OPENLY GAY GUYS AND COLSETED GAY GUYS – A SINGLE WORLD

Hi Project,your site was recommended to me by a friend whom I respect very much and I went to have a look, in truth I had already heard of it but had never opened it. The forum is huge and very interesting but it is basically a monument to another era, now it is practically abandoned or almost. I like to read many different posts coming from people who think in various ways, on the forum there was a lot of such posts, but now there is nothing similar. Have you ever wondered why it ended up like this? I’m old now and I don’t really feel like the most suitable person to preach to the boys, when I was young I couldn’t stand old people who chatted too much, but now the boys are not in the least interested in your Project, they have other means to stay in touch with each other. 
The emails they send you are not really a cross-section of the gay reality, they come from people who in their way are aligned with the model of the Project, and so a small group of right-thinking people, let’s say so, gathered, who sing and play whatever they like but are always among themselves. There are no dissonant voices, basically you don’t receive criticism and here I can enter the scene, because I come from gay experiences completely different from those of the Project. 
First of all I’m an openly out gay man, but people, given my age, over 65, don’t get upset too much, they don’t think that I’m gay, but that I have been gay in other years and then I ended up in the twilight of sex and instead it is not so. Project, I read your post on “gays and time”, well it smells of depression, you have to wake up. Why do you think there is an age beyond which it is not appropriate to have a partner? I have a partner, we often fight but then we make peace, we are two old men who fought their battles on the streets, even going to the pride half naked when we were already old. 
Yes, there is homophobia, I know it well too, but I don’t like to think that it could prevail and that boys must be afraid of it, my partner and I have fought for this and continue to fight even now. I don’t think at all that closeted gay guys “don’t have the balls”, to use your expression, I understand that in some cases it is very difficult, but if you don’t start to break the most deeply rooted and absurd social beliefs, they will tear us to pieces or will force us to bury us in the catacombs. I have lived in gay militancy for years, I organized clubs and groups and tried to avoid any selection, I tried to take everyone in. Sometimes behaving irresponsible they even messed me up. Many used to come to meetings just to look for someone to have sex with, that’s it, Project, but there’s nothing wrong with that. 
If you really want to be useful to something, you have to get out of the hole, you have to throw yourself into the fray, you are an intelligent man but you are afraid, and therefore you are yourself but only halfway, you start with the brake applied and stop yourself almost immediately. I too know a lot of gay boys but they are boys of another gender, a kind that you probably consciously or unconsciously kept away from. But do you know how much adrenaline unleashes going to the pride together with hundreds and hundreds of people who “openly” claim their identity? 
I never told the boys they had to come out but I certainly didn’t discourage them. Project, you call it prudence but it seems like fear to me, and you shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. Don’t think that openly gay guys and those closeted are two distinct worlds because it’s not so. Openly gay guys aren’t sexually ill persons, they need love like everyone else! I’m not saying that openly gay guys are better but only that they are not another planet. Of course they think in another way, they have other problems because they have made a different life, certainly freer and somehow more risky. 
There isn’t, or better, here I agree with you, there should be no pride of being an openly gay guy, maybe that pride still exists but we have to overcome it, but rest assured that there isn’t any pride in this email, I respect your work, for heaven’s sake! But let’s not make the war between gays, let’s not segregate each other, let’s try to understand each other’s world, because seen from close up it’s the same world. Go ahead with what you are doing but, please don’t be afraid and don’t raise fences.

___________________

If you want, you can participate in the discussion on this post open on the Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-openly-gay-guys-and-colseted-gay-guys-a-single-world

GAYS AND HOMOPHOBIC GOSSIP

Hi Project, 

It’s since October 7th, 2019 that I had decided to write to you, I wrote drafts of emails that slowly became a kind of diary, to keep track of what was happening, but then I didn’t send you anything, now instead I’m sending you this diary, if I can call it so, because the situation has defined itself and I think it’s important.

October 7th, 2019, Monday.

Dear Project, today I’m very nervous and I cannot let off steam with anyone. I don’t know if you remember “XY33”, I wrote to you almost a year ago and you replied telling me things that have been really useful to me, we also got in touch on skype, but then I didn’t keep in touch anymore because, let’s say so, I was able to continue walking alone, but today I’m furious, I’m angry, aggressive, near to explode. I work in a public office at a good level and I say it with pride because I’m an executive and being in a job like mine at my age is certainly not a common thing!  Where I work there are many people and unfortunately there is also a lot of hierarchy. 

My boss, who is someone who really matters at the political level, doesn’t want to do anything, or better he isn’t able to do anything, he’s always on the phone chatting about his personal problems and always downloads his work problems on us. Two or three of my colleagues (female colleagues) do twice the work they should do, because they also do the job of the boss who basically does nothing at all: he signs without reading and then when a mess breaks out he screams like a madman, but all this, if we want, is ordinary administration, more or less all the bosses do it with their subordinates. This is the common practice, I had to get used to it, but today I’m furious for another reason. This piece of shit, speaking with the two boot-lickers (the ladies who do his job in his place), allowed himself to do my caricature claiming that according to him I’m a “fagot”, the ladies then told me everything, but if I asked them to testify what they said to me, I’m sure they wouldn’t and they would deny everything.

There is a total omerta in the office. I have no relationship with the boss, although I should, in practice I only see him on television, when he acts like the first actor, and there he plays his role very well and manages to make fun of those who don’t know him and anyhow he would never have bothered to talk to me and even less, I think, he would have bothered to make fun of me, and just because of that I even had the doubt that the two boot-lickers (just to say the least!), I mean the two witches, had really invented all.

I really can’t imagine him while he imitates my gait and makes fun of me in such a vulgar way. I really can’t imagine such a thing. He’s an asshole no doubt, it can be taken for granted, but to imitate my gait he should know who I am and he must have seen me several times, but nothing like this has ever happened. Damn! … I guess they were screwing me! Because there is also a ruthless careerism between us and every system is good for killing me. Did you understand the two witches? They wanted to put me against the boss, so they would have fun like two geese (which is who they are!). 

They would have enjoyed a lot seeing me torn to pieces by my boss and with this elegant ploy they would easily take me out of the circle of those who can make a career! You have to keep in mind that in the moments when I was most angry, I was about to go to the boss to vent even at the risk of losing my job, luckily I didn’t do it and thought to send you this email. In fact what they told me doesn’t make sense! It just doesn’t make any sense! That’s why they raised the tone when they told me about it. It’s okay that only they can go to the boss, but what I know about the boss is only what “they” told me … Project, I think I was going to make a huge mistake.

October 14th, 2019.

Hi Project, I will attach a copy of the previous email (which I didn’t send you) and now I continue the story here. For the whole week I studied the behavior of the two vipers and there are many things that sound very strange to me. They are always by the boss. Always no, but often yes, so why when they talk about him separately with other colleagues they say and repeat in all ways that he’s an “asshole” and other similar epithets? If he’s really what you say, why are you going there? Project, I have to understand how things really are. Is the boss an asshole? Ok, and you, then, who only talk about him with slimy contempt, what are you? You are worse than him because you keep one foot in two shoes and play the double game!
 
October 15th, 2019.

This morning the two vipers are back in the office with the story that the boss makes my imitation and I lost my patience and pretended to get angry and then to go to the boss to express all my irritation and ask him for explanations. I went to the boss but brought with me a folder of documents on which I needed clarifications, however the boss was not there and I asked for an appointment. Just before noon his secretary calls me and I go to talk to him with my papers hidden under my jacket. I go in, it’s him, “the asshole!” He gets up to shake hands and makes me sit not in front of the desk but in the little sitting room nearby. To begin he asks me who I am, a clear evidence that he doesn’t know me, I explain it to him and then I move on to the concrete problem, showing the documents I have with me. He listens to me, then he quotes me an article from the last financial law, he tells me to go to the desk, he looks for and finds two recent court rulings of the Council of State and says: “I think we should operate this way, what do you think about?” I look at him in admiration and say to him: “I don’t think there are more doubts!” He replies: “You have done well to raise the problem, please write an internal circular and bring it to me and I will sign it and the circular will be sent to the offices.” Then we shake hands and he accompanies me to the door. 

In short, Project, this would be the “piece of shit”, the one who does nothing from morning to night and makes fun of me imitating my gait! Now the game of the two vipers is clear. I go back to the office and “I don’t want to talk to anyone” (clearly I’m acting), the two vipers must think that the boss has destroyed me, but I have to prepare the circular to bring to the boss and I can’t waste time. In less than an hour the circular is ready, I call back the boss’s secretary who tells me that the boss is waiting for me. I go there without saying anything to anyone, I give the circular to the boss, he says to me: “Put your initials on it, then I’ll countersign it, the responsibility is mine, but you did the job.” I add my initials and he countersigns and gives the text to the secretary, then he takes leave of me and says: “Thanks, you did a good job and did it immediately!” I go back to my office and try to be dark in the face. The younger viper wants to know what happened but I send her away rudely, almost shouting, saying I don’t want to see anyone!

October 16th, 2019.

The circular arrives in the Office, I don’t say a word, it ends up in the hands of the old viper who grimaces with his mouth, my initials on the circular, in place of hers, have particularly bothered her, so she decides not to speak to me anymore, what I don’t mind at all, I took my revenge!

October 24th, 2019, Thursday.

