Quel horreur


Huge demonstration in Paris to say omigodno about same-sex marriage.

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.

One demonstrator dressed in black, holding a scythe and wearing a mask of Mr Hollande, stood behind a coffin in which lay a mannequin dressed as Marianne – the emblem of France.

I don’t get it. I never do. It’s other people, being allowed to do something that a lot of people think is a good thing to do. It seems so bizarre to get that worked up about it. It’s not legal permission to marry you, against your will – it’s just legal permission to marry someone of the same sex. Someone. Not you. Someone. Someone else.

Du calme, du calme.

Comments

  1. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    quelle :)

    I knew that France’s right wing wasn’t insignificant, but the sheer number of people whose support these bastards have is frightening.

  2. jackal says

    Ma belle France! As am an American of French largely ancestry, I am often let down by French misogyny and homophobia. They are culturally Catholic, but I detect a high level of hypocrisy: a sin is only a sin if it’s one you don’t do. Adultery? Tres bon. Prostitution? C’est magnifique. Same sex marriage? Quelle horreur! Though, for the record, 53% support gay marriage. The protests represent a vocal minority.

  3. Aratina Cage says

    It’s horrible that people love each other and want to share their lives together. Simply horrible. Nobody should ever have the displeasure of having to feel that way.

  4. says

    The silly thing is that, unlike the UK, France does not recognise religious marriages. It has been the case for centuries that if get married in a church, you still have to go through another civil ceremony to be legally married. So the change is strictly a civil affair. People can still do their religious thing as they have always been able to.

  5. Bruno says

    I’m French, atheist, libertarian, and with a deep respect for anybody’s right to whatever sexual orientation, and still, I oppose gay marriage, for three reasons :
    – we already have in France the so called PACS, a “civil union” contact that gives any couple, including homosexuals, an official and fiscal status similar to wedded couples.
    – the current socialist government is using this divisive plot to divert attention and avoid talking about real issues (record level unemployment, public spending, national debt, crime, …)
    – the gay marriage issue is linked here to gay couples’ right to adoption, and it is still unclear that being raised by two men or two women is not detrimental to a child’s upbringing.

  6. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    we already have in France the so called PACS, a “civil union” contact that gives any couple, including homosexuals, an official and fiscal status similar to wedded couples

    How is that a reason against marriage equality? Unless you are suggesting completely abandoning marriage for civil unions.

    the current socialist government is using this divisive plot to divert attention and avoid talking about real issues (record level unemployment, public spending, national debt, crime, …)

    1. This is a real issue for people who are being discriminated against
    2. I can buy that the government is pushing this for other reasons than the goodness of their hearts, I’m cynical enough. The fact remains that some people in France are bigoted enough, hateful enough to seize this opportunity rail against something which is, as you say, not a real issues instead of going along with the change and focusing on “real issues”.

    the gay marriage issue is linked here to gay couples’ right to adoption, and it is still unclear that being raised by two men or two women is not detrimental to a child’s upbringing.

    1. Marriage and adoption are separate issues.
    2. No, actually, it’s pretty clear. Unless you think gay people are somehow more likely to abuse children, I don’t see how children raised by gay couples could be harmed?
    Also, gay people raise children all the time – often in heterosexual marriages.
    There has been scientific research on this, you can look it up on google scolar if you’re interested. It makes it quite clear that there is no evidence of gay parents on average being any worse than straight parents.

  7. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    Seriously, I’m sick of this bullshit of using children to deny gay people their right to marry each other. It’s not only that I strongly disagree with the notion that having gay parents does a child any harm, it’s also that it’s simply a bullshit argument.

    Today was the last day a hate group here had to collect signatures asking for a referendum on adding the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman to our constitution. All just to make it more difficult for government to push for marriage equality.
    They got more than enough signatures. The name of the organization is “In the name of family”. Similarly as other hateful bigots, like our friend above, they are spouting shit about families and children. How a child needs a mother and a father. How children are a natural and necessary product of marriage.

    They are not only insulting all gay people, but every single parent, every infertile couple, every couple that simply doesn’t want children. They are implying their marriages are worthless. Fucking hypocrites all of them.

  8. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    the current socialist government is using this divisive plot to divert attention and avoid talking about real issues (record level unemployment, public spending, national debt, crime, …)

    How does allowing a freedom take from “real issues”. Change the laws and one still have time to take up those causes.

    the gay marriage issue is linked here to gay couples’ right to adoption, and it is still unclear that being raised by two men or two women is not detrimental to a child’s upbringing.

    The results are in. It is not detrimental.

  9. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    I’m French, atheist, libertarian, and with a deep respect for anybody’s right to whatever sexual orientation – Bruno

    The rest of your comment makes absolutely clear that the last of these four claims is not true.

  10. says

    Bruno:

    we already have in France the so called PACS, a “civil union” contact that gives any couple, including homosexuals, an official and fiscal status similar to wedded couples.

    Because the back of the bus is just as good as the front.

    the gay marriage issue is linked here to gay couples’ right to adoption, and it is still unclear that being raised by two men or two women is not detrimental to a child’s upbringing.

    Because they’re really just paedos, amirite?

  11. Ichthyic says

    The rest of your comment makes absolutely clear that the last of these four claims is not true.

    nor the third.

    …and I’d bet if pushed, we would find qualms about the second.

    In reading “The Coming of the Third Reich” by Richard Evans, one of the things he takes pains to point out is that the roots for the eventual rejection of the SECULAR rights of Jews in Europe (not based on the xian concepts of blame shaming that ML promulgated) that ended up being a cornerstone of the Nazi party actually started in France, in the late 1800’s!

    France has always been a country of extremes, it appears to me, both left AND right.

  12. Ichthyic says

    the gay marriage issue is linked here to gay couples’ right to adoption, and it is still unclear that being raised by two men or two women is not detrimental to a child’s upbringing.

    your ignorance is showing.

    The issue was researched and decided on well over 20 years ago:

    To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

  13. AsqJames says

    the current socialist government is using this divisive plot to divert attention and avoid talking about real issues (record level unemployment, public spending, national debt, crime, …)

    I hate, hate, hate this stance on any issue. It’s always resorted to when someone can’t come up with a rational argument to support/oppose any particular measure.

    It’s awful whether applied to an individual (Ophelia shouldn’t worry about western patriarchy until she’s sorted out all the problems women in the developing world have) or a government/political party. If those using this argument genuinely cared so much about whatever other issues they suggest should be the priority, they’d focus on those issues.

    But they don’t.

    Instead they expend inordinate amounts of time and effort whinging about what others are doing to make the world a better place.

    Your other objections are equally facile (or more bluntly, bollocks) and have been comprehensively demolished above anyway. This one just really twists my knickers ‘cos it’s so widely used and so obviously a cowardly attempt to avoid making an actual argument. It’s brought up whenever somebody wants to oppose doing something, but can’t think of a way of saying so without looking like they’ve less conscience than a pint of arse gravy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>