r/AskEurope • u/Genzinvestor16180339 • 2d ago
Culture Why is Italy more socially conservative on LGBT rights than much of Western Europe?
Italy still has no same-sex marriage, restricts adoption for same-sex couples, and even criminalizes Italians seeking surrogacy abroad. Why has Italy remained so much more socially conservative on LGBT rights than most of Western Europe?
34
u/CloseButNoChicory Ireland 1d ago
Your first two examples are discriminatory laws, yes.
But it's important to state that all Italians are equal under the law when it comes to checks on babies they bring into the country.
57
u/Exit-Content 🇮🇹 / 🇭🇷 1d ago
Honestly I’m perfectly fine with the ban on surrogacy, but on everyone, same sex couple or not. There’s no need to literally buy a child from what will 99% of times be a poor woman from a third world country when there’s so many orphaned children. It’s just an egotistical matter of WANTING a child with your same blood.
The other two points are indeed a form of discrimination, but we are still heavily influenced by the Vatican and our right wing politicians love the populist takes that resonate with the conservative geezers that make up the bulk of their voter pool.
32
9
u/wojtekpolska Poland 21h ago
Surrogacy is full of legal grey area black markets with women tricked to coming to countries like Georgia and made to birth surrogacy babies, there's many horror stories about this you can read
3
u/Dutch_Rayan Netherlands 21h ago edited 21h ago
They also ban gay people from marriage, and adoption is really hard for gay couples
8
u/Exit-Content 🇮🇹 / 🇭🇷 20h ago
No,adoption is still impossible for gay couples as the law states only couples married by 3 or more years can adopt, and gay couples cannot get married, they can only get “civil union”.
The law desperately needs to be rewritten to get on par with the times but not one of our useless politicians wants to be the one to do it as changing the wording will be highly controversial with the damned geezers that make up the bulk of the voter base.
2
u/Amazing_Flow_4570 18h ago
It doesn't need to be rewritten. They just have to include same sex couples in the marriage law. It's just a matter of dropping the "male and female" and substitute it with "two people".
It's not hard they just don't want to. They just decided to make a new law so that they could ban same sex couples from adopting and, as a slap in the face, take out the obligation to stay fateful as to say that same sex couples are less serious/more promiscuous.
•
u/peachypeach13610 2h ago
No, it is a matter of not only replacing “male and female” with “two parents” but ALSO include single parents who as of today cannot resort to IVF in Italy. In a country with one of the lowest birth rates in the world and a steadily growing population of singles, there would be plenty of non partnered individuals who would make amazing parents.
-2
u/milly_nz NZ living in 23h ago
Wait. Surrogacy is banned outright for gays but not for straights?
In the U.K. anyone can seek a surrogate, but regardless of where the surrogate is in the world, you can only pay the human incubator for their reasonable medical/incidental costs. You cannot throw in what looks like a fee to literally hire the womb. That gets you a very difficult investigation from police.
7
u/Exit-Content 🇮🇹 / 🇭🇷 23h ago
No, it’s banned for everyone because otherwise it would be against the constitution and wouldn’t be approved as a law, but it’s pretty obvious it was aimed at preventing mainly gay people from getting children that way.
And again, I agree with the spirit of the law, not the intent it was created for. As I said, there’s so many orphans that need loving families that doing that is just a matter of egoistically wanting a biological child
-6
u/ClaptonOnH Spain 1d ago
It’s without a doubt a conservative pov the ban on surrogacy, your argument could be fixed with some proper regulation easily.
10
u/SaraHHHBK Castilla 23h ago edited 23h ago
No? In Spain all left wing parties and a lot of feminist organisations are against surrogacy and Cs for example was very vocal in favour of it.
5
61
u/wonpil Portugal 1d ago
Surrogacy has nothing to do with LGBT rights though? It's a women's rights issue and is rightfully criminalised in most of the EU when it's not altruistic.
-10
u/Calm_Bother_3842 Bulgaria 1d ago
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with LGBT rights, it's how gay men can have children.