Dear Project, the story is not over, there have been further evolutions. The boss values me a lot and asked me to do some research to clarify some points that seem very obscure. Practically every day I go to him to show him what I found or rebuilt and we talk about it together. He’s certainly 100% straight. While we were talking, his wife called him and when he was talking on the phone with his wife he was smiling. I made the gesture of getting up to go and wait outside to let him speak with due privacy, but he motioned me to stay and at the end he said to me: “If I didn’t have my wife I would be buried under an avalanche of documents!” and smiled. Then I went away. Now the vipers are hardly seen around the boss’s office!

October 25th, 2019, Friday.

Today an elderly colleague, who will retire in a month and who is therefore not interested in social climbing, told me that the two vipers say that I’m a “fagot” and that now I’m courting my boss who he too is a “fagot”! To which I replied: “Of course being a spinster at fifty must be ugly!” and he laughed.

November 14th, 2019, Thursday

Everything is fine with the boss, but this is not what I would like to talk to you about, now I have to tell you a lot of things about something that is really changing my life. A new guy was to arrive at the office and the boss entrusted him to me for orientation and training in service, previously this task was the exclusive prerogative of the two vipers but this time they remained dry-mouthed. A couple of days later the new guy shows up, he’s a beautiful guy in his early thirties, I’m 34! They told him I would be his tutor and he seemed happy with that. I infer from his resume that he is not married and has no children, but there are no other personal informations that might be interesting from my point of view me. 

His name is Luke, he is tall, blond, blue-eyed, he has a sexy voice like an actor of first order and he also has two fundamental and very rare characteristics, he is truly intelligent and he wants to work. Everything is fine with Luke, I feel very at ease with him, in short between us a perfect understanding has been created. After ten days he’s already very quick in work and competent in research on the repertoires of laws and judgments of the judiciary. Then I make up my mind to go and present him at the boss, who speaks very well about me and encourages him. From here on in the office everything is booming. Luke doesn’t need any further training, he can do his job very well on his own and much better than me, even if it doesn’t take much to do better than me. 

These are, let’s say, the working aspects of my relationship with Luke, but beyond of all this, as you can imagine, there is everything else. I practically fell in love with Luke and I also have to be very careful at work so as not to elicit too much attention, I have to keep him at a distance and I have to limit contacts with him to the bare minimum. We never go out together, he goes out first, I see him walking away from the window and five minutes later I go out. Even if he were straight, what is obviously very probable, it would be “anyhow” a good friendship. Evidently in saying so I mean that I could appreciate Luke, at the limit, “also” as a friend, but I hope with all my might that he is gay.

December 3th,  2019, Tuesday.

I guess I dreamed too much! I’m very downcast. I feel like a total moron. Today, when he came out, there was a girl down waiting for him and they embraced and kissed. It was far away and I can’t say if they kissed like friends or like lovers, but would a girl come and wait for a gay guy to leave work? No! Definitely no! So, dear Luke, goodbye! Our story is over and I go back to the usual melancholy. You could have been at least less handsome, less intelligent, less charming, at least I would have felt less frustrated, but no! Beautiful, intelligent, charming and STRAIGHT! Yet it had seemed to me that between us words where not needed, otherwise what is your intelligence for? I thought that you had understood everything, I even thought of asking you to meet after work, to go to dinner together, to spend a Sunday together and instead you stay with your girlfriend and you haven’t even noticed me. Gay dreams vanished as clouds in the wind! I learned a very hard lesson! Goodbye, Luke, I hope you can live a happy life!

December 4th, 2019, Wednesday. 

Hi, Project, I’m confused, very confused. At 8.30 this morning Luke comes to my office (he never does such things!) And tells me that yesterday he would have liked to talk to me (I don’t understand if about work problems or something else) then he continues almost casually: “but since there was a female friend waiting for me on the square I had to go away immediately.” He had to talk to me? And what would he have told me? At the moment we have no work problems in common and then why give me explanations and tell me that there was a “female friend” waiting for him? But he said “a female friend”, he didn’t say she was “just a female friend”… Friend – girlfriend the two words sound quite similar but as for the meaning there is a big difference! In short, we agree that we will meet today at the exit, even if not right in front of the offices, but in a place that is on the opposit side from where the two vipers pass. 

I work not to think about what will happen at the exit, I have to be careful not to build castles in the air, however, as the exit time approaches, I feel more and more agitated. Half an hour before the exit, the boss’s secretary calls me and tells me that the boss wants to see me, I go but the boss is in a meeting. I hope with all my strength that he will free himself immediately and tell me why he made me call because I don’t want to leave Luke waiting for me, I could warn him with a text message but it would sound strange. Five minutes before the exit I decide and send the text message “Everything postponed, I’m sorry, I’m by the boss, he called me.” At that moment I would have killed my boss. However, I could only wait. He lets me in after almost half an hour, after six politicians of those I’ve seen on TV come out of his office. He is very agitated. I dare not ask him what happened. 

As usually he makes me sit in the sitting room, he lets out a big sigh and then comes to the point and tells me that he thinks that there have been irregularities in some very important procedures and that he needs to check but cannot trust anyone, because there are spreading rumors about his office that have come to politicians and it is necessary to understand if the irregularities have occurred, and if there have been, of what extent and who made them. This is very important because if you understand all these things you can also get to understand who started the gossip. In short, the boss asks me to work in a separate room of his office, with his access codes to the information system (he will not let me know them, this is obvious, but he will access the services with his credentials and then I will be working on the system to find informations). I tell him it’s okay, we shake hands, then, opening the door and he says: “We start tomorrow morning, ok? I recommend, maximum confidentiality.” I nod my head and add: “You can take it for granted!” and I go away. 

But I’m not thinking about the boss or the possible cheating or gossip, I’m thinking only of Luke, I go running to the appointment place but Luke is not there, I feel discomforted, invaded by a black sadness, I send him an text message to apologize and I he replies: “Wait for me, I’m coming in a minute, I’m at the bar around the corner, I’ve been waiting for you.” This answer makes me change mood, I just didn’t expect it. He arrives after less than a minute, really beautiful as a god and asks me what the boss wanted, I downplay and concentrate on the fact that I was only sorry to make him wait and I was afraid that he would go away. I think I ask him how his female friend is, but I immediately remove this stupid thought. He tells me “What about eating something together?” The answer is obvious, it is late but there is a place where many tourists go which is open until early afternoon. There are people, too many people, there is not a minimum of privacy, an hour later we are out of the restaurant. 

I would like to ask him what he wanted to talk to me about, but I don’t, I wait for him to make the first move and after a while he does it. He says to me: “I wanted to talk to you, but I think there is no need because from so many small things I realized you understood. What do I have to do?” I tell him: “I feel very happy and there is no need for any speech.” Soon after, a terrible embarrassment took over, a mixture of anxiety and fear of having misunderstood, the speech had been very allusive but basically vague. An explicit speech would have been much more difficult but would have dispelled all the mists. I couldn’t go on not even with the shadow of uncertainty and so this time I took the substantial step forward and asked him: “How did you understand that I fell in love with you?” and he replies: “Well, somehow a gay radar does exist!” After these words the state of happiness both his and mine was evident, we walked on foot until late in the night, and it was freezing cold! Then we said goodbye with a hug (the first hug with Luke!).

January 4th, 2020.

Dear Project, I have been with Luke for a month, it’s a beautiful but very complicated thing, we have a thousand problems. Our relationship is very tender. Luke has a lot of attention for me, we talk a lot, he told me his previous stories, absolutely nothing heterosexual, only two boys whom he then lost sight of, with the first perhaps he was in love, but he was not really in love with Luke and found another guy. With the second there were only a few days of sex, then it all ended because of mutual disinterest. I told him about my stories of ten years ago with one who then found something better and left after less than a month.

March 21th,  2020.
Between me and Luke there is a lot of embarrassment when we talk about sex, not when we talk about the sex that there has been before but when we talk about the sex we are supposed to have between us and on the other hand we only talk about it by phone because now we have to be isolated (because there is the Covid-19). Today he said to me: “How about we both get tested for sexually transmitted diseases?” I said yes, because his proposal was essentially also a sexual proposal, but who knows when it will be possible and therefore between us, at least now, no sex at all. Cuddling yes, and on the phone only, but nothing too much sexual. I had thought of propose him to use the cam, but it seemed like a bad idea. I’ll wait! Obviously I masturbate thinking only of him and he probably does the same but this is a taboo topic and we never talk about it! You don’t imagine how conditioned and anxious I feel, these long waits are unnerving and anyhow we have to do the test first, we just can’t do without it.

May 5th, 2020.

We booked the HIV test, obviously we did it in the same institution but separately so as not to be labeled! Think how far paranoia goes! They gave us an appointment for June 5th and another month will pass by. I talk to Luke on Skype every evening for a couple of hours and I’m alwais admiring him because he’s really beautiful, it’s not me the one who is out of mind, it’s he who is beautiful! Now we are less clumsy and we talk about everything also about sex and masturbation even if we still talk about it “in general”.

May 22th, 2020.

