Thousands in Paris march against French gay marriage bill

0

Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to sunny Paris boulevards on Sunday to protest the expected passage this week of a bill legalizing gay marriage. One protestor called the bill "a threat to the social fabric."


Legalizing gay marriage was one of President Francois Hollande's campaign promises. Polls have shown a narrow majority of French favour allowing such unions, though the support weakens when questions about adoption and conception of children come into play.

As the bill has made its way through the French legislative process, opposition has mounted, especially from conservative groups from more rural parts of the country. While the protests against the gay marriage bill have been largely peaceful, violence has occasionally erupted on the sidelines.

Written By: The Associated Press
continue to source article at cbc.ca

NO COMMENTS

  1. In the 1960s, segregationist bigots marched in the southern USA to deny black people equal civil rights and to promote hatred against blacks. In 2013, homophobic bigots in France marched to deny gay people equal civil rights and to promote hatred against gays. You can find photographs of the 1960s demonstrations on the web. Today, the people in those photos are ashamed and embarrassed about what they did. It is important thus to film the French demonstrations in high definition to humiliate the bigots when these films are available for all to see on the web (or its successor) 20 years from now.

    Christians disingenuously claim they want to deny marriage equality to gays because they are concerned for the children those couples might raise. This is a bogus argument. First, science has shown that two-parent families are vastly superior to one-parent families for obvious reasons, however, it has also discovered the genders of the parents do not matter.

    What is the term for a heterosexual person who really likes sex? a parent. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 37% of babies born in the U.S. are the result of unplanned pregnancies. The true number is probably even higher because 60% of married women do not use contraception. All those babies are born into families that did not particularly want them or could not afford them.

    Gay couples don’t have this problem. They only parent if they strongly want to, if they can afford it and if they are thoroughly vetted as good parents. With heterosexuals, anyone can have a child, even drug addicts, paupers, homeless people, people who hate children, child molesters, criminals, 12 year old girls, women in abusive relationships, rape victims, mentally ill people, alcoholics, women without partners to help… The adoption process filters out most of such unsuitable gay parents.

    If you deny a child gay parents, it is not that they will go to an even better heterosexual home. There are far more unwanted babies than adoptive parents, especially when you include babies with disabilities. They will likely go to a series of foster homes or orphanages. That is a far worse fate that being raised in a loving gay home.

      • In reply to #13 by Vorlund:

        In reply to #4 by Roedy:

        Today, the people in those photos are ashamed and embarrassed about what they did.

        Looks like one of them already is hence the concealment of his face.

        In th 60s KKK members wore sheets over their heads. This made it difficult to identify them for criminal prosecution. I wonder if the man in the French picture was planning on committing a crime, was afraid of reprisal or was just making a fashion statement — what all the chic bigots wear.

    • In reply to #6 by msloane:

      Matt G: “Argentina is ahead of most of Europe on this one. Who’d have thunk it!”

      Yeah, the pope’s home country of all places !

      To avoid your text being intermingled with the quoted text, you just need to put a blank line between them.

      Always hit return twice to start a new paragraph, too.

    • Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to sunny Paris boulevards on Sunday to protest the expected passage this week of a bill legalizing gay marriage. One protestor called the bill “a threat to the social fabric.”

      “Threat to the social fabric”? Seriously, are there even words to describe the sheer idiocy and puerility of this protest? If homosexuals have the right to gay marriage, nothing dramatic will follow. What do they think; that homosexuals are zombies who carry the T-virus, or are ravening orcs who plan to sack their cities until everyone’s dead? Why the hell is the private sexual life of a few married people going to “threaten” society?

      They should have a seance with the victims of Robespierre, of Napoleon, and of the French conquests in West Africa. Then they’d know what “threat to the social fabric” really means.

      In reply to #7 by Graham1:

      You can bet your bottom dollar all those present at the demo believe in a Bronze Age god.

      Well, things are pointing that way, based on what appears later in the article:

      Gay marriage opponents lined the broad boulevard through the Montparnasse neighbourhood waving blue, pink and white flags.

      “I am here as a Catholic, in the name of Jesus,” said a 65-year-old retired woman who would only identify herself as Maria.

      And they are heavily conservative, which is usually correlated with religiosity:

      A 58-year-old lawyer, Patrick Poydenot, stood outside the historic Select cafe with his young son. He’d been to past demonstrations and decided he would show up this time despite the bill’s likely approval.