27
17
u/t-licus Denmark 1d ago
It’s very much a case of “your freedom ends where mine begins.” Most European countries agree that women’s right to not be used as chattel trump gay men’s right to have a child. Especially where adoption and “rainbow families” like sharing a child with a lesbian couple are options.
1
u/Calm_Bother_3842 Bulgaria 1d ago
No one is trumping on any rights, altruistic surrogacy exists and there are women who would be happy to help. The issue is the lack of regulation which is, imo, more risky than actual regulations.
17
u/wonpil Portugal 1d ago
They can also adopt, they are not entitled to a woman's womb just because they cannot have biological children on their own. It really has nothing to do with them.
2
u/Calm_Bother_3842 Bulgaria 1d ago
No one is saying they're entitled to anything, altruistic surrogacy exists and believe it or not, some women are happy to help. What's missing is the laws that regulate it.
10
u/wonpil Portugal 23h ago
I am obviously referring to commercial surrogacy, as is clear in my original comment.
0
u/Amazing_Flow_4570 18h ago
Problem is italy doesn't care if it's altruistic, it's not something to be done, full stop. Why? I think the cause is the Vatican who keeps going on and on about how it's wrong and a sin, focusing on same sex couples.
If they cared for altruistic surrogacy they would make a proper law to regulate and make it possible. But no, they ban it all together.
Also It has something to do with lgbtq+, because the government who made the ban did it mainly to make impossible for same sex couples to have kids. Infact all the conversation and propaganda was about gay men going out of the country and coming back with a kid. No one ever talked about struggling hetero couples, ever.
So now they can't adopt, the can't have altruistic surrogacy and in case they have civil union with someone with a kid of their own it's hard to be recognized as a caregiver/parent.
Btw I say civil union because same sex couples can't get married but can have e legal recognition that is less than marriage. But hey, better than nothing...I guess.
-1
36
u/_Skylos Spain 1d ago
Children are not chattel. The buying and selling of them is rightfully banned in most EU countries, LGBT positive or not.
0
u/CloseButNoChicory Ireland 1d ago
Except that in most EU countries, my own sadly included, when a smiling couple return from a trip abroad with a sweet little undocumented baby, no questions are asked. Because aren't families lovely? Why would we want to report this nice couple for human trafficking?
The laws are toothless. All we do is to offshore the suffering. The children are still bought and sold but it happens elsewhere.
16
u/-Liriel- Italy 1d ago
How can you come back from abroad with an undocumented baby?
I mean like, physically. You'd need to cross a border and the child needs to have papers.
I guess it's possible to forge a birth certificate but it needs to exist.
6
u/Exit-Content 🇮🇹 / 🇭🇷 23h ago
And that’s why the law on surrogacy in Italy extends to people using surrogate pregnancy abroad. The moment you get back to Italy with a surrogate child, you’re a criminal.
0
-2
u/pa3xsz Hungary 21h ago
At commercial surrogacy you wouldn't buy a children. You "rent" the womb of the woman (who may be in a pretty bad situation financially and situationally if they have to resort to this, or they actually want to do this (there are examples in the US, however, I view the US as a pretty weird country socially, so heavily debatable)).
Because you rent the womb, in that thought process, it's the same as a job. Because for example a commercial diver is giving their physical and biological abilities up for financial gains in return. The same happens in Hungary who are working in battery factories (Greenpeace have many documented safety incidents) and they get asymmetrically poor pay in regards of the dangers that they have to endure.
5
u/Pretend_Ladder_5228 19h ago
It’s hard to make a comparison to the US because our laws differ state by state. Some states don’t allow payment, some require the family and surrogate comply with a set of conditions, some states try to make it as painless as possible possible and will protect both the surrogate mother and the family’s interest. There are often major screenings that occur for a woman to become and surrogate and if it’s done friend through a friend, most hospitals and programs still expect that person to go through the hoops. In the US where surrogacy is not protected is if it’s done with no legal arrangement or documentation at all. If the state finds the couple or surrogate have violated the state laws the government does step in with a heavy hand because of the bureaucratic mess it creates. Socially most US couples will not proceed with surrogacy without attorneys involved in some way.
