The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
Opportunity nox for EU Gay people...
34 replies
roxlad said on January 22, 2003 22:11:
First of all sorry if I didn’t put this into the Queer topic but I wanted to make sure everybody saw it.
As you might have heard the European Parlament is discussing the need of allowing Gay Weddings and also to let this be valid in ALL EU countries and not only the few ones where this possibility already exists.
If you are gay or if you think this is a good thing and a sign of civilization please sign the form you find at this address:
http://servizi.radicalparty.org/gay_europa/index_it.php
Before signing you must know that although the text is in Italian it just says that you agree for gay couples to be able to marry and to ’be married’ everywhere in EU.
I believe it’s a very important thing we should do for our benefit, it’s not about politics, it’s about our future.
Privacy
In Italy privacy is very important and the law is clear, you must give your blessing for your personal data to be processed. In this case if you DO NOT agree you will be redirected to another form where you can still sign but your data will be only used for this purpose and then removed from their databases. You will either way receive an e-mail confirmation and you must fill in your real data. Of course I signed it.
Hope you are excited as I am and hope they will succeed!!!
Mark.
Brian said on January 23, 2003 08:43:
Well, I am Gay too, but I do think, Gay Marriages are totally wrong. Even though I am gay, I do believe, a family Unit consists of a father(male) and a mother(female). Male and male are not able to procreate, neither are female and female. It is as simple as that. It only makes sense to me, that only male and female should be a family unit. Even though I am gay, I feel this way, for a child to grow up with no mother is such a cruel thing, and so does a child need a father, it needs both. This is what I feel strongly. I am gay too, but I also think, Gays are all about lust and pleasure and a gay relationship might be fine and work out, but I somehow also think, it is wrong. I know, I might not make sense now, but this is how I feel.
vaxjoe said on January 23, 2003 08:48:
so in other words Brian u would never think of your partner as family...why dont u go str8 then and spare the fuss?
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 10:09:
i dont agree with brain i agree that gay marriage is hypocritivcal seeing as how hard we try to segregate ourselves from str8 people...howevewr there are wonderful gay families...i just dont see the need to call them gay marriage...gay union ok marriages no...catholicism has embarrased us enough
khowaga said on January 23, 2003 15:11:
At least there’s discussion about it in the EU - the US won’t touch that one with a 10 foot / 3 metre pole. I agree with coyboy and vaxjoe tho - the word “marriage” is a problem as it bothers too many people (see Brian’s comments) because of the religious connotation. Call it a ’civil union,’ ’domestic partnership,’ heck, call it your ’Aunt Betty’ if you need to - give me the same tax, legal and insurance benefits ’straight’ couples get and I’ll be happy. Well, content, anyway.
I disagree with Brian about what constitutes a family. Whenever I hear “a child needs a father AND a mother,” I want to scream. What about the children of divorced parents? The ones being raised by single mothers or fathers? The ones born out of wedlock? If gays can’t raise children because there isn’t a male and female present in the home, then we need to enact a law, here and now, to remove all of these other children from their homes immediately and place them with ’traditional’ family units. After all, we *must* think of the children.
Statistically speaking, children raised by gay parents are no more likely to identify as gay themselves than children raised by ’straight’ parents. And they’re less likely to be abused. But we only focus on the gay issue, don’t we? Anyone who wants to focus less on my skills as a potential parent and more on what I may or may not do with my genitals in the bedroom really needs something else to think about. And if my reasoning is contributing to “moral decay,” well, then, sign me up. (And leave the whole morality issue to God, please. I have no problem with the big guy, just with his fan clubs.)
Of course, this is all a moot point since I live in Texas and the state government would probably rather secede from the U.S. (again) than recognize us ’heathens’ as people. Sigh.
Brian said on January 23, 2003 15:47:
khowaga:
I also think, children with divorced parents do not live a healthy live, mentaly. Fact is, most childrem from divorced parents, have difficulties coping with that for the rest of their lives. They do have hard times trustin partners and having a lasting relationship... that is not just myself saying this, that is the fact. Of course it is wrong, for a child to be raised by only a mother or only a father. I think, a child should only be raised by a father and mother. Of course that is not always possible, becaue of divorce, death or other things... but if I would ever have a child of my own, I would only do that in a marriage to the woman I love, the one I want to share my life with forever. A child needs a healthy marriage of its parents... otherwise, the child does not have the chance to have a healthy childhood etc. And that is not just me saying it, those are proven facts. But go ahead and flame me for saying this!
Stormkeeper said on January 23, 2003 16:28:
cowboyusa and Brian are still living in the 70´s.
Wake up, it´s 2003.
khowaga said on January 23, 2003 16:50:
Brian, I’m not going to flame you for having an opinion and defending it. Look at me, for heaven’s sakes. If you look up “opinionated” in the dictionary, there’s my picture!
