De facto couples, is now the time?

Whether in favor or not, in my opinion behind everything there is a large business branched out into various sectors

My partner, with whom I have shared my life for almost 10 years, was recently diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. He is being treated at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. If he were to need emergency treatment or had to be hospitalized in a situation other than a standard ward (I don't know, intensive care, for example), access might be denied to me. If his situation were to worsen and he needed me continuously, I would not have the right to use work leave, the famous Law 104, for example. These might seem like trifles, but to me they are not.

And so, how to put it... business doesn't give a f*ck.

Italy has been CONDEMNED by the European Court of Human Rights because it does not allow the recognition of gay couples. Maybe Big Pharma is behind it, or the reptilians; after all, it is well known that the Strasbourg sky is full of chemtrails.

But my advice is to think about people before money.

It is precisely because we must think of people before money that I wrote what I wrote.. I wanted to say that, in my opinion, the changes occurring all over the world (and which will also occur in Italy) have been taken into consideration because they coincide with the birth of many associations, the implementation of additional services and, consequently, with an economic "return" to the coffers of every state.

That is to say, I think that change is taking place because an economic return is hidden behind it, not because all of a sudden governments halfway around the world have started to take an interest in people..

With these answers, I wanted to be provocative, offering another point of view on the subject:

is it not possible that these maneuvers are taking place because there is a great profit involved? (and therefore that governments do not care about anything else?)

And so, in my opinion, the problem is not being in agreement or disagreement, but the eventual fact that those who govern do not care at all about the population, but only about economic revenue.

That it is unfortunately the economic benefit of governments or others that is moving things along is very sad. It would have been fairer if it had been the human and social maturity of people to understand that we are, first and foremost, people with feelings, without absurd gender labels... besides the problem of governments who do not care at all about the population, there remains also that of a lazy society spoiled by medieval prejudices.

do you know the Pastafarian Church?

The Pastafarian Church was born as an extreme exaltation of secular and logical thought, but in a paradoxical way. It asserts truths that are difficult to refute (or rather, refutable in a very simple way) because they are defended by the shield of faith.

One of the most famous dogmas of the Pastafarian Church is that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by the progressive decrease of pirates in the world. And that at the base of all this process there has been a series of proto-capitalistic interests, against which the pirates were aligned. The figure of the "pirate," then, has been artfully manipulated to be seen in a negative way, implementing a damnatio memoriae.

Is it sad that the recognition of rights "coincides" with the birth of economic interests? Is it sad that people do not understand the logical fallacies in their own arguments.

P.S.

This is not the appropriate section for this discussion.

I agree with Thallo when they state that this is not the appropriate section; having said that, I think there is just a great deal of confusion being created, and the fault also lies with our politicians who, just to plant their little flag, are making a mess (to not be vulgar). Personally, I am in favor of the recognition of civil rights as unions, but I believe that regarding the issue of adoptions, it is a much more delicate subject, as is everything concerning children for that matter, and therefore the two things should have been treated separately. My mother was in intensive care, but no one ever asked me if I was a relative so that I could assist her...

Ronin, I have friends to whom it has been explicitly forbidden. And the law does not defend them. You would have been defended by the law, had it happened. And that is the point: the law defends against injustices, even if these injustices are rare (and they are not).

Regarding adoptions...

Guess what my partner does for a living? A social worker in child protection. Since I have known him for years, I have built up a bit of knowledge on the subject, and this topic makes me spring up like a coil. I wouldn't want to vent my frustration on you, but Juvenile Law is a HUGE TOPIC that everyone talks about without knowing a single comma.

Choose: do you want to take a specific topic and talk about it? Give your opinions and wait for mine? It seems to me that I am the only openly gay person in this discussion, perhaps in the entire forum, I don't know, so I imagine I can be a good "sparring partner".