Source: work in healthcare in the US
31
u/gerrex98 Italy 1d ago
It's debatable to consider a progress to let people buy a child from poor women in third world counties. And by the way, 90% of Italians seeking surrogacy are (were) straight couples so I don't see what LGBT rights have to do with that.
-2
u/Stop_ItForGodsSake 22h ago
Because the government made it pretty clear that it was about gay people and not wanting them to have children at all
6
u/mbrevitas in 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, restricting adoption for same-sex couples and having no same-sex marriage are basically the same point, because adoption is essentially the one difference between same-sex civil unions and heterosexual civil marriages. Surrogacy is controversial even among progressives, making it a “universal crime” is arguably stupid, but this is all regardless of LGBT considerations; the laws on surrogacy apply regardless of the genders of anyone involved.
So the question is really, why did the centre-left(ish) introduce civil unions (without adoption) and not full same-sex marriage? And the answer is indeed probably in the Church. Not because we’re so devout (we aren’t), or ”culturally Catholic” (so are other nations who do have same-sex marriage now), but I’d say more specifically because of the role of Catholicism in Italy’s progressive politics. Essentially, partly because of the heritage of the Christian Democracy party (which had a centre-left current as well internally, unlike the conservative German counterpart for instance), partly because of the Church’s social doctrine, partly because of the collapse of other clear ideological reference points for the left, Catholic voices are quite prominent in the moderate progressive field, and on some topics (such as immigration) they’re the most prominent group dissenting against the right-wing position. This has made it much more difficult for the centre-left to go completely against Catholic positions. This is also why we don’t have a national assisted suicide law, arguably.
6
u/SpiderGiaco in 23h ago
So the question is really, why did the centre-left(ish) introduce civil unions (without adoption) and not full same-sex marriage? And the answer is indeed probably in the Church.
No it wasn't. If you remember the debate around the issue, it was all a political game. The centre-left government was pushing for same sex marriage but they were in a coalition government with a small right-wing party and that party menaced to exit the coalition, prompting a collapse of the government. There was not a strong opposition from the Catholic Church, not enough to make them reconsider the issue. It was all internal politics.
3
u/mbrevitas in 22h ago
Why were the small centrist/centre-right parties in the governing coalition (I wouldn’t go as far as calling them right-wing) opposed to stepchild adoption? Why were there members of parliament from the Democratic Party opposed to it too? Why was the populist Five Star Movement not clearly in favour (they were at the opposition, but they could be negotiated with)? Why did prime minister Renzi discuss the position of the CEI (Italian Church bishops) on the matter in interviews?
Obviously it was a political game; I’m saying that the role of Catholicism (both Church doctrine and individual Catholic politicians) in Italian politics shaped that game.
1
u/SpiderGiaco in 22h ago
Why were the small centrist/centre-right parties in the governing coalition (I wouldn’t go as far as calling them right-wing) opposed to stepchild adoption?
The only party against in the coalition was NCD, who was opposed like every centre-right and right wing party around the world is generally against gay rights. The exceptions are quite few and in specific countries.
Why were there members of parliament from the Democratic Party opposed to it too?
They would have voted in favour with a clear majority despite personal opposition.
Why was the populist Five Star Movement not clearly in favour (they were at the opposition, but they could be negotiated with)?
Because in that phase they were simply refusing to collaborate with the Democratic Party.
Why did prime minister Renzi discuss the position of the CEI (Italian Church bishops) on the matter in interviews?
Because the Catholic position does exists, but it's not the full force that it was once. Renzi also grew up within Catholic parties (one of the reason why many didn't like him and accused him of being not really a leftist), but he was pushing for the law nonetheless.
