Our friend Christian is the proud father of four children, some of whom have already given him grandsons. His position on this matter is therefore perfectly clear. I almost entirely agree with his views, although I do have some disagreement with his statement regarding the PACS, as it has been proven that it was adopted primarily by a large number of heterosexual couples who wish to protect themselves, to some extent, legally.
This is why, and here I return to our friend's views, "marriage for all" is not simply about establishing equal legal rights that do not affect parentage, so that same-sex couples are on equal footing with heterosexual civil unions, but rather about giving them the possibility of having children "off the shelf," and for the more affluent, the "top-of-the-shelf" options, because if that weren't the point, it would have been enough to simply broaden the scope of the PACS.
We complain about the destruction of nature by humankind: global warming, pollution, depletion of natural resources… these are often themes dear to the left. Yet it is this same political tendency that, through doctrine and dogmatism, tries to corrupt nature in the name of a utopian equality… George Orwell (not Coluche, who plagiarized) established a code of principles in Animal Farm. After all of them had been corrupted by a dictatorship, only one principle remained: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Antoine Marquet
This is why, and here I return to our friend's views, "marriage for all" is not simply about establishing equal legal rights that do not affect parentage, so that same-sex couples are on equal footing with heterosexual civil unions, but rather about giving them the possibility of having children "off the shelf," and for the more affluent, the "top-of-the-shelf" options, because if that weren't the point, it would have been enough to simply broaden the scope of the PACS.
We complain about the destruction of nature by humankind: global warming, pollution, depletion of natural resources… these are often themes dear to the left. Yet it is this same political tendency that, through doctrine and dogmatism, tries to corrupt nature in the name of a utopian equality… George Orwell (not Coluche, who plagiarized) established a code of principles in Animal Farm. After all of them had been corrupted by a dictatorship, only one principle remained: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Antoine Marquet
“Revitalizing Marriage”?
By Christian Morisot
Regarding marriage for all, a hypothesis and a reflection…
Sylviane Agacinski, a philosophy professor, you know her? She is the wife of Lionel Jospin. She surprises us with a striking speech concerning “marriage for all.” Consider this…
“Before, two people married because of their desire to unite their families and procreate. In this respect, the two sexes are not interchangeable. Equality is not the same as identity… Gay marriage cannot establish parentage, and the two must be kept separate. Thus, being a father and a mother depends on sex, not sexual orientation.”
And what if… the real purpose of the law wasn’t the emancipation of homosexuals but rather the fulfillment of a hidden ideology? Let’s step through the doors of time together and travel back in time; let’s find ourselves about fifteen years after the Second World War, in the 1960s. It’s undeniable that the pill was an immediate success; it appeared as the means to control female fertility.
But at the same time, this pill and the IUD had another, underestimated effect: that of suppressing and “countering” the natural laws inherent to the human body. Women thus possessed a tool that eliminated the constraints of a body naturally designed to give life, thereby ensuring the perpetuation of the species, and finally allowed them unlimited autonomy.
As a moral consequence, half a century ago, contraception weakened the concept of couples, who no longer experienced the mutual support of bodies and minds. Indifference to the body's natural laws manifested itself, creating a form of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This aspiration to be oneself against the life of one's body subsequently translated into the right to abortion, the ultimate freedom! Euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality have always existed, but it was only in the wake of contraception that these practices became legally recognized.
The politicians of the last half-century have drafted laws whose true nature and real consequences they have failed to grasp. In 1967, the government, no doubt sincerely, believed that the pill would lead to much happier families. Immediately, a stark reality emerged: a dramatic rise in divorces and a proliferation of single-parent families.
Simone Veil herself was disconcerted by the wave fueled by abortion, which shattered the fragile barriers of the family.
Flashback to today reveals that the PACS (Civil Solidarity Pact) has not extinguished demands for same-sex marriage but has actually intensified them. In fact, behind "sexual liberation" lay an irreversible dynamic. It is not difficult to foresee that the legalization of "marriage for all" logically foreshadows that of medically assisted reproduction; it presents itself...unveiled, announcing and proclaiming that humanity is close to a liberation of immense scope—in other words, it has become an ideology.
The rapporteur of the Taubira law clearly explained that the ideological goal was: “to put an end to biological parentage and move towards voluntary parentage.” Surrogacy is becoming commonplace, the body will be (finally?) It has become a mere tool, recognized as such by law, and can be sold, bought, or rented according to a market value yet to be defined and named. These prospects go far beyond the simple concern of seeing gay people marry each other. The reality for those who define themselves as “gay” and lesbians is that of people who painfully carry an incurable emotional wound.
In fact, marriage itself is far from the concerns of our leaders. In their impassioned speeches, they loudly proclaim that they are going to “revitalize” it and give it “new richness.” But they are careful not to conform their own private lives to this. President Hollande himself sets an example by not considering marrying one of his many partners any more than before…
The consistency of his behavior with his political views must surely exist, but we must look for it much further… The ideology at the heart of “marriage for all” becomes a struggle to liberate citizens from the conditioning imposed by the “Judeo-Christian” gene, or the patriarchal tyranny supposedly inscribed in our European bodies. Thus, the idea is unanimous: today we believe that sexual difference is a false given. The disappearance of the distinction between biological parent and biological parent is progress; the free disposal of one's body is a fundamental right, even in matters of abortion and euthanasia. This has become a great emancipatory battle entrusted to us by history.
The danger of this ideological position of “marriage for all” is the risk of weakening the connection between body and mind. Today, the State is scrambling to help all the victims of a declining social safety net. Millions of single-parent families would be living in abject poverty without the massive welfare payments. Battalions of educators, psychologists, and others are mobilized to try, in vain, to socialize violent, drug-addicted, and unstable teenagers whose only concern is to "live freely" on the fringes of society.
They do, however, share one thing in common: they are fleeing their artificial or broken families. An alarming sign, along with the government's inability to manage its contradictions, is that family allowances are being reduced while abortions, often for convenience, are free. Why not have medically assisted reproduction reimbursed by social security and, subsequently, in the name of another form of equality, surrogacy? Our government's political proposals are becoming less and less accepted with each new one. The Taubira Law has sparked widespread opposition.
The separation of body and mind is seen as an imposed and unacceptable violation of personal integrity.
The debate, begun half a century ago by visionaries, is far from over.
Regarding marriage for all, a hypothesis and a reflection…
Sylviane Agacinski, a philosophy professor, you know her? She is the wife of Lionel Jospin. She surprises us with a striking speech concerning “marriage for all.” Consider this…
“Before, two people married because of their desire to unite their families and procreate. In this respect, the two sexes are not interchangeable. Equality is not the same as identity… Gay marriage cannot establish parentage, and the two must be kept separate. Thus, being a father and a mother depends on sex, not sexual orientation.”
And what if… the real purpose of the law wasn’t the emancipation of homosexuals but rather the fulfillment of a hidden ideology? Let’s step through the doors of time together and travel back in time; let’s find ourselves about fifteen years after the Second World War, in the 1960s. It’s undeniable that the pill was an immediate success; it appeared as the means to control female fertility.
But at the same time, this pill and the IUD had another, underestimated effect: that of suppressing and “countering” the natural laws inherent to the human body. Women thus possessed a tool that eliminated the constraints of a body naturally designed to give life, thereby ensuring the perpetuation of the species, and finally allowed them unlimited autonomy.
As a moral consequence, half a century ago, contraception weakened the concept of couples, who no longer experienced the mutual support of bodies and minds. Indifference to the body's natural laws manifested itself, creating a form of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This aspiration to be oneself against the life of one's body subsequently translated into the right to abortion, the ultimate freedom! Euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality have always existed, but it was only in the wake of contraception that these practices became legally recognized.
The politicians of the last half-century have drafted laws whose true nature and real consequences they have failed to grasp. In 1967, the government, no doubt sincerely, believed that the pill would lead to much happier families. Immediately, a stark reality emerged: a dramatic rise in divorces and a proliferation of single-parent families.
Simone Veil herself was disconcerted by the wave fueled by abortion, which shattered the fragile barriers of the family.
Flashback to today reveals that the PACS (Civil Solidarity Pact) has not extinguished demands for same-sex marriage but has actually intensified them. In fact, behind "sexual liberation" lay an irreversible dynamic. It is not difficult to foresee that the legalization of "marriage for all" logically foreshadows that of medically assisted reproduction; it presents itself...unveiled, announcing and proclaiming that humanity is close to a liberation of immense scope—in other words, it has become an ideology.
The rapporteur of the Taubira law clearly explained that the ideological goal was: “to put an end to biological parentage and move towards voluntary parentage.” Surrogacy is becoming commonplace, the body will be (finally?) It has become a mere tool, recognized as such by law, and can be sold, bought, or rented according to a market value yet to be defined and named. These prospects go far beyond the simple concern of seeing gay people marry each other. The reality for those who define themselves as “gay” and lesbians is that of people who painfully carry an incurable emotional wound.
In fact, marriage itself is far from the concerns of our leaders. In their impassioned speeches, they loudly proclaim that they are going to “revitalize” it and give it “new richness.” But they are careful not to conform their own private lives to this. President Hollande himself sets an example by not considering marrying one of his many partners any more than before…
The consistency of his behavior with his political views must surely exist, but we must look for it much further… The ideology at the heart of “marriage for all” becomes a struggle to liberate citizens from the conditioning imposed by the “Judeo-Christian” gene, or the patriarchal tyranny supposedly inscribed in our European bodies. Thus, the idea is unanimous: today we believe that sexual difference is a false given. The disappearance of the distinction between biological parent and biological parent is progress; the free disposal of one's body is a fundamental right, even in matters of abortion and euthanasia. This has become a great emancipatory battle entrusted to us by history.
The danger of this ideological position of “marriage for all” is the risk of weakening the connection between body and mind. Today, the State is scrambling to help all the victims of a declining social safety net. Millions of single-parent families would be living in abject poverty without the massive welfare payments. Battalions of educators, psychologists, and others are mobilized to try, in vain, to socialize violent, drug-addicted, and unstable teenagers whose only concern is to "live freely" on the fringes of society.
They do, however, share one thing in common: they are fleeing their artificial or broken families. An alarming sign, along with the government's inability to manage its contradictions, is that family allowances are being reduced while abortions, often for convenience, are free. Why not have medically assisted reproduction reimbursed by social security and, subsequently, in the name of another form of equality, surrogacy? Our government's political proposals are becoming less and less accepted with each new one. The Taubira Law has sparked widespread opposition.
The separation of body and mind is seen as an imposed and unacceptable violation of personal integrity.
The debate, begun half a century ago by visionaries, is far from over.