Obviously, from a psychological standpoint, the best option for child-rearing is that the child be raised by his/her natural parents who are in a healthy relationship. Unfortunately, that’s also one of the least common situations these days, due to divorce, death, wedlock, etc. etc.
I must say that I respect you for saying that these situations are as equally undesireable as being raised by a gay couple. I know very few people who would do that. It’s the opposite of what I’m arguing, but I can respect you for saying it.
What I’m saying applies more to children who have no parents - children who are up for adoption. They’re already scarred, so we have to take that as a given. They’re disadvantaged from that psychological perspective. What annoys me is that someone is arbitrarily saying that I can’t have a chance to raise any of these children because of one aspect of my life they find objectionable.
For example, teenagers can have children. Drug addicts can have children. People who’ve had their children taken away from them because they’re unfit parents can have more children. And some lawmaker somewhere has decided that in the grand scheme of things, as a gay man I’m lower on the scale than any of these people.
(And they do: in Texas, they’ve actually used the argument that, since homosexual sex is a crime in this state, gays can’t adopt because ’a child cannot be placed in a home where a crime is known to be taking place.’ Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down that law and they’ll have to find another reason to justify their own bigotry.)
I suppose what I’m saying is, yes, Brian, you’re right in that being raised by one’s natural parents *is* the most desireable way to be reared. But in the absence of that factor, I do think that gay couples can just do as well as ’straight’ couples.
Vixzter said on January 23, 2003 17:56:
oh god.....i hope you lot aren’t going to argue about being gay between yourselves.
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 18:54:
your right this isnt the 1970’s...and look around u...look how violent the world is...look how the youth of this countrey is on a decline in terms of education drug use tc. dont get me wrong i am not saying gays can’t be great parents. However...they need a stable environment and very few gay relationships offer that lets alone str8. i mean here in america people dont’ discipline their kids anymore and it shows ..they r rude, obnoxious, vulgary, little fucks. The whoile concept of masrriage was a christian idea to put women in a subservient role it is antiquated and needs not to be asssocaited with gays
roxlad said on January 23, 2003 19:23:
I feel like crying!!!! I mean, how can I expect society to understand that a gay person is a person and as other persons he can be good, bad, a pervert, a saint, a pedofile, a skinhead, a punk... everything!!!! (I didn’t use the words Skinhead and Punk in disrespect by the way...) IF we gays think that two boys (or two girls) who love each other cannot be a family. LOVE knows no sex!!!!
In my life I want to have a family because I have the right to have it as everybody else. This family is going to be me and my husband, partner or whatever you want to call him...
This topic is rising many things but just to be clear:
1. It doesn’t matter what name you want to give to it, all I’m bothered about is the possibility to have a partner who’s known by law to be the person I’m sharing my life with. I’m talking about RIGHTS. As an example in some circumstances when somebody is ill at the hospital only the family and the husband/wife can visit the patient. Nowadays in this situation a gay partner can’t go inside the room. This is just a very simple example but there’s many. Do you really think this is fair? Sorry but I don’t.
2. Adopting a baby is another issue. You have to look at the couple and see if they would make good parents. As you might know everybody wants to adopt small children and I really can’t blame them but there are 1000s of grown-up boys/girls that nobody wants. Maybe they are 16-17 and never received LOVE from a FAMILY. I’m not sure if it’s fair to get a small baby and make him grow up in a non-common situation (I’m still reflecting about this) but surely if you can speak to the kid and explain everything then it would also be his/her CHOICE to decide. LOVE has never killed anybody.
3. I can’t believe such things happen in the US... it was a blast for me but now I can see why...
4. I’m not trying to convince anybody and I thank you all for your interest. I really hope you can reflect about it though.
5. I’m a bit tired and pissed off I’m going to bed now...
6. Thanks to those who clicked on the link... (if there were any).
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 19:30:
roxlad ur heart is in the right place and in a way your right...we have a long way to go before we shove gay marriage down peoples throats. right now we are ” tolerated” not accepted. the fringe elemnts of the gay culture..drag queens, radical flamers and other nut jobs are what is holding our acceptance back...what self respecting person wants to turn on the tv and watch a man dressed like dorothy from oz bouncing on the lap of a leather clad biker waving a dildo in the air...sure as hell not me and not most of the straight world...us normal fags r being burried under the public image the nutjobs have created for us
Jud (moderator) said on January 23, 2003 19:34:
i don’t mind if it is marriage, union or whatever name you want to call it, I don’t need a paper that states how much I love my girlfriend, that is sth that is written in my heart, and she knows it, as much as I know how much she loves me.
BUT we want to have children, we want to buy a house, and we don’t want to have any problems with social security, inheritage or children tuition, and right now, that is the problem. If she has the baby, then she is a single mother, I of course will be around, but have “no rights” on the baby, that is, if something happens to my gf, her parents then will be in charge of the baby/children.
