go france!

EDIT: FELIX point me to an excellent article on RUE89 (in french) about the results of 12 years of gay marriage in Netherlands. A french teacher has to explain to his teenager's students why the demonstrations against gay marriage in french. Really worth to read 🙂
Douze ans de mariage gay en Hollande : un bilan terrifiant

France is about to legalize same-sex marriage. It's a big move forward, but as many countries did before us, we are facing a strong opposition from extreme religious groups and from right & far-right political parties(…)


(click)

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “go france!

  1. pfelelep

    merci beaucoup, je n'arrivais pas à retrouver cet article! 😀

  2. LorenzoCelsi

    I don't understand well what we are speaking about on this topic.If the issue is to grant the same duties and rights to gay partners involved in a relationship as married people or if the issue is to re-define what a gay is.To make an example, the first part is like saying that everybody who plays basketball must play by the same rules. The second part is like saying that everybody must be granted to play basketball, regardless. I am 1.75 tall and I cannot handle the ball well with both hands, so I don't fit in the NBA like the two other italian guys who are playing there.I see a big problem coming from saying everybody is the same because it is an obvious nonsense. The result is along with "marriage" you must legalize a lot of other tricks that are needed to overcome differences. Like if I want to play basketball in NBA I need a robotic exoskeleton to be taller, to move faster, to jump higher and to shoot precisely, same a gay needs technology to act as woman or man, like the procedures to make babies.Another disruptive effect we must consider is the breaking of blood lineage, with the duties and right that come with it. Here in Italy the whole legal system and the society is rooted on Roman Law and the core of Roman Law was the figure of the "pater familias", the older man of the clan. Belonging to a clan through blood is basically the ONLY thing that cannot be broken or changed whatever happens. The point here is in the moment we take away this foundation of the society we must think of something else that must work VERY well, otherwise we already know we are going to get a mess.

  3. claudeb

    Lorenzo, you do realize that not all women can have children? Or all men, for that matter? Yet they're still allowed to marry. Why? Because you can always adopt, for example. Or use a donor. Funny how that works.And blood ties are an arbitrary way to structure society. Do you like all your relatives? Do you trust all of them? And what's with this idea that a system set up by the Romans over two thousand years ago is somehow still unequaled? Do you seriously believe society has been sitting still ever since? Ethics? Philosophy? Heck… we invented psychology in the mean time! And neuropshychology too, more recently. Are you seriously recommending tradition over scientific evidence?

  4. LorenzoCelsi

    No I do not realize.Here we don't speak of things that don't exist but of things that do exist. So there is not need to make a law about people who don't have children, while there is a need to make a law about people who want to have children working around physical and legal limitations.Again, example: there is no need to regulate the presence of kangaroos at the olympic games because kangaroos don't mind. But there is need for rules about separating males from females and about people who use prosthesis. Because there have been some cases like suspect males competing as females and Pistorius running with artificial legs.In our case people are already producing embryos mixing female eggs and male semen in laboratories, no matter where they come from, they are already screening and selecting the embryos (read eugenetics, read embryo bank, read secondary use of embryos a source of human body parts), there are already women landing their uterus for carrying these babies and final customers are already declaring themselves as natural father or mother to be recognized as one by the Law. If italian Law forbids some or all those procedures, you just go elsewhere and come back with the baby and papers. It is just a matter of money.The point of blood heritage is exactly the opposite, it is not arbitrary at all. And yes, the system is still "unequaled". What we get nowadays is a mess where you don't know who is who and what are the duties and rights that come from roles.Psychology has nothing to do with the above.I don't know your country but here it works this way: my brother has two biological children. The Law takes him responsible for them, no matter what, even if he doesn't agree. If he gets incapacitated or dies, my brother's parents are called in by the Law. This until he isn't married. If he marries, his whole family is called in, brothers, uncles, cousins and so on. The Law doesn't ask anybody opinion or will or dream or mood. Of course the same works in reverse, children are taken as responsible for parents and relatives once they get old.Now call a child who was made in a laboratory responsible for one of the middle men or women along the procedure or the "parents" that were recognized as one because some made up papers. Or vice-versa. They are just pieces of a machine.