We ended up to have sex on cam. No embarrassment! It was an overwhelming thing and then he’s beautiful there too and he lives sex spontaneously, laughing, joking and above all participating in a very strong way. If I’m so involved on cam I imagine what it will be when we will do it in person. June 5th is near, but we still have 13 days left, I just hope they don’t close everything again, otherwise this time too everything ends up in nothing . Now our speeches are finally explicitly sexual and without any embarrassment and I’m happy because before I was afraid he wasn’t really 100% involved, but now this doubt has completely dissolved.
_______________________

End of quotes! Now I will send you the email, then maybe I will send you another one after June 5th.
If you want, you can publish everything, because it seems to me that there are no references to sensitive elements in relation to privacy. I modified some things related to work environment and anyhow everything is quite vague, even if the atmospheres are exactly those.
I embrace you and hope to hear from you soon.

Matthew

_______________

If you want, you can participate in the discussion on this post open on the Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gays-and-homophobic-gossip

GAY PROSTITUTION AND POWER

Hello Project, my name is Ciro I’m 31, I looked at the blog and I liked it but it lacks one thing that instead in reality exists, and if you don’t tell it, you give the guys the idea that the gay world is the world of fairy tales, and things are not at all so. You gave so much space to clean stories, to young guys … and you did well, but don’t forget that the gays you’re talking about are only a part of reality, and it’s not even a matter of living sex in a way or in the other. It’s a question of real delinquency. It’s all masked, of course you’ll never be able to show how things are. Generally there is no physical violence but I have seen boys who have come out into pieces of the violence of the bosses because they have suffered a form of violence in one way or another that I have suffered too.

It is not true at all that gays are supportive and that they love each other, maybe it happens to the guys you know but what I see is completely different. It is not a matter of gay and straight but of servants and masters. This is reality. If people are stronger than you, they crush you. Who has the money is the master, if the owner is straight he buys the girls, if he’s gay he buys the guys but not to love them, not to do a little sex with them … no! But only to dominate them, only to put them under their feet, to blackmail them, to play with their ingenuity … because there are 20-year-olds who think they are smart, they are handsome guys and they think they are smarter than others and have found the key to get everywhere. But be sure, they never use the word “prostitution”, this will never happen. Those guys, about their boss, say only: “He likes me” and they tell you it with an air that makes you sorry, because they are not at all cleverer than others and they don’t even imagine where they are going to get bogged down. And bosses blackmail them. They did it with me too, and when it happens you really hate them, you’d take a pair of scissors and stick them in their stomach.

I was working at the age of 18, I was a bartender in Naples and I never had a lira and those around the bar had a lot of money. Then the owner of the bar with tried something with me, I defended myself and he let me go but I will never forget the feeling of disgust that I felt, and then he chased me away. I didn’t have a lira, and when you don’t have a lira what can you do? Where can you go and ask for money? At the bank? There was a guy who knew a lot of people and I asked him what I could do and he told me that I could make money and a lot of many … but I didn’t have to be stupid … I said: and how? And then he told me that there were important people who were looking for good guys to be a waiter at parties of rich people and, he told me, if you want make money you can make them … those give you 100 euros of tip. I then didn’t understand anything and I said yes … and then they gave me the good dress, but not the waiter’s uniform, just a dress and beautiful as well, they took me to the barber and they got my hair cut short. Then they took me to the house of one of them and they told me I had to take a shower, because in my house there was no shower or even bathtub. But those didn’t leave and I had to take a shower in front of them who were looking at me a bit strange … those were not gays were just criminals and were thinking if I could go well for their boss … I had just turned 18.

I got dressed and they took me out of Naples on a BMW, a car that looked like an ocean liner, we arrive at a villa outside Naples, of those that you see only at the cinema and I find myself in front of a guy of about twenty years, a beautiful guy, the others are gone and I stayed with that guy. I asked him how I could go back to Naples, but he told me that I would sleep there because the party would last all night and I was on duty all night. I asked him how much they would give me, he said 200 euros, and I’m not used to such amounts of money, I don’t earn 200 euros even in a full week, but he said I could earn a lot more … He asked me how old I was and also the date of birth and told me: if you are underage here you cannot work.

In the evening there was a party. One thing that I had never seen nothing similar. At the beginning I had just to be a waiter, there were about a dozen guys, all handsome guys. In short, it seemed like a good thing. Then they said they had to play … they put the tables next to each other and they made the waiters do the beauty parade … at the beginning it seemed like something to laugh, then they started: “if you make the catwalk without a jacket, 100 euros for you … if you take off your shirt, it’s 200 euros”. In short, you understood how it was going to end, but I couldn’t accept such things and ruined the party, I screamed that they were a mass of pigs, but those of the order service took hold of me and two others and threw us out and threatened us showing their guns. When we found ourselves outside, the other two other guys beat me to death because they didn’t take a penny while the others would have taken away more than 1000 euros each one.

I don’t know if those guys were gay, the two who beat me or those who stayed at the party. But I say, straight or gay that you are, but how do you accept such a thing ?! I know that I will spend my life as a bartender but I have a dignity, the dignity of a starving guy but I never sold myself to anyone. I would spit in the face of people just like people at the party, they’re not people, they’re bags of shit.

_____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gay-prostitution-and-power

OLD GAYS AND GAY CULTURE

Being gay and being old is basically different from a generic being old without any other specification? In theory it may seem that adding the adjective gay to old age the substance of the facts does not actually change, but a difference between a generic old age and a gay old age exists and is of considerable weight: gays do not have a family ‘they will probably have a family a long way to go and even then having a mate at a legal level means almost always having a peer or almost a peer mate, but for an old man the sense of the family is identified with having around people of other generations that are somehow linked by strong affective links to the old man and support him during old age, especially in the weaker stages where autonomy is diminished.

A gay is not a ring of a chain that will continue, a gay is the last ring of a chain and as such is destined to remain alone. Even those who have children can be basically alone and can in some cases feel more solitude because they have desired the affection of children for years and can see such hopes completely vanished in the sense that being abandoned by children is even worse than having no one to rely on. From this point of view an old gay is more protected, it is impossible for him to be disillusioned because it is impossible for him to be deluded.

An old gay will end up being an old man tolerated because he is essentially an alien to the lives of his relatives who will be close to him. An old gay tends to remain autonomous as long as he can, to avoid being a burden to anyone and at the same time to not limit his own freedom and privacy by reducing himself to being run by others, but time will still lead him to a condition of dependence and not of dependence on children but on people who are less likely to be really interested in giving him real support. An old man with children can accept to depend on them, although such a situation may be heavy, it’s at least natural, he can delegate to his children all decisions, even those that concern him most directly. In any case, children have an inheritance expectation that in any case would belong to them, and take care of old parents is generally not due to reasons of economic interest. When you have to rely on strangers or distant relatives, the speech is completely different and reasons of the economic interest really exist, when, even if small, there is a legacy.

I would like to add something I’ve been thinking about, an old gay over a bit of money and material goods also has a set of objects that have a profoundly private dimension for him: his books, his computer, his mail kept away over the years, his writings, poems, diaries. Where it would end all these things if they came to the hands of heirs driven only by economic interest? Probably would be thrown away in a very short time and the reflections of a life would end up in the garbage. An old gay usually holds a lot of his memories, his writings, his photos, things that are not of interest to others. All those things are part of a culture, a culture that is entirely special, that others cannot understand, which for them is not only foreign but is even a disvalue.

An old gay would be very interested that his world, after him, would not be completely destroyed, that at least a part of his experience might be useful to somebody. Anyone who has children can be deluded to transfer to the children feelings and values, on the contrary, the man who does not have children and belongs to a culture in some aspects (and are basic aspects) separate, would like to have a similar possibility of transfer contents in a chain that passes from generation to generation.

An old gay remembers that when he was young it was very difficult for him to have clear ideas about homosexuality, if he had been able to enjoy the wealth of experience accumulated by others before him, most likely, awareness would have been quicker, more complete and less problematic.

There is a specific gay culture, certainly evolving but real, strongly rooted in personal experience of any gay, but still today this culture is substantially reduced to what comes out of official culture, in terms of books and films. If a gay goes to see a movie like Maurice or reads Forster’s novel, he feels the movie and the book as part of his own culture, recognizes his roots, but apart from these great monuments of cinema or literature, now consecrated by celebrity, the heritage of the diffused gay culture, elaborated through the experience of millions of people who have not arrived to the notoriety, is unfortunately destined to perish with the death of those who lived those experiences.

Time ago I published pages from the war diary of two Italian soldiers who had fought against the English army in Libia on the Egyptian border http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/sh…php?tid=91 . From those pages you could guess the true story of the two guys, those pages have been saved by pure chance but are a very rare exception, especially if you think that we are talking about the diary of two soldiers. I wondered what could really be behind those diary pages, what feelings, clearly not expressed and inexpressible, what frustrations, how they considered and lived their life. These are fragments of gay culture linked to the lived life and unfortunately are just fragments.

Nowadays the possibility to collect our writings is certainly much greater, but the enormous amount of supply and the overwhelming commercial dimension of the culture make in fact a bad service to gay culture that too often assumes an ideological dimension and omits the narrative biographical dimension , the introspective and poetic perspective that would give gay culture a dimension much more tied to reality.

Each of us, insofar as he can, makes history and elaborates a piece of gay culture in the extended sense of the term. It is a culture often hidden and deliberately neglected, yet in the life of each one there are seemingly unique and unrepeatable elements that could be of extreme interest to many others. Culture means sharing, common heritage. There are so many cultures, and there is also a specific gay culture. We are not talking academically about the existence or absence of a gay culture, anyone who looks at the phenomenon from the inside perceives its irreducible specificity. It is culture as a fruit and the elaboration of experience, it is culture as a shared moment. That’s why an old man does not like the idea that his whole world is going to end up in a trash bin, that his PC is not intended to convey interesting content to others, but to be simply formatted to be reused for other purposes. A man really ends when even his own world disappears definitively, and that’s exactly what an old gay would avoid, if possible: he would be deluded not having lived in vain, not have spent a lifetime accumulating books, articles, mails etc. etc. just to let someone else throw all this into junk, of course, unfortunately, garbage remains the most likely hypothesis. The same goes for blogs, sites, forums, and any other means of expression that lasts as long as they are fed, and then are destined to disappear quickly with all its contents to make room for other content.

An old gay knows that his world, to have some hope of surviving it, must not end up in the wrong hands, I do not say hostile but just indifferent. But it remains the underlying conviction of the total transience and the uselessness of any attempt to preserve something of himself for others and this is consoling, because the dispersion of what we have been and of what we have accumulated over a lifetime does not depend on us and is in some way inevitable.

__________

If you like, you can participate in the discussion of this post, open on the Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/showthread.php?tid=117

GAYS AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The gays have long been engaged in the civil rights struggle and in particular to get the right to marriage or to a civil union, if you don’t want to use the word marriage, which produces the same effects as marriage. The conquest of civil rights recognized by law is a crucial first step towards a non-discriminating community, but remains nevertheless a formal step. You can realize this by observing the number of marriages or gay civil unions in countries where the law recognizes them. In general, only a very small minority of gay couples formalize their union in legal terms. On the other hand, in the majority of Western countries there is a general decline in the number of heterosexual marriages and a significant increase in free unions without any legal constraints.

It remains a fact to keep in mind: gay couples that choose not to use the tools that the law makes available to them to attribute civil effects to their union, very often do so because, even though the law declares the substantial equalization of the heterosexual marriages to homosexual ones or civil unions, public opinion remains on the back ground, and discrimination, though no longer on a legal basis, still exists at the social level, and gay people experience it also within their own families. The real core of the problem of equality of rights lies in social inertia, which means that what the law defines and the more enlightened society considers obvious ends up only to permeate very slowly the society as a whole.

The role of new generations in promoting a process of genuine social equality is extremely important because the concept of equality has many implications and the equality of sexual orientations is just a part of a problem that should be addressed in the whole. The role of the gay new generations is particularly delicate because films, television and the internet often offer a very marked and unrealistic picture of homosexuality, for ideological or commercial reasons.

You can nevertheless see very interesting gay books and films, which are in fact faithful reconstructions of real gay moments, because it is always to be remembered that saying “gay” means putting together, taking into account just a single feature, people who are really very different. Trying to transpose into a movie or novel the “gay” life as a general category means to make an ideological discourse. A good book or a good movie must tell the lives of real people, considered as individuals and not as a category.

What would then be the task of young gay men, who can be the true promoters of a new social culture? The answer is simple: who fights in order to make people recognize the normality of homosexuality doesn’t have to take ideological attitudes but simply has to live his own homosexual normality.

I try to explain it better: if it is right for gays to have a chance to meet with other gays, locking themselves in a ghetto that distinguishes “we” (gay) from “they” (straight) means favoring discrimination.

Let me make another example: a sign of the social mentality in the matter of equality of sexual orientation is found in the large libraries. In some large libraries there is a “gay” section; in others the gay-themed books are not placed in a separate department and, for example, among love novels there are also gay love novels and among Sociology books there are also those of sociology of homosexuality, etc.

Another crucial point, beyond the overcoming of the ghetto, is the normality of behaviors. In many countries, public coming out and family coming out are considered critical moments in the life of a gay guy because they are seen as formal and therefore risky moments, where guys are exposed to the judgment of others. It should be remembered that coming out is not a moral duty for anyone, but only an opportunity, if, and I emphasize the “if”, it can be achieved without substantial risks, otherwise it is a choice to avoid because it could be self-punishing. It should be borne in mind that often, in families who are not prepared for the idea of having a gay son, the coming out of the son may be disruptive for parents.

If we try to observe what happens to the straight guys, we can have a pattern of “normal” behavior that should be extended to gays. The straight guys don’t go by their fathers to say, “Daddy, I must tell you something very important!” just to tell them, “Daddy, I am straight!” The young straight guys begin to have straight behaviors from the earliest age, without officially declaring anything at all.
For gays, the road should be similar: attending other boys, taking them home, going out with a boy telling the truth to parents without any further specification, spending Saturday or Sunday with that boy, not answering too much questions.
Let me give an example: “But why do you always go out with that guy?” “Because he is very nice!” Gays often go to crisis because they have internalized the idea that being gay is somehow transgressive and that’s why gays need approvals and justifications.

While it is true that gays, albeit with rare exceptions, grow in highly straight-oriented environments, it’s also true that once they acquire awareness not only of their sexual orientation but of the dignity of any sexual orientation, they should automatically overcome the idea of being somehow subordinate, but this unfortunately does not happen because social pressures are very strong.

To clarify the concept, it’s useful to refer to the obsessive compulsive disorder, the so-called OCD. It is well known that some people, who have a tendency towards obsessive-compulsive character, can develop heavily-structured obsessive-compulsive behaviors around a well-defined thematic core that coincides with the content from which the person is most intimidated. For an old man suffering from an OCD, obsession can be linked to the idea that robbers can rob him and compulsive behaviors, in this case will concretize in armoring doors and windows, in the installation of latest generation anti-theft devices, and in hiding all valuables. Similarly, for a nun with OCD, obsession may be that of sin and compulsion may be that of confessing every day, always remaining with the perpetual idea of omitting something. For a heterosexual young man, obsession can easily be the obsessive fear of being gay and compulsions can manifest in an infinite series of tests (from tests of masturbation with gay fantasies to the use of  gay pornography) that, of course, never provide any answer that can be considered definitive and clarifying.

So, if we observe the incidence of the gay-themed OCD, which I repeat is a typical disorder of 100% heterosexual guys, it is noted that gay-themed OCD is common in Southern Europe of Catholic tradition and in Latin America, while it is very less common in Protestant countries (where the opening to gay couples is much more common than in the Catholic Church.) In some countries in northern Europe, where serious and mandatory sexual education exists, from the earliest age, and where homosexuality is no longer a scarecrow for anyone, the gay-themed OCD, in practice, doesn’t exist at all.

This is a clear sign that negative social judgment on homosexuality deeply affects the straight guys themselves, and causes some of them an obsessive fear of being gay. If this is the effect on heterosexual guys, the result on gay guys is certainly not less. The classic example can be found in the effort that gay guys have to make to accept their being gay as a value, because the Catholic Church affirms in a peremptory way that homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts, are a serious sin against nature. It is certainly no coincidence that a lot of gays in the countries of southern Europe, even though they are substantially  Christians, are nevertheless far from the Catholic Church.

Here comes another idea that generally finds a lot of favor among the gays, namely the idea that the diffusion of scientific thought would be extremely helpful in favoring greater rationality among the new generations.

In 1797, Francisco Goya called an etching of his “El sueño de la razón produce monstruos ” (the dream of reason generates monsters) and in fact, discriminations, which are totally irrational, are precisely the sign that reason has fallen asleep.

Awakening reason leads not to fear the ghosts, to rationally examine each statement before giving it some value. Mythical thought leads to the elation and the blackout of reason, rational thought leads on the contrary to sobriety and to the critical evaluation of events and ideas.

Even morality can be mythical or rational. A mythical morality is dogmatic, its content is stated in principle without any motivation. Rational morality is really such when it resists any criticism because it is endowed with objective evidence.

Personally, I believe that gays have often given impetus to deep innovations in the field of thought, favoring its openness to broader horizons and overcoming dogmatism. Philosophy, literature or art elaborated by a person are the result of the individual experience of that person, that is, they are somehow the daughters of individual psychology, and in a circular movement they tend to change the individual experience and the life itself of other people. That’s why commitment must be maximum: fighting ignorance and prejudice is not only useful for gays but it contributes to the improvement of society as a whole.
__________

If you like, you can participate in the discussion of this post, open on the Gay Project Forum:

GAY MARRIAGE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

This post is aimed at comparing two different opinions about homosexual marriage, the first one emerging from an inter-religious conversation between Jorge Mario Bergoglio  then-archbishop of Buenos Aires (now pope Francis), and rabbi Skorka, and also from an interview with Monsignor Juan Vicente Còrdoba, secretary of the Columbian episcopal conference, and the other coming from the legislative solutions definitively adopted, on April 23, 2013, by the French National Assembly.

The comments in square brackets used inside quotations are by the author of this post.

Bergoglio and Homosexuality

On March 13, 2013, the day of the election of Pope Bergoglio, GayProject published a letter addressed by Cardinal Bergoglio to the Buenos Aires Carmelite nuns in 2010, when the same-sex marriage law was going to be approved in Argentina. https://gayproject2.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/pope-bergoglio-and-homosexuals/ .

In 2010 a book by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, titled “Sobre el cielo y la tierra” was published by Editorial Sudamericana, Buenos Aires.

This book is a compilation of the conversations between the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis and Abraham Skorka, rabbi and rector of the Latin-American Rabbinic Seminary in Buenos Aires. The inter-religious conversations are about different topics, such as God, fundamentalism, atheists, death, holocaust, homosexuality and capitalism and took place alternatively in the bishop seat and in the Jewish community Benei Tivka.

