tragicomic In the Italian political scene, from which citizens feel a greater distance, as he "discovered" the President Napolitano, hearing about PACS and homosexual couples, now, indeed, the issues the center of political debate. Yes, our parliament is more heat for the granting of rights to non-conventional families, which really help the families "regular" in distress.
But before addressing the issue, a couple of preliminary considerations are necessary.
A: Every person has the right to have sexual orientation they want, or that was imposed by nature, and not to be discriminated against because of it. Consideration that might seem superfluous, but it is not at all for a long series of reasons.
Two: expressions of "gay pride" so broken and out of the norm, they are absolutely counterproductive for homosexuals. The first to realize that homosexuals are the same as I would define "serious", ie those which by nature have always been a homosexual orientation, and suffering to see their condition exploited for political and electoral reasons.
That said, what are the PACS? A legislative act, or set of laws aimed at regulating the cohabitation between couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to grant similar rights or equal to those of married couples.
What's wrong with regulating the "civil unions"?
First, the term "civil unions" is wrong. A couple can get married in town, and not in the Church, and therefore fall under the category "civil unions". But this kind of union is equalized in all respects to that of married couples (even) in the Church. And God forbid ...
The "civil unions" at issue are something else, namely, couples - heterosexual or homosexual - not married, so ask specific rights.
Now, these rights can not be granted in a general manner by law or even constitutional to all unmarried couples. In this regard I can think of the battles of the left "in defense of the Constitution, which instead is ignored when not correspond to their interests or calculations (citing as examples the Art. 29, para 1:" The Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage "and Art. 95, c. 1:" The President of the Council conducts the general policy of the government and is responsible. It keeps the unit of political and administrative policies, promoting and coordinating the activities of ministers ").
There can be no rights without a thousand and that the couple in question have zero duties and obligations towards society. Why should we allow a pair of generally the same treatment as a married, when the former may well decide one morning that a union no longer exists? Married couples have duties and obligations to the company that unmarried couples do not have. Ergo, zero duties, zero (or most) rights.
is absolutely the most wanted: in a different way than the itching radical-socialist-communist left as present (aihmé!) right, I am well aware that life is not is never perfect. Cases of life are many, can not be considered a situation like any other.
Then, for special cases, which may also result in high percentage, can be put in place a series of measures licensor's rights through simple changes ad hoc of the Civil Code. Let me explain with an example: an unmarried heterosexual couple with children in their fifties, in which one spouse has experienced a failed marriage is certainly something more than a "couple" of gay teens who have not yet understood what to do with their lives. So, for the first couple are inserted in the Code of ad hoc measures to protect their status; the second, continue to live peacefully their condition without much fanfare.
One final thought on the subject of rights and in particular the adoption by homosexual persons: in today's society it is unthinkable that concession, given that two persons of the same sex can not procreate, a goal that society (if not nature or God, that seems to count less and less) has awarded a man and a woman at a time, homosexuals can not claim the same rights as heterosexual couples, the question of the social and political wanting to leave out the biological and moral, not can be circumvented by adopting a child here comes a third person, helpless and unable to decide for itself, that can not afford to be "raped" in its freedom from any desire to "motherhood" or "paternity" homosexual.
Fortunately, there are still thinking people in Italy, which will hopefully avoid a drift Zapatero.
0 comments:
Post a Comment