  5. claudeb

    Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    there is a need to make a law about people who want to have children working around physical and legal limitations.

    Did you just equate the laws of physics with the laws of men? Think about it for a moment, maybe you'll realize how absurd this is. And your solution to obsolete laws is more laws?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    But there is need for rules about separating males from females and about people who use prosthesis.

    Is there? There have been serious ethical debates about the prosthetics issue, if you haven't heard.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    What we get nowadays is a mess where you don't know who is who and what are the duties and rights that come from roles.

    How about this: we're people and we have a duty to each other. Wasn't that easy?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    The Law doesn't ask anybody opinion or will or dream or mood.

    Oohooh, the Law with a capital "L". Is that some kind of god you believe in? Because it sure sounds like religious fervor. Newsflash: the law is made by people, and therefore can be unfair or obsolete. And it doesn't always apply anyway, so discretion must be exercised.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Now call a child who was made in a laboratory responsible for … the "parents" that were recognized as one because some made up papers.

    You mean… like in an adoption? Because that's exactly what you're describing. People adopt total strangers all the time, and they become legal relatives! Funny how that works. And sure, that can cause dilemmas; it always has, but that never stopped the practice of adoption. So think again.

  6. LorenzoCelsi

    Originally posted by claudeb:

    Did you just equate the laws of physics with the laws of men? Think about it for a moment, maybe you'll realize how absurd this is. And your solution to obsolete laws is more laws?

    You are just trying to hide avoiding the issue. The point is if I am gay and I want to have a child I have two ways, one is to ask the Law to assign me one the other is to pay for the said above chain of human parts. And both ways are meant to circumvent limitations, the first are limitations that come from the need of keep a society together, the second are physical limitations.To summarize, not everything that is possible must be done just because it is possible. Which basically is what people are taught to believe nowadays.

    Is there? There have been serious ethical debates about the prosthetics issue, if you haven't heard.

    First, who cares of the "debate", what matters is the outcome. Secondly, it is NOT about "ethics", it is about the practical option of having people competing in the olympic games using artificial augments. In theory one could have some prosthesis implanted on purpose to get a performance increase in some area. Again, we must decide if I can play basketball in NBA wearing an exoskeleton of if I must be excluded because I am too short.

    How about this: we're people and we have a duty to each other.

    What about this, we are people and we can kill each other. Which is way more realistic. I have learned long ago that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is implicitly authorized.

    Oohooh, the Law with a capital "L". Is that some kind of god you believe in?

    It is an institution. The Law versus some law.

    Because it sure sounds like religious fervor.

    Pretty much the opposite. Religion means to believe in some "truth" suspending rational judgement. I am saying we have very practical and real issues that must be practically addressed BEFORE celebrating.

    Newsflash: the law is made by people, and therefore can be unfair or obsolete.

    Maybe but you can't delete a law without having a working alternative. Otherwise you fall in the said above case of not explicitly forbidden then implicitly authorized. You may think the speed limit at 50km/h is too low and abolish it. The next day you get cars speeding at 200km/h because there isn't any speed limit. So in the very moment you remove the 50km/h limit sign you must put another sign with 55km/h.

    … so discretion must be exercised.

    Really? This is an interesting concept, instead of having a society regulated by the Law we have one regulated by "discretion". It doesn't work even in cartoons.

    You mean… like in an adoption? Because that's exactly what you're describing.

    Absolutely not. Adoption means the Law is responsible for the child instead of his/her natural parents and in fact there are very strict rules in place. The situation I described above originates from the absence of regulations, made on purpose, so when you cannot adopt you go, pay and get a child fabricated. What judge ever would have given a child to Michael Jackson to rise? What could evolve from this is either a total de-regulation so you can have a child fabricated with any sort of procedure or the lowering of adoption standards so who ever wants a child can have one and they don't rely on baby-farms. Or even both things.