In doubt, I will introduce the terms of the current issue, then the alleged problems with the Cirinnà bill:

the Cirinnà bill addresses a single possible case of adoption, so-called stepchild adoption. Stepchild adoption is the adoption of the legitimate child of a partner. This means that if I had a relationship with a woman in the past and am the legitimate father of a child-boy-adult, my partner CAN (does not have to, but can) adopt my child. This principle has been possible for years for all hetero couples and, for a few months now, ALSO FOR GAY COUPLES. In fact, the institution of special adoption exists which, with the main purpose of protecting affective continuity and the welfare of the minor, also allows adoption by singles. The Cirinnà bill would remedy the lack of current legislation. Special adoption, in fact, is sub iudice; it is ordered years later by the Juvenile Judge, and often within "difficult" proceedings. In this case, one of the cases that set a precedent was that of a female couple, legally married in Spain and "mothers" of a little girl, who decided to separate after a few years. One came to live in Italy, having dual citizenship, and requested the protection of her right to maintain contact with her daughter (we are talking about an 8-year-old child). The "biological" mother was her partner, who was absolutely in agreement with maintaining contact with her ex. In Italy, however, the child would have been an unaccompanied minor, since the non-biological mother would have been "nobody" in the eyes of the law. TO PROTECT THE CHILD, to protect the child's right to maintain contact with one of the parents, to live in safety, to deal with separation etc. etc., the Judge decided to implement special adoption.

Stepchild adoption would make this process simpler; it would allow for the protection of these rights even in other eventualities (death of the biological parent, removal of the biological parent, loss of consciousness etc. etc.). To give you one example, if the biological parent is hospitalized, even for a simple operation, social services would be authorized to entrust the minor to a close relative, completely ignoring the non-biological parent. And since there are already THOUSANDS of same-sex couples in Italy, this makes no sense. Not only does it make no sense, but it is against the rights of the minor, given that the minor has THE RIGHT, according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to live in THEIR OWN family.

As things stand, ALL the major Italian juvenile law jurists agree with the Cirinnà bill.

This statement should be enough to lead people to study rather than criticize, because if an expert agrees with something, we can continue to disagree just fine, but to be credible we must also be able to provide SERIOUS arguments in favor of our thesis.

The argument against the Cirinnà bill, an argument used as much by the right as by the left, is the possibility of a surge in the use of surrogacy abroad and a consequent "commercialization" of the matter.

This is a complex argument, which I am willing to deal with, if you wish. It seems to me that I have demonstrated that I am someone who speaks with knowledge of the facts. But at this moment, I think a few elements may suffice to clarify, at least, my point of view:

- surrogacy, or gestation for others, or "renting a womb" (disgusting terminology that we use ONLY in Italy, because we are so refined), is a legal practice in some countries that consists of a CONTRACT between a woman and a couple, or a single person. The woman carries a pregnancy to term, from a fertilized egg that is NOT HERS and, therefore, waives some of her parental rights over the unborn child. The child is recognized at birth by the couple who made the contract and becomes, legally, the child of the couple. The terms of this contract are variable from"},

legislation by legislation, in advanced societies, such as in Belgium or the USA, these terms are ULTRA STRINGENT. They identify social services as guarantors of the process, break it down into various steps, and give the parties the possibility to express doubts, changes of opinion, or perplexities at any time.

- the main problem with surrogacy, which is not an intrinsic problem of the practice but an intrinsic problem of changes in fertility technologies, is that there are many subjects involved, and the rights of these subjects must be harmonized within the complex framework of family law. More or less, these are the subjects we are talking about:

1) egg donor: can be one of the women in the parental couple, or another woman, in which case we speak of heterologous insemination; 2) sperm donor: can be one of the men in the parental couple, or another; 3) "carrier", i.e., the surrogate mother. 4) "legal" parents.

Are these 4-5 characters unknown to the law? In reality no, in the sense that there is ONLY ONE EVENTUALITY that creates real legal problems.

Let me explain better...

Surrogacy has been practiced FOR YEARS by hetero couples. Part of the battle for LGBT rights is based precisely on this principle: don't lecture us now, since you have never done so before to hetero couples. Only a few years ago did surrogacy become illegal in Italy, but only in the sense that it cannot be practiced in Italian hospitals. Similarly, they tried to make heterologous insemination illegal, but in 2015 a Supreme Court ruling definitively destroyed the law regarding it. In short, in Italy there are some, one doesn't know how many, children of surrogacy within HETERO families, and no one has ever made an issue of it.

The problem is that, even if an issue were made of it, it would be impossible to understand who is and who is not... the only way would be a genetic test, which cannot be administered mandatorily, and which would presuppose investigative work. Today, with a thousand global security problems, thinking that the police could start investigating how a child was born seems frankly absurd, especially since the matter should start from a complaint by a party (...) and should pass through a Juvenile Court (...) that opens a file for the protection of the minor (...). These are all things I can explain to you, if you want, but they SAY that the matter makes no sense.

