956 words
Translated by Greg Johnson
At first, everyone thought that the draft law on homosexual marriage was one of those booby-traps (in crude terms, asshole traps) by which politicians entertain the gallery, unable to act on real issues. And then, very quickly, we realized that behind the booby-trap a very real project had slipped in, with which deconstructive fanatics wish to destroy a few more foundations that continue to structure European societies, as sick as they are.
The question has nothing to do with tolerance or respect for peculiar sentiments or sexual minorities. Homosexuality is not a historical novelty. It would be easy to count illustrious personages — kings, queens, and nobles of ancient times — who preferred the intimate association of the same sex, and whom the ancient chronicles sometimes mocked.
Private life is the affair of each individual, and as long as peculiar preferences do not degenerate into provocative events and flagrant proselytizing, there is no objection. Respect for the secrecy of “privacy,” as the English say, is needed. In France, by the creation of the “pacte civil de solidarité et de concubinage” [civil pact of solidarity and concubinage] (PACS), the law established a legal framework allowing two people of the same sex (or opposite sex) to live together with a series of social and tax benefits. It is a social consecration of the desire for love and affection.
Marriage is another matter. It is not about love, even when it is the consequence of love. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman for procreation. If we remove the difference of sex and procreation, nothing remains except love, which can evaporate.
Unlike PACS, marriage is an institution and not a simple contract. The institution of marriage is defined by a set of reciprocal rights and duties not only between spouses, but to the unborn child. The city (i.e., the law and its representatives) intervenes to solemnize marriage (before the mayor), because it is in the general interest. Until now, no society has ever thought that homosexual couples procreate.
We must emphasize that marriage is not a celebration of love. Marriage is an institution based on lineage and kinship, even if circumstances sometimes do not allow the arrival of children. The presumption of paternity is the fundamental crux. Today we think of ourselves as sons and daughters of those who bore us, just as the heroes of the Iliad (Achilles son of Peleus, Ulysses son of Laertes, etc.) did 3,000 years ago. It does not matter if there are good or bad relations between the generations. Rupture of descent is always a tragedy. For children born out of wedlock, paternity research is less related to potential inheritances than to an imperative need to know where we come from, whose children we are.
We should also mention that adoption is always risky and painful. Some homosexual couples demand the power to adopt children, a bit like buying a dog, a cat, or a sex toy. For the moment, the law denies the analogy between adoption by a homosexual couple and by a couple consisting of a man and a woman united in marriage. It seems best for the child, for his ultimate balance requires a father and a mother. It is thus the interests of the child that should be taken into account and not certain adults’ whims or desires for fulfillment.
Clearly, it would be destructive to change the definition of parenthood and family to meet the needs of a very selfish minority of homosexual couples. They are entitled to respect for their differences, provided they do not destroy an institution that was designed to benefit children. If we accept “marriage for all,” why not extend it to one’s monkey or favorite dog, one’s brother or sister, one’s father or mother? Why not imagine the wedding of a woman to two or three men? All these extravagances might be pursued more or less discreetly out of wedlock. The only issue, ultimately, is to remember that marriage is not a consumer good open to all fantasies.
A powerful factor here is the vogue of gender. Gender studies came from the United States and are now part of higher education. This fashion maintains that sexual identity is socially constructed. Simone de Beauvoir already wrote in The Second Sex, “one is not born a woman, one becomes one.” She was inspired by Sartre’s theory that identity is reduced to the regard of others toward us. It was idiotic but novel, thus interesting and “sellable.” Gender studies theorists are feminist and homosexual extremists who seek to justify their peculiarities by denying that there are men and women – and, no doubt, that there are bucks and does, rams and ewes . . .[1] As this fraction of the population has high purchasing power, its influence on the public is considerable. Especially as their whims relayed by the media promote novelties and fads that feed the market system.[2] It is obvious to these gilt-edged cranks that the family model based on the heterogeneity of gender and children is also a matter of “social conditioning” which should be eliminated. It will be more difficult than they imagined.
Notes
1. In La Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire no. 30 (on women and power), p. 40, I published a selection of the wild imaginings of Françoise Héritier, honorary professor at the Collège de France, for whom the physical differences between men and women come from the dominance of males over females during the millennia of the Paleolithic, the gentlemen reserving a meat diet for themselves while forcing the ladies to be vegetarians . . . like Hitler. Illuminating, isn’t it?
2. Thoughts on the commercial system developed in my book Le Choc de l’Histoire [The Shock of History] (Via Romana, 2011).
Source: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/2012/11/le-mariage-et-les-enfants-des-biens-de-consommation/
9 comments
“Gender studies theorists are feminist and homosexual extremists who seek to justify their peculiarities by denying that there are men and women — and, no doubt, that there are bucks and does, rams and ewes . . . It is obvious to these gilt-edged cranks that the family model based on the heterogeneity of gender and children is also a matter of ‘social conditioning’ which should be eliminated. It will be more difficult than they imagined.”