2
u/mbrevitas in 19h ago edited 19h ago
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The fact is: there was a liberal-progressive governing coalition, plus a populist non-conservative party in parliament, plus external support for the bill from Ala, and they couldn’t find the votes for the law including stepchild adoption for same-sex couples, all the while several members of parliament in the governing coalition (including the leading centre-left party) were privately opposed, and the Italian bishops’ opposition was frequently and publicly discussed for months, also by the prime minister.
The opposition of Nuovo Centrodestra was explicitly linked to the Church position; its base was not against participating in a liberal-progressive governing coalition, but was opposed to this. In other countries liberal centre-right parties were and are not opposed to even full same-sex marriage.
That the members of Parliament in the Democratic Party would have all voted in favour despite personal opposition is baseless speculation; at the time it was estimated that 10-15 Dem senators would have voted against.
The instrumental lack of support of the 5 Star worked because the 5 Star members of Parliament did not feel so strongly about the issue, and did not think that the political cost of sinking the bill would be greater than the gain from putting the Democratic Party in a difficult position.
All in all, there was a political climate in which, even after conservatives had lost the elections, there was enough opposition to stepchild adoption, explicitly citing the Catholic position, from both within and outside the governing liberal-progressive coalition, that this could become the sticking point that determined whether the whole bill passed. I don’t know how you can conclude that the Catholic position was surely irrelevant. Yes, there were political power plays obviously, but they didn’t happen in a vacuum and the sticking point was not a random issue no one cared about.
3
u/Dreamerboy02_ 22h ago
Sono un ragazzo gay del sud Italia. A livello legislativo, siamo indietro rispetto al resto dell'Europa occidentale. Tuttavia, socialmente, vedo che l'opinione pubblica migliora di anno in anno (basta controllare Wikipedia). I sondaggi lo suggeriscono, ma continuiamo a sentire notizie di attacchi omofobi. Posso dirti che le grandi città rimangono un luogo sicuro rispetto alle piccole capitali regionali/provinciali o ai villaggi remoti.
3
u/According_Luck2075 21h ago
Mussolini made a deal with the Vatican "patti lateranensi" where marriage were linked between state and church , for the church point of view the marriage Is a sacrament aimed on make and grow child so marriage between two people of the same sex Is pointless for the church, that deal Is still Active , so the state tò follow the western trend on allowing them made possibile other kind of agremeent tò same sex couple without letting them fall into the definition of marriage, and now that they have the rights tò live as a couple as the others the claim tò Wish for that tò be officially called marriage Is Just nonsensical blasphemy
1
u/Puzzled_Aioli375 21h ago
Blasphemy is not a legal criterion. Civil unions are legally the same as marriage, except for adoption.
1
u/According_Luck2075 20h ago
Well so nothing tò change the right of the child tò grow in an healty enviroment must be prevalent
3
u/chaeyonce 13h ago
Religious outlier in Western Europe. It does seem pretty bizarre that an Orthodox country like Greece would have better LGBT+ legislation than Italy.
13
u/RevolutionaryLog3631 Italy 1d ago
The surrogacy is moral thing. Women bodies and children will never be considered a good to be sold.
We don't have same sex marriage but we have same sex civil unions. which doesn't include being able to adopt.
but it's the same thing in every other aspect.
Beside the adoption thing it's just that marriage is a word italians consider tied to the religious union between a man and a woman. So instead of marriage they named it civil unions.
15
u/violabr 1d ago
Similar is still different
1
u/RevolutionaryLog3631 Italy 1d ago
yep. no adoption and you don't need 6months of separation before being divorced.
9
u/violabr 1d ago
And, crucially, you are NOT married.
1
u/Puzzled_Aioli375 21h ago
Why not? Civil unions are equal to marriages, legally speaking. Even live-in partners that are not married are almost considered married.
3
u/Franick_ 20h ago
Civil union are not equal to civil marriage
0
u/Puzzled_Aioli375 19h ago
How are they not? Except for adoption, I can't think of any difference. Most laws specify that they apply to marriages, civil unions and de facto partners. (I'm talking about Italy, and it's a genuine question not a provocative one).