But let's assume this happens... What is the only eventuality in which problems can arise? The only eventuality is surrogacy with heterologous insemination, i.e., the extreme case in which NONE of the parents has a biological link to the child. In this case, very serious crimes could be envisioned, such as abandonment or kidnapping of a minor, human trafficking, false declarations to the registry office, etc. etc. This eventuality is very rare; data shows that until today it mainly concerns hetero couples (older age), and it is PRECISELY the subject of the 2015 court ruling that renders the heterologous law null and void (as well as a double condemnation of France by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg): IF the only way for a person to have a child is to resort to heterologous insemination, their instinct for parenthood is "uncoercible" by the State.

In plain English, this sentence REFUTES most newspaper headlines from recent days: the law says that the right to parenthood EXISTS.

Or rather, if medicine allows it, and if no harm is proven against the minor (this is the real key), no one can forbid you from doing it. Because having a child is part of anthropological drives, it is an instinct, and it is your right to fully express your humanity. No one can forbid you.

Just as no one can forbid a drug addict from impregnating a prostitute, a psychopathic mother from abandoning her daughter, a father in a midlife crisis from not caring about his children, etc. etc. etc.

The mechanisms for protecting minors, unfortunately or fortunately, treat the damage once it has occurred, but they cannot forbid anyone from causing it. Otherwise we would all be sterile; we would end up in a dystopia like "Minority Report," where people are condemned before having committed the crime.

Thank you Claudio!

You were very clear, and I think it is necessary to have absolute clarity on these topics.

I think that the current battle is a battle of civilizations. I don't know what will happen in the coming days: it is likely that, as often happens, a compromise will be reached that falls short of the Cirinnà bill. But, even if that were the case, I think it would be a mistake to oppose any small step that goes in the direction of a better civilization, even if we would want much more.

And for this reason, I hope that, due to short-sighted political calculations, everything is not undermined.

Life is a battle ... and once one ends, another begins!

danielescarpetti wrote:

Life is a battle ... and once one has ended, another begins!

I am almost tempted to include this phrase of yours in the preface of my piece dedicated to world peace. Through other ways, I arrive at a somewhat similar conclusion...

Frank wrote:

I am almost tempted to include this sentence of yours in the preface of my piece dedicated to world peace. In other ways, I arrive at a similar conclusion...

Oh my god ... Frank! I must tell you that it would be a great pleasure and honor for me ...! But anyway, whatever you decide, let me hear the piece afterwards!

Also because I am always attracted to and curious about works that deal with similar subjects.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Oh my God ... Frank! I can't help but tell you that it would be a great pleasure and honor for me ...! But anyway, whatever you decide, please let me listen to the piece afterwards!

Also because I am always attracted to and curious about works that deal with similar subjects.

The problem is that the preface is already written; it will be published by a magazine soon.

I also sincerely hope to be able to hear this piece, and surely something will be available. As soon as possible, I will also share the preface. Even if we are a bit OT, in my opinion, the theme of "war" is nonetheless underlying.

But is the discussion over here?

I mean, freedom of opinion like in the PD, where discussing means saying your piece "and that's it," or has someone actually read my post?

thallo wrote:

or has anyone actually read my post?

I have read it and I see several likes

yes I have read and appreciated your contribution.

unfortunately the situation is very complicated. There are not only legal aspects connected to the assisted fertilization that becomes necessary... but it is in the mentality of society that one still does not reason without prejudice.

And the limit of prejudice is also in those who legislate, unfortunately.

many indeed maintain that for the growth of a "healthy" personality two "somatically" different figures are necessary.... man and woman. therefore they prefer hetero parents who might even be drug addicts, disturbed, neurotic and so on rather than two loving and sensitive men or women.

"clothes make the man" and unfortunately it is thought that this must also be taught to children... it hasn't been long since the image of a father changing diapers or pushing a stroller has been accepted as "normal", let alone if society appreciates two moms or two dads..... even if they might actually be couples ten thousand times more solid and harmonious than many hetero ones!!!!!

.....and many, out of fear of this "uncomfortable" outcome to accept because it would force one to look far beyond the appearances of normality, do not want to recognize couple rights .....

Thallo, as specified before, I am not opposed to the recognition of rights as a citizen; I am opposed to the stepchild [clause]. The female couple went to marry in Spain because it is not legal in Italy, and with the stepchild clause, this is exactly what will happen: a non-heterosexual couple, in order to satisfy their need to have a child, resorts to more or less legal "subterfuges" only to then say, "I have a child, I want recognition from my partner." I continue to think that here people are thinking about planting a political flag, even considering the administrative elections, but no one actually cares about the child and how they would be raised; and excuse me if I repeat myself, but on what basis was it forbidden to assist a sick person? And anyway, let's not use healthcare cases to push through the stepchild clause, which is something else entirely.

Ronin, when you say that "nobody cares about the child and how they would be raised," are you saying this with a degree in Social Work and almost twenty years of experience in child protection?

When I say that professionals do care about this, I am saying it by PRECISELY reporting my boyfriend's opinion, who has a degree and also has that experience.

And I am also reporting the opinions of psychologists, educators, juvenile court judges, and legal experts in general.

Both straight people and gay people have the need to have a child. If tomorrow night a female alcoholic jumps on you in a nightclub and gets pregnant, there is NO LAW that can punish her and NO LAW that can take away the child she will have.

On what basis is it forbidden to assist a sick person? Hospital entry for inpatients, outside of visiting hours, is limited to relatives and "next of kin." Under Italian law, I am nothing; I am not a relative of my partner and I am not next of kin. Doctors could refuse to let me in because I have no right to. They could do so even against my partner's will. They could do so, especially, in situations where my partner is unconscious and unable to express their will.

Anyway, to those reading this discussion: did you see that I was right to ask if everything was okay? Likes are not enough; things need to be clarified. But even on other occasions, online life has shown me that it is very difficult to manage to convince others...

thallo wrote:

Anyway, to those reading this discussion: did you see that I was right to ask if everything was okay? Likes are not enough, things need to be clarified. But even on other occasions, online life has shown me that it is very difficult to manage to convince others...

But Claudio, this is true for any type of confrontation you can have with other people.

I mean that we could even decide to meet physically in any location, stepping away from the online world, discussing as much as we want but, very unlikely, at the end of the whole discussion there would be changes in points of view, and this especially in people who have opinions rooted in one way or another.

The purpose of writing or speaking here or on another medium, instead, is precisely to clarify what the positions in the field are, and this so that that segment of people - which is not at all a minority - who are not prejudicially aligned, can be helped to clarify themselves on the matter, obviously once again, in one way or another.

When you asked if the discussion ended here, probably regretting a lack of participation in the topic, for the umpteenth time in these cases, I thought of poor Francesco Nuti's first film "Madonna che silenzio c'è sta sera" [Goodness, what silence there is tonight], where at a certain point he asks himself: but does he who remains silent consent, or does he who remains silent is just being quiet? Arriving at the conclusion that he who remains silent, in reality, does not consent at all but is just being quiet.

Now, the reasons why people remain silent - or why, as in this case, one does not write - are different: one remains silent out of disinterest, because one has no desire to immerse oneself in discussions, because one has no time to dedicate to this topic... But also because one doesn't quite know what to think?

And therefore interventions like yours - regardless of how one will eventually relate to it - serve to begin forming an idea, to clarify and, ultimately, to decide which side to take.

So: they are welcome, right? And heaven forbid we stop doing them.

I am already not a submissive person, and on this topic, I go crazy... you have no idea of the nights I spent when Marco was hospitalized at San Raffaele. Nothing much happened, but we are talking about a hospital where they play the rosary over the loudspeakers in the corridors; I was terrified at the thought that they wouldn't let me stay there or that they wouldn't let me in if something serious had happened. And I say this because the nonsense about adoptions is simply a way to delay the approval of the entire bill.

Want a laugh?

Massimo Gandolfini, the neurosurgeon promoting Family Day, who adopted 7 children, some with severe disabilities, only thanks to his billions (all through international adoption, all immediately integrated into the Neocatechumenal Way), was the first doctor who visited Marco. Only later did we discover who he was :-)

Claudio, for what it's worth, I am very close to you (all) in thought. Unfortunately, too often lately I have had to encounter people affected by multiple sclerosis and therefore I embrace you both ideally and hope that you can find in the future an Italy better than the one it is now.

It's true they are doing and will do everything to water down the current bill and, on the other hand, one would have to be surprised if they didn't. But precisely for this reason, I reiterate once again what has already been stated: it would be madness to let everything sink because of matters of principle or very short-sighted and self-serving political calculations, as certain parliamentary oppositions threaten.

The conquest of progress often requires - always?!? - long periods of time and it is always better than nothing. And in any case, that is where our tireless journey will restart in a stubborn and contrary direction!

Open content (youtube)