The Maltese Herald is an Australian Maltese community newspaper. One of its regular contributors is Paul Calleja, who lives in the state of Western Australia. In early 2011 Paul published a rather nasty anti-gay/lesbian article which I responded to. In July of this year he published another article which focused exclusively on his opposition to same-sex marriage. Again I wrote in challenging his retrograde views. Below is the exchange of letters between Paul and myself.
***
Paul Calleja, The Maltese Herald 10/07/12
Dear Sir,
There are two indisputable realities in the debate about gay marriage.
The first is that, the homosexual lobby attempts to promote its campaign for so-called “gay marriage” as a justice issue when they are fully aware it is not. Australian legislation now allows same-sex couples equal access to adoption procedures and in vitro fertilization. In addition, they gave same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples in such areas as transfer of property, medical treatment, superannuation and inheritance upon the death of a partner. If the homosexual lobby claims that they receive less than heterosexual couples they should identify the service they are referring to. A blanket claim of injustice or prejudice is simply, dishonest.
The second reality is that, the true intent of the homosexual campaign is to change the definition of marriage and thereby make so-called “gay marriage” synonymous with that between members of the opposite sex, which clearly it is not. One has the capacity to produce offspring and the other simply does not. Nature deems it this way in both cases. So they cannot, with any level of truthfulness, be considered to be synonymous just as homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are not considered synonymous. It follows therefore, that legal union between same-sex couples should not be referred to as marriage, because this would be dishonest and also inaccurate.
***
Michael Schembri The Maltese Herald 24/07/12
Dear Editor,
I wish to reply to Paul Calleja’s letter in the TMH 10/07/12.
This is the second time, to my knowledge, that Paul has demonstrated his anti-gay sentiments in this paper. I struggle to understand the reason for this irrational hostility towards us.
I have lived with my male partner for close on 16 years. Personally I am not dying to get married. It simply is not something I care for. It is ironic that I find myself having to defend same sex marriage, but I feel obliged to given this reactionary statement in a public forum.
There is good reason why there should be full separation between Church and State. If the Church chooses to define the ‘sanctity’ of marriage as one between men and women, I’ll leave that struggle to Catholic homosexuals. However as far as the State is concerned, yes, I do expect absolutely no discrimination. So if marriage is available to Paul it should be available to all other adults. Marriage is not defined by the ability to have offspring; if it were then it should be denied to those heterosexuals who get married with no intention of having children. And it is legal for women past childbearing age to get married, as it is for couples who are unable to have children. On the other hand it is sheer ignorance to think that gay men and lesbians cannot have children (through artificial insemination, previous relationships, adoption etc.)
Appealing to Nature is not very wise. Do other animals sign a marriage contract to be recognised by society?
And it’s not as if so many heterosexual marriages do not fall apart.
I fail to understand what Paul stands to loose were same sex marriage to be recognised by the State. Is anyone challenging his marriage? So why does he not get on with his life and stop trying to impose his morals on us?
***
Paul Calleja, The Maltese Herald 07/08/12
Dear Sir,
I thank Michael Schembri for his measured and honest response (TMH 24 July) to my earlier views on so called ‘gay marriage’. However, Michael seems to have missed my two main assertions.
The first was the gay marriage debate is not a justice issue because legislation already exists to protect economic and legal interests of homosexual couples to the same extent as heterosexual couples, be they married or de facto. The ‘justice’ slant of this debate is a fabrication of the pro gay lobby to exploit the sympathy sentiments of the Australian community. My letter was intended to alert the readers to this dishonest political ploy. Regrettably, Michael made no reference to this assertion in his response and neither did any readers of the West Australian newspaper after my letter was published as the editor’s lead letter.
My second assertion was that the legal union of a same sex couple is different from an opposite sexed couple and I gave reasons for that belief. I never claimed opposition to same sex legal union but simply asserted that the union should be recognised under a name other than marriage because it was different.
Opponents to this view would accuse me of being pedantic but there is more to the gay lobby wanting to use the term marriage for a same sex union than meets the eye. By referring to both types of legal union with the same name necessarily concedes that the two unions are synonymous – but synonymous they are not. The function of reproduction is one of the principal purposes of marriage. It is not a prerequisite or a mandatory component but it is accepted a fundamental because the survival of the species depends on it. This is not a value judgement but a matter of fact. Hence, as different legal unions each ought to be identified by a different term and anything less than this is dishonest and inaccurate.
The term ‘marriage’ was always allocated to heterosexual couples in all cultures, religious or otherwise, since unions of a male and female were first recognised and sanctioned with ceremony many centuries ago. This may be inconvenient for the pro gay lobby but it is true, and we should always run with the truth because it is a thing that will set us free. Therefore, the gay lobby should end their political humbug and coin their own term to identify a same sex union.
***
Michael Schembri, The Maltese Herald 28/08/12
Dear Editor,
Paul Calleja wrote (TMH 7/08/12) that I did not address part of his argument against same sex marriage. Here is my response to his letter.
Paul separates what he refers to as justice issues from marriage. He claims homosexual couples have equal economic and legal rights as heterosexual couples. Let's put aside that the accuracy of this statement varies from state to state and federally in Australia (and certainly untrue for many countries beyond.)
First off I would point out that these rights were not given to us magnanimously but were struggled for by the gay, lesbian and transgender movement over a period of decades. Paul intimates that there is more to what he calls the gay lobby than meets the eye. Actually, all gay and lesbian organisations I have ever dealt with have been very upfront about their agendas. There is nothing sinister about our 'lobby' (which in fact is made up of a myriad of organisations, many of which do not necessarily agree with each other on every point.)
In any event there is nothing untoward in having a 'lobby.' Ethnic communities do, as do workers, employers, churches and so on.
The second point is that nowadays many heterosexuals choose not to get married. The 'family' in modern times takes many shapes - married couples with children, others married without children, de facto couples, single parents (whether by choice or otherwise), same sex couple and so on - and this is reflected in the legal forms of recognition that they receive from the State. And of course married couples are free to divorce. This means that, in this day and age, marriage is not a must, even for purposes of procreation. It therefore leads us to the conclusion that people choose to get married for any number of reasons. Some believe that it is the proper thing to do if they wish to raise a family. Others - I would suggest most if not all - seek the recognition and legitimacy they believe marriage confers on their relationship. My point here is that, whether Paul likes it or not, the legal and moral links between marriage and procreation have been severed. It is precisely the changes to heterosexual marriage and the laws that regulate it that have now made it logical for same sex couples to also demand the same recognition through marriage, irrespective of whether children are involved in the relationship or not.
I must admit I was flabbergasted that Paul would link marriage to the survival of the species. Not only because, as stated above, many heterosexuals choose to have children out of wedlock, but also because there is no correlation between being gay/lesbian and not having children. A surprising number of homosexuals do have children. Paul can rest assured that our species is not in danger of dying out - unless it is through global warming or other such human-made disasters.
Paul makes a big issue of stating only the facts. But then he claims that marriage was "allocated to heterosexual couples in all culture, religious or otherwise, since unions of a male and a female were first recognised and sanctioned with ceremony many centuries ago." With this claim he demonstrates an ignorance of history and anthropology.
Many non-Western societies have had a range of interesting ways of recognising same sex relationships.
In the West, for thousands of years, marriage was of necessity heterosexual because it was based purely on political and economic reasons. To quote historian Stephanie Coontz, who specialises in the history of the family, marriage was, for centuries, “about sealing political alliances and business deals, gaining well-placed in-laws, making the family workplace more productive through the labor of one's children, and making sure that only legitimate children, born to a parentally sanctioned match, had any claim on the family's property.
Coontz also points out that it was the early Catholic Church which ruled that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability of a couple to procreate. It was only in 1215 that the Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament and it was in 1563 that it began to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage legitimate.
There is a limit to how many historical facts I can cite in a letter. But I suggest that the facts prove the contrary to Paul's uneducated claims, and they therefore reduce his claims to nothing more than prejudice. History supports those who he claims are showing political humbug.
***
As a sideline to this debate another person – P. Borġ - wrote in opposing same sex marriage. This shorter debate will be published in another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment