Over 100,000 Frenchmen protest against marriage equality

More than 100,000 people in France took to the streets to protest the legalization of same-sex marriage

Lisa Green7 said:A Pew Research Center poll from August 2012 showed that 65% of people favored marriage equality, and 53% supported adoption rights for same-sex couples

How big is the population in France, and how many actually showed up to that anti-gay protest? It’s worth noting that just last month, there were pro-equality protests happening all over France.
France is set to legalize same-sex marriage in the first half of 2013. The world changes year by year—and public opinion moves right along with it. Just two weeks ago, three US states voted in favor of marriage equality in a referendum for the first time ever, and the Supreme Court of Spain even ruled that legalizing marriage equality was constitutional.🙂

Morgan Long2 said:But really, how many French citizens actually marched in those protests demanding the legalization of same-sex unions? (And let's be precise here... I won't say "marriages," since the word "marriage" fundamentally implies a union between a man and a woman, wouldn't you agree?)

Why doesn't France hold a referendum on this issue? You know, like they did in Canada? Remember when the Los Angeles Times was shouting from the rooftops about how our northwestern neighbors were finally aligning with the "Western ideal"? And then, suddenly, with just one tiny little five-sentence blurb, they report that Canadian citizens rejected the possibility of adoption for same-sex couples in a referendum. Even back then, those supposedly "independent" media polls were claiming the referendum was nothing more than a mere formality.

Lisa Green7 said:There was a Pride parade in Paris this year along with 16 other cities; in Paris alone, about 1 million people turned out, all celebrating the introduction of marriage equality.

Marriage equality was legalized via referendum in US states like Washington, Maryland, and Maine—they’re our neighbors to the north, after all—so why aren't we following their lead?

A referendum on marriage equality would likely pass by a majority in France. Meanwhile, in Ireland, there is talk of holding a marriage equality referendum (and a Pew Research Center survey from August 2012 showed that 73% of Irish people agreed that "same sex marriage should be allowed in the Constitution"). In Ireland, civil unions were already legalized back in 2011.

Morgan Long2 said:I wasn't asking about the parade, I was asking about those protests you mentioned...

You keep making these claims that a referendum would definitely pass, but I'm just pointing to Canada as an example where the media—and we all know who owns them—also expected a win, yet it didn't happen...

The reality is that this "rot"—which you see as progress and I see as a plague—is spreading across the West. But the fact remains: every nation and people that accepts this rot is essentially driving another nail into its own coffin, especially considering the birth rates, the fertility levels of these nations, and states that are already overstretched by increasing numbers of immigrants...

But oh, I suppose now we'll hear that it isn't "culture" at fault, but rather some terrible capitalism...

I can only hope this plague doesn't reach America, where in the only poll conducted on YRT in Washington, D.C., 83% of voters expressed opposition. But according to those "outraged" guests on that show, we need to be "educated," which is just code for aggressively forcing what most people find abnormal, immoral, or even revolting, and presenting it as perfectly normal—even desirable. And it’s not like it hasn't worked. In a de Gaulle's France that used to be a global superpower, that referendum would have failed by 90%. Today? It probably would have passed. In a France where children of immigrants make up an average of over 30-40% in schools, and that number is trending upward...

Frankly, we don't even deserve to have voters passing such laws. I'm speaking as part of Western civilization.

Anyway, looking at your previous posts, I'm ending this discussion. There's just no point...

bluerider63;42279724 said:

I guess I wonder what those folks in France think—do they honestly believe their birth rates are going to bounce back if they don't legalize marriage equality? Maybe they have some kind of plan, but I don't know, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

I guess the truth is getting a bit blurry again, along with what actually matters here. Honestly, I don't think anyone was really pointing fingers at the LGBTQ+ community regarding the declining birth rate; their share of the population is probably too small to make a dent in those numbers anyway, whether they have kids or not. If we're looking for the real reason why birth rates are dropping, maybe it's more about the rise of feminism—or what some call "women's empowerment"—combined with this modern trend toward selfish consumerism and pure hedonism. Just my two cents, I suppose.

