The government commission, established at the request of the President of the French National Assembly, decided to oppose gay marriage for the most salient of reasons – the welfare of children. ...[T]he commission [had] conducted 14 round-table discussions with 130 individuals representing the diversity of French society. Commissioners also traveled to UK, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and Canada to assess changes in those countries. It concluded that it was in the best interests of children to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.Of course, this reduces the issue to one of utility, and requires a utilitarian ethics to give it logical coherence; pragmatics are invoked only, and no normative issue is addressed; so, it leaves unresolved the standing of traditional marriages of 1woman1man in which children are never intended, either by procreation (consanguinous, congenetic offspring) or by adoption (nonconsanguinous, noncongenetic dawters and sons).
The French are obviously falling back on on their cultural baggage of Aristotelian views of marriage as a biotic union based on reproduction "potential." But often today, it can be proved in advance of marriage whether there is any potential for "natural" offspring or not. So, marriages where no possiblity, potential, desire or preparation for the natural birth of a child/ren remains legitmated with considerable internal contradiction by these outworn theories, whether recapitulated via Aquinas or Darwin.
Needless to say, among those who applaud the French Parliamentary committee's rationale are those in the cult of "natural families" - a zone of devaluing blended families, parent/s who adopt children born to other progenitors - that is, children who are not natural to their parent/s but "only" adopted.
The arch-hierarch of the natural-family cult, World Congress of Families Founder Allan Carlson declared: “Pro-family advocates everywhere are heartened by the report. Mothers and fathers are indispensable. Little Heather’s living arrangement (Heather Has Two Mommies) works best in works of fiction”(Heather' and her critics).
The Report put the matter succinctly, stating it “is not possible to think about marriage separately from filiation (the fact of being a child of certain parents): the two questions are closely connected, in that marriage is organized around the child."I dispute this dogmatic and philosophically unreflective bull.
"Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child.”But how can it be so for those married couples or would-be-married couples known in advance to be incapable of having their own children?, or for those who come to an individual state (no couple, perhaps due to death, or to the rape of a woman in a nonmarried state who chooses to remain unmarried but keep her child/ren, or a couple where some child/ren come from one parent while an/other child/ren come from the other parent (as in what are called "blended families")?
"The report noted that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to adoption by homosexual couples".... But this is already the case whether generic marriage and demotion of traditional marriage takes place or not. Homos are adopting chldren no one else wants. Again, the ethical confusion resulting from a (bad) morality of homophobia results in anomalies of thawt, such as the conflation of the questions of marriage, family, and adoption. Where does it say 2 women or 2 men can't legally adopt?
I suspect that in the back of the minds of the French legislators, and if the cultists exploiting their Report is the homophobic canard that homos who adopt are sexual abusers (of course, in France in the last years, there has been a huge child-abuse ring exposed that had been composed of "natural familities"). Any sexual abuse of a child, adopted or natural, should be set upon vigorously by the state and prosecutors, but both the French Report (if the natural-family cult is reading it correctly) and the cult itelf would have it that non-1woman1man duos (whether they be a homo union or not) are in themselves dangerous to the adopted child/ren; this unstated underlying assumption is outrageous in its falsehood and overgeneralizing to the point of false witness - so, I presume we are being counselled to leave these kids in orphanages with no personally-connected direct caregivers at all. It's better to be placed in a mass institution, they seem to be saying, than to be loved and cared-for by a homo or a homo couple or a simple duo of the same sex. It's more important to the French confusion, and to the natural-family cult's delusion, just to shove such off-colour kids away, to erase their very existence, to set up situations where it's thawt better to institutionalize them than to allow their choice of a single or duo or couple of less than two sexes. - Owlb