      “We believe that this bill is a threat to the social fabric,” Poydenot said. If the bill “passes, a fundamental rule of society will disappear.”

      Also, I had a quick glance at the comments section. The only tangible reason I can see for opposing same-sex marriage is out of “concern” for the welfare of any kids they raise. But this is to assume that all same-sex partners will want to have kids and to assume that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to harm their kids’ welfare. It’s anti-gay prejudice disguised as moral concern.

      Ask any psychologist: the things that “damage” child welfare are neglect and lack of affection, hostility and abuse, and/or a lowly socioeconomic background and social marginalization. If they were really concerned about child welfare, they’d be demonstrating for the eradication of poverty, not against gay marriage. In any case, studies have shown that family upbringing, once it’s passed basic tests like whether or not the kids are abused or neglected, doesn’t have that dramatic an effect on children (see The Blank Slate, especially chapter nineteen). It’s impossible to reconcile this with the demonstrations unless you inflate it to the assumption that homosexuals will neglect or abuse any kids they adopt.

      Since having kids isn’t even obligatory for heterosexual couples, it should make no difference anyway. What they aren’t saying is that they think homosexual couples will damage child welfare – as if heterosexual couples were excellent in this regard – because they can’t say that unless they want to impugn homosexuals. So they reframe it as concern for child welfare to make themselves look responsible, ignoring the inconvenient fact that their own concern is based on unwarranted prejudices about the intentions or abilities of homosexuals as a group. Why assume, just because two people are attracted to the same sex, that they will be incapable of looking after children? Sex and rearing engage two different psychological modes.

    • In reply to #7 by Graham1:

      You can bet your bottom dollar all those present at the demo believe in a Bronze Age god.

      Unfortunately not.

      I live in France and had a dinner row last night with a non religious person on the issue of gay marriage.
      Her anti-gay marriage stance is based on her belief that women will be “forced” to carry surrogate babies for gay male partners. She believes that such women will give in to financial pressures and choose surrogacy as a means to supplement income. When pressed to provide evidence for this belief, she maintains that the LGBT “movement” is pushing a “manifesto” which will lead to the financial and physical oppression of women.

      For a further look into how it is not just the religious who believe without evidence, this woman arrived last night stating that she shared many traits with a friend of hers who was “…also an Aries”. She then went on to not only deny that anthropogenic global warming was real, but that most scientists disbelieved AGW and that the Earth is not warming anyway.

      Go figure….

  2. As usual whichever country is hosting scaremongers desperate to avoid any sort of homosexual equality, these people always insist on fear of change, the more virulent the threat the more desperate they are.

    • In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

      How dare people have an opposite point of view in a secular country !!

      Oh, they’re free to express their views in demonstrations. But we’re also free to point out what’s wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their so-called “moral concerns”.

      • In reply to #16 by Zeuglodon:

        In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

        How dare people have an opposite point of view in a secular country !!

        Oh, they’re free to express their views in demonstrations. But we’re also free to point out what’s wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their so-called “moral concerns”.

        Correction – But we’re also free to point out what we think is wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their “moral concerns”.

        • In reply to #18 by Lancshoop:

          In reply to #16 by Zeuglodon:

          In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

          How dare people have an opposite point of view in a secular country !!

          Oh, they’re free to express their views in demonstrations. But we’re also free to point out what’s wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their so-called “moral concerns”.

          Correction – But we’re also free to point out what we think is wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their “moral concerns”.

          If the implication you’re rooting for is that there’s something wrong with our critiques, then by all means, don’t be shy. Tell us what you think is wrong with them, so that you can make it clear what is the disparity between what one thinks is wrong and what the actual case is on this current issue.

          • In reply to #20 by Zeuglodon:

            In reply to #18 by Lancshoop:

            In reply to #16 by Zeuglodon:

            In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

            How dare people have an opposite point of view in a secular country !!

            Oh, they’re free to express their views in demonstrations. But we’re also free to point out what’s wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their so-called “moral concerns”.

            Correction – But we’re also free to point out what we think is wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their “moral concerns”.

            If the implication you’re rooting for is that there’s something wrong with our critiques, then by all means, don’t be shy. Tell us what you think is wrong with them, so that you can make it clear what is the disparity between what one thinks is wrong and what the actual case is on this current issue.

            I’m not saying who is wrong or right – just that the expression ‘……..to point out what is wrong with their reasoning….’ is.
            I’m rather ambivalent about the whole thing actually although I disagree it is an equality issue, in which case I should be allowed to marry my sister..

          • In reply to #21 by Lancshoop:

            In reply to #20 by Zeuglodon:

            In reply to #18 by Lancshoop:

            In reply to #16 by Zeuglodon:

            In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

            How dare people have an opposite point of view in a secular country !!

            Oh, they’re free to express their views in demonstrations. But we’re also free to point out what’s wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their so-called “moral concerns”.

            Correction – But we’re also free to point out what we think is wrong with their reasoning, not to mention their “moral concerns”.

            If the implication you’re rooting for is that there’s something wrong with our critiques, then by all means, don’t be shy. Tell us what you think is wrong with them, so that you can make it clear what is the disparity between what one thinks is wrong and what the actual case is on this current issue.

            I’m not saying who is wrong or right – just that the expression ‘……..to point out what is wrong with their reasoning….’ is.

            And what is wrong with that? If you’re going to sow seeds of doubt over an argument beyond the trivial point that there can never be absolute certainty for it – which is true of virtually everything, and therefore a waste of time to point out – and draw attention to it, then backpedalling by refusing to identify any flaws is not how you justify your claim.

            I’m rather ambivalent about the whole thing actually although I disagree it is an equality issue, in which case I should be allowed to marry my sister..

            An equality issue is over whether one demographic is treated differently from others – in this case, homosexuals and heterosexuals – on a basis that is not relevant. Whether you personally want to marry your sister or not is irrelevant to this particular debate and is no rebuttal to anything other than the hypocrisy of the pro-gay marriage crowd – a hypocrisy you have yet to prove exists or is even relevant – though if you’re planning on having any kids, I’d recommend you check for possible lethal genes in case the children are born with potential genetic defects, and consider the effects it might have on your relationships.

          • In reply to #18 by Lancshoop:

            though if you’re planning on having any kids, I’d recommend you check for possible lethal genes in case the children are born with potential genetic defects, and consider the effects it might have on your relationships.

            From that I assume you think I am my sister’s brother – Why ?

  3. In reply to #11 by Lancshoop:

    How dare people have an opposite point of view in a secular country !!

    Of course! How dare people marginalise those who wish to stand in the way of equality and sociological progress. They have every right to discriminate against minorities for religious reasons!

  4. “a threat to the social fabric.

    how sweet

    presumibly they’re not protesting against gay people living together? that happens already, social fabric holding fast

    maybe it’s having sexual relations? you know the sort the bible warns against? happening already, no noticable impact on the social fabric

    maybe it’s to do with bringing up children without 2 different sex parents, so often we’re reminded that it’s the only right way to bring up children?. happening already, fabric not fraying yet…

    well that only leaves equal legal rights, so that’s fine isn’t it? OH NO!!

    (deafening sound of social fabric being torn asunder)

    • In reply to #15 by SaganTheCat:

      maybe it’s having sexual relations? you know the sort the bible warns against? happening already, no noticable impact on the social fabric

      Not that I’m given to mining the bible for moral guidance – but I do recall that post JC we are supposed to be in the new and eternal covenant, therefore the shibboleths of the old do not apply. In the New Testament JC encounters a crowd who are about to have some fun stoning the woman taken in adultery. He picks up a stone and says that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. No-one does.

      How is it then, that Christians are amongst the most sexually censorious people on earth, when their god has specifically told them not to be? The incident of the woman taken in adultery tells people to mind their own business; excellent advice, then as now.

      • In reply to #19 by Kevin Murrell:

        How is it then, that Christians are amongst the most sexually censorious people on earth, when their god has specifically told them not to be? The incident of the woman taken in adultery tells people to mind their own business; excellent advice, then as now.

        christians make me laugh, it’s like they have everything they need to teach them how to live a basically decent life and still utterly fail to get it.

        i’ve been “forgiven” before. it didn’t feel like i’d been forgiven, it felt like i’d been judged a bad kitty but the words “i forgive you” were used in true christian fashion. I think it’s the way the stories are told. jesus gets slapped and “turns the other cheek” now i don’t understand why he did that, maybe resignation to his fate, maybe an act of defiance but it’s become the rallying cry for passive-agression ever since.

        You’re quite right, the new testament is a book about a man telling his followers how to be a good citizen. his teachings specifically argue against religious bigotry and he get’s executed for blasphemy

        just don’t get it!

