Over 100,000 Frenchmen protest against marriage equality

Lisa Green7 said:Look, if someone refuses to marry a gay couple (under the guise of "convictions") or a race-mixed couple (again, "convictions"), then they simply aren't capable of doing their job. In that case, an employee should leave those personal beliefs—or whatever else they carry—at the front door when they clock in.

As for sex education, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the minister for women's rights, is currently rolling out new plans regarding this.


The French government is planning to introduce lessons on gay issues in primary School in a new move aimed at raising awareness and tackling homophobia.

The goal here is to teach kids about homosexual relationships and same-sex parenting.

Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the minister for women's rights, noted that these proposals are designed to help combat homophobia in France.

The Hopa is that by Making Young children aware of The issues, playground bullying and teen suicide rates will drop, according to Vallaud-Belkacem.

"in Europe WE will work towards having a Common stanac , while in Franc WE will strengthen Our Protection for asylum seekers whose lives ara in danger because of their sexual orientation," she stated.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/40...homophobia.htm

Right. So, should a doctor who refuses to perform euthanasia also just run their practice from home? Or are they simply incompetent? It’s funny how when it comes to sensitive ethical dilemmas, you don't start from the premise that people should have the right to conscientious objection; instead, you basically want to exile them from society right out of the gate. And honestly, trying to stretch a subtle analogy to include interracial marriages is such a massive reach it would make a pig fetus recoil—don't even go there.

Regarding sex education, the women's rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, is currently pushing for it.

Sex ed is one thing, but then there's the matter of teaching the vulnerable to respect diversity—the idea that people are obligated to tolerate Muslims, Chinese people, Americans, leftists, or redheads, just as they are expected to tolerate homosexuals as a minority group. Now, I don't think any sane person would question that. People who threaten the physical safety of gay individuals or engage in harassment and intimidation are bad people, plain and simple; the consequences of those actions need to be clearly stated and explained.

But none of this is why a huge chunk of the public in France is pissed off. The real issue is state-mandated "the only correct upbringing," where the government stops being neutral and starts acting like the supreme, ultimate educator—even over the parents, if that's how you interpret Minister Peillon's stance. Of course people are going to push back against these unrealistic utopian experiments being performed on their kids, and against the blatant undermining of parental authority. And they aren't the only ones feeling it.

This isn't actually about the gay marriage issue; that was just the spark. Honestly, Hollande would be wise not to push too hard on this. Hollande made a promise, and he'd be a complete jerk and a coward if he went back on it; he probably genuinely supports gay marriage from a worldview perspective; and let's be real, his support from minority communities is something he desperately needs. He shouldn't be gambling with it, especially since support for him and his administration is constantly slipping without any real progress to show for it.

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.

I guess I'm just glad that in maybe ten years, this won't even be a debate anymore. It'll just be normal—kind of like how we don't sit around debating the morality of slavery or why women shouldn't vote or own property.☕

Honestly, I feel like marriage is such an outdated institution at this point, whether we're talking about same-sex or opposite-sex unions.
Besides, domestic partnerships already grant people basically all the same legal rights you'd get from being married anyway.

crimsonpuma40 said:Honestly, I feel like marriage is such an outdated institution at this point, whether we're talking about same-sex or opposite-sex unions.
Besides, domestic partnerships already grant people basically all the same legal rights you'd get from being married anyway.

Spot on.

The whole situation feels like a sinking ship to me.

You’ve got one group of fools scrambling to board it, 🤦

while on the other side, there's just as big a crowd of fools refusing to get on at all. 🤣

I’m noticing that people here are starting to use these supposed "millions" of participants in lesbian street festivals around the world as some kind of "argument." Just yesterday on TV (RTL, of course, who else?), we saw a news report about "over a million" people attending a massive event in Rio de Janeiro. I think that might need a little bit of clarification.

It’s pretty interesting how the media can't seem to agree if there were 70,000 or 200,000 people at that protest in Paris, yet they are somehow incredibly precise when it comes to counting "a million" or "a million and a half" participants in a "gay parade."

So, besides the fact that those numbers seem to be pulled straight out of thin air and tossed out without any real basis, it feels like those figures are being used quite brazenly to manipulate the narrative—trying to create this false image of both a massive crowd and widespread public support for their "cause."

