love with Roman Abramovitch if he was an office clerk, even if he looked exactly the same? No. Less likely, then? Yes. When a single white woman walks into a party, who does she size up first – the black men, the Caucasian men, or the Asian men? The Causasian men, even if she claims otherwise. Black women will size up the black men first. Asian men will size up the Asian women. There are exceptions, but they’re the ones who prove the rule.
The other hole in your argument is that not everyone who falls in love finds it imperative or even wise to marry, and most people think it insane to marry within just a few months of meeting somebody or falling in love with them. In other words, straight people don’t marry for reasons of bare expediency, i.e. simply so that the person they ‘love’ can live in Malta. For all but the tiniest minority of heterosexual people, marriage is not a way of acquiring a passport or visa. it is a life plan.]
This is my final reply as it seems this is going nowhere. (If I did not enjoy 90% of your articles I wouldn’t be bothering which such an obstinate narrow mind where homosexuality is concerned).
[Daphne – I am one of the last people on earth who can be called narrow-minded about homosexuality, Rob. Try asking people who actually know me. In my experience, some of the most narrow-minded people are homosexual men from a certain type of background, largely because their values are, ironically, very much those of their ‘rahlija’ mothers. The real reason homosexual men from a Maltese working-class background are so very insufferable, narrow-minded and boringly ignorant is not because they are homosexual but because they are typical of their uneducated and barely civilised background. I have never cared whether a person is gay or straight (people who know me will tell you that). I don’t even care if they are a man or a woman. But if they are boring, rude, ignorant or uninformed, that’s a different matter.]
1) “there speaks somebody who has never experienced either.”
How do you know what I have experienced? Maybe I’m gay, maybe I am married, maybe I am even the famous singer called Renato (joking! Yikes!)
[Daphne – I can tell by your dreamy idealism and the way you express yourself. People with decades of experience of love, long relationships, raising a family and marriage are matter of fact in their expression and don’t speak like they’re writing the lyrics for a pop song.]
2) if you feel most marriages are not so blissful as they should be maybe you should advise people to stop filtering their mates by too many factors, especially by passport, and simply believe in “unconditional love”.
[Daphne – There you go. You are confusing physical passion and initial attraction with love again, and you fail to understand that the only unconditional love on the planet is the love of a parent for a child, and sometimes not even that. All other forms of love come with conditions very much attached, to a varying degree.]
I rest my case. (And now if you’re not afraid of challenges you will publish my reply :)
[Daphne – I have nothing to be afraid of, Rob. People who have lived much longer than you have, and who have had more varied lives, will tend to know from experience and long observation things that you will eventually discover yourself. I too was absurdly cocky at 20.]
I think this “gay love, therefore gay marriage” idea is a load of bollocks.
There, I’ve said it, and may the LGBT steamroller crush me now.
Marriage isn’t an officialisation of love. It’s a social contract. I’ve gone hoarse trying to explain how the pros and the antis have both got it spectacularly wrong. But I don’t expect any better from opinion leaders and politicians who know no history.
The social contract was created when the family unit was created. The family unit was based on procreation.
Love, if it existed at all, was incidental to the whole arrangement.
But the LGBT lobby, helped along by the stupid heterosexuals, including the Bible-thumpers, think it’s all about ‘love’. So they warble on about how wonderful it is to finally be able to marry their gay lover. As if marriage, gay or straight, does anything to love. As if love needed marriage to affirm itself.
I’ve had it up to here with the syrupy statements and the Mills & Boon logic. They say there is too much sugar in our diet. I say there is too much sugar in our thoughts. Seven spoonfuls of it in each Disney-like LGBT soundbite and each Archbishop’s riposte.
Pajjiz matur? My office-chair benumbed arse.
Open
Queerblog.it
Domenico Dolce e Stefano Gabbana sono un esempio per i gay italiani?
Scritto da: giovanni molaschi – domenica 20 giugno 2010
15
Annunci Yahoo!
Fashion | accademiadellusso.com
http://www.accademiadellusso.com Frequenta la Scuola di Moda di Accademia del Lusso. Info ora
Oggi, come anticipato anche dai colleghi di 02blog.it, a Milano gli stilisti Domenico Dolce e Stefano Gabbana festeggeranno la prima sfilata fatta insieme 20 anni fa. In questi giorni dell’evento, e della mostra organizzata per l’occasione, si è scritto spesso.
Qualcuno l’ha fatto ricordando il lavoro fatto dalla coppia. Altri, invece, si sono concentrati sull’evasione fiscale che i due avrebbero fatto ai danni dello stesso. Noi, oggi, vogliamo provare a capire con voi se i due omosessuali dichiarati rappresentino per la comunità GLBTQ italiana un esempio da emulare o un’eccezione che, in quanto tale, non ha senso replicare.
In un’intervista rilasciata per Repubblica, a Laura Laurenzi, Stefano Gabbana sull’argomento dichiarò:
“Io sono stato sposato per vent’anni e non ho mai firmato nessun contratto. Non occorre secondo me firmare un contratto per essere fedeli. Non occorre andare in comune, scambiarsi gli anelli.
Sì, se ti piace fare una grande festa, falla, ma il matrimonio gay è una sorta di caricatura. E anche il matrimonio tradizionale, a ben vedere, è una caricatura. Per come la vedo io l’impegno dovrebbe essere per tutta la vita, ma poi non è mai o quasi mai così.
Ci si lascia con una tale disinvoltura, con tanta di quella superficialità. Io ho di fronte ai miei occhi l’esempio dei miei genitori, che sono sposati da 55 anni. Hanno sicuramente attraversato dei momenti difficili, ma hanno resistito. Se la palestra di vita è la famiglia, il loro è stato un esempio fantastico…”
Parlando poi del desiderio di diventare padre lo stilista, con una certa onestà intellettuale, ha ammesso di non essere pronto all’adozione né alla crescita di un figlio senza l’ausilio di una figura femminile.
“Io sono contrario al fatto che un bambino cresca con due genitori gay. Un bambino ha bisogno di un padre e di una madre. Io non posso pensare alla mia infanzia senza mia madre. E ritengo che sia crudele togliere a una madre il proprio bambino”.
If only all those on Palace Square were all like Vanni Xuereb:
http://www.sundaycircle.com/2014/04/civil-unions-a-step-forward-for-malta-and-its-people/
Prosi, Vanni.
Somebody should have the courage to ask Muscat if he would be ready to have his young girls brought up with a couple of those looneys who were organised by the PL in Valletta for support.
Most gay people I know would not want to be seen dead in that grotesque show the other day or at some grotesque gay pride parade. They just get on with their lives as all other ordinary men and women and that’s that.The shenanigans at St George Square do a disservice to gay people in general.
Kindly note that not all gay people out there are fit to adopt, same as not all heterosexual are fit to adopt.
For example myself, I was thrilled last Monday when the law passed as I am gay and I also have a dream to get married to my prince charming. But I never have in mind to have any kids of my own, running in my house 24/7.
So NO, this bill was not all about adoption. It was the society that turned it all about adoption.
But also keep in mind that there are same-sex partners that are more fit than some heterosexual couples that you see on a daily basis in our street to care for a child.
It wasn’t “society” that turned it into an adoption circus, it was Joseph Muscat wanting to emerge with an upper hand in PR stakes.
Simon Busuttil asked repeatedly for the two issues of civil unions and gay adoption to be separated.
It wasn’t in Joseph Muscat’s interests to listen.
Thanks Tabatha, one would think these people have some problem processing and registering information.
Perhaps Muscat’s plan was the division of ‘society’ into gays and the rest all along.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrOdbg2hSWQ
If the American ambassador is so keen on human rights in Malta, why did she not speak out against the new legislative provisions by the Education Minister? It gives the Minister of Education sweeping powers to collect information on individuals in the education system, well beyond the requirements for research.
It is ironic that one small group of people celebrate a supposed acquisition of a right whereas at the same time the right to privacy is bring infringed upon.
I for one wouldn’t want to have a say in deciding which child to goes to who.
If one has to decide the future of two children who are up for adoption, it would be very difficult to decide which child goes with a couple of men and who goes with a heterosexual couple.
Every child needs a mother and a father, so nobody in his right senses agrees that you would have treated both children fairly.
Most of the people who were there last Monday are not a very good example of gay people in Malta. They make it seem that being gay is being loud, crass, vulgar and attention-seeking.
It would be very interesting to know the Maltese reaction to the introduction of polygamy. Sometimes I feel that these people fight for their “right” only to the point it interests them.
But if a man and a man, or a woman and a woman have a right to marriage because they love each other, why not 1 man and 2-3 women, or 1 woman and 3-4 men.
If these love each other and are consenting adults, then it is their right. “We have to realize that their are many forms of relationships and marriage, and not just the traditional” should also apply here.
Also, we have no scientific evidence to prove that a man and 3 woman can’t raise a child well. On the contrary we believe the children will be more lucky because there will be more love. If four some reason this family can’t have their own children, they also should be able to adopt.
In fact we already have a number of families who have a similar set-up, with multiple fathers and mothers, and nobody seems to be complaining.