        • In reply to #29 by SaganTheCat:

          In reply to #19 by Kevin Murrell:

          How is it then, that Christians are amongst the most sexually censorious people on earth, when their god has specifically told them not to be? The incident of the woman taken in adultery tells people to mind their own business; excellent advice, then as now.

          christians make me laugh, it’s like they have everything they need to teach them how to live a basically decent life and still utterly fail to get it.

          i’ve been “forgiven” before. it didn’t feel like i’d been forgiven, it felt like i’d been judged a bad kitty but the words “i forgive you” were used in true christian fashion. I think it’s the way the stories are told. jesus gets slapped and “turns the other cheek” now i don’t understand why he did that, maybe resignation to his fate, maybe an act of defiance but it’s become the rallying cry for passive-agression ever since.

          You’re quite right, the new testament is a book about a man telling his followers how to be a good citizen. his teachings specifically argue against religious bigotry and he get’s executed for blasphemy

          just don’t get it!

          Interesting about forgiveness. A few years ago the anti-gay wife of a Northern Ireland, bible-bashing politician was caught bonking a very young man, and her husband forgave her. It was said at the time that the worst cross she would have to bear was being christian forgiven by him.

          I didn’t know that the he who is without sin bit was a ring-in. I suspect that a lot of the bible is not the original text. That doesn’t matter, the books are as established by the early councils of the church, so they’re stuck with them….either it’s the revealed word of god or it isn’t! For further erudition see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

      • In reply to #19 by Kevin Murrell:

        In reply to #15 by SaganTheCat:

        maybe it’s having sexual relations? you know the sort the bible warns against? happening already, no noticable impact on the social fabric

        Not that I’m given to mining the bible for moral guidance – but I do recall that post JC we are supposed to be in the new and eternal covenant, therefore the shibboleths of the old do not apply. In the New Testament JC encounters a crowd who are about to have some fun stoning the woman taken in adultery. He picks up a stone and says that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. No-one does.

        How is it then, that Christians are amongst the most sexually censorious people on earth, when their god has specifically told them not to be? The incident of the woman taken in adultery tells people to mind their own business; excellent advice, then as now.

        According to Bart Ehrman in his book “Misquoting Jesus”, that verse, the challenge to “the one who is without sin”, was not part of the original New Testament.

  5. In reply to #21 by Lancshoop:

    I disagree it is an equality issue, in which case I should be allowed to marry my sister.

    Care to point out how subjecting a child to genetic abnormalities resulting from incestuous reproduction is equitable to a same-sex couple raising an adopted child?
    Sure, as far as the relationship goes, your love for your sister is no different than anyone else’s for their partner, but love isn’t the reason we dont generally look well on incest.

    • In reply to #23 by Seraphor:

      In reply to #21 by Lancshoop:

      I disagree it is an equality issue, in which case I should be allowed to marry my sister.

      Care to point out how subjecting a child to genetic abnormalities resulting from incestuous reproduction is equitable to a same-sex couple raising an adopted child?
      Sure, as far as the relationship goes, your love for your sister is no different than anyone else’s for their partner, but love isn’t the reason we dont generally look well on incest.

      Incest is illegal so it wouldn’t happen. How about a non incestuous physical relationship between siblings would you look well on that ? And if not why not. How about two brothers then ? or two sisters ?

      • Incest is illegal so it wouldn’t happen. How about a non incestuous physical relationship between siblings would you look well on that ? And if not why not. How about two brothers then ? or two sisters ?

        The first reason it would not happen is there is no constituency for it. I have never even met an incestuous couple in my entire life (though I have heard of fathers abusing daughters which is different)

        When there is a possibility of procreation, there are genetic reasons to avoid marriage.

        Marriage is primarily a legal contract to dealing with shared property the ability to act in stead of each other. It might be reasonable for a elderly pair of siblings of any sex. It would not have any terrible consequences.

        There is nothing to which men cling more tenaciously than the privileges of class.
        ~ Leonard Sidney Woolf

        Christians think marriage is their exclusive property and want to regain exclusive control over it.

  6. In reply to #25 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #23 by Seraphor:In reply to #21 by Lancshoop:I disagree it is an equality issue, in which case I should be allowed to marry my sister.Care to point out how subjecting a child to genetic abnormalities resulting from incestuous reproduction is equitable to a same-sex couple raising an adopted child? Sure, as far as the relationship goes, your love for your sister is no different than anyone else’s for their partner, but love isn’t the reason we dont generally look well on incest.Incest is illegal so it wouldn’t happen. How about a non incestuous physical relationship between siblings would you look well on that ? And if not why not. How about two brothers then ? or two sisters ?