But things actually look quite different. Not only is nobody truly counting these participants—they just make up numbers and wildly exaggerate them—but there's other manipulation going on too. You see, the media often labels any tourist or curious bystander caught nearby as a "participant in the parade," and therefore, a supporter of the lesbian agenda. I heard a story about how a group of American high school students on a field trip ended up in Munich right during a local "parade"; they were just watching from the sidelines along with plenty of other tourists. But some ambitious "journalist" snapped a photo of them, and the next day, they saw themselves in some German tabloid labeled as "parade participants."

This tactic is used all the time, especially in huge cities like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, or Rio, where there are always hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of tourists who naturally watch the street festivities out of curiosity, only to end up being photographed, filmed, and branded as "participants" in the media.

Furthermore, most of the actual participants aren't even lesbians, and certainly not gay men, because a large majority of those unfortunate people hide their inclinations and don't march around in public. Instead, you have a huge number of feminists (who are as close to them as "two peas in a pod" and often share memberships with lesbian organizations) and self-proclaimed leftist "activists," followed by various exhibitionists, sadomasochists, and all sorts of others who use this as a chance to publicly display their fetishes and show off the SM "wardrobe" and props they usually keep hidden at the bottom of their closets. And let's not forget the many male and female prostitutes from all walks of life for whom business simply booms during these times.

A good chunk of these types travel the world from one "parade" to the next, which helps create that impression of massive numbers. It’s a bit like how, in our neck of the woods, the same small crew gathers from everywhere to wander and provoke through street festivals in cities ranging from New York to Chicago or Los Angeles (where they don't fare quite as well 😍).

But the bulk of what we actually see are young, shallow, and superficial Westerners who are only interested in partying and an easy life. They are the same crowds we see at festivals like Žrč, at rave parties, or at massive "Love parades," which don't really differ much from these lesbian street orgies anyway. For these masses of mindless people, the cause doesn't really matter; in fact, many probably don't even know "what is being celebrated." All that matters is having enough colorful pills, Red Bull-vodka, and being able to shake to the same boring electronic beat for hours. Whether it's a Love Parade or a "gay pride," it's all the same to them. And these types often travel from one party to the next.

So, I’d just ask that we tone down with these claims of "millions" of participants in "gay parades" in this beautiful liberal world.

Alexander Garcia5 said:I guess I'm just glad that in maybe ten years, this won't even be a debate anymore. It'll just be normal—kind of like how we don't sit around debating the morality of slavery or why women shouldn't vote or own property.☕

That optimism might not last as long as you think.

It’s a bit like that old joke where a guy tries to teach his horse not to eat. He almost pulls it off, but then the horse drops dead!
😂

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.

Interesting. And I assume those 66% demanding a referendum are doing it precisely because they DON'T want this law to pass—otherwise, why would they be shouting for a vote or hitting the streets by the hundreds of thousands?

God save the Q....urm France.😛

rowdyowl said:Hold on. Their numbers aren't actually increasing or taking up more space. They're just becoming more visible. 🤷

On another note, there was a time when people literally had to hide in the woods, or even worse—spend their lives locked away in institutions (and I say that without a hint of irony, since homosexuality was "treated" in mental hospitals until the start of the last century). But how can anyone claim they are becoming "more visible" if most of society (like in France, for instance) feels that certain rights are subjective because they somehow threaten or diminish the rights of someone else —for example, the basic rights of children abandoned by parents who, upon being adopted by same-sex partners, face additional social stigma or even contempt from their peers, especially considering these are extremely vulnerable members of society. Why should the gay lobby be considered "more important" or louder than advocating for the rights of those children, for example?

And is it actually desirable and the only right way to consider the voice of the majority of voters on certain vital (political, specifically!) issues, because ultimately, that is the whole idea of democracy.

OK, personally, I think people should be allowed to adopt even if they can have biological children themselves (and please, don't twist my words here, you know what I mean).

As for the protests, regardless of who organizes them: IGNORE. You get these guys showing up saying we should hold our parade to show, I don't know, what? You tell them: go ahead and have your parade, just don't block everyone else. Don't allow them to shut down the streets and then grant them total media coverage. What's the point? I couldn't care less who is for or against what. Don't we have smarter things to be outraged about?