In the sixteenth chapter, “Sobre el cielo y la tierra” deals with “marriage between people of the same sex”. So rabbi Skorka opens the conversation: “In my opinion, same-sex marriage has been considered in a very partial manner, compared to the depth that the topic deserves. Cohabiting same-sex couples are matter of fact and are entitled to legal solutions to problems such as pensions, inheritance etc.. (which may be part of a new juridical figure), but equating homosexual couples to heterosexual ones is something totally different. It’s not just a belief question, but we must be aware that this problem concerns one of the most delicate elements our culture is based on.”

Bergoglio replies: “Religion, being at the service of the people, in entitled to express its opinion. And if somebody asks me for advice, I have the right to give it to him. Sometimes the religious minister calls attention to certain points of the private or public life because he is the mentor of the faithful.” Up to this point we can find the usual reaffirmation of the duties and  obviously also of  the consequential rights that religions are entitled to claim, nevertheless Bergoglio introduces a new element pointing out what “is not for religious minister, as he doesn’t have the right to interfere with anybody’s private life, and that’s for sure. If, during the Creation, God faced the risk of making us free, who am I to interfere? We condemn the redundancy of spiritual influence, which occurs when a minister imposes the guideline, the behaviour to follow, depriving people of freedom”. These statements, however, are not intended for possible approval of choices different from those suggested (not imposed) by the church because Bergoglio is quick to point out that “God let us free even to commit a sin. Talking clearly about values, limits, commandments is something absolutely necessary, of course, but spiritual or pastoral interference is not allowed”.

Skorka reminds that in Judaism there are some currents in which prescriptive approaches prevail, but he underlines that in Jewish Law there’s no place for homosexuality, and he adds: “On the other hand, I respect any individual who maintains a reserved and intimate approach to the theme”, then he refers to the Argentinian law of 2010 about civil marriage between same-sex people and access to adoptions by same-sex couples; he reminds the worth that scientists like Freud or Lévi-Strauss attribute to the prohibition of incestuous relationships and to sexual ethic, and he admits to be worried about the consequences for society that laws like that approved in Argentina in 2010 can produce.

Bergoglio considers the Argentinian law approved in 2010 as an “anthropological regression”, since it weakens “an institution millennia old, created in accordance with nature and anthropology”; this way the rejection of homosexual unions considered as equivalent to marriage loses the quality of religious precept, in the name of which church is not allowed to deprive anybody of his freedom, and  assumes the meaning of safeguard of the natural law in opposition to anything unnatural, and also of safeguard of a principle of anthropology, which affirms that heterosexuality is an intrinsic characteristic of the man as such.

Bergoglio then states something apparently open-minded: “Fifty years ago, co-living before marriage was not as common as nowadays. It was something degrading. Then things changed. Today, co-living before marriage, although it’s not right from a religious point of view, does not have any more the extremely negative social weight it had fifty years ago. It’s a sociological fact that clearly is not comparable to the completeness and  greatness of marriage, an institution millennia old that has to be defended. […] We too consider very important what you have just highlighted, that is the base of the Natural Law mentioned by the Bible: the union between a man and a woman”. Shorly, Bergoglio underlines that Bible recognizes the “real” Nature Law, which is identified, in sexual matter, as heterosexuality.

Bergoglio continues: “homosexuality has always existed. The island of Lesbos, for example, was well known for having homosexual women. But it had never happened in history that somebody tried to give it the same status as marriage. It was tolerated or not tolerated, it was appreciated or not appreciated, but never considered equal.” Bergoglio doesn’t even conceive that homosexuality can be considered equated with heterosexuality, because he said it doesn’t embody the Natural Law (strange concept of nature!).

Bergoglio continues with a statement: “We know that during some epochal evolutions the phenomenon of homosexuality sensibly increased”. Actually, in those periods of changing the repressive power of some institutions like Catholic Church weakened, that’s why homosexuality became more visible.

Bergoglio adds: “But in our age, it is the first time we face the problem of assimilating it to marriage, and I consider this as a bad value and an anthropological regression”.

Immediately after, Bergoglio presents the most convincing argument, according to him,: “A private union doesn’t hurt anybody nor the society. Instead, if this union is considered under the category of marriage and the right of adoption is allowed, there is the risk of damaging children. Each individual needs a male father and a female mother who help him shaping his own identity”. The idea of homo-parenthood as something dangerous is taken for granted, though many serious studies about the issue have demonstrated that those are only prejudices.

Bergoglio adds: “I insist: our opinion on marriage of same-sex people does not have a religious basis but anthropological”, and for this reason the limitation of the sphere of the individual freedom would be justified as well as the non-equalization of homosexuals with heterosexuals.

Bergoglio reminds that, for the first time after 18 years of being bishop, he had to draw the attention of a public officer when the major of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, refused to appeal against a first grade judgement that had authorized a homosexual marriage. But Bergoglio points out, twice, that he never talked about homosexuals or used derogatory terms against homosexuals and remarks that he confined himself to the legal issue.

Skorka then widens the subject on the natural law and he reminds that “in the discussion before the approval of the law, somebody invoked the “natural law” thanks to which Nature has in itself the rule leading the human behaviour. So, God himself infused this rule in the Creation. Now, a homosexual may rightly object it was God or Nature that made him that way. On the other hand, somebody declared that love between homosexual people has a multiple nature, because female love and male love co-exist together, although this does not implies a suitable condition to create a family”. These last statements of the rabbi, related to a generic “somebody”, are in fact quite curious.

Skorka introduces the question of the parental figures in the educative field and Bergoglio answers that “generally, people say that it would be better for a kid to be grown by a same-sex couple rather than living in an orphanage or in an institute for minors. Of course, neither of these situations is optimal”.

Bergoglio searches for a different solution which could allow to avoid adoption by same-sex couples. He states that “the problem is that the State does not do what it should, […] We have to consider the situations od children who live in public structures or institutes where everything is done but recover those children. NGOs, the different religious confessions or other kinds of organisations should take care of those minors”, but Bergoglio concludes: “a mistake from the State’s side [the excess of bureaucracy and corruption] does not justify another mistake by the same State [the legitimation of adoptions for same-sex couples]”. In this sense, if regulations and procedures for the adoptions were speeded up and bureaucratic rules “whose actual application encourages corruption” were eliminated, there would be no justification for adoptions by same-sex couples.

Skorka goes on quoting Bible and Maimonides, looking for images that compare the relationship between God and men to the matrimonial relationship between a man and a woman, then he concludes: “A homosexual person loves somebody he knows, a fellow. It is easy for a man to know another man, on the contrary it is much more difficult to know a woman, because he needs to decode her. A man perfectly knows what another man feels, and a woman perfectly knows what happens in the body and in the mind of another woman. Discovering the other sex, instead, is a true challenge”.

Bergoglio ends up this way: “Usually, in the homily for a marriage I tell the groom he must make her more woman, and I tell the bride she must make him more man”.

Monsignor Juan Vicente Còrdoba and the adoptions by homosexual people

Here below you can read, translated into English, an article appeared on the Columbian newspaper “El Tiempo”. The article is titled: “Monsignor Juan Vicente Còrdoba thinks that entrusting two boys to a homosexual man was a mistake”. http://m.eltiempo.com/gente/iglesia-rechaza-adopcin-de-homosexuales/10913132

The secretary of the [Columbian] Episcopal Conference, Juan Vicente Còrdoba, a professional psychologist, questioned the adoption of two little brothers authorized by the Columbian Institute for Family Wellness (ICBF) to an American homosexual man. It’s the case of the journalist Chandler Burr, who has taken back with him the two brothers after a long dispute, consequent to the fact that the adoption had been suspended when his sexual orientation was known.

What do you think about this case?

“I don’t want to judge that man or the ICBF, and I imagine there was a good intention behind. But what kind of investigation was carried out on the personality of the future dad? You have to be sure the adopters are a couple, a man and a woman, or a single man or a single woman with a stable psychology, if you want to entrust a child to somebody”.

Is homosexuality a psychological problem?

“It is not an illness, but a gender identity disease, about the identification of the gender. This is what universal psychiatry says”. [Homosexuality objectively has nothing to do with diseases or with gender identity problems, as World Health Organization confirmed many times.]

What do you know about Chandler Burr?

“I don’t know him and I’m not accusing him of anything, but one thing is clear: he has a homosexual tendency and a ten-year old boy and a thirteen-year old boy will be entrusted to him, among them there is a father-son relationship, they entrust him two boys of an age in which they can be attractive for him and so they can be a temptation”.

Do the children risk something?

“One says: why not giving him two girls? Why right two boys to a homosexual man? He wouldn’t feel any attraction towards two girls, if heterosexual fathers abuse of their daughters and even of their sons, then there’s more to worry about a homosexual man. It would have been better to give the children a father and a mother”.

So a homosexual man can’t house an orphan?

“He can, but he has to be a person with an internalized ability of controlling his tendency, his drives, his passions. It’s very hard not to fall in temptation if somebody has diabetes and he lives in a candy shop”.

What is you proposal?

“I believe that things have been made in a hurry, but it is possible to invert the trial as there was a fundamental fact nobody knew. Thus, revising the trial and bringing it back to a previous phase is something absolutely necessary. It will be very difficult for this man to be impartial and give a pure and transparent affection. Colombia cannot supply its citizens to another country like if they were just goods”.