    People adopt total strangers all the time, and they become legal relatives!

    The mistake in this sentence is "all the time". Actually adoption is a strictly regulated exception. And despite it should be strictly regulated, often it doesn't end well, like those Americans who go picking orphans in some russian place then they want to give the child back because rising a traumatized child isn't all fun like they thought.I don't need to think of anything.I want to see what laws/rules are proposed to deal with the disruptive changes that are being so happily introduced.On a side note, we will crash once again with the nonsense of the EU. If some law passes in France whoever wants to get advantage of it just move there, do what he/she need to do and come back to Italy. It becomes difficult and impractical to tear apart something that has been put together in another EU country. This make the changes even more disruptive.Here we aren't just saying that my scooter can run on yellow wheels instead usual black ones. We are turning upside down a society and a legal system. We are doing this again and again without considering the consequences. We celebrate the multi-cultural society and how cool it is to have people from all around the world, but real life is not a fashion party, so at some point we must send the army to suppress revolts when some ghetto is put on fire. Or we have prisons overcrowded because of a nonsense percentage of immigrants are jailed. And so on.

  7. claudeb

    Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    First, who cares of the "debate", what matters is the outcome.

    Debate is how we try to reach the right conclusions, mr. "I don't need to think of anything."Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Secondly, it is NOT about "ethics", it is about the practical option of having people competing in the olympic games using artificial augments.

    And what do you think ethics means? Allowing them to compete has some implications, and people are trying to work them out. As opposed to banning anything new without a thought, as you seem to prefer.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I have learned long ago that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is implicitly authorized.

    Yes, that's actually an explicit principle of the Law you worship. You know why? Because there is an infinity of things we could possibly do, and we can't know what's good and bad until we have tried it. Murder isn't illegal because of some abstract principle. We know it to be bad from practical experience.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I am saying we have very practical and real issues that must be practically addressed BEFORE celebrating.

    Funny, just a few lines ago you wrote: 'who cares of the "debate"'. Make up your mind.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Maybe but you can't delete a law without having a working alternative.

    Tell that to the German towns that eliminated all traffic signs and laws, and the rate of accidents decreased significantly. And come to think of it, I seem to remember that we abolished slavery — gasp! — without replacing it with anything. And then racial segregation. That must have been a terrible mistake, by your logic.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Really? This is an interesting concept, instead of having a society regulated by the Law we have one regulated by "discretion". It doesn't work even in cartoons.

    And that mentality is why we can have someone sentenced to pay millions of dollars for sharing a few songs on the Internet, something even law experts decry as absurd. Talk to a lawyer or judge someday, it might open your eyes.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I don't need to think of anything.

    That's SCARY. Are you serious? Because that's how we ended up with the Inquisition. Or the Communist secret police, that was suspicious of anyone with vaguely intellectual preoccupations. No thinking? Really?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    On a side note, we will crash once again with the nonsense of the EU. If some law passes in France whoever wants to get advantage of it just move there, do what he/she need to do and come back to Italy.

    Did you read the part where it says that gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for 12 years? What you mentioned has been possible since 2001, and look, the sky hasn't fallen yet.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    so at some point we must send the army to suppress revolts when some ghetto is put on fire

    So that's the only way you can imagine dealing with people you don't like? Trying to see why they're causing trouble and helping them out doesn't occur to you? No wonder you put an abstract Law above the needs of real people.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Or we have prisons overcrowded because of a nonsense percentage of immigrants are jailed.

    There! See? You said it yourself. A nonsense percentage of immigrants are jailed. Why? See above: because of all the people who can't seem to imagine a humane solution. And you're one of them.

  8. LorenzoCelsi

    Originally posted by claudeb:

    Debate is how we try to reach the right conclusions…

    I don't need any debate to reach conclusions. I need information, then I draw conclusions on my own. In theory, if we were speaking of something real instead of metaphisics, we could say some statement could be proved false and then substituted by a better one. But it is not the case.

    And what do you think ethics means?

