Reading Politics

Feb 02, 2007 10:08 # 43889

andromacha *** takes out her flame thrower...

PACS - the terrible word

Guys, I admit I am quite worried and upset at the same time because of the law that just made it to the chamber of common here. It is a law on the so called "pacs", or the bonds of the couples who live together but aren't married. This thing doesn't interest only people who are heterosexual, but also the homosexual ones.

First of all, let me state that I believe in marriage (otherwise I wouldn't have married Hawkeye, no?). In Italy you're not obliged to get married with a religious ceremony, and in fact Hawkeye and I got married through the civil one. I still had an important dress, and he was still respecting the normal dress code for a marriage. The only difference is that it last less, and there was no religious chit chat.

Getting married, as we probably all know, leads to certain rights. I'll give you the stupidest example. One of the people of the couple gets hurt in an accident, and has to go to the hospital. If your life is endangered, or if you have had a surgery, your family has the possibility to stand by your side 24/7, not only during the visit time. Well, if you're only engaged, or if you're not married anyway, you don't have that right. You cannot stay with your loved one, unless it is visit time. Another example: if one of the people of the couple dies, then the other one has the right to get also the husband/wife's retirement check...
In other words, marriage leads to benefits for the couple. You can even adopt a baby if you're married (and of course if you prove you'd be a good parent).

Now let's move on those who live together, but are not married. I don't think it is fair for them to get the same advantages that they could have if they got married. Also because I don't see any difference between living together and getting married. I mean, if you love a person, you love him. That's it. And you get married if you believe it is the love of your life. I don't buy all this crap about being fashionable, and just live together without getting married. So I am against this stupid law to allow people who have been living together for a while to get the same rights of people who are actually married. It means that those people just don't have values. I actually talked to some of them, and their idea was that if you're not in a marriage, then it is much easier to break up. Plus I have heard that anyway if you're part of a couple like that, you'd still have some rights and some dues. This means that it would be like a series B marriage. Well, when I hear things like that, then I am thankful that they won't be able to adopt a baby or have certain advantages they wouldn't deserve. Until yesterday. My prayer is that the Senate doesn't pass it, and that the whole government will collapse. I am fed up with this bastard Prodi who raised up our taxes.

Another important point about the pacs is that also homosexual people could *ugh* get the same benefits. Wait before judging me. I have nothing against gays or lesbians, and I want to state that very well. Whatever you do in your bedroom, it's not my business, and if you have fun and you like it, I am the first one to say go ahead. And in fact if it stopped all there, it'd be easier to accept. If two men want to marry or two women... well they could still get in the series B marriage category. The problem is different here... or anyway there is a second problem. Like I said, a couple who is legally a couple (really married in church or by the mayor) has the right to adopt a baby. With this law, also the series B couples might adopt (they haven't defined this point just yet). What does this mean? That two men could adopt a baby, or that two women could adopt a baby.

And to this I DO REBEL. We have to prevent that whatsoever. Two men or two women will never manage to give the right values to a child. What do you think that the child would think seeing two people of the same sex going to sleep together (as in actually seeing them going in the same room, not the act of course)? Especially when he'd bombed with images of heterosexual couples everywhere (news, tv, magazines...). And at school? He would see mothers and fathers going to pick up the kids. Don't you think he would start thinking about his own situation? And don't you think he might be embarrassed? First of all, I say, we have to think about what is good for the baby. And no, it's not that there will be people like me teasing the poor baby. I think that the baby himself would wonder such things by seeing the other parents being of two different sexes.

This is not being a bigot. It really has nothing with religion, with christianity, being a chatolic, a muslim, an hinduist... In every state of right a family is formed by a MAN and a WOMAN. Not by a man and a man, not by a woman and a woman.

Now you could say, Andromacha, what you think is right, but you forgot a detail. If two lesbians want a baby, then one of them could just go out in the best fertile period, have sex with a drunkard (not liking it of course, but hey for a baby you could withstand some sacrifices), and be pregnant. The state could not take away the baby from her, because of course it would be her natural baby. Well, I have been thinking hard about it, and of course two gays cannot do exactly the same thing. However, one of them could still bang a woman, and at least share the baby with her (unless he finds someone who will leave him and the other guy take exclusive care of the baby of course).