If we buy a house and we put both names as owners, by law, if I die, my parents get the half of the house, instead of my gf, bla bla
So I just want *not* to have to think about this all these problems :(
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 19:37:
JUDITH THAT MUCH I UNDERSTAND...I HAVE VERY LITTLE RECOURSE IN TERMS OF oops ossry for caps thing such as inheritance, taxes, etc....however i think before we go after such friviouls things as marriage we neeed to work on how we as a people r viewed plain n simple
Santi said on January 23, 2003 19:41:
I have many gay friends and I see this as positive... but the link doesn’t work :( (at least now)
Besides, I like the name of the party :D “Radical” :p Let’s start changing the world!!!! :D
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 19:46:
the radical approach of the 80’s backfired in the us lol lets see what it does for europe
khowaga said on January 23, 2003 19:51:
Coyboy, I get what you’re saying. I just don’t know how to accomplish it. Your earlier remarks about education were right on the money - I’m an educator myself, and weep openly when I see how certain elements with agendas control what gets taught in schools, and that’s assuming the kids pay attention. It’s a bit bothersome when more kids can recite the Backstreet Boys’ shoe sizes than can find the US on a map of the world.
In the meantime, though, I also freak out every time my partner gets on a plane for the reasons Judith mentioned above: my name isn’t on our mortgage, I’d have no rights to his money if something happened to him, etc. And his family’s the type that would kick me out on the street and change the locks instead of helping me out.
Changing people’s attitudes? That’s gonna take some work.
... taking queer as folk off tv would be a good start tho ... grumble ...
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 19:54:
thank god someone else thinks queer as folk is nauseating!
roxlad said on January 23, 2003 20:29:
@Cowboy... I quite agree with you about a wrong image we have... many people behave funny because to me they are so upset and put down that when they get an odiens the exagerate on purpose... some other are effeminated by nature and they’re not to blame. It takes everything to make a world!!!!
TV is rubbish because it’s ok to show gay funny things or men dressed as women for a laugh but they never show other ways of being gay. Between black and white there’s many gray colours.... if you know what I mean. So again I agree with you on this.
BTW I said I was going to bed but I didn’t I was too busy chatting with an ANGEL... who happens to live in another country (damn...).
The link works for me. I don’t know try:
www.gay.it and then reach it from there.
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 20:32:
well its not just the image its the the use of ” designer drugs” promiscuity..theres so much we have to correct that honestly civil rights are a far off dream
roxlad said on January 23, 2003 20:39:
I guess you’re right. The important thing is to start somewhere.
Jud (moderator) said on January 24, 2003 08:36:
@coyboy I know what you mean, I don’t feel at all identified with most of the queer movement, simply because it gives this image of frivolous (is that english word??)-only-thinking-about-having -fun-and-sex-all-the-time-people, and definetely, a lot of people aren’t like that, so of course, when you try to look from a conservative point of view you kind of understand why conservative minds go like “omg, how are we supposed to give them the right to have children, look how they look like and how they act” (think about drag kings/queens for example), that is what most conservative people see, unfortunately.
I know that I can solve the problem about inheritage just by having my girlfriend and myself write and sign a last will, so if I die, she gets all I have, without any doubt. But this still doesn’t work with children. She could write that she wants *me* to keep on taking care of the children, but in this case, the judge will still decide if what my girlfriend wanted is the best for the children, make tests to me etc, to see if i am a good mum, no matter if i have been taking care of those children for some years together with my gf, and I am pretty sure that in the end, they would take them away from me.
I don’t really care of a catholic or whatever marriage, I don’t believe in god and I don’t like religions, I just want something that makes all this easier, just like a man-woman couple.
vivien said on January 24, 2003 11:55:
I saw a tv program some weeks ago about a gay couple Steve and Roger who adopted 3 black kids with aids/ hiv.
They raised them with lots of love and care.
So I don´t think that gay people can´t be a family.
DeneB said on January 24, 2003 12:45:
you’re all - once again - opening my eyes. since my best friends accepted my homosexuality, i forgot about the rest of the world...there are still so many problems for us living our life! thank you for that, i do love you!
what would i do without you, thank you so much for being there; you’re giving me the power to fight for our rights...i will try...
roxlad said on January 25, 2003 19:26:
I have Yahoo Messenger but I use it very rarely as I have very little free time and I can’t access it from work. It’s a good job I can access TDR forum from work when I have some free time there!!!
vaxjoe said on January 25, 2003 20:06:
thats ok roxlad...myself am at work now so i cant use messenger...only tdr
ted_roxette said on January 25, 2003 20:36:
why shouldn´t we coulds marry other ppl
as u can see that i.m gay too
roxlad said on February 6, 2003 19:47:
Seen as I started this topic... just to let you know that there is about 1000 people who voted so far and the time is getting nearer...
dizzydaleks said on February 9, 2003 21:13:
i not gung-ho about marriage personally, but it would sure as hell help if my b’f was hospitalised - at least then i’d be able to visit legally!
coyboyusa said on January 23, 2003 08:34:
i think the whole idea of a gay marriage is silly and i am gay