The Prosecutor’s office investigates Chandler Burr’s couple life. The control authority expressed a negative opinion on Burr’s case, “especially about the psychological valuation test, according to which there are some evident inconsistencies about the existence of relationships with same-sex people”.

The control authority confirmed its request to ICBF for obtaining the revision of the adoption requests by mono-parental families or singles and announced that the case will be followed and this proceeding of adoption will be contested.

The choices of the French Republic

On March 24, 2013, Gay Project published an article: GAY MARRIAGE IN FRANCE AND STATE SECULARITY

https://gayproject2.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/gay-marriage-in-france-and-state-secularity/

The French law has finally closed the phase of the double track: marriage only for heterosexuals and other forms of cohabitation also for homosexuals. Without giving any “definition of marriage” was adopted simply a new text of art. 143 of the Civil Code which now reads:

“Art 143 – Marriage is contracted by two persons of different or of the same sex.”

All contrary provisions must therefore be considered amended accordingly. So the secular France has honoured the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

_________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

GAYS FROM PREJUDICE TO HUMAN RIGHTS

In June 2012, a Polish priest Dariusz Oko, a professor at the Pontifical University of John Paul II Krakow, published on the Polish magazine, Frond, and soon on the German theological journal Theologisches an article entitled: “With the Pope against homo-heresy” where he claimed that homosexuality within the Church gave birth to a mafia that generates a real homo-heresy.

In September 2012, Msgr. Tony Anatrella, consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Pontifical Council for Health, has published (in Italian by Edizioni San Paolo), his latest book, “The theory of gender and the origin of homosexuality”. Recently has been released the book “Homosexuality and the Church’s Magisterium” (Sugarco Editions, 2013), with a foreword by Msgr. Anatrella.

I tried to go a bit deeper. According to Msgr. Anatrella, the UN, the European Union and the World Health Organization are slaves to the gay lobbies and only the Catholic Church can save us from the hidden power of these lobbies, Anatrella adds “You have to read the Bible and then Saint Paul who describes the dire consequences of a society that promotes homosexuality”.

I wonder, just because I’m gay and I live in the midst of gay people, what does Msgr. Anatrella know about homosexuality if, to understand what it is, he prefers to go to St. Paul. I also wonder why the Catholic “lobby” tries to substantiate its thesis by paradoxical statements, repudiated by all the major international scientific circles.

On the other hand, on 24 July 1992 the document “Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on non-discrimination of homosexual persons” states that ” Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights… This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homo- sexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.”

Another important document “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”, 3 June 2003, states that:” Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions … discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

It is well known the speech of the Archbishop Tommasi at the General Debate of the United Nations human rights area in March 2011 (here you can read the speech in English http://cittademocratica.blogspot.it/2011/04/il-vaticano-e-lomofobia.html) which argues that there would be no need for an explicit assertion of a right to homosexuality because sexual orientation, according to the letter of the Vienna Convention, seems to be defined in terms of thought and not of behavior. The sphere of freedom of thought is already protected and therefore there would be no need to reaffirm specific gay rights, but Tommasi adds that homosexual behavior should instead be governed by the law because the law already deals with some behavior such as pedophilia. This reasoning is the very negation of the logic of human rights and insinuates intolerable combinations between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Ecclesiastical interventions aimed at devaluing the major international organizations, replicate in various ways, from the dramatic to the most subtle, the idea that there should not be any international recognition of gay rights. But against such positions comes clearly the United Nations Secretary-General:
“To those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, let me say: You are not alone. Your struggle for an end to violence and discrimination is a shared struggle. Any attack on you is an attack on the universal values the United Nations and I have sworn to defend and uphold. Today, I stand with you and I call upon all countries and people to stand with you, too” Ban Ki-moon, March 2012.

In March 2012 The United Nations has issued a key document for the rights of homosexuals, entitled “BORN FREE AND EQUAL – Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law”
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/BornFreeAndEqualLowRes.pdf
The document is a hymn to freedom. Following are the five points that the UN identifies as targets of government action in the field of LGBT human rights.

1. Protect people from homophobic and transphobic violence. Include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics in hate crime laws. Establish effective systems to record and report hate-motivated acts of violence. Ensure effective investigation and prosecution of perpetrators and redress for victims of such violence. Asylum laws and policies should recognize that persecution on account of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity may be a valid basis for an asylum claim.

2. Prevent the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of LGBT persons in detention by prohibiting and punishing such acts and ensuring that victims are provided with redress. Investigate all acts of mistreatment by State agents and bring those responsible to justice. Provide appropriate training to law enforcement officers and ensure effective monitoring of places of detention.

3. Repeal laws criminalizing homosexuality, including all laws that prohibit private sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same sex. Ensure that individuals are not arrested or detained on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and are not subjected to baseless and degrading physical examinations intended to determine their sexual orientation.

4. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Enact comprehensive laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds of discrimination. In particular, ensure non-discriminatory access to basic services, including in the context of employment and health care. Provide education and training to prevent discrimination and stigmatization of LGBT and intersex people.

5. Safeguard freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly for LGBT and intersex people. Any limitations on these rights must be compatible with international law and must not be discriminatory. Protect individuals who exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and freedom of assembly from acts of violence and intimidation by private parties.

_________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

ST. PIUS V AND HOMOSEXUALS

St. Pius V, Antonio Ghisleri (1504-1572) (Michael his name in religion) entered the Dominicans very young, right after having ruled several Dominican convents and churches, according with his request he was appointed inquisitor of Como (a little town in the Northern Italy), then he was called to the Roman Inquisition and became Commissioner-General of the Inquisition, in 1558 he was appointed Grand Inquisitor.

At the time that Ghisleri was Commissioner-General of the Inquisition two Dominicans, Valerio Malverni and Alfonso Urbino, inquisitors of Calabria, took care of the Waldensian communities settled in Calabria, in a mountainous region of the Kingdom of Naples . The interests of the Inquisition and those of the Kingdom of Naples, also the economic ones, where mingled with the repression of heresy pursued with the use of violence.

The Holy Office (i.e. the Roman Inquisition) issued on February 9, 1561 some ordinances intended to regulate the lives of the Waldenses of Calabria, usually called “ultramontani”. Were prohibited meetings of more than six people, the use of their language, the Occitan, the marriage between two of them for the next 25 years, “ultramontane” where only allowed to marry ‘Italians’. The children were to be instructed in the Catholic doctrine, everyone had to hear Mass every morning, to confess and to take communion every holiday. Men were forced to wear the “sambenito” also called yellow “abitello” (a sort of yellow blouse with a red cross of St. Andrew on both the front and back just like the one that was imposed by the Inquisitors to the heretics who had expressed remorse after conviction or in front of the fire. Women were forced to wear a “penaglio” a sort of hat saddle-shaped, considered a sign of penance, that was to be worn also at night and tore the hair of women making them bald. The doors of the houses on the Waldenses (at that time, in that place consisted of a single room) were modified by inserting a peephole, which could only be opened from the outside to allow anyone to check what was happening inside. Ghisleri (St. Pius V) was in correspondence with Melverni and approved his work, it is known that, when he became Pope, he was going to appoint him bishop of any diocese of the Kingdom of Naples, which was not the case for the opposition of Cardinal Santori.

When Malverni and Urbino proposed the Waldensians a choice between apostasy and death, Waldensians went into hiding, and around Guardia Fuscalda, San Sisto dei Valdesi, Montalto, San Vincenzo, Argentina, Vaccarizzo e Piano dei Rossi, was organized a colossal hunting to capture the Waldensians. 2200 men, women and children were slaughtered in a gruesome manner, other 1600 were captured. All this was the work of the Inquisition in defense of the faith, but there are also other considerable things.

Paul IV Carafa (also an Inquisitor as Pope St. Pius V) two months after ascending to the papacy in 1555, with the Bull “Cum Nimis Absurdum” established ghettos for Jews with a number of restrictions and harassments that gave the first impulse the escape of the Jews from the Papal States, it is basically a law clearly discriminatory and anti-Semitic. His successor, Pius IV, tried to mitigate and limit the weight of anti-Semitic policies of Paul IV but St. Pius V Ghisleri in 1566 with the Bull Romanus Pontifex restored the anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Paul IV Carafa, St. Pius V had a high opinion of Pope Paul IV because both came from the ranks of the Inquisition.

The Bull of St. Pius V “Hebraeorum gens” of February 26, 1569 decreed the expulsion of the Jews from the Papal States with the only exception of residents in the ghettos of Rome and Ancona, but beyond the mandatory content the Bull is a true manifesto of anti-Semitism. The Pope criticizes the “perfidious Jews” accusing them of having fallen out of favor of God because of their sins, that’s why they were condemned to continue wandering without a homeland.

Eventually Christian piety, pitying their sad fate, tolerated the presence of the Jews but they, however, with their wickedness and their perfidy have pushed the situation to such an extent that the Pope felt compelled, for the salvation of Christians, to curb the violence of such a disease.

The Pope accuses the Jews of being usurers and to exploit the poor Christians, of being thieves and fences, of being pimps and magicians dedicated to evil satanic tricks that lead to believe them to be able to see the future or to find treasures. The Pope then raises his voice against this scourge that causes enormous damage every day to the Christians, and decrees that all Jews must to go out of the Papal State within three months, after that term, if a Jew will be found still on the papal territory, his property will be confiscated and he will be reduced in a state of perpetual servitude. This is basically a form of racism mixed with religious intolerance.

