“I can understand, accept and respect that there are people with different sexual trends, but that they feel proud to be gay? That they go out on parades and demonstrations?” , Said the Queen of Spain to Pilar Urbano, the author of a biography about her (“La Reina muy de cerca“).
“If these people want to live together, dress up for a wedding and to marry, they might have right to do so or not, according to their country’s laws: but they shouldn’t call that marriage, because it’s not. There are many possible names: social contract, union contract.“, she added.
“Puedo comprender, aceptar y respetar que haya personas con otra tendencia sexual, pero ¿que se sientan orgullosos por ser gays? ¿ Que se suban a una carroza y salgan en manifestaciones?“, dijo la Reina de España a Pilar Urbano, autora de una biografía sobre ella (“La Reina muy de cerca“).
“Si esas personas quieren vivir juntas, vestirse de novios y casarse, pueden estar en su derecho, o no, según las leyes de su país: pero que a eso no le llamen matrimonio, porque no lo es. Hay muchos nombres posibles: contrato social, contrato de unión.“, añadió.
She has also spoken against abortion and euthanasia and in favor of forcing all the children to learn religion (catholic) at school. The Royal Family is supposed not to have a public political opinion, as they should theoretically represent every Spanish person. Fortunately many of us don’t believe in blue blood, kings, queens and all that stuff, so she definitely doesn’t represent us God shave the Queen!
I truly agree with her.
It has nothing to do with homophobia.Isn’t it possible to have a more conservative point of view without being accused of such a thing ?
The question is not to be against gays, but to be for the respect of institutions and traditions.
The idea that some people are inherently better due to their ancestry is of course foolish. But that doesn’t mean that a monarchy provides no benefits.
I believe that Australia would be better off with it’s own monarch (the queen of England is too far away). The Prime Minister should be constitutionally compelled to engage in rituals of respect to the monarch (kissing the ground in front of them etc).
If your elected head of government thinks that they are a monarch and goes wildly starting wars etc (as John Howard did) then it’s a lot worse than a lippy king or queen. Kissing the ground in front of the monarch would help the prime minister remember his status.
jc: You can believe or say whatever you want, you’re not the official representative of a country. We’re paying her to be the Queen, and according to the Spanish Law, approved by the Parliament, democratic, voted by Spanish citizens, it IS called MARRIAGE. And she is supposed to represent this country and its law. She is has also no right to tell anyone what they should be proud of, of what they should or not make demostrations about. It’s our constitutional right to have whichever sexual orientation we want, and to make demonstrations about whatever we choose, as long as it’s nothing illegal. As long as she is the Queen of all the Spanish, she shouldn’t have a public point of view. If she wants to have one, it’s extremelly easy: abdicate and become a regular citizen. Same with abortion, as long as it is legal according to Spanish Law, and as long as she is the Queen, she shouldn’t make public manifestations about politics.
I totally agree with Queens point of view.
Ani: You can keep her for yourself if you agree with her that much
The so-requested tolerance and respect by *some* [fanatic] members in the gay and pro-abortion community is not always reciprocal.
“If these people want to live together, dress up for a wedding and to marry, they might have right to do so or not, according to their country’s laws.” — This means that she acknowledges everybody’s right to do it because of the country law (Spain included).
With that out of the way, she is also entitled to a personal opinion. For example, just because I love the Free and Open Source philosophy doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to hate some of the most popular software pieces. I do. It’s *my* opinion. They *are horrible* in particular issues. And if anybody doesn’t come up to discuss the issue with respectful and good arguments, it’s not worth it.
In the same way, just because she acknowledges people rights, doesn’t mean she must agree with everything else. BTW, the text doesn’t say if she did say that in an official Spanish speech or not, but it looks to me she didn’t.
I agree with *some* of the Queen comments, but not all of them. However, we should start by respecting her opinion. Otherwise, we are being mathematically absurd. Sure, you don’t agree with her, but then someone will not agree with you, and somebody else will not agree with that person, and so on. This is just another flame [war].
alvarezp: From your comment it seems that you’re leaving something out of the equation: she’s not an ordinary person, she’s the Queen. I’ll respect whatever opinion she might have exactly the same second after she abdicates and stops living for free from my money, because before that she’s not speaking as a citizen, but as the representative of all Spanish. She is supposed to be representing me, for $DEITY’s sake!
Miry: yes, and I did it on purpose because that’s how it should be.
No person in the government will ever represent everybody at the same time. It’s just impossible. You are taking this to the extreme and asking her to represent the pro-gay and the anti-gay at the same time. If she had said “people should be free about sexual orientation”, the conservative would feel just like you: that her queen didn’t represent them. Still, my argument would be exactly the same against them.
If you extrapolate that to every area of our lives (to represent everybody at the same time) she wouldn’t not even be allowed to speak pro-peace, as I’m sure there is at least 1 Spanish how thinks terrorism is the way to go (for whatever reason and whatever purpose and even if he calls it another way). And this “terrorist” could have a blog and rant about it. See what I mean?
(BTW, I liked your use of $DEITY.)
That’s not exactly true, it’s not fair to compare sexual rights or abortion with terrorism because the former ones are granted by our law, and the latter is illegal.
And the way you’re talking about pro-gay and anti-gay is not exactly relevant. Our constitution says every person must have the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation. Would it make sense to make that same distinction for other possible sources of discrimintation such as pro-racist groups? The protection against discrimination for race reasons and for sexual reasons is exactly the same in our Constitution, so it’s not exactly demagogy here.
I’ll play the same game as you and extrapolate it to the limit: We’re paying a really huge amount of money to the Royal Family, and their only obligation is to represent us. As they will not/cannot do it, it’ll be much better to just get rid of that institution and make them ordinary citizens.
I really admire your effort of writting in english, as you are native spanish speaker (am I wrong?), but you should be more careful with basic grammar mistakes, like “she definitely don’t represent us”. It should be “she definitely DOESN’T represent us”.
As I am native spanish speaker too, I apologize for any mistake I could make. I wrote in english just for “not giving the note” (and “from lost to the river”).
You’re right, Defero. I apologize for whatever grammar mistakes I might be doing
the other real 'Ani' :) says:
at this point of XXI century abolition of monarchy is the only way to:
00. stop wasting so much money, make them taste a bit of this crisis
01. stop cheating about all these stupid things and focus our effort and intelligence on better ones
02. make our constitution a real democracy with no privileges for anyone
For Defero: In my opinion, that English “mistake” does not deserve even a single message and I guess an equivalent one done in Spanish wouldn’t have any one.
Regarding the topic, I think Sofia and the whole royal family should be able to tell whatever they want, but at the same time, we should have the right to chose whether they represent us through democratic elections for the head of the state.
I also agree with the Queens opinion, but it’s not a matter of just me or somebody else agreeing with her thoughts: there are a few millions who do agree.
Zapatero had to call it ‘marriage’ just to offend the Christian Church and all Christians in general.
I think that as a person the Queen has the right of freedom of speech and to have an opinion, as long as she says that this is her personal opinion and that it doesn’t represents their represented opinion. Said that, I have to say I don’t know on which context where those phrases said so I can’t know whether she said that representing all the people or only her personal opinion.
Said that I’m going to share my personal opinions and tell which are their foundations:
About gay marriage I have to say that I really support it, mainly due to the fact that I see marriage as both, a proof of loving to the other person and as one of the most stupid things people can do (needless to say my opinion on love and stupidity, which applies to almost all other human feelings), anyway as I think happiness is the most critical priority on human life, as it expresses the well-being of a person, if marrying will make them happy, at least for a time, then lets allow them go ahead.
Now I’ll speak on gay pride, I think that being proud of a sexual orientation, is as stupid as feeling proud of the country you were born or being proud of your skin color. I think anyway that pride makes sense when it relates to actions you’ve made, so I think being proud of making people aware of your sexual orientation as hard as it is right now, due to the social pressure on those who somehow differ from the standard, it’s something to be proud of, anyway as I don’t really mind peoples sexual orientation, curiosity aside, I think that it’s a bit stupid, but anyway they have the right to tell everybody what they think, like or dislike.
I have to say anyway, that as I respect other people’s sexual orientation I wish mine was respected too (I’m straight in case you wonder).
Finally I’ll speak on abortion. Nowadays, world overpopulation is a fact and before worldly famine and anarchy start being too we should think of a way to solve the problem. Said that I think that having a quick death is preferable to having a long death with psychological trauma and parental problems due to the fact you were unexpected. Anyway, I really think that abortion can be dangerous too as we don’t know at all who is being aborted and so which potential he has. Anyway, hearing the music I’m actually hearing or opening a door can too make a potentially useful person lose this potential or dying so as long as abortion is well distributed over the population, and don’t concentrates on a few sectors, it isn’t an higher danger than it is opening my room door.
fernando said: “I also agree with the Queens opinion, but it’s not a matter of just me or somebody else agreeing with her thoughts: there are a few millions who do agree. Zapatero had to call it ‘marriage’ just to offend the Christian Church and all Christians in general.”
Oh, WTF! Where are you getting those numbers from? From the baptism numbers, that’s why the Church doesn’t allow people to get out of it, the reason for so many obstacles to apostasy? We’re more millions than you!
So, going further along your line of thought, gay people might just be gay to offend christians? In fact christianism and homosexuality are not contradictory.
Being heterosexual doesn’t give you rights to discriminate homosexuals, being while doesn’t allow you to discriminate other races, being male doesn’t allow you to discriminate women. That’s the way it goes, like it or not. We’ll keep on fighting to stop that kind of bigotry.
BTW, Catholic church didn’t invent marriage either, so don’t try to monopolize it. They don’t even recognize civil marriage as true marriage, why should they care about it? It’s not as if anyone is going to force you or any of your friends to marry someone of your own sex, is it? This is about freedom, everyone’s freedom.
Buahhh …. menuda reina de mierda tenemos a la hoguera , falta de respeto al derecho de la gente , el matrimonio entre el hombre y la mujer tb es un contrato o que se cree la tia esta no vi mucho xq me parece mal y una falta de respeto al derecho de las personas a su tendencia sexual y a lo que quieran .
NOTA:ESA SEGURO QUE NO PASO POR EL REPARTO DE CEREBROS.
In regard to “gay pride”. Some time ago when I was on a train I had a debate with an Aboriginal man about various issues related to Australian history. While I agree that many bad things were done to Aboriginies and that we should be trying to make amends, I couldn’t let him start telling me to leave the country without a debate.
During the debate he told everyone on the train that he was proud to be black and asked for a show of hands as to who is proud to be white. I reluctantly put my hand up (only about 3 people out of the 50 who were in range did so). The choice that was offered was between claiming to be proud to be white (which is often associated with racism) and being ashamed to be white (he made this really clear).
For a minority group that has been oppressed and in many cases told that they should be ashamed of what they are, publicly expressing pride seems like a step towards recovering.
But as society becomes more accepting of homosexuality the gay pride marches become gay parties. Which seems to have mostly happened to the Gay and Lesbian Mardi-Gras in Sydney (according to some news reports it’s now a family event and many people bring their children).