It's clear to me that some people don't have many deep moral dilemmas—as long as it doesn't affect them directly, in the sense that they don't give a damn about anyone else's business... but isn't all of this indirectly about you too? Because tomorrow, once the US becomes a full member of the EU, it follows logically that these kinds of things will start affecting every single citizen and voter in the US. And who knows, maybe you'll even have the chance to vote in a referendum on these types of questions, and we'll just be watching you on the BBC or wherever. 🙂

Didn't the Kukuriku Coalition announce something similar back home before they suddenly went quiet recently?😕

I guess they're just waiting to enter that 'paradise on Earth' known as the European Union.😍

Susan Price30 said:

Didn't the Kukuriku Coalition announce something similar back home before they suddenly went quiet recently?😕

I guess they're just waiting to enter that 'paradise on Earth' known as the European Union.😍

From what I recall tracking the progress of registered partnerships in the US, those regulations were supposed to be finalized by early 2012. It was intended to be our version of what they have over in France—that PACS system—except the interesting thing about PACS is that it wasn't strictly limited to gay couples.

Most countries typically took a gradual approach—starting with some form of civil partnership before eventually moving toward full marriage equality. The outlier was Spain, which jumped straight into legalizing gay marriage back in 2005. It’s also interesting to look at Ireland; there seems to be a prevailing positive sentiment regarding marriage equality there lately... especially since it was recently highlighted that the former president supported the idea. The former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, has thrown her support behind the push for gay marriage.
Mary McAleese has come out in support of gay marriage.
The BBC is reporting on a major shift in how the French government plans to handle sex education in primary schools—specifically focusing on introducing lessons regarding gay issues. It’s a move aimed at fostering inclusivity from an early age. The core idea here is that by making young children aware of these issues, the government hopes to build a more tolerant foundation for the future. This isn't just some minor policy tweak; it’s a significant step toward social reform in France. While there is ongoing discussion within the European Union about working toward a common standard on these matters, France seems determined to lead the charge by strengthening protections for individuals—including asylum seekers—whose safety is threatened due to their sexual orientation. A friend of mine living in Dublin tells me that Ireland has undergone a massive transformation over the last decade when it comes to social rights. It’s wild to think about—it used to be seen as this deeply "Catholic" nation, or maybe it always was, but things have shifted completely.

Bradley Scott2 said:That optimism might not last as long as you think.

It’s a bit like that old joke where a guy tries to teach his horse not to eat. He almost pulls it off, but then the horse drops dead!
😂

Exactly—this whole debate over same-sex marriage is probably gonna be, as Americans say, beating a dead horse in about ten years. ☕

It’s actually pretty interesting to see how many activists and their supporters—and I guess we can see some of that dynamic here on the forum too—seem to play both sides of the fence. On one hand, they love to talk about how marriage as an institution is supposedly "going to fail" or how it’s just this "outdated relic." But then, on the other hand, they try so hard to make sure their own relationships get that exact same legal status as this "relic" they claim to despise. They even go as far as calling their unions "marriages" and putting on these little tragicomic wedding ceremonies with guests that mimic traditional ones.

I suppose it’s the same story when it comes to the family unit. There’s this passionate effort—with plenty of help from their feminist allies—to tear down and dissolve the concept of family, yet at the very same time, they try to secure that same familial structure for themselves through adoption (though, I guess, the actual well-being of the kids isn't really the priority). They seem bothered by traditional terms like "mother" and "father," trying to replace them with these clunky, bureaucratic, almost totalitarian labels like "Parent A" and "Parent B," while simultaneously being quite eager to use phrases like "I have two moms" or "two dads."

To me, that alone shows just how powerful the human desire and natural instinct to marry and build a family really is. It seems even those who might be considered dysfunctional in that regard end up indirectly admitting that they feel those same urges and needs; they want to build a family just like everyone else, I suppose.

The whole narrative about marriage and family being "obsolete" doesn't actually seem to originate from within these activist circles. After all, they are people too, and they have that innate need for family, even if they express it in their own unconventional ways. It feels more like these ideas are being pushed by "social engineers" and big-capital global puppet masters. These groups essentially manufactured this entire debate over "gay rights" out of thin air, installing and supporting the movement alongside feminism and various other destructive social groups. Most of this seems theoretically grounded in the teachings of the Frankfurt school, seemingly designed to dismantle the family as the fundamental cell of society. The goal, I guess, is to turn society into a shapeless mass of selfish, alienated, and brainwashed individuals that are much easier to control and manipulate.

Lisa Green7 said:From what I recall tracking the progress of registered partnerships in the US, those regulations were supposed to be finalized by early 2012. It was intended to be our version of what they have over in France—that PACS system—except the interesting thing about PACS is that it wasn't strictly limited to gay couples.

Most countries typically took a gradual approach—starting with some form of civil partnership before eventually moving toward full marriage equality. The outlier was Spain, which jumped straight into legalizing gay marriage back in 2005. It’s also interesting to look at Ireland; there seems to be a prevailing positive sentiment regarding marriage equality there lately... especially since it was recently highlighted that the former president supported the idea. The former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, has thrown her support behind the push for gay marriage.
Mary McAleese has come out in support of gay marriage.
The BBC is reporting on a major shift in how the French government plans to handle sex education in primary schools—specifically focusing on introducing lessons regarding gay issues. It’s a move aimed at fostering inclusivity from an early age. The core idea here is that by making young children aware of these issues, the government hopes to build a more tolerant foundation for the future. This isn't just some minor policy tweak; it’s a significant step toward social reform in France. While there is ongoing discussion within the European Union about working toward a common standard on these matters, France seems determined to lead the charge by strengthening protections for individuals—including asylum seekers—whose safety is threatened due to their sexual orientation. A friend of mine living in Dublin tells me that Ireland has undergone a massive transformation over the last decade when it comes to social rights. It’s wild to think about—it used to be seen as this deeply "Catholic" nation, or maybe it always was, but things have shifted completely.

And honestly? That’s exactly how it’s going to play out here too! Next year, they’ll roll out this Americanized version of PACS, and you can bet all the LGBT activists will be out there claiming it’s the exact thing they’ve been fighting for all along (just like how it went down in France!). Then, give it five years, and suddenly they'll be pushing for full marriage rights and adoption...

Alexander Garcia5 said:Exactly—this whole debate over same-sex marriage is probably gonna be, as Americans say, beating a dead horse in about ten years. ☕

I think you missed my point.
The topics won't even exist because people probably won't be publicly declaring homosexual (or "lesbo-peder" as darktiger12 puts it) inclinations or demanding those "rights." In two generations, we'll likely be seeing a referendum in Europe to introduce Sharia law.

vividdriver67 said:And honestly? That’s exactly how it’s going to play out here too! Next year, they’ll roll out this Americanized version of PACS, and you can bet all the LGBT activists will be out there claiming it’s the exact thing they’ve been fighting for all along (just like how it went down in France!). Then, give it five years, and suddenly they'll be pushing for full marriage rights and adoption...

Oh, absolutely! And they aren't even trying to hide it, really.

I’m pretty sure I heard Secretary Vrdoljak mention in an interview once that he’s hoping this administration grants full marriage rights to same-sex couples, including adoption, before their term is up (I can't quite remember if it was Vrdoljak or maybe Fred Matić, but it was definitely one of those two).

darktiger12 said:I guess it’s hard to pin down the exact number of people who showed up for the protests in Boston and other American cities. It’s one of those things where the authorities might claim around 70,000, while the organizers are tossing around numbers like 200,000. Even the media usually settles on about 100,000 just for Boston, though some American news outlets suggested there might have been closer to half a million people protesting across the whole country.

It feels to me like they weren't really protesting against the legalizing of so-called "same-sex unions" as much as they were pushing back against the idea of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. There was also this whole thing about bureaucratic linguistic gymnastics—you know, trying to phase out terms like "mother" and "father" from official paperwork and school textbooks, which is something they've been trying to push through in California too, replacing them with things like "parent A" and "parent B."

It’s actually pretty interesting to look at how the media covered the whole event. At the same time, there were these "counter-demonstrations" organized by supporters of what they call "marriage equality." Mostly it was just lesbian-feminist activists, a handful of male "gay activists," and a small group of typical, masked agitators from various "anarcho-liberal" circles. Even if they tried their best, the media couldn't seem to find more than 200 "counter-protesters" (though a hundred seems like a more realistic number, I suppose) who spent the whole time, as usual, tucked safely behind police lines. They kept provoking the protesters and calling them "homophobes," all without any real consequences or intervention from the police.

When you look at something like this media report, you notice that these two hundred agitators somehow got way more coverage and more photos than the main protest, which had tens—maybe even hundreds—of thousands of people. It's such a classic, shallow, and transparent bit of media manipulation that it almost makes you feel sick. The ratio of protesters was at least 70,000 to maybe 200 against the laws, but the photo ratio was totally flipped; I think it was about 7:2 in favor of the "marriage equality" supporters. It feels like a pretty blatant Orwellian way to twist the truth.

I don't think it's an accident, either. Most audiences tend to be a bit superficial, I guess. People mostly just skim the headlines and subheadings, rarely reading the full article, and they definitely look at the pictures. By using this kind of biased and selective "reporting," the media tries to downplay how many people actually oppose these "progressive measures." They inflate both the numbers and the influence of these lobbies to mislead the public and create a completely skewed image, essentially trying to reshape public opinion over time.

We saw a similar situation last year during that "parade" in Miami. There were barely a hundred agitators, gathered from all over the US—mostly from Washington, D.C., or even right there in Miami—and even from neighboring countries and Europe. They were forced through the streets under state and police protection, even though they weren't wanted. Meanwhile, the ten thousand citizens in Miami who stood against it were demonized in the media, labeled as "homophobes," "primitives," or "violent," and some were even arrested or detained.

This kind of media manipulation really only has one goal: to hide the fact that the ideas being spread by this propaganda simply don't have mainstream support. Most people are against them and don't accept them—not in America, and clearly not even in a highly "indoctrinated" place like France. But that majority opinion is systematically minimized and swept under the rug. Politicians just push ahead with their own agendas while the media creates this false narrative to "soften up" the public, making them feel like "well, it's already decided anyway," until people eventually become numb to it and just accept whatever is served to them. It feels like déjà vu.

Time to watch the world burn...☕

France is following right in Spain's footsteps ever since this liberal-socialist crowd took over the reins☕
While the country is basically sinking, they’re busy playing distraction tactics—focusing entirely on gay rights, immigrant rights, and waging war against those damn wealthy elites—which is exactly how things played out in Spain back when that idiot Zapatero was running the show🙄
We're seeing the fallout from all that "brilliant" and "progressive" policy making right before our eyes today😍

Drew Booth60 said:France is following right in Spain's footsteps ever since this liberal-socialist crowd took over the reins☕
While the country is basically sinking, they’re busy playing distraction tactics—focusing entirely on gay rights, immigrant rights, and waging war against those damn wealthy elites—which is exactly how things played out in Spain back when that idiot Zapatero was running the show🙄
We're seeing the fallout from all that "brilliant" and "progressive" policy making right before our eyes today😍

I guess France wasn't any better under that little guy who fancied himself a ladies' man (despite calling himself a "conservative"), nor was it any better under any of those crooks like Giscard, Mitterrand, and the rest before him. Didn't Sarkozy also hand over the government and key sectors to feminists and various "emancipated" "progressives," and then actually brag about it?

But honestly, countries like Spain and Ireland remain a complete mystery to me. I really don't get how these nations, which were so incredibly stubborn and deeply conservative Catholic societies for centuries, managed to degenerate so much and turn into what they are today in just 10 or 15 years. But like you said, I suppose everyone is starting to "enjoy" the fruits of their newly acquired "progressiveness."

The worst part, though, is that they are trying to force these same liberal nonsense policies—the ones that ruined them—onto the entire world, especially onto transition countries like ours.

darktiger12 said:I guess France wasn't any better under that little guy who fancied himself a ladies' man (despite calling himself a "conservative"), nor was it any better under any of those crooks like Giscard, Mitterrand, and the rest before him. Didn't Sarkozy also hand over the government and key sectors to feminists and various "emancipated" "progressives," and then actually brag about it?

But honestly, countries like Spain and Ireland remain a complete mystery to me. I really don't get how these nations, which were so incredibly stubborn and deeply conservative Catholic societies for centuries, managed to degenerate so much and turn into what they are today in just 10 or 15 years. But like you said, I suppose everyone is starting to "enjoy" the fruits of their newly acquired "progressiveness."

The worst part, though, is that they are trying to force these same liberal nonsense policies—the ones that ruined them—onto the entire world, especially onto transition countries like ours.

I mean, in Spain, I think this shift really started picking up speed after the death of the old regime, and maybe his era actually helped trigger it. People were just so tired of that hardcore conservatism being forced down their throats, so eventually, they just hit a breaking point. Now, even the conservative parties are trying to distance themselves from those old ways. It’s just one of those things, I guess...

Take Spain, for example—they had their first massive gay pride parade back in 1979, which would have been totally unthinkable just four years before that!

It’s pretty rare to see him pushing back—at least out in the open—against certain liberal (or "modern," if you want to call it that) stuff like gay marriage. So, this is actually kind of interesting.