Indeed. On such matters, the Australian philosopher David Stove wrote:
“Our species is certainly more ‘plastic’ to external influences than pigeons or leopards or any other animal, and we are, therefore, the species to which education can make the greatest difference. This is the grain of truth in Educationism [i.e., environmental determinism]. Exactly how plastic we are, and hence exactly how much education could in principle change us, no one can say with certainty. But it is certain enough that Educationists have been, for centuries, exaggerating the possibilities, which education holds out, of changing human beings for the better.
“Konrad Lorenz said somewhere that he would turn Behaviorist when, but not before, pigeons were taught to copulate upside-down. I would set the price a good deal higher than that. I will turn Educationist when, but not before, three-months-old humans are taught to accept a steady diet of petrol, with the same freedom from ‘prejudice’ as they accept mothers’ milk. All the education in the world will never for long prevent most humans from defending territory, making a place to live in, mating, raising offspring, and so on, any more than education will prevent kookaburras from doing so.
“Some present-day Educationalists, it is true, have been consistent enough, or desperate enough, to maintain that even the normal direction of sexual interest is entirely an artifact of education. But even if we could believe this about our own species, it is evidently ascribing far too much to the education-systems of our four-footed and our feathered friends. We might have conspired to discriminate in the schools against homosexuality, but the kookaburra, kangaroo, etc., can hardly be supposed to have been in the plot.”
I agree with the author’s notion that marriage as an institution is primarily meant to serve procreation and child-rearing. However, two concepts have to be kept in mind on the subject of gay marriage which he did not mention:
1) Traditionalism has lost (as seen here in the ’12 elections) and the trend toward the further dilution of the word “marriage” is clearly going to continue. Despite the author’s sarcasm….it does indeed seem likely that one day the state will marry people to their pets.
Therefore, people should now define “marriage” by their churches and communities, not via the government or mass media. (Ron Paul also argues this, noting the government didn’t even administer marriage licenses until decades into the twentieth century.) Just ignore the government altogether on the idea of marriage.
2) The author only mentioned one feminist by name – a Catholic French woman. But in truth, from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Naomi Wolf, feminism is an entirely Jewish creation. Like the Communism of Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky (Jew, Jew, and Jew), the history of feminism is indisputably a Jewish concoction, one also meant to subvert the ethos of European Christendom which they so hate.
Please read the EXCELLENT three-part article, “Femi-Communism” by Harmony Dawes chronicling the history of feminism, right up to the present day:
http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/FemiCommunismPt1.html
The question goes for more than just homosexual relations. Are women and children consumer goods for men?
This fashion maintains that sexual identity is socially constructed. Simone de Beauvoir already wrote in The Second Sex, “one is not born a woman, one becomes one.”
Is everything these days a mere proposition – our God, our nation, our women?
If sex and race are “social constructs,” as leftist cranks maintain, does that make Jewry a “social solvent”?
In Canada, the question was not ‘should women have the right to vote?’ The question was ‘Are women persons?’ The right question makes all the difference. Thanks Nellie McClung.
I have often amused myself by speculating on what would life be like if the powers that be said ‘No women are not persons.’ This has nothing to do with equality. That is an American thing.
Those that crusade for “gay rights” and such, are never doing it for the “gays”, who in the end are only a small percent of the population and who are freer than ever to do privately as they plesse. “Gay rights” have become just a tool to attack and destroy the family and the “gender” norm. In this game are the usual ideologues, but also sexual neurotics motivated by resentment, revenge feelings and inferiority complexes.”Gay marriage” is a purely iconoclastic act, just a spitting into the soup, no matter what rhetorics their advocates use to disguise that. Once they will get their “right”, I wonder how many homosexuals will actually marry and how many and how soon will quickly divorce… but the point is: it is not about them.
Aside: Sometimes I wonder if Camille Paglia is some sort of “Aryan feminist”. There are some issues with her positions as well, but she loathes deconstructivism and resentment towards heterosexual polarity and frequently has denounced obnoxious gay activism and self-victimising. “I want to bring back Phallus worship” was one of her best lines in the Maher show appearance.
I feel like that about Women wanting to be Priests. Always the short butch steel grey hair. What do they have to offer? They are just 2nd class wanna be men. Why can’t women with long flowing locks become priestesses – in their own religion? They can only destroy Christianity – which is the point for most of them, consciously or unconsciously. Perhaps they fear that no one would be interested if they started their own thing – even themselves. They shouldn’t fear – Dianic Witchcraft appeals to a small number of women so they will have a flock. But that doesn’t satisfy their desire for power….
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.