So I was reading this blog post and remembered this particular blog entry from some time ago:
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/07/beige-taupe-and-navy-blue-for-maltas-gay-pride-parade/
In this blog entry you bemoaned how boring and dull those attending the pride parade were, and how this is probably an effort to show everyone that, look, I could be you!
Now that gay people have thrown a celebration in palace square, they are their own worst enemies, just because of the way they physically look or by the way they are dressed – which to me seemed just as cheerful as, say, a NYE celebration in Germany, when people actually celebrate and act silly, wear hats, possibly wigs and light fireworks in their back garden.
Whatever we do, we are criticised – even though we do not seek to control or criticise others – which is precisely because we know what it feels like.
Just out of curiosity though, what is your opinion of two women adopting a child? You seem to focus on men but ignore female couples.
[Daphne – I wrote about it a few days ago: two mothers are a damn sight better than none. Nobody needs two fathers. Everybody needs at least one mother. The argument that some mothers are hopeless and neglectful and that some are actually dangerous is a non sequitur. People with bad mothers need mothers too: the fact that they have to cope or have had to cope with a lousy one does not mean that others can get by with none and survive intact. In fact, they can’t.]
There is no such thing as two mothers or two fathers, but there can be two parents. It also provides for security, to have two people in the care of a child. We forget how many children are in the care of aunts, nannas, institutions, that not all have fathers and mothers and many grow up without one or the other – and turn out fine in the end, even though things are not perfect. And some don’t turn out fine, because life is not fair and not everyone will have a dad, mum and a white picket fence. So my point here is, no, children don’t have a right to a mother and a father. If they don’t exist, they just don’t exist, and you cannot wave a magic wand over your ‘bill of rights for natural parents’ and have them magically appear before you – as so many children in homes know.
Even though there are many (family replacement) arrangements in place, including those sad institutions that everyone praises ‘ghax ghandhom anki psikologi u social workers, taaaa!’, where religious indoctrination is probably the order of the day, and even though we make the perfect uncles and aunts because we have time and money on our hands and like children (well…not all do…I find them annoying and useless, except for paying taxes in future and paying my pension), many people just cannot bring it upon ourselves to imagine a boy being brought up by two men or two women, because secretly they despise gays and don’t want the children to become gay, too. That’s what it’s all about. I have no doubt that the last thing a gay couple would want to do is impose an orientation on them or to infuence them. They themselves know what it’s like to grow up in an environment where their orientation is alien and where a different orientation is expected (and maybe even encouraged and forced), and wouldn’t wish it on their child.
Nobody needs two fathers, you say. And yet, there are sooooo many children in need of homes in the world, and I know some gay men – couples – who would make excellent fathers and role models for their adopted children. Yes, there are men who would have loved to have children of their own and raise them, it’s not just a maternal instinct to have children. They want to pass on their love of adventure, travel, the outdoors, and life, and not necessarily by dressing them up in drag, introducing them to Eurovision and telling them that women are jaq. The idea that men who want children are effeminate-type gays or that this is not a characteristic of a man is wrong. The days of men ‘spreading their genes and running off’ are long gone.
What children need are good, honest people to care for them, no matter what their sex, orientation, religion or skin colour may be. Evidence supports this.
What they also need is a society of straight people that doesn’t bully, humiliate and treat the child differently because their parents are gay. Maybe this was Simon Busuttil’s point that ‘society isn’t ready’.
However, it is most unfair for straight people to deny a child the possibility of finding a loving home on the grounds that other straight people are not ready for this, and that they might upset the child with their actions because…THEY are not ready for this.
Daphne, rest assured that the few hundreds people in St George’s Square last Monday were not in anyway representing the majority of the gay and lesbian population of Malta.
I have been in a monogamous relationship for almost 32 years, and yes had we, when me and my partner were younger, had the opportunity to adopt children as a couple we would have done so.
Being gay is not all about being effeminate, flamboyant, limp-wristed, have a swishy walk and talk with a lisp like most of the gay men at St George’s Square on Monday.
Sexual orientation towards members of one’s own sex does not relate to what is to be necessarily masculine, or feminine behaviour, such as dressing, speaking or gesturing like a member of the opposite sex like sissies for men and butch dykes for women. Although, stereotypes do exist of course.
God forbid if I were to be represented by someone like Natius and the like. The same can be said for the gay pride parades held in most capital cities around the world, which make my face go red every time I watch any of them on the news.
If Alfred Kinsey’s theory is anything to go by, the Maltese lesbian and gay population should be around the 40,000 mark. Last Monday not all attending the party were gay or lesbian even though quite a few who were gay, unfortunately are somewhat involved in the local media and they do not give a very good image to the Maltese gay population.