Huge anti-gay marriage protest in France

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

I think I'm generally referring here to departments at universities that were heavily influenced by the French postmodernists and Feminists.

Currently they might offer "gender studies" in various places ...
You gotta get with the social constructions.

Ah. now I understand. Thanks.
________

On a different note, earlier Eron had accused the protesters of "extremism."

The latest on the extent of the extremism is this:

"While the rally was peaceful throughout much of the day, police said they arrested 96 hardline opponents to the gay marriage law.

Police said those arrested were detained for refusing to disperse or for occupying private property."

"Hardline" seems a bit overboard for the accusations, doesn't it?

Ah, well.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak

Yes, I think we should first maybe look at some footage, and what people were actually saying before jumping to conclusions about "extremists" and so forth.

It looks like a done deal either way (and I can't say I'm familiar with all the convoluted legal processes to get to this point).

I just really hope in my heart that it will soon settle down and become a none-issue really.

I just love when people have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about!

Though surely, there is some homophobic people in the french population that are just being reactive without much rational thought (as anywhere) , there are other issues concerned.

A lot of it has to do with the place of women in the french society, and protecting it.

Mostly, surrogacy is illegal here. If you have gay marriage, gay women couples can have children (both have parental rights and the state benefits), but not gay men- so that creates another demand they will have to make to make things fair.
This is what they want to avoid.

Surrogacy is illegal to protect children from becoming commodities traded as merchandise, to protect the rights of surrogate mothers who must relinquish parental rights. Surrogate mothers are usually from lower economic strata and are economically exploited in this transaction.

Mothers are highly valued in France for the education they provide young children (considered an essential social education in awareness and respect of other, while fathers are considered valuable for their influence later in educating self awareness and assertion).

They worry that if surrogacy is forced to be legalized, than women will lose that position of value and be open to being seen as simple baby-making machines, valuable only for their physical contribution to the act of procreation.

Homo/phobia... To know something isn't right does not mean you fear it.Along with being born that way. It does make a good battle cry and helps to brainwash children.Civil unions would give them equal rights. But its not about having equal rights .Needing to get married is about justifying thier actions because even they know its not right .

Originally posted by MajorAce
Civil unions would give them equal rights. But its not about having equal rights .Needing to get married is about justifying thier actions because even they know its not right .

Marriage IS a civil union. The process starts with the county clerk, registrar, or whatever civil body that issues the marriage license. I matters little who performs a ceremony or if a vow is taken before a civil justice of the peace. What matters is that a "familial" bond would be granted the two persons for purpose of visitation rights, transfer of property on the demise of the other, or whatever civil rights are customarily bestowed by such union.

Those issues seems to be in less dispute for those who oppose such unions. It is the use of the word "marriage" to describe that civil construct that appears most widely at issue and perhaps it is the nomenclature that needs to be adjusted to bring those sides to agreement. The legal rights granted are what demand equality beyond gender exclusions. Permit the civil bodies to continue to grant the unions and let the churches deny or sanctify them.

General reply:

Regarding the matter of children, that is partly resolved by biology in that two men are not going to be able to procreate. Adoption rights are another matter, however heterosexual couples are not automatically viewed as fit recipients by that virtue alone. Neither should sexual orientation be regarded as a necessary exclusion for consideration of fit parenthood.

To be fair, there are extremists on both sides of the issue. We create the polar extremities by viewing it as a matter of "right" or "wrong" and attempt to actively promote the culture or foment the culture against it. However distasteful I may find it as a personal choice I find it no less despicable to label it as "wrong" and suggest people treat it as such.

It is silly to suggest the sanctity of marriage and the family unit will dissipate by permitting people of the same gender to set up household. The world will not de-populate if two men or two women find comfort together no matter how many of such pairings may occur by their choice. Homosexuality is just not that popular no matter how the mass media wishes to portray it. Life will go on.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This isn't surprising. France has a large Roman Catholic population. Roman Catholics are known for their anti-gay (i.e., homophobic) stance. Their numbers are going down though - but they won't go out without a fight. It's their right to try, I suppose. But they are on the wrong side of history, so they will lose in the end.

To the majority of people, Christian or otherwise, homosexual sodomy has always been a detestable act, frequently punishable by death.

TPTB, i.e. the International Bankers, have plans regarding the world, and definite plans to overcome Christianity in the West. They appear to be succeeding. It does appear that only the second coming of Christ or a world-wide disater of biblical proportions will be able to foil their plans---that or, remotely perhaps, enough exposure to homosexual deviancy. Forcing the citizens to give their tacit approval/seal to something they detest is one of the worst of wrongs--but for some, it is "the right side of history."

edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)

Ummm No.

The "majority of people" have not been against it. Its not until bigots step in altering worldviews that suddenly homosexuals are a problem.

Time to move forward out of the dark ages and into the light.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

French police says that 150,000 protesters are taking part in the march in central Paris, but the organisers say the number is closer to one million

I admire the French. They get off of their asses and do something about things.

Looking at how quickly gay marriage has been rushed through so many countries without any groundswell of support, democratic mandate or consultation, one has to wonder who is pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Yea very powerful gay folks at the world control level. They need to move this right along so they can get on with the next issue which is already on the horizon. I shouldn't say horizon but rising up from the pit.

reply to post by MrSpad


Seems to me the problem they have is with the immoral, unnatural homosexuals. That's what they are protesting against there isn't it? Homosexual marriage?

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Seems to me the problem they have is with the immoral, unnatural homosexuals. That's what they are protesting against there isn't it? Homosexual marriage?

Nope. They apparently are protesting against equality under the law, based on their personal biases.

Hello to all

As you can see I'm French and I'm living in Paris since I was born...So I'm not speaking for all these people who protested yesterday in the streets but I think I can bring my little contribution to this thread :

About 8 people on 10 yesterday didn't protest about this new law on gay marriage but more about the fact that our president François Hollande ( from left wing) forced the French citizens to approve this law without making any referendum...

Just because it was an electoral promise from him to get elected last year , he decided not to ask the French people about this law despite the fact it brings a modification in founding principles of our Constitution...

And this was experienced very badly by a vast majority of my compatriots as a lot of countries worldwide still judge France to be an example of democracy and the creator of human rights...

Originally posted by Bennogob

About 8 people on 10 yesterday didn't protest about this new law on gay marriage but more about the fact that our president François Hollande ( from left wing) forced the French citizens to approve this law without making any referendum...

And this was experienced very badly by a vast majority of my compatriots as a lot of countries worldwide still judge France to be an example of democracy and the creator of human rights...

I can understand the people's concern about not being consulted in a democratic fashion. They should understand though, that it is more a matter of human rights and equality under the law. The matter could have been made worse if a vote had been taken and rejected by the majority, the majority that is heterosexual and cares not for the few who will enjoy those rights of equality.

It was a similar matter some 50 years ago in the US when the courts overturned state laws banning inter-racial marriage. In retrospect most all of us can now find the wisdom in doing so.

What does the word marriage mean?

In the old testament man and woman unite to become "one flesh". And their children are the evidence of that union of the flesh. They are one flesh.

But how do too gay men become "one flesh" ?

If anyone can solve this riddle for me, then I'll completely support the term "marriage" being used for homosexual unions.

To me "marriage" is a sacred union that results in the actual union of the flesh, the DNA combine, and the fruit of the loins are new human beings sharing the DNA of both parents.

I don't see why we need to corrupt the language by using this special term "marriage", with its well defined meaning, for something else.

Originally posted by SQUEALER
What does the word marriage mean?

In the old testament man and woman unite to become "one flesh". And their children are the evidence of that union of the flesh. They are one flesh.

But how do too gay men become "one flesh" ?

If anyone can solve this riddle for me, then I'll completely support the term "marriage" being used for homosexual unions.

To me "marriage" is a sacred union that results in the actual union of the flesh, the DNA combine, and the fruit of the loins are new human beings sharing the DNA of both parents.

I don't see why we need to corrupt the language by using this special term "marriage", with its well defined meaning, for something else.

You want a different term for when two senior citizens get married? You want a different term for when one or both partners in the marriage are sterile or infertile? You want a different term for when two heterosexuals get married with no intention of having children? Wow, that's a lot of different terms. Wouldn't it just be simpler to call all those unions "marriage"?

I would say that France is full of bigots, but that's a bit unfair to paint an entire group as bigots. Although calling them homophobic would be taking their position to it's logical conclusion, people tend to forget that the anti marriage equality crowd isn't logical by any means. Basically, I would say some of them are bigots, and the rest are irrational. I think that's a pretty accurate representation of them.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

French police says that 150,000 protesters are taking part in the march in central Paris, but the organisers say the number is closer to one million

I admire the French. They get off of their asses and do something about things.

Looking at how quickly gay marriage has been rushed through so many countries without any groundswell of support, democratic mandate or consultation, one has to wonder who is pulling the strings behind the scenes.

As it should be. Minority rights shouldn't be decided via mob rule, especially when said mob are part of the reason they don't have rights to begin with.

Very sad that in this day and age anti-gay sentiment can still draw crowds.

Just shows that many people are still hateful busybodies who want to control the personal lives of others.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


If you do not believe in gay marriage. Do not marry a gay person. It is as simple as that.. What is wrong with these baboons..

These objections against Gay marriage come down to religious and social beliefs, nothing else, this is the core and heart of this all. The fact is, homosexuals have existed far longer than can be recorded in human history and the fact many nations still criminalize gay marriage and even homosexual relations have not stopped the existence homosexual relations in those countries. Heck there are many kids raised in homosexual relationships without marriage, it's going to happen regardless. So what's the point of objecting to gay marriage in the first place? Because bigotry against homosexual lifestyles are no longer government endorsed when this is recognized.

If these protesters really cared about the well being of kids in these relationships they'd be focusing on the 50% divorce rate in straight marriages with which some end up ugly. Ah well, they're perfectly within their right to whine in the streets of Paris. Freedom is a two way street after all.

How about we remove government from marriage.....then you can go to whatever church you want (that allows gay marriage) and get married.

I really hate christians. I was raised in a fundamentalist home. It's child abuse. I hope your thorn-crowned jester comes to take you all away and leave the rest of us in peace.

How could your just and loving god condemn any loving relationship? That would be neither just nor loving.

Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It was a non-issue. Notice god was a lot less genocidal after jesus showed up.

I thought you people were supposed to love everyone. You can't love the sinner and hate the sin. What you are saying is "I tolerate you as a person because god told me to, but I hate what you are and I think you're a disgusting faggot. You can't join our church and you can't go to heaven"

ITS DISGRACEFUL AND INHUMAN.


Let them marry. They deserve the right to marry. There is a gay gene, it's not their 'choice'. And letting them Marry only means they might have a few more homes for all those unwanted, unloved, unadopted children in orphanages because christians think it's better to abandon your baby once it's born than to destroy it as a non-sentient embryo.

I think it's a shameful, pitiful, cruel joke that you people sing "land of the free and home of the brave" while denying gays basic human rights.

Originally posted by MajorAce
Homo/phobia... To know something isn't right does not mean you fear it.Along with being born that way. It does make a good battle cry and helps to brainwash children.Civil unions would give them equal rights. But its not about having equal rights .Needing to get married is about justifying thier actions because even they know its not right .

Good to know ignorance still rules for many people.

Ugh. I weep for this planet.