Gay Marriage Protest (Washington Post) |
This weekend about 340,000 protesters took
to the streets of France to show their objection to the legalisation of gay
marriage and the right of these same sex couples to adopt children. It was apparently the biggest demonstration
ever staged in France in the last 30 years.
The previous biggest protest in France was
the education protest, which was held to express objection to the reform of the private
school bill. At that protest, which took
place in 1984, approximately 640,000 people participated in the march through
the streets of Versailles.
Despite the size of the anti gay marriage
and adoption march this weekend, French President François Hollande, who
pledged to legalise marriage and adoption for same-sex couples when he ran in
last year’s presidential election, seems intent to continue with his plans. On Sunday evening the Justice minister of
France specifically stated that the government would continue with its plans
without calling a referendum on the matter.
If France does legalise gay marriage it will
become the 12th country in the world to do so.
Anyway, that is not the reason for me
writing this post. Anyone who knows me,
or has read my previous Blog posts, will know that I oppose the concept of gay
marriage.
The reason for this post is to mention
another piece of legislation that was initially linked to the gay marriage and
gay adoption bill, then removed. That legislation
would have made Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) available to lesbian
couples as well as heterosexual couples in France.
Currently legislation in France only makes Assisted
Reproduction Technology available to infertile heterosexual couples who have
been married for at least two years, if the women is younger than 43. Gay married couples will therefore not be entitled
to this, even if gay marriage is legalised.
It is believed that the changes to this
legislation were removed from the bill in order to make the gay marriage and
adoption bill more palatable to those who oppose it.
The question that puzzles me is this. Do same sex couples not know that, when they
make a choice to spend the rest of their life with another person of the same
sex, their choice naturally means that they will be unable to conceive
children? This is biology 101! This is not because a bunch of homophobes got
together and decided that they wanted to prevent gay couples from conceiving
children. It is simply the law of nature.
Nature has specifically designed us humans in
such a way that in order to conceive a child, a man and a woman need to
copulate. It is also obvious that nature
designed it this way because the child needs to be nurtured until he or she is
old enough to be self-sufficient. It is
also fairly obvious that it is clearly ideal for there to be two people
involved in raising the child, although our modern world does make it possible
for a single parent to do so quite successfully, although of course it is not the ideal.
It seems to me that some homosexuals are
confused and angry about a lot more than just their sexuality. Forget about religious beliefs for a
moment. Some homosexuals just seem to me
to be on a warpath against nature. It
seems to me that they hope, through a combination of legislation and science,
to change the natural order of the universe to suit their chosen ideal.
Homosexual couples want to commit sex acts
with people of the same sex in ways that the body simply was not designed to.
They want to have their own children by
either allowing a stranger’s semen, ova or both, to be inserted inside their bodies or, alternatively,
by adopting a child.
They want to live like a natural family,
raising a child in an unnatural family scenario, without any thought for the
child and the impact their personal and selfish ideals will have on the child
or on society as a whole.
I am convinced the world is going mad!
No comments:
Post a Comment