Daphne seems to have read my mind in her article today. Last night I watched the first episode of Xarabank for the new season – yep, might sound a sad way to spend a Saturday night but stomach bugs can be quite sadistic bastards. Anyways – the topic for the show was Divorce and we had the all the usual suspects on the panel. There was a devious Fr Gouder, a pathetic politician from Parliament and a reasonable quasi-parliamentarian. I’d love to know what qualifications the “Family Therapist” really has but the way he spoke sounded as unscientific as can be.
It is hard to comment on the show with hindsight and the main reason that this is so is that all the anger welled up in my throat is hard to express in an orderly fashion. I just have to think of that pathetic (yes second time I used the word) 20 year old girl who stood up proudly to tell Malta’s largest television audience that she is saving herself for after marriage and right now spends her evenings saying the rosary every day. The mad look of fanaticism was there for all to see… as it was in the pathetic couple of baldy and redhead who stood up to remind the world of non-believers that even atheists must abode by God’s recommendations and therefore they are punished to live in a divorce free society for ever more. They must learn to “Become One Body” which must be some jesus-freak euphemism for “having sex”.
What a pathetic excuse for a debate. There was very little attempt to distinguish the sacred from the profane, the lay from the dogmatic, the legal from the papal bull. The more you watched the more you sank into that depressed feeling that Gift for Life is not a label for a few fanatic mercenaries of the twenty first century but rather an all-engulfing movement. Did Peppi hand-pick all these freaks for his audience or is it a real sample of society? Does Marlene Pullicino eat communists for breakfast? Who the flying flip voted to get her into parliament?
And by the way. Basing myself solely on the Vox Pop with the MP’s, if electing the next government were solely based on the introduction of divorce I would be putting my number one next to a Labour candidate. The nationalist MP’s pussyfooted around the issue like there is no tomorrow. Why can’t we have 67 Herrera’s who, granted, cannot start an article without plagiarising, but at least got down to the simple reasoning: I am against divorce but I cannot use my vote to oppress other people who are in favour (or need it). Cue back to Fr Gouder whose opinion on the matter should count as much as that of Xummiemu insofar as civil marriage and its dissolution is concerned. Well done to Georg for throwing back the stick of interdett and dnub mejjet. Let’s expose this ridiculous thinking for what it is.
Once again. Will some one please tell me who voted Marlene Pullicino into Parliament? And (this is a rhetorical question) who the flip was she married to to have made the idea of a second marriage such anathema for her?
As I said. I am seething and unable to see straight even 24 hours after watching the stream. Lord make me an instrument of your peace. Where there are such thickheads give me some time to recover before shooting out a fire and brimstone lecture of the libertarian kind.
This has been j’accuse… advocating for divorce so you don’t have to.