I guess you could say the protests weren't really about the legalization of so-called "same-sex unions" itself. I mean, honestly, what other people do in their private lives doesn't really concern anyone normal, right? It felt more like the pushback was directed at equating those unions with traditional marriage, and the decision to allow those groups to adopt children. There was also that sense of certain ideologies being pushed through schools—sort of like a much more intense and aggressive version of our modern health education classes—and even seeing things like "Parent A" and "Parent B" popping up on official documents instead of Mom and Dad. Maybe that's just how it came across to people.

I saw some protesters carrying signs claiming that a child can only have one mother and one father, which was interesting to see. It honestly feels like maybe some people haven't quite grasped how things work nowadays—it's almost like they think children just spontaneously appear for every couple or that an official from a social services agency just hands them out to everyone. I guess there's a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how modern families and adoption actually function.

I guess there have always been gay people around, and honestly, they always will be. There isn't some kind of cure that could just stop this "epidemic" everyone talks about, because, well, nature just does its own thing. Maybe it’s just a matter of when society's collective consciousness finally catches up to a point where we can all just accept it, but I suppose that kind of shift takes time.

That’s just how it is, I guess. There were people like that before, there are people like that now, and I suppose there always will be. It’s hard to even talk about finding a cure or a remedy when you consider that, well, if it isn't classified as a disease to begin with, then a medicine doesn't really exist for it, does it? Maybe it's just one of those things.🙄So, because of all this, it’s basically off-limits—or rather, it isn't considered "politically correct," and apparently, it's just totally forbidden to actually dig into why this is happening or try to find a way to fix it. It's a bit strange, I guess. I can't help but think that if we actually did look into it, a lot of those struggling people would probably be pretty happy to see some kind of solution being found. Maybe it's just how things are now, but it feels like a missed opportunity, don't you think?

I don't really see it as some kind of epidemic. I mean, if you look at the numbers, there aren't any more of them now than there ever were. When you factor in bisexuals and the rest of the LGBT crowd—who, I guess, just didn't win the genetic lottery—you're looking at maybe 3 to 4 percent of the total population. The only real "epidemic" here is the media one. It feels like they’re aggressively serving this up to us every single day, trying to convince everyone that this is "normal" and that there are just *so* many people out there who are simply too afraid to "come out" because of some supposed "homophobic terror." It all seems a bit much to me, honestly.

As for whether people will actually accept it, I don't think that’s ever going to happen. Even with all the media conditioning and the push from the legal system and the government, there just won't be any mass acceptance. I guess you could say that the natural aversion an average person feels toward that kind of deviation isn't really a matter of conscious thought, but more about physiology—much like how "homosexuality" probably has its own physiological roots. Maybe a smaller group of people, perhaps those with less intellectual capacity or weaker willpower, can be swayed by propaganda and pressure to the point where they convince themselves they "accept" it, but I suspect the human race would face extinction before the majority of people degenerate enough to view lesbianism or homosexuality as a normal, equal alternative to the standard relationships between men and women.

I guess all that hard work from the musicians is just going to go unnoticed. Maybe they're putting in all this effort for nothing, but who knows?

Susan Price30 said:"Quote:"

I fail to see why we bother giving any attention to either side. We should simply ignore them both.

Why bother ignoring it? The fight for marriage equality is clearly just one step toward a much larger objective—pushing boundaries through legislation and other means to facilitate things like adoption. You can't simply look the other way when there's more to the story. The rights of children.So, what exactly are we looking at here in terms of potential manipulation or simply ignoring those "guy rights"—specifically regarding adoption laws?

There is this ongoing push to introduce the idea—and in some cases, the actual practice—of priests giving blessings to same-sex unions within churches like the Episcopal Church. Yet, fundamentally, this stands against the core tenets of any established church, as no official religious institution recognizes such unions.

There are fundamental rights like liberty and human dignity—things that are essentially guaranteed to everyone here in the West—but then there is this supposed "right" to pursue alternative parenting styles for adopted children. Isn't it true that such approaches can be used to exert long-term influence over society as a whole? Some might argue that this is a negative development.

Besides, recent social studies in several countries have already extensively reported on the challenges faced by children being raised in same-sex households, such as... with their sexual identityTo begin with, this alone—though even this first part is more than enough to cause serious concern...

bluerider63 said:And what do those Frenchmen honestly think—that their birth rates are magically going to bounce back if they don't legalize this stuff?
Homosexuals have always been around, and they aren't going anywhere. There isn't some miracle cure to stop this "epidemic" because nature just does its thing regardless of what anyone says. It’s really just a matter of when society finally catches up enough to accept it, but hey, change takes time.

Richard James2 said:I don't know the political landscape in France all that well, but I am absolutely certain that this much of an uproar wouldn't even remotely surface if they hadn't first engaged in some blatant "Parent A and Parent B" brainwashing to warp people's perception of reality. Now, looking at the most recent data, support for adoption has dropped by about 6% since the start of the François Hollande era (with those supporting marriage equality sitting at roughly 15%), while about 66% of French citizens are calling for a referendum. They haven't earned that kind of pushback; pretending this is some sudden, shocking surprise is just plain delusional.

It’s also pretty fascinating to see how people outside of religious circles are reacting to this. You've got an entire wave of psychologists, philosophers, lawyers, and intellectuals joining the fray, along with about 12,000 mayors and registrars demanding the right to conscientious objection when asked to perform these marriages—a right you don't even have in Canada, for instance. Even some homosexuals have weighed in, specifically those organized under the plus gay sans mariage association, which the broader LGBT community is now accusing of being homophobic. 😁

Now, look. The fact that something becomes legal because of a policy decision made by democratically elected bodies is something that deserves respect. Personally, the idea of John and Jack signing a piece of paper doesn't mean much to me in the grand scheme of things. However, I view adoption as an issue that will remain subject to debate until the end of time. Let's be real: the state isn't necessarily driven by noble or altruistic motives when it comes to altering social structures. We aren't naive enough to pretend laws are born from deep philosophical contemplation; they are products of political maneuvering and financial interests. That is why I believe it is vital to leave room for public discourse and, as much as possible, the input of independent experts. We need to avoid reaching that Canadian level of intolerance where people are effectively gagged under the threat of legal sanctions. Honestly, that kind of suppression worries me far more than the mere legalization of any specific practice, and it looks like we are heading straight for it.

Btw, this could probably be merged with the current topic.

Lisa Green7 said:Not in the Netherlands either—actually, if marriage equality is legalized—or rather, if we aren't talking about "gay marriage" but simply expanding the definition of marriage to include any two people—why should anyone be allowed to refuse to perform it? If their morals get in the way, they can just find another job where it isn't an issue.

The "parent 1, parent 2" model has already been in place in Spain for seven years, and I don't see it having had any significant impact on anything it was supposed to affect... because logically, if they have same-sex parents, they won't be acting as "mother" and "father," but simply as parents. And that "parent 1, 2" setup exists in the UK too... where, on the birth certificates of female partners who had children via IVF, the sperm donor isn't listed as a "parent."

The whole "parent 1, parent 2" thing has been around in Spain for seven years now, and I don't see it having any massive impact on anything it supposedly should have. It’s logical: if they have same-sex parents, those people aren't going to pretend to be a mother and a father—they're just parents. And this "parent 1, 2" setup exists in the UK too... where, for instance, on the birth certificates of partners who had kids via IVF, the sperm donor isn't listed as a "parent."

Richard James2 said:Because there are people in society whose conscience, value systems, or worldview simply aren't swayed by signing off on a law. Besides, it doesn't strike me that most people choosing a career path are primarily motivated by their stance on gay marriage; for many, the law was just already there when they entered the workforce. So, what are we supposed to do with them?

The whole "parent 1, parent 2" thing has been around in Spain for seven years now, and I don't see it having any massive impact on anything it supposedly should have. It’s logical: if they have same-sex parents, those people aren't going to pretend to be a mother and a father—they're just parents. And this "parent 1, 2" setup exists in the UK too... where, for instance, on the birth certificates of partners who had kids via IVF, the sperm donor isn't listed as a "parent."

Actually, there were real implications in Spain—the state was hit with thousands of lawsuits because people refused to let the government dictate its universal morality in schools. You know, if things had been even slightly tighter, Zapatero could have actually lost his election over this. There is a massive difference between acknowledging that different kinds of people exist in society and the state trying to enforce a specific moral or ethical curriculum in education—something people won't necessarily take kindly to. Invoking legalism doesn't change that reality. Simply saying "but the law was passed" or "but an online poll showed..." doesn't mean you can just come in and instantly hack away at everything ever established on a certain topic.