After having considered this background we are going to analyze the position of St. Pius V against homosexuals. Following are two Constitutions that define the question. The documents use the “pluralis maiestatis” that is the Pope, referring to himself never says “I” but always “We” because of his majesty role.
______________________________

St. Pius V, Constitution “Cum primum” of 1 April 1566.
Rules regarding the observance of divine worship in the churches, and the observance of holidays, and also against simony, blasphemers, sodomites and concubines.
Pius bishop servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting memory

(Debut]
As soon as we received the apostolic office entrusted to us by divine disposition, soon we focused all our attention and all our meditation on the salvation of the Lord’s flock entrusted to our faithfulness and settled, with the help of God, to lead the faithful of Christ so that, abstaining from vices and sins, they will follow the path that leads to eternal life.

[The reason for this decision]
1. After facing the sharpness of our mind to remove all the things that might in any way offend the Divine Majesty, first we decided to amend without delay what may displease God to the maximum degree and could cause his anger, so as the Scriptures teach us giving also very serious examples: certainly the divine worship neglected, the scourge of simony, the crime of blasphemy and abominable vice of lust against nature, it’s just because of such things that peoples and nations are often affected for just revenge of God by calamities of war, famine and pestilence. Even if against those who have confessed so terrible crimes, have been issued by our predecessors many measures, however, since it is a small thing to issue laws if there are not those who make them effective in due course:

[Reaffirmation of the old sanctions against disobedience to this decree]
2. So that does not happen that someone dares to hope impunity by virtue of tolerance, we, knowing that most people are used to keep away from the will to sin much more due to the severity of the penalties that the fear of God, confirm all of the individual judgments the claims and the penalties that have been imposed on those who had committed these crimes and in fact, with our apostolic authority, we renew and in no way diminish their rigor, and warn those who have not been afraid to commit these crimes that they will not only be subject to the penalties as are prescribed by the sacred canons, but also will be subject to those civil laws set according to what the discretion of our decision will establish in relation to the quality of the people.

[Order to perform these provisions]
3. We order that Bishops and Governors in office of the cities and places of our ecclesiastical state, Bishops under pain of removal from ecclesiastical offices and Governors under pain of immediate and automatic excommunication, care to capture those who didn’t worship to God in churches with established rite or had been found guilty of heinous crimes, to condemn them to the established pains. Then the judges themselves must keep in mind that if after this our decree they will be negligent in punishing crimes of this magnitude, first of all they will be punished by the judgment of God and then they will also face our indignation.

11. If someone has committed a heinous crime against nature, because of which the wrath of God came upon the sons of perdition, he will be delivered to the secular court to be punished, and if he is a cleric, he will be deprived of holy orders and will be subject to same penalty.

13. And to enable judges to obtain very easily notice about aforementioned crimes of simony, blasphemy and rape nefarious, we want that they can proceed in every case if they are competent in jurisdiction or by reason of the type of crime or of the people, not only for prosecution and inquisition but also as a result of a simple secret complaint , in order to create among those men space for the prevention.

14. However, we warn each and every of you, so that keeping before your eyes only the fear of God and not driven by other bad affections of the soul, you will accuse only the guilty man and never the innocent one. Therefore, if it is discovered that someone accused another so libelous, we will and command that he must be subject to the rule of retaliation.
________

St. Pius V, Constitution “Horrendum illud scelus” of August 30, 1568.
Against any clergy, both secular and regular, guilty of the heinous crime.
Pius bishop servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting memory

[Debut]
The horrible crime that soiled and contaminated the cities to the point that they were scorched by the terrible judgment of God with fierce pain assails us and severely disrupts our heart so that we concentrate all our efforts to suppress it as much as possible.

[Statements of the Lateran Council]
1. It is certainly well known the decree of the Lateran Council, according to which all clerics who were surprised involved in incontinence which is against nature and for which the wrath of God came upon the sons of perdition, must be expelled from the clergy or be forced into monasteries to do penance.

[The cause of this new decision]
2. But, in order to stop the contagion of such a disaster avoiding it to strengthen becoming more and more brazen in the hope of impunity which is the strongest incentive to sin, we have determined that clerics guilty of this heinous crime should be punished so heavy that they who are not scared by the death of the soul will remain terrified by the avenging sword of secular civil laws.

[Imposition of the death penalty]
3. So we want now pursue more comprehensively and strongly what at the very beginning of our pontificate we decreed upon these things, that’s why with the authority of this canon, we deprive of any clerical privilege and any office, dignity or ecclesiastical benefit each and every priest or other secular cleric of any degree of dignity who put into practice such a heinous wickedness, so that degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, he will be immediately delivered to the secular justice, to undergo the same punishment that is established for the laymen by the legitimate legal rules.
________________

St. Pius V, with the criteria of a modern international criminal court, could be accused of serious human rights violations and also of crimes against mankind, but he is still often cited as a moral teacher and a typical restorer of ecclesiastical costumes of the Counter-Reformation. His condemnation of homosexuality is considered an example of the doctrine of the Church, and I think that, unfortunately, it is the case. I want to emphasize that this is St. Pius V, a man raised to the honors of the altars and presented as an example to the churchgoers.

_____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

HOMOSEXUALITY, MASTURBATION AND SEXUAL PLEASURE – SCIENCE AND CONFESSIONAL PROSPECTS

I reproduce below, in my translation, part of a major study that you can read on the website of the World Health Organization: “Sexual Health for the Millennium. A Declaration and Technical Document “a publication of the World Association for Sexual Health.

http://www2.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2010/Sexual%20Health%20for%20the%20Millennium.pdf

The passage is taken from Chapter 8 “Achieve Recognition of Sexual Pleasure as a Component of Well-being” pp.135-138.

SEXUAL PLEASURE IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Throughout much of human history, passionate love and sexual desire have been viewed as dangerous, a threat to the social, political and religious order (Hatfield & Rapson, 1993). During the current historical period, religion and medicine have had powerful influences on societal norms for sexual health and sexual behavior (Hart & Wellings, 2002) and in some important respects these institutions have inherited and continued the tradition of viewing sexual desire, and by extension, pleasure with varying degrees of suspicion.

It is not possible to make tidy generalizations about the extent to which the major religions have held either “sex negative” or “sex positive” perspectives toward pleasure and sexuality. However, it may be said that in various historical periods, many religions, including Christianity and Islam have focused on the reproductive aspects and function of sexuality. Consequently, they have sought strict controls on sexual behavior particularly outside of marriage between a man and a woman, behavior that does not lead to reproduction (e.g., masturbation) and viewed sexual pleasure, particularly that of women and homosexual men and women, with contempt (For extensive documentation and analysis of religious perspectives toward sexuality throughout history see Bullough, 1980, Hawkes, 2004). Numerous scholars have documented the disdain for sexual pleasure expressed by Christian theologians and institutions throughout much of the church’s history (e.g., Pagels, 1988). Masturbation, in particular, has been a contentious topic as its primary purpose is to produce pleasure (Coleman, 2002). Research on masturbation has indicated that contrary to traditional beliefs, masturbation has been found to be a common sexual behavior and linked to indicators of sexual health. While there are no general indicators of ill health associated with masturbation, it can generate powerfully negative or positive emotions for many individuals. It can be powerfully negative or positive, depending on the interaction between the prevailing societal attitudes and individual attitudes and behaviors (Coleman, 2002).

In fact, research has indicated that masturbation begins early and is an important part of healthy sexual development (Langfeldt, 1981). It is often a marker of sexual development (Bancroft, Herbenick, D., & Reynolds, 2002). Many young people learn about their bodies and sexual responsiveness through masturbation (Atwood & Gagnon, 1987). Masturbation also continues throughout the life span. For example, many adults continue to masturbate even though they are married and have ready access to sexual intercourse (Laumann et al., 1994). Masturbation can also help older people who do not have an available partner to maintain sexual functioning and expression (Leiblum & Bachmann, 1988). It is also a safe alternative to behaviors that carry a risk of a sexually transmitted infection, including HIV. The benefits of masturbation are illustrated by its wide acceptance in sex therapy as a means of improving the sexual health of the individual and/or couple (Heiman & LoPiccolo, 1988; Leiblum & Rosen, 1989; Zilbergeld, 1992).

Addressing masturbation within sexual health promotion programming can be controversial. However the available evidence suggests that including masturbation as a topic within comprehensive sexual health promotion is important and necessary.

There is a need for more research, including theory development and hypothesis testing, on the impact of masturbation on self-esteem, body image, sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction and the effective incorporation of education about masturbation within sexual health promotion programs.

It must be noted that positive and progressive perspectives toward pleasure and sexuality are emerging from groups from a variety of religious faiths. Nevertheless, it must also be acknowledged that the legacy of a largely negative interpretation of sexual pleasure, particularly if it is experienced in a context contrary to particular religious norms for sexual conduct, by many religious institutions is still with us today and continues to hinder the recognition of pleasure in sexual health promotion efforts in many parts of the world. With respect to international efforts to promote sexual health, the alliance of the United States, the Vatican and conservative Muslim and Catholic states in opposing the recognition of diverse sexual rights, including those related to pleasure, is testimony to the continued influence of conservative religious forces in shaping polices related to sexual health (Ilkkaracan, 2005).

