In France, anti-gay marriage voices emerge — from gays

Yesterday, I posted about the differences between gay sex (which is none of my business, so you can do what you like) and gay marriage (which is a significant state institution that cannot be treated in a libertarian way).  I was not arguing against gay marriage, per se, although I do have different ideas than most about ways in which committed same-sex partners can confirm their status so as to ensure equal treatment under the law.

Out of France, though, comes a group that is strongly opposed to gay marriage.  That’s a dog bites man sentence.  What makes it a man bites dog story is the fact that this group is made up of gays, who believe that gay marriage is wrong, that it is at odds with gay culture, and that it is inconsistent with the core nature of marriage:

If you read French, you can learn more about this group here. And then, because I don’t read French, feel free to come back to this post and tell us what they say.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • USMaleSF

    Unfortunate that the one you posted is the one you posted. He seems rather puerile, with his little props.

    I looked at the homovox site (nice clean professional look, btw) and listened to several of the speakers. 
    Main themes:
    Children should be raised in a family with a mother and a father. It is what these speakers had growing up and they want it for all children. No one’s claim to equality should trump that.

    Gay marriage erases the uniqueness of both male-female couples and also of samesex couples. The biological fact that a husband and wife can produce a child of their own makes them fundamentally different from couples who cannot do that. To call both unions marriage simply offends common sense. 

    Homosexual couples have their own goals, their own raisons d’etre, their own styles, based on a union of sames. Forcing that into straight marriage is dishonest both for them and for the institution.
    A few speakers contend that not even a majority of gays want gay marriage and that it is a project of a small politically motivated few who have managed to speak as if they were the majority. 
     
     

  • USMaleSF

    Some of them make a clear distinction between being homosexual and being gay or LGBT. The first is a description of one’s erotic orientation. That’s all. The other is a political identity and program. Having a homosexual orientation does not mean that you identify with the politics and program laid on top of it. 

    In America, this position has been argued very forcefully in the book Androphilia, by Jack (Donovan) Malebranche. 

    Although out and content to be so for decades, I now find myself saying that I am “gay” precisely for this reason. While my erotic life remains happily male-oriented, over the last dozen years I have, with accelerating speed, left behind what Donovan names as the three basics of contemporary gayness: a culture of victimism, a feminist-driven ambivalence about masculinity and a rigid adherence to leftwing politics. 

    I am not a fan of gay marriage. I have several reasons, but the simplest is this: a man cannot be a husband to another man for the same reason that a woman cannot be a father to her son. Nature is not putty and society needs to recognize that.

  • Charles Martel

    USMaleSF, you offer a good reminder of the difference in the terms we use to describe same-sex affection. I remember running across an Australian man’s discussion several years ago that sounded much like what Malebranche (maybe it was him?) says, namely that “homosexual” describes an orientation and “gay” describes a political-cultural stance.

    It was a very useful distinction to me because it has allowed me to filter out the leftist/solipsist claptrap whenever I’m considering the various debates that surround same-sex topics.