    Nothing. And Everything. Then nothing again.

    As opposed to banning anything new without a thought, as you seem to prefer.

    I am writing it again:I am saying that I don't understand what the topic is. If we are discussing about rules that everybody must follow or if we are saying there can't be any rule because you can't rule anybody out.They are two completely different concepts.I make another real example: here we have crosses in many public places like hospitals and schools, other than on top of churches in the streets. The Constitution states freedom of faith. So every now and then somebody files a suit because the cross on the wall offends their own faith or freedom. Ideally those people ask the removal of any religious symbol from public places. And of course it never ends because religious references are everywhere, not only in buildings but also in many social rites and even the language.

    and we can't know what's good and bad until we have tried it.

    So you don't know if driving a car at 200km/h is bad until you have tried it? Good luck.

    Funny, just a few lines ago you wrote: 'who cares of the "debate"'. Make up your mind.

    Where did I write "debate"? I wrote we must address the issues. Issues are addressed by laws, not debates. Of course you can make nonsense laws. This is the point, you abolish some law that has been in place for some time and you introduce a new one. The one you introduce should be BETTER than the one you abolished.

    I seem to remember that we abolished slavery — gasp! — without replacing it with anything.

    Dude, you are completely illogical. Slavery wasn't just "abolished", it became a crime. Not only keeping somebody as slave but also all the passages of slavery as business became a crime. Again the explicit forbidding versus your strange idea of "discretion".

    And that mentality is why we can have someone sentenced to pay millions of dollars for sharing a few songs on the Internet, something even law experts decry as absurd. Talk to a lawyer or judge someday, it might open your eyes.

    I don't live in America. Anyway it is totally unrelated.

    No thinking? Really?

    Not before I know what we are speaking of. Otherwise I judge before knowing, also known as "prejudice".

    Did you read the part where it says that gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for 12 years? What you mentioned has been possible since 2001, and look, the sky hasn't fallen yet.

    Yeah right, like Netherlands has the same "weight" as France in the EU.

    So that's the only way you can imagine dealing with people you don't like?

    No that is what happens in real life versus the fairy tales we are told.

    No wonder you put an abstract Law above the needs of real people.

    I think fabricating children in laboratories to distribute them around as a sort of pet is real enough.

    A nonsense percentage of immigrants are jailed. Why? See above: because of all the people who can't seem to imagine a humane solution. And you're one of them.

    You know the mafia, right? It is the same as Italians who emigrated (half population before early '900). You place people who don't know the language and don't have options in an foreign environment, there are two outcomes, clash of cultures which includes segregation in ghettos and crime as solution of survival needs. And Italians emigrated in relatively empty areas, not exactly the same as placing million immigrants in crowded places like Italy (population density 6 times the US).

  9. claudeb

    Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I don't need any debate to reach conclusions. I need information, then I draw conclusions on my own.

    And your conclusions are never wrong? Really? Heavens, you're FRIGHTENING. You never doubt yourself, never change your mind, never listen to others… Why do you think parliaments debate laws before adopting them? They might as well just ask you personally what the law should be!Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Originally posted by claudeb:

    And what do you think ethics means?

    Nothing. And Everything. Then nothing again.

    Oh, so if you can't simply dismiss a notion you pretend it doesn't exist?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I am saying that I don't understand what the topic is.

    Funny, you started the conversation but you don't know what it's about. Let me remind you: the topic is permitting things that don't hurt anyone, and which are banned now because of some stupid tradition that lacks any kind of objective justification.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    So you don't know if driving a car at 200km/h is bad until you have tried it?

    I know it's bad because others have tried it before me. You seem to think it's wrong because your superior intellect told you so.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Where did I write "debate"?

    I quoted you exactly. Re-read your own comment.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Again the explicit forbidding versus your strange idea of "discretion".

    Again your obsession with forbidding. And most laws are not applied blindly in any situation, at least in sane juridical systems. Ask someone who knows law.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I don't live in America. Anyway it is totally unrelated.

    Ah, so the law in Italy is perfect? Never wrong? Never abused?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Yeah right, like Netherlands has the same "weight" as France in the EU.

    And AGAIN you miss my point ENTIRELY. Gays in the EU have been able to marry in the Netherlands for 12 years now, and the sky hasn't fallen.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    No that is what happens in real life versus the fairy tales we are told.

    Oh, so you know what really happens to people everywhere better than those people? And if they tell you that things are different than you thought, that's a fairy tale?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I think fabricating children in laboratories to distribute them around as a sort of pet is real enough.

    So if a couple chooses artificial insemination, that means they'll treat their child as a pet?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    You place people who don't know the language and don't have options in an foreign environment, there are two outcomes, … And Italians emigrated in relatively empty areas

    Funny, so you can give the US as an example, but if I do it it's "totally unrelated"?

  10. LorenzoCelsi

    Originally posted by claudeb:

    And your conclusions are never wrong? Really? Heavens, you're FRIGHTENING. You never doubt yourself, never change your mind, never listen to others…

    It is not my fault if you are scared by somebody who thinks with his own mind.You can change my conclusions by proving them false.Until then, they are true.

    Why do you think parliaments debate laws before adopting them?

    Again, before "debating" you must agree what the topic is. So I am asking: WHAT ARE WE SPEAKING OF?

    Oh, so if you can't simply dismiss a notion you pretend it doesn't exist?

    I can dismiss what I want and I don't need to pretend, I say it doesn't exist. That said, It is the same as above, to talk of anything we must agree what we are speaking about. If you introduce a concept like "ethics" you must also give a definition of it and I must agree with that definition. Otherwise you say "ethics" and I read "xhztad". Of course if we want to discuss a common topic, otherwise you perform some show and I perform mine.The rest of you comment is white noise.You haven't answered the question "are we speaking of making some rules for everybody or are we saying we can't rule anybody out?"

  11. LorenzoCelsi

    And what does that even mean?

    Exactly. Come back when you understood it.Now, it is quite obvious that it is going the way I said, we are demolishing without understanding what and why and even worse, without any idea of how to replace what we are going to demolish.It just piles up the mountain of crap.

  12. claudeb

    Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    It is not my fault if you are scared by somebody who thinks with his own mind.

    You think with your own mind? You, who keep blathering on about your sacred traditions and Law with a capital L?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    You can change my conclusions by proving them false.

    It doesn't work that way. You make a claim, you prove it.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Again, before "debating" you must agree what the topic is. So I am asking: WHAT ARE WE SPEAKING OF?

    Gay marriage, you idiot. It's in the original post. It's in the very first sentence of your first comment. How the fuck can you pretend now knowing what the topic is? Are you that stupid or just refusing to face the concept?Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    I can dismiss what I want

    No, you can't. You can't dismiss a car coming towards you at 100KpH. You can't just dismiss gravity and fly. Feel free to try though — there will be one less ignorant bigot in this world.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    If you introduce a concept like "ethics" you must also give a definition of it and I must agree with that definition.

    How about you try a dictionary? Have you seriously never encountered the word "ethics" before? No wonder your opinions are so medieval.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    You haven't answered the question "are we speaking of making some rules for everybody or are we saying we can't rule anybody out?"

    And what does that even mean? Is that supposed to be sophistry, because it doesn't even make that much sense. We're talking of treating all people equally. ALL OF THEM. Can you comprehend such a simple concept?

  13. claudeb

    Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    Come back when you understood it.

    Ah, because you're never incoherent, it's everyone else who can't raise to your mighty intellect? Arrogant asshole.Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

    we are demolishing without understanding what and why and even worse, without any idea of how to replace what we are going to demolish.

    So tell me, how exactly is allowing something new (gay marriage) in addition to something old (hetero marriage) destroying anything? Because to me it seems like an addition. Never mind all the places where gay marriage has been legal for a while now and NOTHING BAD HAPPENED. And by the way, that includes not just the Netherlands, but six or seven other countries in Europe, let alone the rest of the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s