|
Should homosexual unions be allowed?
Dr Christian Attard is a spokesperson for the Malta Gay Rights Movement
The main concern of those who oppose granting marriage rights to same-sex couples seems to be the preservation of the institution of marriage. It is not uncommon to hear them make apocalyptic predictions about the demise of the traditional family and of society as we know it should our country progress in that direction. Yet I still have to come across any of them substantiating their claims. Do they seriously expect us to believe that husbands will start leaving their wives for other men, or vice-versa, should marriage be opened up to same-sex couples? The causes of family breakdowns are alas much more real: financial pressures, abuse and lack of commitment to mention a few.
The truth is that marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution has been in decline for decades now, much before gays were first granted the right to marry.
Even locally rates of separation are spiraling, this notwithstanding that we’re years away from same-sex marriage being even considered by our political class. The link they draw between the two therefore simply does not exist.
In contrast, it is the present situation that is causing many a family to break down, with individuals suppressing their homosexuality for years because society makes it so hard on them to accept who they are, causing them to enter sham marriages as a result, only to leave their spouses a few years (and sometimes also a few kids) down the line. What we need therefore is not to push people further down the road of shame and secrecy, but to allow them the freedom to be themselves and to organise their private lives accordingly.
Claiming that marriage as an institution has traditionally been construed as a union of one man and one woman and that it has not changed throughout the times is also simply not true. Marriage has changed through the introduction of divorce, laws on equality in marriage between husband and wife and also the abolition of laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Likewise in this case, marriage is evolving to reflect the increased understanding in our societies about the nature of homosexuality.
Objections to same-sex marriage are therefore nothing but thinly-veiled expressions of homophobia, attempts at creating different classes of people and at hindering some of them from living their life according to their nature. The fact that they are often founded on religion does nothing to legitimise them. If we truly live in a free and democratic country, religious constructions of marriage should not even come into the equation. No one is forcing any religion to change its doctrine. But the state has a moral duty to see to it that everyone is treated with dignity and respect.
All of us, no matter who we love, should have the same opportunity to institutionalise our affective relationships and to accede to the rights and obligations that come with marriage. When we accept that, the question whether gays should be allowed to marry becomes superfluous.
Klaus Vella Bardon has written extensively on Christian morality
Society has always tended to be aggressive and unfair to minorities. Homosexuals are no exception and have unfortunately often been the object of ridicule, animosity and discrimination, therefore any debate on homosexuality is bound to be emotionally charged.
It is a sign of civility when society becomes more informed, tolerant and understanding. This has been helped by the advances in medical sciences as society becomes more and more aware of the unbelievable complexity of our genetic make up.
We are more informed, yet due to its controversial nature, the research and objective knowledge regarding the link between one’s genetic make up and sexual orientation is influenced by powerful subjective interests. For instance, outright claims that homosexuality is only genetic, ignore the profound influence of our surroundings and environment, especially in our formative years. Drawing the line between nature and nurture is definitely not a very precise science and to claim otherwise is presumptuous.
In the raging debate on equal rights one has to be very careful what one implies when invoking equality. Gay lobbies are now clamouring for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. However marriage should not be placed on a par with legal partnerships.
By their very nature ‘gay unions’ are intrinsically and fundamentally different to those of married couples. There is much more to marriage than a lifelong and exclusive bond between two people.
It is the primacy of procreation and all it entails that has placed the bond of a heterosexual couple in a privileged position. This in-built law of human nature is timeless and makes the friendship between spouses fundamentally different from other kinds of friendships.
In the institution of marriage, procreation and education of children are intimately linked. Married couples not only have the potential to procreate, but also the obligation to care for their children until some age of adulthood… not only to feed and clothe them, but also to set their feet firmly on a path of moral behaviour.
Ideally, children need the complementarity of the father and mother. It is therefore unjust on their psychological development to deliberately allow children to be raised in a same-sex environment.
The traditional family is the bedrock of a healthy society. In a responsible society, laws are designed to safeguard and promote human relationships as they ought to be.
It is in the interest of the state to guarantee its future viability. Countries that fail to safeguard and promote the welfare of the traditional family are facing the alarming consequences of the breakdown of this time-honoured institution.
The increasing prevalence of broken families, cohabitation, divorce, abortion and the consequent resulting drop in fertility are crippling many countries in the West as they face the intractable problems of inverse demography. An ageing population unable to reproduce itself is doomed.
When legalising ‘same-sex marriage’, society empties the concept of marriage of any meaning and undermines its already weakened pivotal role irreversibly.
|