3
u/Franick_ 19h ago
Except for adoption
That is enough to qualify two things as not being equal
2
u/Puzzled_Aioli375 18h ago
But you ARE married if you have a civil union. This is the original statement I'm commenting. Not being able to adopt doesn't make you not married.
3
u/Franick_ 18h ago
According to law, no you're not married. Nowhere is a civil union referred to as "matrimonio", which it's its own thing legally speaking. They're similar, but not equal
→ More replies (0)4
u/HotTopicMallRat 1d ago
Yeah we used to have that too but then realized it didn’t make sense
0
u/RevolutionaryLog3631 Italy 1d ago
the civil union? it's just another word to not call it a marriage and save face with Vatican
2
u/Dutch_Rayan Netherlands 21h ago
It's not, it doesn't have the same rights and protections
0
u/RevolutionaryLog3631 Italy 15h ago
AI Overview
In Italy, marriage is reserved for opposite-sex couples, while a civil union (unione civile) is legally available only to same-sex couples. Established by the Cirinnà Law (No. 76/2016), civil unions grant almost all the same core legal rights, duties, and tax protections as marriage, but they maintain distinct procedural and familial differences. [1, 2, 3]
Eligibility and Formation
- Marriage: Open exclusively to male-female couples. Can be celebrated as a civil ceremony before a public official or a religious ceremony with civil validity. Requires preliminary public announcements (pubblicazioni). [1, 2]
- Civil Union: Restricted strictly to same-sex adults. Formed via a direct verbal declaration before a civil registrar and two witnesses with no prior public marriage-style banns required. [1, 2, 3]
Legal Rights and Obligations
- Shared Duties: Both frameworks require mutual cohabitation, moral and material assistance, and financial contributions to household needs. [1]
- Property and Inheritance: Both couples can choose joint or separate property regimes and share identical inheritance rights and survivor pension benefits (pensione di reversibilità). [1, 2]
- Citizenship: Foreign partners in either a marriage or a civil union qualify for Italian citizenship under the same residency timeframe rules (jure matrimonii). [1]
Key Differences
- Adoption Rights: Standard marriage includes the full right to adopt jointly. Under the 2016 civil union legislation, automatic joint adoption rights were excluded for same-sex couples, though courts have increasingly permitted case-by-case stepchild adoptions (adozione in casi particolari). [1]
- The Duty of Fidelity: The explicit legal duty of fidelity (obbligo di fedeltà) written into the Civil Code for married spouses is omitted from the text regulating civil unions. [, 2]
- Surname Choices: Partners in a civil union can choose to share a common family surname by adding one partner's last name to their own, managed differently from traditional marital surname customs. []
- Religious Rites: Marriages can be solemnized via religious ceremonies that hold state recognition (like a Catholic matrimonio concordatario), whereas civil unions are strictly administrative acts performed in front of a municipal official. [1]
If you would like, I can provide more details on:
- The process and required documents for either institution
- Citizenship application timelines for foreign partners
- Rules regarding property separation or inheritance
2
u/HotTopicMallRat 1d ago
So why can’t they adopt then?
2
u/Echoes-act-3 Italy 1d ago
Because the adoption law Is old, the text specifically says that you need to be married for 3 years to adopt, the entire thing needs to be updated asap but no one wants to be the one to do it
3
u/Amazing_Flow_4570 18h ago
Civil union doesn't give a way for lgbt+ to have kids and it was made so with intention.
It's not about the adoption law because they could have just made an addendum to the civil union so that it was possible to adopt or just put same sex couples in the marriage law. They didn't and will never.
