FROM OPENLY GAY TO HIDDEN GAY

Hello Project,

My name is D. I am 36 years old, I’m an openly gay or rather I should say a former openly gay, not former gay but former openly. Basically I came out at age 16. My parents reacted badly but then they somehow accepted my being gay and on the other hand they had no choice. I have had fewer problems with friends than with family but the most part my friends (or former friends) put me into oblivion, and among those who have put me into oblivion there’s one, let’s call Steven, who is also gay and I can take that for granted, but about Steven I will tell you later.

At age 16 I was already a spirit very independent and also rebellious, in the sense that I would never have done what others wanted me to do, or rather I liked to do only what I decided. Up to 22-23 years but also up to 24, that is when I started working, I had to avoid the excesses, I made my convenience, but since I did not have any money there were limits.

From the age of 24 I started to attend the gay scene, what you call “gay labeled” environments . This made me fell a lot of freedom, I felt liberated, I had money in my pocket and I did pick up, I came to bring guys in a hotel room and it did not happen once. The fear of diseases slowed me a little but let’s say that between 24 and 34 y. o. I’ve done all sorts, a bit for inertia and a bit following the current. By then the gay environment was well known to me, they called me and involved me and I accepted their proposals very happy.

At age 34, being reprimanded as gay, being identified as part of an environment and in practice having to feel more “gay” than “D.” began to bother me, I did not like that my gay friends called me and even fewer that insisted when I had said no, among other things I had been with so many guys, but I had never been in love, not only that, but I began to do discourses that I would ‘t have done a year before, I did count how much money I had spent over ten years of that life, and it was really a huge amount of money, nevertheless I felt frustrated and dissatisfied, I was alone, I had had many adventures, but I had nothing left.

I decided to do a two years master’s degree to get a little up at work, which was never something that had interested me before, and there I met Steven. Obviously he knew everything about me, that is he knew I was gay and openly gay, I did not know anything about him, for me he could also have wife and children. The first few days he kept me at a distance, not wanting to be seen with me, I invited him to have coffee during breaks but he preferred not to come. The way he used to tell me “no” irritated me a lot and after a while I didn’t invite him anymore.

Once, he came to classes in the morning with the subway but there was a strike and he could not come back home, I had the car and I took him home. While in route I told him that I was disappointed that he was keeping me at a distance because I was gay because maybe a straight man can not realize the meaning of being gay and can think who knows what. He replied that he did not want to be seen with me because they would have stuck the gay label on him. I told him that I could understand, and he said that, there are also many gays who don’t like “the gay label”. The answer sounded a little strange but the discussion was over, then we talked about work and the master.

Over the months, the relationship with Steven became more easy, it took him six months to tell me that he was gay and he told me a little of his story. He was still alone, he fell in love twice but always with straight guys, but had saved a little money and had bought a small apartment even though he had left the mortgage to pay. I told him about me and my stories and then he asked me if I felt satisfied and I told him the truth, not only that I did not feel satisfied at all but that I could not stand anymore staying in a gay environment. He replied: “And then what are you waiting for? Go anywhere else!”

I’ll make it short. I’m not in love with Steven and I think he is not in love with me, among other things he’s really obsessed by the idea of AIDS and he’s right, now we’re dating for a year and a half, always in secret because he doesn’t want to be seen with me. He got with me a serious result because I quit smoking and I felt better and I also stopped drinking alcohol, not that it was a vice, but in fact it could become so. I’m fine with Steven and I think he’s okay with me.

Between us there has never been physical contact and I don’t know if there will ever be, but when he is there it’s a kind of serenity background that I never felt before. Last week, I told him that I feel uncomfortable being an openly gay (I restarted this issue) and we got the idea that we should change jobs and go to live in another city.

We did some calculations. It was possible to deal with the change of working with a financial sacrifice, and it was also possible to buy a small apartment. But Steven did not agree, and repeated that each of us had to have his own “little hole” because if things did not go as planned, there could be obligations of an economic nature to make us stay together out of necessity. The economic problems were enormous and we knew it. In concrete terms, it was possible to realize our projects in two or three years, not before. I did not want to ask money from my parents, and he had the mortgage to pay.

In a weekend we went to another city where there is a large branch of our company where we could move. It is a very large office, with nearly 40 employees. If and when (because I do not know if it will happen) we will move, I think (I already decided) I will not tell anyone about my being gay. I don’t know if it makes sense or not changing city in order to stay close to a friend that I’m not in love with (at least it’s what I think now), but I need quiet and with him I’m fine. I do not know if there will be anything between us but in fact I do not even consider it too much important. In practice, Steven is the only person who has really taken me seriously, I feel his attention. After all we are the two of us to be alone, it is paradoxical but true.

The idea of starting a new life attracts me a lot, I just want to change the environment. It is the relationship with Steven that makes me change my life, but even before I’d had enough of my gay life. But without Steven I’d probably be in the same situation as before but on the contrary now I’m looking with him to give concrete expression to the changing project and he is willing to sell his apartment and get one in another city to follow me, which seems to me more serious than any declarations of love (Project, I’m getting old!).

It may seem strange, but it is as if the sex does not matter to me anymore, before it was an obsession, now I think that I could do without it, but I don’t think I could do without Steven. At the beginning I used to think that hidden gays were “guys with no balls” (an expression that I read in your forum) but now I think that if I had used more my brain and less my balls (excuse the vulgarity ) now I could feel better. I read on your forum all the discussions about the coming out and frankly I am of those who have considered it fundamental for years but in the end I changed my mind, I almost flipped my way of thinking, if first I thought that a hidden gay guy was “without balls” now I think that a guy openly gay could not have really made his choice but that somehow has been guided by the circumstances, then, once done, the coming out becomes obviously a reason of pride.

I must add one thing though, that I was not only an openly gay guy but was fully integrated into the world labeled gay and that’s why I cannot be aware of the condition of the openly gay guys who don’t attend the gay environment and I think that it’s probably a very different situation compared to mine. Project, I do not subscribe to the forum in order to avoid to be dragged, but if you want you can publish this email. This is just my point of view, does not express general theorems, but maybe it can serve a useful purpose.
Bye.

_______

 

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=86

GAYS AND JUDGMENTS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT

This article aims to highlight how in less than twenty years the legal status of gay people in the U.S. has been radically changed. We start from the XIV Amendment.

___________

U.S. CONSTITUTION - AMENDMENT XIV - SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

_______________

The amendment subordinates the State’s right to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, to the condition that it takes place with due process of law. This is not easy to understand for an European like I’m because in the European Union the death penalty is prohibited by constitutional laws. But here we must deal with the legal status of gay people in the U.S.. The clause of due process under the fourteenth amendment has traditionally been relied on by gay people as a basis for the recognition of their rights in the U.S..

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the process “Bowers versus Hardwick”, 478 U.S. 186, called shortly Bowers judgment, delivered on 10.06.1986

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZS.html ), considered the charge made to the Statute of Georgia according to which it would violate individual rights through condemnation of sodomy between consenting adult males, concluded that:

1) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court’s prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.

2) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” is, at best, facetious.

3) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights.

4) The fact that homosexual behavior occurs in the intimacy of a private home doesn’t matter at all.

5) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws.

With this judgment of June 1986, in practice the Supreme Court considers legitimate the laws of individual states that criminalize specific sexual practices or discriminate against homosexuality as such.

I reproduce below the fundamental judgment LAWRENCE versus TEXAS that in a social climate profoundly changed has radically overturned the earlier decision of 1986.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html)

_______________

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT

---

No. 02—102. Argued March 26, 2003–Decided June 26, 2003

---

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, controlling on that point.

Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3—18.

(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.

(b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots. 478 U.S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character. Far from possessing “ancient roots,” ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857. Pp. 6—12.

(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States, including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855—856. Bowers causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its central holding. Pp. 12—17.

(d) Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.

    Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=79

BEING GAY IN MY COUNTRY

On October 10, 2012 Gay Project has opened its new forum in English. The philosophy of the Project is very simple:

1) No economic interest. The entire activity of Gay Project is totally free and non-profit.
2) No affiliation with other groups or organizations.
3) No dependence on political or religious ideologies.
4) Always tell the truth.
5) Publish only original material.

In order to promote the forum we consider the possibility of creating different sections related to single countries or areas. Each section (for example “Being gay in USA [if you like State by State]”, “Being gay in Canada”, “Being gay in England”, “Being gay in India”, “Being gay in Jamaica”, “Being gay in South Africa” etc.) is intended to discuss gay questions from a local specific point of view. This way the reader can better understand what gay people are dealing with everyday within single countries. We are searching for guys who can help us starting all this. That’s why a form has been created. Filling the form with adequate contents we can open in the same way the sections dedicated to the single countries.
______

The life of an average gay guy in my country

My country: short description
How do gay guys feel their situation, how they deal with parents, friends, school or sport mates, for example about coming out.
Problems that gay guys have to face in everyday life: homophobia or discrimination at school, at university, at work. Problems with families, religion, social institutions.
Legal questions about civil rights, homophobia, marriage and legal unions.
Social reactions of acceptance, refusal, indifference in front of gay coming out.
Other specific aspects you think relevant.
______

If you are interested in helping us to start this new service referring to your country, please fill the form above in English (about 3 or 4 pages or more if you like) and send it to gayprojact@ymail.com. A specific section of the Forum will be created as soon as possible for your country. You can post on the new section the filled form to start the discussion dedicated to your country.

Please read before the rules of the Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2

_______

 

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=68

TWO GAY GUYS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT

Hello Project,

I just read the post with the story of the guy who worked at the hotel in South Tyrol, it’s truly a beautiful story. Maybe my story is very simple but I think it’s worth telling.

I’m 26, until recently I lived in an area that has severe problems due mainly to the fact that there is no work. I worked as baker since I was 16. Until a few years ago, I lived well. Certainly I was not rich, but I was missing anything and also helped financially my family. Then the bakery where I was working closed and I found myself completely out of work at 24 and then I started going to the employment offices, posting  my curriculum every day, going for an interview more or less every week and so on. The best work I got was as a substitute for someone who was sick, but the longer working period last year was of 21 days, with breaks even two months long. In practice I came back to be completely supported financially by my parents, who do what they can but do not sail in gold. Attending various agencies searching for work I also found many young people who were worse off than me, guys who worked in a year no more than a couple of months and some also had family to support.

The story I want to tell begins in an employment agency. One morning I arrive at opening time to get the numbers for the row. In front of me and there’s a guy who seems amiable and I think is also a nice guy. We were the only ones there and he asks me for information on how the office works. It is evident that it is the first time he goes into an agency for employment. We get into the office and get the numbers, we sit down and wait. And inevitably we start to talk. He tells me he is 22 and has worked only for few days, always small jobs “in black” [undeclared work]. He does not even know who his father is, his mother told him that he did not want to acknowledge him as his son, that she had no money for lawyers, and so it’s over, but maybe it’s even better. The mother is disabled and lives with a minimum pension and they are really in bad economic condition. He asks me if I’m married and I say no. He tells me that he really desperately needs to find a job and as he says so he is deeply troubled, almost ready to cry, I try to comfort him a bit but he’s very upset and depressed. He goes for the interview before me, then went I. When I finished I see that he was still there waiting for me. We go out together, it’s about 10 in the morning. I should go to take the train to get back home, but I see that he always follows me. I ask if he should go home. He tells me that he does not want to go. We take a long way together and we go to the beach, sit on the sand and start talking but he begins to cry and I do not know what to do, he’s hopeless. I try to understand why he reacts this way, after all I’m also out of work but I do not feel the anguish that way. I do not understand why he follows me, basically we just had a chat at employment agency. We try to talk, I try to understand but the silence is louder than words on both sides. At about one o’clock I say that I have to come home and I have to go to catch the train, he asks if he could come with me. With this expression, apparently so simple, he puts me in trouble. He is a nice guy but behaves in a strange way that alarms me. I met many guys but never one who behaves like him. I feel embarrassment. I think I’ve not figured out exactly what he wants from me. I told him that I would tell him to come with me but then I do not know what to say to my parents, and he said: “Do not go now, give me half an hour, only half an hour.” I tell him it’s okay, we sit on a bench on the station square and he begins to tell me his story. I’ll call him Christian. He starts by telling me basically that he is gay, I do not expect such a thing but it seems absurd to me to tell such things someone you know a few hours, however, I do not comment. Then I realize that this was only the introduction. He continues by saying that in his village there is a place where guys go to prostitute themselves and that he had never gone there, but he needed money and then he went there twice, the first time he made a little money but the second time he had been beaten and stolen. He pulled up his T-shirt and was covered with bruises, because he had been kicked while he was on the ground. Now he was afraid to come back to the village because those who had beaten him are dangerous people. It seemed rather unlikely, and I could hardly believe it, but the bruises were very evident and he really had been savagely beaten, there was no doubt. When he stops speaking he’s very anxious and does not know what to expect from me. I said, “Let’s go for the ticket” On the train I saw him in terrible embarrassment, then I made a risky step and said: “If we don’t help each other …” He understood immediately and I saw a flash in his eyes. In the meantime I was thinking about what I could tell my parents who did not even know that I was gay. I had, however, to find a rapid solution. We come to my house , I tell Christian to wait because I have to talk to my parents (my mom does not work and dad is retired). They’re in the kitchen watching television. I said, “Do you love me?” They said, “Sure!” and I said, “So now you have to prove it to me!” Dad turned off the TV and said, “What happened?” I said, “There are two things you have to know, I start with the easiest: I’m gay …” Mom was about to speak but dad made a sign with his hand, as if to say: Let’s go ahead and see what’s the second thing . And I told the story of Christian and as I we knew each other. Mom wanted to warn me but dad said: “But now where is this guy?” I said he was in the street and dad said, “Do it up!” I went down, Christian was expecting a negative response but I made a sign to go up. I can say that I have two wonderful parents. Dad tried to figure out exactly what was going on while mom set the table. The story of Christian was very precise and dad was convinced and believed him. Christian showed my father his bruises and it was evident that they had really beaten him up badly. When Christian was about to cry my father rebuked him in a somewhat rough and Christian calmed down. We have been talking all afternoon. As evening came Christian began to be afraid to go back to his house. Then dad understood and told him: “Do you want to stay here tonight?” Christian said, “Maybe!” Dad added: “Where there are three people there may well be four. But you have to call your mother.” He said he had a phone and could call, but credit had finished, he called with my cell phone and told her mother he would not be back for the night, the mother was upset but then he managed to calm her down. My story with Christian began this way.

I feel deep gratitude to my parents, because what they did for me and Christian goes beyond the imaginable. I felt strongly supported, especially by my father, I felt his unconditional respect and affection and Christian was fascinated by my father. He did not have a father and to see how  my father behaved made him a very strong effect. My father the next day accompanied Christian in town to do the HIV test and Christian presented him as his father. The test result was negative and on the other hand Christian had always used a condom, however, then he redid the test and it was negative as well. Christian begun to live practically at home with me. After about six months we were told that a food company in Emilia was searching for expert bakers. I got a contract for six months and he got one for training, then things went better and we continued to work there, in the province of Modena, we rented a room near the factory, and we always talked with my parents via msn and Christian used to send a text message to her mother every day. Then on May 20 of this year, it was a Sunday and we did the night shift to prepare supplies to bakeries that had to leave at about 5:00. At 4:00 o’clock comes all hell broke loose, the earth trembles beneath our feet, all the building  is creaking and pieces of the ceiling are  falling down. We run all out. Luckily the two of us were near each other. The panic was terrible, at least until we could not go outside. We were terrified that all the building could collapse on our heads. The building had held but did not seem in good conditions. A few hours later came the civil defense and put the seals because Fire Department had to check everything. One of the buildings was declared fit for use. With the help of firefighters the machinery has been transferred to an accessible area and eight days after we resumed production. It all seemed over, but on May 29, about one o’clock, in the afternoon, there was another violent shock of an earthquake. Christian was not with me but in a different department, I ran out to look for him, I think I had never been so terrified, I saw a cloud of dust rising from the building masonry that had been damaged from the first shock, then I saw Christian running towards the building that had collapsed. Fortunately, the building was the one already damaged and no one was there. We hugged each other tight: we were both alive! For a moment I thought that if Christian dead I’d be dead, too. Then we had to wait again for civil defense and firefighters. The building where the machinery had been set has been declared fit for use and we resumed production. In our factory we are twenty workers and we all worked from morning to night to restart production. The owners, a family of Modena, thought they could close the factory because practically about a half of the buildings had collapsed, but the people of Emilia is really great and we performed miracles. The factory didn’t close and now we are going almost at full capacity. Throughout the period of the earthquake our parents were very worried because, in the worst moments, there was not even the opportunity to call because everything was monopolized by the civil defense. After the second quake collapsed also the house where I and Christian had a room and we lost everything we had with the exception of the money that we brought with us always, we have also lost the computer to keep in touch with parents, the company gave us a tent and we put it up in the inner square of the factory. At the time of the earthquake I realized how much strong and altruist Christian was. When we finished working we went to the kitchen tent of civil defense cooking until the evening. The company has not fired anyone. We have been satisfied all of the minimum wage, but we continued to work all of us without exception. Project, in the evening, when Christian hugged me tight it looked so good to be alive, so nice to be able to hug strongly, even if in a tent and in a country after an earthquake. Now we are still in that company and I think we will stay there because after the earthquake we became like a family. We helped each other to cope with difficulties and it was a beautiful thing. Project I’m happy! I feel like a complete man and I know I have beside me a man who sees the world as I see it, an honest man, loyal, selfless, who deserves happiness. I’m incredibly lucky, Christian has really changed my life!

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5