Here, for those who read French, is the Chief Rabbi’s site containing the open letter to which Benedict’s Christmas address referred. Those who don’t read French might want to revisit the Thirteen Theses.
A sample: Que l’on ait l’une ou l’autre des visions du monde, on voit bien que ce qui se joue derrière « le mariage pour tous », c’est une substitution : une institution chargée juridiquement, culturellement et symboliquement serait ainsi remplacée par un objet juridique asexué, sapant les fondements des individus et de la famille. (“Whether one has the one world view or the other, it is quite clear that the intention behind the slogan ‘marriage for everyone’ is a substitution: a juridically, culturally and symbolically charged institution is to be replaced by an asexual juridical construct, undermining the foundations of individuals and of the family.”)
One thing this essay helps to demonstrate is the foolishness, if not the dishonesty, of the notion that support for same-sex marriage is support for what is natural, whereas opposition to same-sex marriage is mere bias against forms of nature different than one’s own.
December 22nd, 2012 | 7:54 am
I do not read French, but i do realise that the Chief Rabbi has investigated the same area of thought as i have. I call it “Virtual World” analysis. Essentially, the introduction of Gender has created a schism between the legally real and the physically real. We did not notice it at the time. With Gender legally established, it makes no sense to talk of marriage in terms of sexual difference since – if Gender is identity – a marriage that on Monday is between Colin (male) and Clare (female) could on Tuesday be between Colin ( male) and Clare (male). Thus the law does not see itself as redefining marriage, only correcting it. Unfortunately the redefinition of marriage is not the end of the line.
December 23rd, 2012 | 2:58 pm
Will someone please translate this essay into English?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact