Independent: The Civil Union Bill

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-10-20/opinions/the-civil-union-bill-2935586824/
Sunday, 20 October 2013, 08:35 , by Michael Asciak

The Civil Union Bill has just been published. To tell the truth it has not sprung any surprises at all, as the matter dealt with by the Bill has been discussed for some time now. It basically transfers to a homosexual couple most of the legal rights associated with heterosexual marriage. Today, it is incumbent on a civil society to formally recognise the relationship between a homosexual couple, keeping in mind that they have a right to choose the way in which they want their life to unfold. I however have deep reservations when homosexual lobbies choose to claim equality in areas that are not theirs by nature.

The bill proposed seeks to give homosexual couples equal rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples. Now adoption in itself is a saving situation where a couple seek to alleviate a matter that is already de facto bad in itself. To alleviate a case where for some reason or another, a child has been forcibly abandoned to an institute of care. This why we always say that during adoption considerations, it is the main interests of the adopted child that need to be considered. This is in line with the United Nations Charter for the Rights of Children. It is always a necessary (regular) maxim that the best parents for a child are their own genetic parents. There are of course exceptional cases where this is not the case. In these cases and others where the parents are deceased, children are either given up for adoption or put in an institute. Research has shown, contrary to other academically flawed suggestions put forward in the recent past, that it is not quite the same for a child to be raised by a heterosexual couple as a homosexual couple, all things being equal (familystructurestudies.com). This is also borne out by a simple rational analysis. The best parents always remain the biological parents!

I cannot accept that it is equally in the best interest of the child to be raised by a homosexual couple rather than by a heterosexual couple where there is an extant choice. I accept however that particular contingent situations could justify that a child, in its own best interest, may be adopted by a homosexual couple. It is more likely in the best interest of the child for example, to be raised by a homosexual couple, rather than for the child to be raised in an institute. There are other cases also possible. Children may also be the genetic children of one member of a homosexual couple or there could be some close link between the couple and the child in some form. One must not make the mistake however of confusing contingent cases with necessary or regular cases for adoptions.

What really worries me however are Minister Helena Dalli’s declarations that this Bill is just a first step towards the recognition by the State of homosexual marriages. This would create problems because the nature of marriage specifically fits the differences between the genders. Marriage, by its very nature, can only be contracted by a man and woman. This has nothing to do with homosexual rights at all but it has much to do with the nature of marriage itself. This calls for a physical correspondence during the sexual act and the necessary ability for the couple to procreate and bring about a child genetically derived from both parents. Marriage has nothing to do with the emotions engendered during a homosexual act. If this act becomes detached from body complementarily and procreation and reduced to a simple emotional integer, it loses its specificity and institutional potency. Then it no longer makes any sense for the law on marriage to rigorously maintain fidelity in marriage and it might just as well make bigamy legal. If marriage is only an emotional issue, as many are holding today, then there is no reason why marriage should remain only between two partners rather than three or four or five or more! This might provide greater emotional satisfaction after all, than just a sexual relationship between two people. Besides it is well established, that homosexual partners, especially gay couples, often do not maintain fidelity to the other partner in the course of their relationship, which are often short lived.

Another problem with marriage between homosexuals is that whereas with adoption the situation involves the saving of a particular child from a bleak outcome through no fault of the child or the adoptive parents, with homosexual marriage comes the claim that it is the couple's right to bring children into the world in the name of equality. An equality that can never really exist because of the nature of our species and what is scientifically called for during the regular procreative process. Such a claim of equality would mean that a third or fourth person who donates the gametes is necessary for the process to occur. This would create a situation where children are brought into the world by others rather than their genetic parents, and that the renting of uteruses and sale, even underhand, of gametes with genetic selectivity would become the order of the day. One must keep in mind that children have the right when mature to find out who their genetic parents are and that parents may thus also find out who their genetic children are. I guess that the budget for social services would then balloon exponentially, not helping to keep our budget deficits in line with that of financial directives (tongue in cheek). This would create a hotchpotch of conditions not far from Huxley's Brave New World! I strongly suggest that before we open our mouth to look progressive and modern, we really should stop to think about what exactly we are doing. Vive la difference!