    I would personally have no problems with two brothers or two sisters getting married. The illegality of incest is no more axiomatic than the illegality of same-sex marriage.
    However it would be as alien to me as those in polyamorous relationships. There would be many social pitfalls in marrying your same-sex sibling, but less than marrying your opposite-sex sibling.

    But if you don’t consider same-sex marriage a matter of equality, consider this, few decades ago someone migth have posed the following agument:
    ‘Inter-racial marriage isn’t an issue of equality, if it is then I should be able to marry my gay lover.’

    Just because it doesn’t not provide total equality to everyone, doesn’t means it’s not an equality issue.

    • In reply to #27 by zengardener:

      Why, France? Why? After I spend so much time defending you from criticism, this happens.
      My country became mad. Return of hracism, homophobic, religion. Where is french rationalism? It eist, butin htis time, its mre difficult for me said: i m atheist.

  7. In reply to #24 by Lancshoop:

    In reply to #18 by Lancshoop:

    Are you avoiding the rest of the comment, may I ask?

    Also, if it’s not an equal rights issue, then what is it, and why is sibling marriage relevant?

    From that I assume you think I am my sister’s brother – Why?

    Because there’s a 50/50 chance you’re male, and in the absence of information on that front, I gambled on it?

    Given that you apparently don’t think this is an equal rights issue, I gathered you were getting at the incest taboo with your comment, as though pro-gay marriage supporters were being hypocrites for not supporting sibling marriage too, right up to and including incest, because of some common ground between them. In which case, again, I ask that you clarify your points instead of making enigmatic and half-hearted posts.

  8. Frankly I don’t give a toss what other people get up to in bed, as long as no harm is done and they consent.

    With the upbringing of kids, they need stability and loads and loads of loving, attention, and most importantly time. Time to be themselves, to develop their characters, to make friends, to be part of a caring community. Certainly two agreeable parents is better than two rowing parents. But anyone who goes in for the rearing of kids had better be committed for the long haul, at least 20 years plus. I’ve done that, been there, and I’ve been quite successful.

    One thing I was successful in was making sure that they had no religious upbringing at all. Sure they knew Bible stories, along with loads of others, indeed better ones like Lord of the Rings. As it happens my offspring are straight, but I would not have loved them less had they been gay. Indeed a wonderful experience to bring up a child, life changing, sure, but wonderful all the same. I have no reason to believe that suitable, loving gay couples can’t also do the same.

    Plenty of religious heterosexuals cock it up and how !

  9. CBC Radio reported widespread attacks on gay people in France. Gays going underground until it blows over.
    I heard the roaring mob at the assembly. They sounded like football fans. This is a very emotional issue.

    It is reminiscent of the violence of desegregation in the south in the USA.

  10. They have been marching for months now, but the law passed today.

    Fun thing is that they learned about police brutality. Those people have been living in France for years but just discovered now that the CRS charge on demonstrators with clubs and tear gas. Hermes handkerchiefs are useless against tear gas and you hardly stop the Republican Security Company by hitting them with a Vuitton handbag.

    Basically they claim that marriage would lose some of its meaning if gay people can do it. But mainly, they don’t like the current government and they happen to know that many people close to their political obedience hate gays. They are disappointed by the social-democrat government. Mainly because they’ve always voted republican. They are a mix of catholic fundamentalists (Civitas) and extreme right activists, including some skinheads and monarchists.

    Please note that they are a minority. Most French people approve the law.

  11. These stupid people! There are 1000 issues that affect their lives, including global warming, the economy and health care. But these idiots ignore them and instead decide to throw bombs over an issue that will have ZERO effect on their lives.

    How can the domestic arrangement of a couple across town possibly affect their marriage? They won’t even see either members of the couple. My contempt is boundless.

  12. It is amusing and then rather sad to note that the people in the photograph have a higher probability of being gay than a random sample of the population.

    More than anything I feel this is the most credible reason why it matters to many of them. Even if they aren’t gay, in the course of growing up they have had “thoughts” and the terrified suppression of those thoughts will leave them as unresolved possibilities. What goes on in someone else’s bedroom during a honeymoon does not affect the sun coming up tomorrow, but it affects the personal horror in their own heads.

    The best response to them is to hold up a (healing) mirror.

Leave a Reply