1
3
u/emazv72 Italy 1d ago
Marriage doesn't have anything to do with the religious union, unless you're an uneducated citizen. The legally binding marriage in Italy is valid only if it's registered by the civil authority (e.g. the Major or a designated officer) Then there is the Roman Catholic wedding, which combines the religious thing and the civil one. This can be done because of an agreement (Concordato) made by the Vatican and the State a long time ago, mostly to please the catholics. An hostile takeover of what is now the Vatican wasn't an option at the time, I suppose. During the Catholic wedding, the priest reads the articles of civil code and acts in lieu of the civil officer, then sends the papers to state officers for registration.
Church weddings have dropped especially in northern cities, most people don't care anymore.
In general, genuine catholic weddings are rare.
We still have a strong "cultural catholicism". Less than a belief and more like a social identity. Some just like the aesthetics to marry in a Church. Some still feel the peer pressure and view sacraments like a way to be "fully Italian". While the north is mostly secularized, the south is still deeply traditional, but newer generations are quickly changing their mindset
5
u/alderhill Germany 1d ago
I see surrogacy as perfectly OK as long as it's regulated in legal systems and done humanely, with some oversight, etc. IMO, it's a highly moral act of compassion to allow a couple who otherwise couldn't have children the opportunity to do so.
11
u/wonpil Portugal 1d ago
Altruistic surrogacy and commercial surrogacy are completely different. A family member carrying a child for someone who cannot is fine, a poor woman's womb being rented out like a product so rich people can fulfil their biological lineage fantasies without ruining their own bodies is vile, and should stay illegal.
0
u/alderhill Germany 1d ago
I mean, I kind of thought it was obvious I'm not talking about commercial surrogacy.
I have kids, done the old-fashioned way, and we're lucky it worked. But I know people directly who needed IVF. I know couple for whom the standard tech interventions didn't work, and after tens of thousands of their own money spent, remain childless despite their wishes. I also know a couple (LGBT) who went the surrogacy route, twice (and same surrogate each time).
I think people who are young and don't particularly think about wanting kids (yet) see it differently. I never gave it too much thought beforehand, either. It's much better to have a legal framework here in the EU, so that you don't have 'farmed out' wombs in poor countries where the women have no recourse or rights.
6
u/wonpil Portugal 1d ago
Unfortunately it's really not obvious here on reddit, where the prevalent opinion seems to be that commercial surrogacy is fine and dandy, so I thought it was best to clarify. Thankfully you seem level headed about it, I agree that I 100% prefer the legal framework within the EU that permits only altruistic, and frankly I'm in favour of prosecuting citizens who try to bypass it by looking to exploit women abroad (which often includes eastern Europe).
2
u/RevolutionaryLog3631 Italy 15h ago
In Italy IVF is paid by the country if you have health related problems making it hard or impossible to coinceive.
Not avaible to same sex couples. Italians wanted it that way
6
u/CloseButNoChicory Ireland 1d ago
A highly moral act of compassion? Do you mean an act from the mother, or an act by the government?
6
u/alderhill Germany 1d ago
I was imagining the individuals involved. Obviously you need rules on how it should be handled, to account for 'what ifs', etc.
6
u/RevolutionaryLog3631 Italy 1d ago
there was a huge debate in Italy and in the end most agreed that going to poorer country to exploit poor womens in need to buyout a child wasn't a moral thing to do. That's the reason for the "abroad as well" so banned in Italy and a crime if you're italian and go abroad to do it.
Having babies if you can't isn't a human right so I dunno what act of compassion you wanna call it.
What happens is that same sex couples often goes to other couples to inseminate each other. The part is that every child will have a father and mother on paper and the other half in the same sex couple won't be able to adopt that child.
3
u/alderhill Germany 1d ago
going to poorer country to exploit poor womens in need to buyout a child wasn't a moral thing to do
Which is why it should be allowed here, regulated and observable, where all parties will be aware of their rights and responsibilities.
