chat, feelings, and random discussion thread

[hyena]

nf: fed up.
in the short course of about 12 hours i got into heated debates (or rather, to use the correct words, very stressful fights) with people on both sides of the fence of the dramatic controversy on italy's prospective law on civil unions. last night i had to fight with my brother, a foot soldier in the army of bigots who believe that people should regulate their sentimental life how they want provided they don't tell anyone, so no civil union law at all because the state "cannot recognize something that is against the family". it is doubly maddening because in his private life he is absolutely open-minded about sex, it's just that everything that is not a formal marriage has to stay hidden, except when you meet your mates at the pub and boast.
this morning, on the other hand, i had to fight with my boss, who is stuck in 1968 and amasses a grandiose amount of idiocy for such an educated man - he proudly proclaimed that he is so irked by the catholic church's messing with italian lawmakers over civil unions that he is sending formal letters to his son's school principal to have the crucifixes removed from classrooms. he launched into a tirade against each and every representation of christianity in public places calling such representations fascist and all catholics unable to understand the concept of freedom.
i sometimes feel like i'm the only sane person in the world - but it's not like i have very sophisticated opinions that nobody can understand, so i don't see why it must be so. i have the gall to think that most sensible people will like some aspects of this proposal for a civil unions law and not like some others (see, very advanced thinking ), and i am also interested in debating single merit points, but why do i have to waste my time bumping into people who won't see any reason?

 

[Kovenant84]

On the topic of the police and sports security we were discussing previously,

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-italy-violence&prov=ap&type=lgns

Happened to see that this morning. Seems like something is getting done, but then, I'd like to hear from the locals about whether they think this will solve anything?

Edit: Hyena, this is the same issue as the civil union / gay marriage war going on in the US? Just out of curiousity, what is your stance on the issue? I think I've deduced some from your arguments with others, but seeing as you're one of the few around here who are (at least openly) Catholic, I'd be intrigued to see how your views line up with the Catholics I know around here. (I myself was raised Catholic, but I've since grown away from it. I harbor no resentment or anger towards it, but I just don't think it's for me.)

~kov.

 

[Vizjaqtaar]

Out of all neighbouring countries Italy's issues and debates are the funniest, even to the point that it's hard to take you seriously.

 

[Kovenant84]

Well, the only thing I really felt was ridiculous in it was the one guy's comment about how they had already spent so much money on the stadiums, so why couldn't they just use them in any case?

I mean, understandably it comes down to money for the players, stadium owners, sponsors, etc., but to come right out and say that it would cost too much to keep people safe, so just shut up about the danger, is warped.

~kov.

 

[rahvin]

The mixture of first-world problems and third-world mentality admittedly makes this country's debates some of the silliest ever.

 

[Vizjaqtaar]

I didn't mean specifically this football security issue, which I think IS a serious problem that needs to be adressed. I meant generally.. and yeah, funny perhaps isn't the right word, it's more like Rahvin said - silly.

 

[hyena]

Out of all neighbouring countries Italy's issues and debates are the funniest, even to the point that it's hard to take you seriously.

Yes, and I suppose that your country instead is awash with the smartest politicians who ever set foot in Europe (no! the world!), and of course the most educated and concept-friendly population that can be imagined. Of course your country has no superficial TV programs, no mass adoration for starlets, no silly trends and fads, no wrong laws, no racism, and last but not least absolutely no involvement in any war. Like, ever. You also have the euro! Hooray!

As much as every citizen with a minimum of intellect and responsibility, I know there are serious shortcomings in my country's political debate. For example, I think that foreign policy is discussed too infrequently in the public arena, hence leading to a deficit of democracy (not specific to the current government); I do not like how most politicians will try to polarize the country over ideological battlecries rather than rely on sensible policy proposals (specific to the current era, say from 1993 on, but not - again - of political color); and I could go on, also citing a load of specific problems with the current ruling coalition, which I did not vote for.

However, I entirely, wholeheartedly refute the demented view according to which "Out of all neighbouring countries Italy's issues and debates are the funniest, even to the point that it's hard to take you seriously." May I remind you, for starters, that contrary to most other "neighbouring countries" of yours, we didn't practice our shooting technique on each other en masse in the past 60 years?

I honestly don't see how the legal recognition of civil unions is a silly issue; more importantly, i do not see how it is silly in Italy but not in other countries where it has been recently debated, for example France, or the United States. While personally I do not think that it should top a nation's political agenda, other recent issues do not look too silly either. In the past seven days, besides civil unions I can mainly think of:

- military presence in Afghanistan
- deregulation of some business sectors
- expansion of US Air Force hubs in Northeastern Italy
- reform of criminal law to tackle violence and corruption in football

Then of course you have all the stupid headlines about Big Brother and celebrities, but it's not specific to the country.

If you can prove to me how discussing whether we should keep troops or not in Afghanistan is "hard to take seriously" I will be glad to listen. However, if you want to take me and the whole country to task for devoting newspaper space to a marital controversy involving Mr. Berlusconi, I will promptly let you know that these kind of issues unfortunately appeal to the large majority of any population, and that we are not stupider than anyone just on account of nationality (newsflash: the Brits have entire papers devoted to Prince William's girlfriend; the Americans had an entire year devoted to President Clinton's personal life; I wouldn't recommend to you to pick up a random paper in a hairdresser's shop in Spain). I could fill your prescription of debasement for every country in Western Europe, in alphabetical order, and coming back to our 'national pride' debate:

- The Austrians are all nazis, because a few years ago they elected Georg Haider, and anyway everyone knows that Hitler was born in Austria.
- The Belgians are all paedophiles, because of Marc Dutroux. They also have the silliest king ever because he stepped down from the throne for a day, when abortion laws were passed in the country.
- The Danes are all prudes, because it's always them who blow the whistle on euroscandals. However, they are also all hypocrites, because they have Christiania and widespread porn.
- The Finns are all suicidal alcoholics, and all underground trains are filled with vomit throughout the weekend. They are also all devoted to Satan.
- The French are all womanizers, and all their politicians are corrupt anyway. None of them speaks a single word of English and they also all wear designer clothes.
- The Germans, as we already know from previous discussions, are obviously all nazis, they wear spiked helmets, they eat sauerkraut day and night, they all smoke, and they hate the Turks.
- The Greeks all have a nose with a special shape, none of them can drive, and they are all cryptofascists because they kicked their dictators out more recently than anyone else.
- The Italians are all chauvinists who support the Mafia, the Vatican, and Juventus. They also have the silliest debates ever (thanks again for pointing this out).

I could go on - the Netherlands are one big open-air drugs market, Portugal is a crumbling country where everyone is either poor or sick, all the Spaniards are bloodthirsty criminals who want to see their bulls killed by savages, and Sweden is just... too cold?

If you've read this far, thank you.

If you want the short version, here it is:

go fuck yourself.

 

[plintus]

go fuck yourself.

Why bother wasting time typing in all those letters, when it all comes down to 3 simple words?

Ah, women...

 

[fireangel]

Yes, and I suppose that your country instead is awash with the smartest politicians who ever set foot in Europe (no! the world!), and of course the most educated and concept-friendly population that can be imagined. Of course your country has no superficial TV programs, no mass adoration for starlets, no silly trends and fads, no wrong laws, no racism, and last but not least absolutely no involvement in any war. Like, ever. You also have the euro! Hooray!

It´s good to see that hyena isn´t oversensitive about her country at all.

 

[Taliesin]

I thought the exact same thing, heh

 

[Dark_Silence]

- The Belgians: They also have the silliest king ever because he stepped down from the throne for a day, when abortion laws were passed in the country.

yeah i remember that story... that was the previous King Baudouin...

 

[rahvin]

I honestly don't see how the legal recognition of civil unions is a silly issue; more importantly, i do not see how it is silly in Italy but not in other countries where it has been recently debated, for example France, or the United States.

I interpreted his message as being about the tone of the debates, not the topic. And there certainly is an excess of less-than-flowery prose in Italy, concerning many issues. Most commentators don't have the means to address problems besides ridicule, and this is clear from the opinions you reported in your post about civil unions as well. Lots of people feel like your brother, or your boss. The lack of maturity is vast, and the grounds on which people discuss these topics is, in my opinion, absurdly silly.

 

[rahvin]

Edit: Hyena, this is the same issue as the civil union / gay marriage war going on in the US? Just out of curiousity, what is your stance on the issue? I think I've deduced some from your arguments with others, but seeing as you're one of the few around here who are (at least openly) Catholic, I'd be intrigued to see how your views line up with the Catholics I know around here. (I myself was raised Catholic, but I've since grown away from it. I harbor no resentment or anger towards it, but I just don't think it's for me.)

Funnily enough, my views about civil unions line up with those of most Catholics in Italy (those with a brain), even though I'm a godless scoundrel of the darkest depths of sin. I'm with Cardinal Ruini: gay marriages are one thing, but for all the civil unions there are already laws of the Republic aplenty. Definitely wouldn't be on top of my agenda to start regulating civil unions. About gay marriages, however, the Church and I probably see things differently.

 

[Makaan]

What is the issue about civil unions all about? What´s more to it than gay marriage? Marriage without the church?

 

[Kovenant84]

If I'm not mistaken, civil unions is just the name for what everyone is calling 'gay marriage'. It's pretty safe to assume that those involved won't be getting married within the Church. I think the issue at hand is simply the divisiveness of the issue in general, and the opinions that others have on it and why.

~kov.

 

[rahvin]

I was referring to heterosexual unions outside of either religious or civil marriage: two people living together and wanting to be recognized as a couple.

 

[Taliesin]

Ok, that puzzles me even more. Why would heterosexual civil marriages be a problem to anyone? Isnt it common enough that people dont get married at church yet? Or is it a different form of marriage?
Friends of mine just signed a "contract of cohabitation", statement saying that they are together, live together and intend to keep it that way, but not yet a marriage. They did it so she couldnt be sent to whatever school the departmenet of education chose fit after her tests, in whatever lost corner of France.

 

[rahvin]

Ok, that puzzles me even more. Why would heterosexual civil marriages be a problem to anyone? Isnt it common enough that people dont get married at church yet? Or is it a different form of marriage?

Not marriage. Just living together. Civil marriage is accepted and on a steady rise, just like everywhere else.

 

[Kovenant84]

Ah, ok, see that's why I asked for the clarification. Over here (in the states), you mention 'Civil Union' and everyone automatically assumes you mean gay marriage. No one is talking about revising the laws, as it seems they are over on that side of the ocean, aside from allowing gay couples to be legally married.

I'm intrigued by what the debate in Italy is about? What exactly is the issue at stake with civil unions? I understand the gay marriage aspect, but I'm not sure what this other bit is.

~kov.

EDIT: Too slow on the reading, and Tale seems to be echoing my thoughts on this. For what reason would someone need status as 'kinda married'?

 

[Makaan]

Up here in the north homosexuall couples can get married in a protestant church to, provided the priest agrees to do it, which a majority of them do.

'kinda married'?

I guess it´s becouse marriage is viewed by many as a final and fundamental way to seal a partnership, I guess some people just prefer the light version?