Letters like Joe Zammit’s, on the other hand are as far from tedious as you can get. Inexplicable, terribly unkind and impossibly close-minded, yes. Tedious, never.
Mr Zammit has every right to oppose so-called ‘gay marriage’ I suppose. I’m using bunny ears because I really dislike this whole labelling thing. Can’t we just talk of marriage, full-stop? Labels belong on soup cans and designer jeans, not on human relationships.
But back to the letter at hand. At first glance it’s just another self-righteous rant, the kind that is usually easy to ignore. Until you hit on the third paragraph.
“Two men or two women can never make a marriage because between them there can never be love but only lust. Love and lust are not the same. Love comes from God, unites the couple and draws them to him; lust comes from the devil, separates the couple from God and draws them to hell.”
Hardly the most charitable of sentiments. Unless I really got hold of the wrong end of the stick here, Mr Zammit has arbitrarily decided that only heterosexual people are capable of higher sentiments like love.
Is it just me or is the gentleman (I use the word in its loosest sense) practically consigning homosexual people to the equivalent of a lesser caste?
In the name of freedom of expression and democracy I can accept a lot of things. I can accept that Mr Zammit publicly disagrees with the legalisation of same-sex unions. I can even accept that he refers to them as ‘pseudo marriages’ – what’s in a name, after all?
But how can I, or anyone who holds civilised living and basic kindness dear, accept Mr Zammit’s arbitrary decision that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his sexual orientation is incapable of love?
It is moments like these that inspire copious face-palming and an ardent (but culpable) desire to depart from Voltaire’s teachings. I find it extremely difficult to defend Mr Zammit’s right to publicly state this kind of balderdash.
But then, that would pretty much take me down to his level so maybe it’s best to close the debate here.