Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 11:31 by Ramona Depares
(Published with the author's permission.)
So the Civil Unions Bill will finally grant same-sex couples the rights that should have been taken for granted in the first place, making history by allowing me to write “well done, Mr Government” without any hint of irony.
That’s enough of being flippant and on to the serious aspect of the debate. The bill isn’t perfect but it is certainly a step in the right direction and I, for one, am not going to waste time picking hairs.
I did waste a shameful amount of time going through some of the comments on this website, though. I usually find them quite entertaining – particularly when enjoyed over coffee and a biscuit. This time round they were more infuriating than entertaining, and I almost choked on my chocolate digestive.
For your own amusement, I bring you my top of the pops, complete with pitiful spelling and syntax, in the list of inanities from yesterday.
Sandro Agius – “Marriage from its basic nature is made of one man and one woman.”
Oh really? And pray, which scientific and sociological studies are you quoting? Because from what I remember of my sociology studies, this ‘man+woman=2.5 children’ formula is not exactly the only model that nature has thrown at us – which makes it a tad rich of Mr Agius to presume to decide about this ‘basic nature’ for the rest of us.
Then again, Mr Agius somehow manages to incorporate the Imam and the Labour Party in the rest of his comment, so maybe logic isn’t really his forte.
Joseph Falzon – “Nothing against gays and lesbians. They should be loved and respected by all. BUT NO to gay marriages.”
Does it get more patronising than this “they should be loved”? What does Mr Falzon think “gays and lesbians” are? Our pets? Mr Falzon missed his true calling in life, that of benevolent dictator. You know the sort: hey, I love you so much I think it’d be a good idea to keep you in this gilded cage so you can do exactly what I say.”
C Zammit – “You know gays are not marriage material, that's exclusive to "normal" people...this is incredibly offensive and absurd.”
Not as offensive and absurd as stating that homosexual couples are not “normal”. Whatever “normal” might mean, in a society where domestic strife and abuse of minors are rife. Ah but that’s probably the gay people’s fault, right?
I now reserve a whole paragraph in honour of P.Vincenti, whose efforts to establish himself as the No. 1 crusader for what I consider to be discriminatory legislation really deserve recognition.
“Nobody is against love here. It is not about not allowing people to love. IT is about watering down the meaning of marriage.”
Watering down the meaning of marriage, huh? And how exactly did you decide that marriage between heterosexuals is more meaningful than that between homosexuals? Do you have some sort of emotional/commitment gauge that helps you differentiate between the DNAs of each?
This is followed by another, even more mind-boggling statement – always courtesy of the same gentleman. “It [a homosexual union] can never be the same as mine is natural.”
Mr Vincenti appears to be in need of a dictionary. I’m sure this will come as a disappointment to him, but no, he doesn’t get to decide the meaning of the word ‘natural’. Nature does. And homosexual relationships are, undeniably, part of nature – and not only in humans.
The comments reach a new level of “what the hell” with the following (I only quote the relevant parts, if you want the whole rambling argument go read the original on this website):
“When homosexuals fought so hard to be different in the past, people accepted their difference... Now they want to be considered as equal to heterosexuals... To my mind, they are equal citizens, with equal human rights but their relationship is not equal. It cannot ever be.
Really, his logic is faultless. I may as well give up and go home.