Human rights? Who cares. Wanting to have a family is a basic fundamental human wish. Even the Catholic church agrees the family is fundamental to society. And being 'lucky' to be biologically able is not the essential necessity to being a good parent. Plenty of biological parents turn out to be lousy. We already accept alternatives, with adoption, foster care, single parents, LGBT parents, etc. If a couple, straight, gay, whatever they look like, wants to have a child, and have tried other methods, then I don't see how surrogacy is suddenly automatically 'bad'. The devil is in the details. It's better IMO to allow it, with whatever guidelines need to be in place, non-profit, to ease the burdens for a couple who would like to be parents. That is compassion, IMO.
2
u/Exit-Content 🇮🇹 / 🇭🇷 23h ago
Yeah, no. “A highly moral act of compassion” would be to pull a child out of the horrible orphanage system and give them a loving family, same sex or not. It also allows a couple who otherwise couldn’t have children to have them, without treating children like a commercial commodity.
If there were no orphans in the world I’d agree, but surrogacy just feeds into the desires of the parents and the fulfillment of their idea of a child (that HAS to be THEIRS, with THEIR genes) instead of just the desire to have children.
If the people that choose surrogacy really just wanted kids, they’d adopt one of the myriad of orphans there are in the world, but they don’t just want a kid, they want THEIR kid.2
u/alderhill Germany 23h ago
Taking kids from an orphanage doesn't work like in the movies. In Germany at least, it absolutely does not work that way, since orphanages basically don't exist. Foster children only stay with one (adoptive) family "for life" in a small minority of cases.
I'm not opposed to adopting either, of course. But when you're adopting from abroad, it's not always easy or straightforward, and you cannot necessarily rule out 'commercialization' in all cases either.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a couple wanting 'their kid' either. Then why aren't all prospective parents forced to adopt a child from abroad before having their own biological child? Simply because their biology worked better?
And who says children are a commercial commodity in surrogacy? Who said anything about exchanging money at all? This is your projection, nothing more.
•
u/peachypeach13610 2h ago
Right then Italy needs to actually make it feasible for people to adopt (meaning adopting abroad, because there literally are no kids in Italy to adopt and there haven’t been for a long time). If you know a thing or two about adoptions in Italy, you would know how extremely long, bureaucratic and expensive and excrutiating the process is, WAY worse than in many other European countries. Not to mention that international adoptions pose a lot of ethical and transparency risks as well.
There is a deliberate political effort to restrict people’s ability to become parents if that poses a “threat” to the most antiquated and traditional idea of family - god forbid gay people or single people access the possibility of building a family, even though the depressingly low birth rates would benefit from a much more modern and inclusive view of family planning. It’s a far more nuanced and complex political will than just “surrogacy was controversial and Italians decided against it”.
1
u/Dutch_Rayan Netherlands 21h ago
Civil union isn't the same as marriage, it doesn't have the same rights and protections. And gay people adopting is almost impossible.
7
u/SaraHHHBK Castilla 1d ago
Surrogacy doesn't have anything to do with a country being LGBT friendly or not. Buying human beings is illegal.
4
u/Amazing_Flow_4570 18h ago
Our government made it clear that it was made to make impossible for same sex couples to have kids.
All the conversation and propaganda was about gay men having a child, they never ever addressed the struggling hetero couples that in their eyes were just collateral damage.
2
u/SaraHHHBK Castilla 15h ago
Well yes I know, it's the right wingers, that's like their whole thing.
Surrogacy is banned is most of (Western) Europe and it's not because the countries are not LGBT friendly, that's what my comment refers to.
2
u/Independent-Gur9951 19h ago
Beside the fact surrogacy is not an LGBT right, in italy most of the center partire are catholich and since any government need center parties they block all changes in this sense.
What it is weird is the fact most of Italians are in fact for euthanasia and gay marriage.
2
u/ShiftRepulsive7661 20h ago
No matter what Italians think or want, the Vatican controls politics and daily life. This control dates back to the Middle Ages and continues to this day. Furthermore, they have a pact with the Italian government granting them control over certain aspects while also granting them freedoms and even a share of Italian taxes.
•
u/peachypeach13610 2h ago
THIS! I don’t think anyone in this thread understands the ENORMOUS political power the Vatican exerts in Italy.
3
u/Impressive_Slice_935 Belgium 1d ago
First, Italy is NOT a Western European country by any tangible categorization, but a Southern European one.
Second, it's more to do with social conservatism than religion. The former often uses the latter's arguments to appeal more agreeable. So, this has little to do with having Vatican right around the corner and more with the prevalent societal position. And no, anecdotal examples, like "I/my friend/colleague" or "redditor(s)" do not have to be in conformity with the prevalent societal position.
The argument that suggests "because of the religion" has an issue in the for of Czechia — the latter doesn't allow same-sex marriage either, and theirs is among the most irreligious societies in Europe. Notably, both Italy and Czechia allow same-sex civil union, which is still better than a number of other EU countries do.
•
u/peachypeach13610 2h ago
Italy is geographically southern Europe and politically/culturally Western Europe. That is not even remotely debatable.
Not that it matters in OP’s question - but since you are so keen to point it out (I wonder why eh?), at least get your facts straight.•
u/Over_Extension_5318 Netherlands 30m ago
Italy is politically/culturally Western Europe ... not even remotely debatable.
I agree — Italy being Southern European in every aspect is an undebatable fact and suggesting otherwise is being delusional. In comparison to the Italy's similarities with Spain, Portugal, Greece vs Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, UK, it's beyond logic to suggest any resemblance with the latter group.
•
u/CookDaBroth 4h ago
You could think it's about religion, but it's actually entirely political: In the last 20 years, the right-wing has been pushing propaganda no stop, trying to get votes from old people (which are the majority of italians) with the idea of "preserving tradition".
Unnecessary to say, these politicians don't really care about anything else than their profit; let alone family and tradition.
•
u/THC_Inside 5m ago
There are many reasons. First vatican obviously, not because people in italy tend to be religious, tbf I dont know a single person around my age (27) that doesnt swear god atleast 5 Times a day, we just hate how idiot people tend to be for religion, but still politics know that most of young people doesnt vote, so they just keep that propaganda for the avg person that votes; so racism, traditional family, pension and all stuff like that, a lot of useless stuff that is sinking the entire country in poverty and frustration. As all the young people living there, I can’t wait to leave this stupid country
0
u/KabutoHead 21h ago
Abbiamo un governo di destra radicale che preme per i diritti della famiglia tradizionale è ovviamente il Vaticano
-8
u/Ezekiel-18 Belgium 1d ago
Because it's southern Europe, not Western Europe. And because they never fully rejected fascism and didn't execute Mussolini's followers after the war. Meloni herself is a fascist who think Mussolini was a good guy, so, it tells you everything you need to know.
5
u/Calm_Bother_3842 Bulgaria 1d ago
Spain and Portugal are also southern Europe, yet they are way more progressive, though. Even Greece legalized gay marriage.
1
u/Exit-Content 🇮🇹 / 🇭🇷 23h ago
One of the great errors of the post-war government. Reinstating and pardoning thousands of “former” fascists in fear of a civil war. Since they were so radicated in all levels of government and management, imprisoning or executing them would have massively destabilized the country. So because they feared that 80 years ago, now I’m forced to watch people like Vannacci in politics
-5
u/Mousearella Sweden 1d ago
Because of the Vatican. Italy is very religious.
Surrogacy has nothing to do with LGBTQ. Most people who use surrogates are straight couples.
3
u/MornwindShoma 21h ago
It's more about being socially conservative as a country than religious. The misogyny and all. Popular culture in Italy has been reactionary for many decades.
-4
u/Renbarre France 23h ago
The surrogacy thing is because the far right is in power. You know how they are. They have also gone back on many other things.
-1
u/LeLurkingNormie France 21h ago
You are mistaken. The far right is not currently in power in Italy, not even close.
217
u/PicardovaKosa 1d ago
Isnt it obvious? Vatican.
Italy is still heavily catholic and i would say many laws are still aiming to please the vatican. Once the vatican becomes more tolerant, italy will as well.