Yesterday, a local newspaper published a mail of mine where I explain why to be opposed to gay marriage - as I am - does not automatically mean to be homophobic - as someone often accused me of being. The next "friend" who will call me "homophobic" will be brought by me in a trial and I will claim moral damages!
I erased the name of newspaper and my signature in order to save my privacy.
The mail was in Italian; I tried to translate in English. I hope it makes sense to you.
Opposed to gay marriage, but not homophobic"According to the announcement from the site "Listaouting", in a few hours we will know the names of ten gay Italian politicians who have hidden their sexual orientation. The purpose is not to make a simple gossip, but to denounce the hypocrisy of those who, having a certain kind of private conduct, in public they talk in a diametrically different way, more or less directly causing damage to a part of society. "For now we only publish an extract of those belonging to parties who voted against the law on homophobia," say the promoters of the initiative. Exposing the hypocrisy of our fellow citizens with institutional positions is always a meritorious act, and then I would applaud the initiative of Listaouting, but at the same time I need to say something about it.
First, are we sure that all those accused of being homophobic they really are homophobic? Many people who declare themselves opposed to marriage between homosexuals are automatically branded as "homophobic." But this is not correct, either morally or legally. Being homophobic means to disapprove a sexual behavior that leads to prefer a partner of the same sex. Being opposed to gay marriage does not automatically mean being opposed to this sexual behavior. Exactly how to be opposed to leaving people free to drive while drunk does not mean automatically be against drinking alcohol: it depends on the context and circumstances in which the freedom of a personal choice is implemented: I am free to drink, and I want to defend my right of drinking alcohol, but this personal right must necessarily decay when my choice may cause damage to others. If I drink while drunk, someone could die or be injured because of my choice, right?
So, personal freedom should always be evaluated in light of the possible effects on third parties. In my opinion, every person has the right to live their sexuality as they see fit, provided that it is between consenting adults and individuals. That's because they are called "crimes" pedophilia, rape, necrophilia, bestiality: in all these cases, the object of sexual desire is not consenting but passively submit to the will of another person.
Today Italian homosexuals can share life with their partner, they can live together, no problem about it. So what would change If gay marriage is legalized? For those who believe that the family is a reality based on the union of a man and a woman, the fundamental difference is that, with marriage, gay men could also adopt children, which currently cohabitation does not allow.
Let's return to driving while intoxicated. Would you prohibit the consumption of alcohol to an adult man, healthy and conscious? Of course not. Would you prohibit to the same man to sit behind the wheel of a car, if he is drunk? I really think so. What is the difference? The possibility that his drunken condition could have negative effects on innocent third.
A child has the right to grow more healthy and harmonious as possible. Besides the right to play, the right not to suffer sexual abuse, the right not to be beaten, the right not to be humiliated is the right to a sexual identity that responds to the laws of Nature. What are these laws? Just look around: Nature provides human procreation only if the pair consists of one male and one female. This is because the couple "natural", no ifs, ands or buts.
The child must have the inviolable right of being able to identify with one of two parents: the father, if he is a boy; he mother, if she is a girl. Every child has the right to have a mother, but if the couple is formed by two men, who the child will call "mommy"?
Those who know me for my many years as a theatre critic or for my social work, know that I could be accused of many things, but being "homophobic": about half of the five thousand articles I wrote are in favor of shows created by gay artists, and many of gay artists worked in the theater that I've managed. Some of my best friends are gay, and I got calluses on my feet by marching in several Gay Pride Parades. But one of the inviolable rights of human beings - to live their sexuality freely and without fear - in my opinion can not violate another right: the right of children to grow up in a family formed by a man and a woman."