I know. This world sucks. Human beings keep making mistakes, keep going against what is right, and many of them, in trying to open up to diversity, open too much, and give what is morally not correct. And I believe this is very wrong. RESPECT. This is the only thing we could do. I respect gays and lesbians; I even respect transexuals. More than anything else in fact. I believe it is a real tragedy to be grown up in the wrong body, and it is good for them to have a chance to modify things. However, what I really don't respect is people like this. Can you believe that this imbecile here is a guy who represets Italy in Europe????!!!! I really cannot accept that such a thing managed to make it to politics. I mean, heck, he's a transgender, and so far so good. The only problem is that I have seen other trans and they actually looked sort of normal women. This guy here on the contrary acts too much. It seems like he's playing the part of the female, and overacts. I hate him. I hate people like him. You want to be a woman? Good, act like it, use make-up, whatever you want, but please don't transform into something like what you could see on that webpage.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Feb 02, 2007 15:58 # 43890

Hawkeye *** replies...

Re: PACS - the terrible word

Two men or two women will never manage to give the right values to a child. What do you think that the child would think seeing two people of the same sex going to sleep together (as in actually seeing them going in the same room, not the act of course)? Especially when he'd bombed with images of heterosexual couples everywhere (news, tv, magazines...). And at school? He would see mothers and fathers going to pick up the kids. Don't you think he would start thinking about his own situation? And don't you think he might be embarrassed? First of all, I say, we have to think about what is good for the baby. And no, it's not that there will be people like me teasing the poor baby. I think that the baby himself would wonder such things by seeing the other parents being of two different sexes.

If two men or two women cannot manage to give the 'right' values to a child since they are of the same sex, then *one* parent would provide even *less* values to a child. I don't see you complaining about this, though. If this were such a large issue, I would have expected you to advocate a way for the government to provide foster parents to single-parent families. Of course, to do such a thing would be absurd, and in my humble opinion, as absurd as to say a child raised by a gay couple is just as 'damaged' if not worse.

As for 'embarrassment', to an extent, one could argue a 'mixed' child would have just as much embarrassment since it isn't normal. Though, you don't object to such behavior in this case. Why?

And how far would you take this? Should the government begin to step into all marriages to make sure that the parents who raise them are all blond-haired, blue-eyed, and 'normal'? Hitler had the same vision, but it doesn't make it right.

If you respect the gay couples as much as you say, you'd respect their ability to make their own choices like everyone else. Whether someone should be able to get married should not be based on religious ideals. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion, in fact. So why do people feel like they must impose their will on people when they themselves expect their rights to be respected?

It's a bit like saying "Everyone should have the right to vote. Everyone is equal... except the blacks. I don't think they deserve it." By saying a group of people cannot do what the rest of society can do is acknowledging they are not 'to par' with everyone else, and since when have gays ever been 'lesser' people?

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

Feb 02, 2007 16:59 # 43891

null throws in his two cents...

Re: PACS - the terrible word

and since when have gays ever been 'lesser' people?

Hmm, if I understand her right she's not unhappy about gay parents having children, but about children having gay parents. I can understand this to some degree, as some studies suggest that it's 'healthier' for a child to grow up with both a mother and a father.

On the other hand, considering how fucked-up a lot of children from 'traditional' heterosexual families are, one'd have to wonder if homosexuals could actually do any worse. I know for sure that if I were a child, I'd rather be raised by a single parent or two gay 'parents' who really care for me and love me, than a mom & dad who never have time for me. I suppose that heterosexual couples have a certain advantage, but in the end a person's parental abilities are more important than the question what they look like between their legs.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Feb 02, 2007 20:41 # 43892

null throws in his two cents...

Re: PACS - the terrible word

However, what I really don't respect is people like this. Can you believe that this imbecile here is a guy who represets Italy in Europe????!!!!

I like him/her. Kinda takes the boring seriousness out of politics :-)

I still had an important dress, and he was still respecting the normal dress code for a marriage.

(Which, by the way, i still haven't seen!)

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)