Since the latter half of the 19th century, medicine and medical science has, particularly in the Western world, exercised considerable authority over sexuality and here too we find that sexual pleasure was often seen as pathology. As Hart and Wellings (2002) suggest “The long tradition of representing illness as a punishment for sin was continued when sexual behavior was medicalized and transformed into morbidity” (p. 896). For example, masturbation, homosexual desire and overt sexual interest, particularly if expressed by women was until quite recently seen by medicine as symptomatic of psychiatric illness and perversion.

Although contemporary medicine and some religious institutions have turned the corner in recognizing the positive and beneficial aspects of sexual expression, many remnants of the propensity to focus on the negative outcomes of sexual expression remains with us. “Today’s public discourse about sexuality is almost exclusively about risks and dangers: abuse, addiction, dysfunction, infection, pedophilia, teen pregnancy, and the struggle of sexual minorities for their civil rights” (Planned Parenthood Federation of America [PPFA], 2003. p. 1).

Although, in most cultures, sexual desire and pleasure receive their widest endorsement within the context of a relationship, sexual desire and pleasure are increasingly coming to be seen as intrinsically positive and rewarding aspects of human experience. While a concern with pleasure is sometimes thought of as a decadent preoccupation of a secular Western culture, it is important to note that many diverse cultures have strong traditions of affirming sexual pleasure. For example, within Brazilian culture the concept of tudo or “Everything” refers to the world of erotic experiences and pleasures (de Freitas, de Oliveira, & Rega, 2004). Indeed, a contemporary discourse of pleasure can be found in many non-western cultures. For example, in Turkey, a country not known for its affirmation of women’s sexual pleasure, a grassroots program that emphasized sexual pleasure as a women’s human right was conducted (Ilkkaracan & Seral, 2000). Organizations such as the South and Southeast Asian Resource Centre on Sexuality (Patel, online) are raising the issue of pleasure in the context of sexual health. From their review of historical and cross-cultural perspectives on passionate love and sexual desire, Hatfield and Rapson (1993) conclude that the tide of history is in the direction of “….an increasing acceptance of passionate love and sexual desire as legitimate, expressible feelings” (p. 91).

Sexual leasure is necessary and contributes to well-being, happiness and health

Romantic love is a primary feature of couple relationships and is expressed through sexuality and sexual passion for the partner (Esch & Stefano, 2005). Although social, political and economic differences across time and place can markedly impact upon sexual attitudes and behavior, cross-cultural research has found that people in all societies place a high value on being with a partner for whom there is “mutual attraction-love” (Buss et al., 1990). Sexual desire and pleasure are embedded in and a fundamental aspect of the mutual attraction between partners.

The mutual sharing of sexual pleasure has been shown to increase bonding within relationships (Weeks, 2002). As Tepper (2000) writes with respect to the neglected rights of people with disabilities to enjoy their sexuality, “Pleasure is an affirmation of life…It can add a sense of connectedness to the world or to each other. It can heal a sense of emotional isolation so many of us feel even though we are socially integrated” (p. 288).

In sum, the enjoyment of sexual pleasure plays an important role in contributing to the establishment, maintenance and stability of couple relationships and, without doubt, the quality of couple relationships is fundamental to the health and well-being of individuals and families. While sexual pleasure can be seen as an end in-of-itself, for many, if not most people, sexual pleasure is intertwined with feelings of intimacy and affection for their partner. Sexual desire and pleasure not only facilitate reproduction, they function as a mechanism of social attachment for the couple relationship, an essential kinship structure in all cultures of the world (Fisher, 2002).

At the most foundational level, sexual pleasure is rooted in the most basic of human functions as has been recognized by evolutionary psychology. In the context of adaptive behavior and its necessity in evolution, it would appear that the pleasure generated by sexual stimulation, orgasm or intercourse would be selected-for evolutionarily. Consequently, pleasure can be seen as an effective and important adaptive mechanism, the function of which is to ensure the procreation and survival of the species (Esch & Stefano, 2005, p. 182).

To the extent that a society is concerned with the well-being and stability of families generally, and couples specifically, it is in the interests of policy makers to recognize the importance of sexual pleasure and to implement sexual health promotion programs that address sexual pleasure as fundamental to individual and couple health and wellbeing.

The recent Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors that examined various aspects of sexual health among a sample of 27,500 men and women aged 40 to 80 from 29 culturally diverse countries around the world offers strong evidence of the importance of pleasure and sexual satisfaction for the happiness and well-being of individuals and couples (Laumann et al., 2006: Nicolosi et al., 2004). The survey asked participants, among other things, questions about the degree to which they found their relationships to be physically pleasurable and how important sex is to their overall happiness. Over three quarters of men (82%) and women (76%) agreed that satisfactory sex is essential to maintain a relationship and the authors concluded from their findings that despite substantial cultural variation in sexual norms and values, subjective sexual well-being was associated with overall happiness in both men and women.

A White Paper published by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA, 2003) in cooperation with the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality extensively catalogues the scientific evidence demonstrating the health benefits of sexual expression. Taken together, the studies cited suggest that partnered sexual activity and/or masturbation can be associated with improved longevity, immunity, pain management, self-esteem and a reduction in stress.

In sum, sexual pleasure helps to cement the primary kinship structure of the couple relationship, contributes to the overall happiness in life of both men and women (whether they are in partnerships or not) and is associated with various aspects of good health. Seen in this way sexual pleasure is not frivolous or unnecessary: it is essential.

_________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

GAY MARRIAGE IN FRANCE AND STATE SECULARITY

Starting from April 4, 2013 the Senate of the French Republic will examine the Draft Law No. 344 “for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples” (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/projets/pl0344.asp) already approved by the National Assembly.

The Article. 1 of the Draft Law No. 344 provides that the Chapter I of Title V of Book I of the Civil Code is amended as follows: “is inserted at the beginning of this chapter an art. 143 so defined:

“Article 143 – Marriage is contracted by two people of different sexes or of the same sex. ‘”.

The Draft Law also provides analytically all the provisions of the codes to adapt them to the new Article 143. The entire discipline of marriage, according to the provisions of the Draft Law, can be found on the page http://www.mariage-civil.fr/

It should be emphasized that the new Article 143 of the French Civil Code does not create a special legislation for same-sex couples, possibly extending it to unmarried heterosexual couples, but simply extends marriage rights to all, without exceptions depending on the sex of the spouses and extends the adoption rights to homosexual couples on the basis of the same rules that govern the adoption for heterosexual couples. This means that the new art. 143, secularly and strictly, applies the principle of equality of all citizens in front of the law.

The definition of the new art. 143 of the French Civil Code is the result of a long process of secularization of marriage.

Marriage, in France, was the exclusive prerogative of the Church during the Ancien Régime, the final secularization of marriage has been enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution of 1791 which states that “the law sees marriage as a civil contract.” The decree of 20 to 25 September 1792 sets up the conditions for the formation of marriage, including the celebration in front of the municipal public official. This conception of civil and secular marriage was endorsed by the authors of the Civil Code. The marriage has no definition in the French Civil Code and the Code does not identify any fixed purpose for the marriage, the Code is just about acts of marriage, then, in a separate heading, about conditions, effects, and the dissolution of the marriage.

The idea of ​​opening marriage to same-sex couples has collected progressively greater acceptance since the adoption of the law n° 99-944 of 15 November 1999 on the Civil Solidarity Pact. The majority of French people are now in favor of access to marriage by same-sex couples. It is true that the Civil Solidarity Pact allowed to meet the real aspiration of society and the regime that it provides has been considerably strengthened and made closer to that of marriage, but differences still remain and this legal instrument does not meet the request of the same-sex couples who wish to marry or their request for access to adoption.

France has to take a step further. This is the purpose of the Draft Law. 344, which opens the right to marry to same-sex couples and therefore also opens access to parenting for these people, through the mechanism of adoption.

Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon, said that the opening of marriage to homosexuals “is socially disruptive” and added, “And then, this will have an infinite number of consequences. After that, they can require to marry non only in couple but in three or four. Then, one day perhaps, will fall also the prohibition of incest.”

The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris Andre Vingt-Trois judged the marriage between persons of the same sex, “an arrogance that will shake one of the pillars of our society.”

The Protestant Federation of France has ruled against “the false idea of ​​marriage for all” as a matter “not theological but social and anthropological.”

The Grand Rabbi of France Gilles Bernheim believes that “the arguments of equality, love, protection or right to a child do not hold up and they cannot justify, they only, a law.”

Olivier-Genh Wang, vice-president of the Union of Buddhists in France, hopes “people to reflect on the consequences that will arise from individualistic and selfish acts.”

(http://www.20minutes.fr/france/1035092-mariage-homosexuel-mgr-vingt-trois-fustige-supercherie)

The French Council for the Muslim Faith (CFCM) has published an official document which explains the opposition of the Muslim Law Project but precises, secularly, that “the rules and norms of a religion cannot be used to oppose or evade rules and regulations of the State that apply to everyone.” The document also states that Muslims “strongly condemn all homophobic acts.” According to the CFCM “the mission of marriage cannot be reduced to recognize a bond of love”, marriage presupposes “the foundation of a stable family under the direction of the two spouses”.

(http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/11/06/01016-20121106ARTFIG00611-mariage-gay-l-opposition-des-musulmans.php)

_______
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: