moonbattery logo

Mar 26 2013

French Take to the Streets to Defend Civilization

We have no excuse for submissively tolerating what radicals are trying to do to marriage, considering the resistance put up in France, a country that seemingly capitulated to degenerate moonbattery generations ago. Turnout was massive for a march in Paris on Sunday in favor of preserving the sanctity of marriage and protecting children from homosexual adoption:

Police estimate around 300,000 people took part in the march against legislation, set to go through France’s upper house early next month, that will allow gay couples to marry and adopt. Organisers dispute the figures, claiming more than 1.4 million turned up at the second mass protest against same-sex unions this year. …

Things turned ugly at [Sunday]’s protest after around 100 protesters attempted to run on to the Champs-Elysées towards the presidential Elysée Palace. According to French newspaper Le Parisien, 98 people were arrested, with six taken into custody.

Watch the cops go nuts spraying pro-marriage protesters with the tear gas:

Who would have thought that protesting in favor of preserving the family unit that has been the bedrock of civilization since before recorded history would ever get you tear-gassed by the establishment?

The French know that society has its back to an abyss; we had better know it too.

On tips from Ben S and Artfldgr.


  • Jodie

    I agree! Leebeartay!

  • Jay B.

    This is the canary in the mineshaft. The french have been exposed to a far higher degree of liberalism and muslim colonisation.

    Look closely, that will happen here within 5 years.

  • Skyfall

    Much as it’s fun to bash the French, let’s not forget the FFI. Those people were real heroes, and fought with bravery against almost unimaginable odds. Napoleon and his armies didn’t do too bad either.

    True, one has to go back aways, but they weren’t always a coward nation…and perhaps that spirit is once again starting to blossom.

    Vive le liberte!

  • Flu-Bird

    Looks like the french are also opposed to this gay marrage idea I wonder in the UN HUAN RIGHTS freakos wont condem them as homaphobes

  • KHarn

    REMEMBER that when the people of California voted AGAINST gay marrage, the COURTS ruled in favor of it; proving once again that the will of the people matters not in the socialist utopia the REGRESSIVES are working for.

  • Comrade J

    If the Supreme C rules in favor of children molesters this will be us in the streets.

    Somewhat related, the perverts claim that the marriage is their “civil right”. Where do rights come from? Well what does Declaration of Independence say? Yeah, and He’s very clear on the “lifestyle”.

    Some might be tempted to argue, well what about the atheists? Well remember what honest Abe said? Government of the people, by the people, for the people, and what did people in California say? Yeah.

    Down with degenerate tyranny!

  • mojo

    Don’t get too excited. The French will take to the streets at the drop of a chapeau. Even if they have to drop it themselves.

  • Alphamail

    Read the transcript as I listened to briefings before SCOTUS today.

    Don’t think this was the argument they wanted to hear in the infant years of the same-sex marriage debate.

    Doesn’t look like they are feeling compelled to dump thousands of years of traditional marriage before all the data and stats are in on an issue less than a decade old. Judge Roberts seemed to redeem himself, as surprisingly did a couple liberals.

    Don’t want to jump the gun but it seems they may pass on this – a much needed minor victory for conservatives – against the possibility of a wrong decision which could legalize SSM across the land.

    Maybe we won’t have to riot in the streets yet like the brave French – for now.

  • Ummah Gummah

    mojo says:
    March 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    Don’t get too excited. The French will take to the streets at the drop of a chapeau. Even if they have to drop it themselves.

    Yeah, but these guys weren’t libtards and union members. They were “le peuple”. People who work hard and raise families and normally don’t have the time to demonstrate like students and union members do.

    .

  • Fiberal

    It is disgraceful that the leadership of western countries have descended so low.

    Gays are demanding marriage for no other reason than they want to be validated as “normal”.

    And it seems like most of the leadership of western countries has decided to go along with the charade.

    If put up for a referendum, it would be voted down in all 49 states. (I don’t think CA is still part of the U.S., is it?)

    Like gun control, gay marriage may be a kick in the butt for liberals.

  • Son of Taz

    For those of you not from the Boston area, the names Whitey Bulger and Steven Flemmi may have no meaning, but they were two of the worst of the Irish mob here.

    Flemmi is in jail now, and Bulger will be soon. Flemmi received some amnesty for agreeing to testify against Bulger.

    Had homosexual marriage been in force in 1995 when the indictments against Bulger and Flemmi were handed down, Bulger would not stand a chance of being convicted because Flemmi could “marry” Bulger and not be required to testify against him, since they would be “spouses.”

    Homosexuals think they are owed this “right” but this Court better kill homo marriage, or civil unrest won’t be far behind here. Unforeseen events as I described will take place routinely if anyone can marry anyone. This law is an abomination and must not be allowed to stand.

  • Flu-Bird

    America needs to learn a little from the french this time and oppose all forms of same sex marrage

  • The Liberal

    Tee hee, the French bigots I MEAN heroes are so heroic, with their using small children as protest shields and attacking cops and all the things pro-morality people should do.
    Now.

    Comrade J says:
    March 26, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    A point by point refutation.

    “If the Supreme C rules in favor of children molesters this will be us in the streets.”
    So you think gay people are all child molesters. Newsflash, conservatives are uninformed and paint people they don’t like with a broad brush, story at 11. Seriously, you could not be more offensively wrong. Nothing I say will convince you that you are wrong, because you are -willfully- wrong, and people like you need to leave society so the rest of us can get on with civilization. ALTERNATE RESPONSE: The Supreme Court is ruling on gay marriage, not Catholic priests.

    “Somewhat related, the perverts claim that the marriage is their “civil right”. Where do rights come from? Well what does Declaration of Independence say? Yeah, and He’s very clear on the “lifestyle”.”
    Declaration is not law, never has been law, never will be law, it’s a letter, and it says ‘creator’ in any case. Who’s to say it’s your particular flavor of god? Why can’t it be Allah? Or the deist god most of them that were religious believed in that it actually is? Even if it were your BibleGod, remember, BibleGod was also very clear on not opposing slavery, and also eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber clothing, two sins that were abominations like unto homosexuality. So, if you eat at Red Lobster, or wear a cotton poly blend, you are as bad as gay people in BibleGod’s eyes, and will burn in hell forever, you filthy sinner.

    Oh, free knowledge spew, the sin of Sodom, Sodomy? Impoliteness. Stated very clearly in the Bible itself, it’s impoliteness. BibleGod killed them for being assholes to his special friend. And Paul said homosexuality was a gift of God, that would sometimes descend on bad people, so you would know that they were bad. Sometimes. It was one of many different identifiers. And if you keep citing Leviticus for the anti-gay stuff, you’re gonna have to start sacrificing animals and stoning people that work on Sunday (and also your children when they talk back) because that’s all in there too, and either Jesus abolished all of it or none of it. Even the Bible isn’t really clear on that. And no, Jesus said nothing about gay people, and he said and did a lot of stuff that suggested he was a proto-socialist. Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, healing people for free, getting water for other people, saying rich people were gonna have a bitch of a time getting into heaven, etc.

    “Some might be tempted to argue, well what about the atheists? Well remember what honest Abe said? Government of the people, by the people, for the people, and what did people in California say? Yeah.”
    Naw, those were people from Utah and Arizona, not California. California is too full of gay hippy Mexicans, remember? And why do you exclude atheists? By the people for the people means -all- of the people, not just the people you like and fuck the rest. Because that’s called tyranny. But that’s ok, as long as you’re part of the privileged group, right? I seriously don’t understand why you hate me, just because I’m not a part of the same Sunday social club you are.

    “Down with degenerate tyranny!”
    I agree, down with creeping theocracy.
    ——————————————————–
    Son of Taz says:
    March 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm
    Point by point

    “Had homosexual marriage been in force in 1995 when the indictments against Bulger and Flemmi were handed down, Bulger would not stand a chance of being convicted because Flemmi could “marry” Bulger and not be required to testify against him, since they would be “spouses.””
    So you’re saying that we need to ban marriage in general, because that sort of thing can actually happen with straight marriage too.

    “Homosexuals think they are owed this “right” but this Court better kill homo marriage, or civil unrest won’t be far behind here. Unforeseen events as I described will take place routinely if anyone can marry anyone. This law is an abomination and must not be allowed to stand.”
    So, you’re kinda threatening terrorist action if they pass a law that doesn’t affect you in the slightest, that only expands rights for people. You know, Scandinavian countries have had gay marriage legalized for a decade, and nothing apocalyptic bad has happened there. I guess BibleGod is too busy throwing hurricanes at gay people in the USA (and only hitting the Bible Belt most of the time, funny that) to care about the rest of the world sinning. And funny… if you swap the words ‘homo/sexual/s’ with ‘black/s’ you get the same shit said by the anti-interracial marriage crowd back in the 1960s. Odd.

    And I find it funny how all of you hate the French with a burning stereotypical totally unjustified passion until a small group of fundamentalists, partially from the USA, decides to protest human rights. Oh, and marriage is a human right. To demonstrate, let’s say it’s now illegal for left-handed people to get married. I mean, the Bible says the left hand is evil, so…
    Do you get the logic? Why do I, as an atheist, have to live by -your- restrictive rules? How about you people start minding your own damn business and stop thinking about gay sex so much, you have it on the brain more than actual gay people.

    Seriously, you people champion the “sanctity of marriage” with people like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich! That’s like me championing the anti-blowjob league with Bill Clinton. And then, you do nothing about divorces. If you wanted me to take you seriously as an ideology, you need to try and make divorce illegal. Because, 50% or more of marriages in the USA today end in divorce, and pretty few of them are gay. So, that seems to be a more pressing issue. If you were serious about caring about marriage as a sacred institution, and not about minorities getting rights you don’t want them to share with you, but of course you are.

  • Fiberal

    The Libtard,

    It seems like you picked some pretty low hanging fruit and then attacked them with some cliches.

    Here’s the problem: You want to marry a shoe? Fine. Your business. The conservative objection comes about when you want everyone to watch the honeymoon.

    The substance of gay marriage is in fact, one of validating an illness. Ostensibly this has to be done in order for the ill to feel less ill.

    Why buy into that unless you have a vested interest in devaluing a traditional institution?

    Gay marriage represents a new institution that will degrade an old and settled one. And it has to be forced since if put to a referendum, the states would not ratify it.

    Because this would be a novel and coerced institution, there is absolutely no indication that it would be beneficial to society. Maybe for the ill, but then even that’s not a given. They will continue to be sick.

    The SCOTUS asked about polygamy. Could polygamy be given equal marital status (as a heterosexual one)? And here, I would argue that that is not based on a sickness: most societies are in fact polygamous (most individuals are monogamous).

    I would likewise ask about necrophilia. It meets all the same criteria as that proposed for homosexual marriage: consent, stability, preference, protected civil union, presumed monogamy, can’t procreate – could adopt, compatible, grounds for tax benefits.

    I think when compared against traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which is codified by unique characteristics, which is to say a tradition shared by all cultures derived from the natural sexual complementarity of woman and man, which formalizes the possibility of the renewal of life, there are no equivalencies.

    Much less ones that should be forced on a society by protecting the sheltered interests of a minority of sick people.

    That is unless of course, you have a personal and vested interest in doing so.

    I do not see an ethical high ground here.

  • The Liberal

    Starting in with insulting me by calling me a retard, always a classy way to begin an argument, if you were a third grader. See, I can do it too. But, of course, that doesn’t invalidate the rest of your points, theoretically, so let’s see what we’ve got!

    POINT BY POINT to Fiberal
    ========================================================
    “Here’s the problem: You want to marry a shoe? Fine. Your business. The conservative objection comes about when you want everyone to watch the honeymoon.”
    Why do you have to watch gay people honeymoon? Are you forced to be in their bedrooms, or are you there by sinfully delicious choice? No, in all seriousness, this is a non-issue, and stems from argument ad yuck. AKA, you feel it’s gross, so you don’t want to deal with it. I get that, but you need to grow up and accept that people can be different than you, and that’s ok. Maybe I feel straight people kissing and stuff is gross, so by your logic, we should ban that too.

    “The substance of gay marriage is in fact, one of validating an illness. Ostensibly this has to be done in order for the ill to feel less ill.”
    The 1970s just called, it’s the American Psychiatrist Association, homosexuality is not a mental illness. And why would it be? It’s outside your normal, sure, but so is… say, left-handedness. I mean, it’s the brain wired differently than the norm, so…
    And gay marriage is about A) all the same things hetero marriage is for. Thought there was a point B? No. Well, alright. A) take the next step in a committed relationship B) Tax breaks and that’s about it, man.

    “Why buy into that unless you have a vested interest in devaluing a traditional institution?”
    Why does adding to something devalue it? Does giving out freedoms to people that didn’t have those freedoms taking away your freedoms? Is freedom a limited resource that straight white conservative males have to hoard? In essence, you call marriage a ‘traditional institution’ because it’s in the Bible, right? I’m sure I don’t have to link the graphic of the many definitions of marriage in the Bible. Like, ooo, a rapist to his target! Or, say, King Saul to his like 900 BibleGod sanctioned wives and hookers.

    “Gay marriage represents a new institution that will degrade an old and settled one. And it has to be forced since if put to a referendum, the states would not ratify it.”
    And yet, states -have- ratified it! And you forget, civil rights has always had to be put to a “referendum”, as you call it. Civil War, Interracial marriage Supreme Court ruling…

    “Because this would be a novel and coerced institution, there is absolutely no indication that it would be beneficial to society. Maybe for the ill, but then even that’s not a given. They will continue to be sick.”
    Why is it forced on you? You will not have to gay marry, your church will not have to gay marry, the only difference is that gay people can get married. And you know, they already live together, and they have sex already, so denying them marriage… ain’t denying them sex. It’s just denying them benefits that you enjoy.

    “The SCOTUS asked about polygamy. Could polygamy be given equal marital status (as a heterosexual one)? And here, I would argue that that is not based on a sickness: most societies are in fact polygamous (most individuals are monogamous).”
    Polygamy is alright as long as everyone consents to it, marriage inside polygamy is difficult, but, hell, the Mormons did it.

    “I would likewise ask about necrophilia. It meets all the same criteria as that proposed for homosexual marriage: consent, stability, preference, protected civil union, presumed monogamy, can’t procreate – could adopt, compatible, grounds for tax benefits.”
    Corpses cannot give consent, next? (This also goes for shoes, and, yes, animals).

    “I think when compared against traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which is codified by unique characteristics, which is to say a tradition shared by all cultures derived from the natural sexual complementarity of woman and man, which formalizes the possibility of the renewal of life, there are no equivalencies.”
    And yet we let sterile people marry, and gay marriage is legal in many European countries. So cultural normative is not a valid reason to deny people rights based on who they happen to like.

    “Much less ones that should be forced on a society by protecting the sheltered interests of a minority of sick people.”
    So we should stop healing sick people altogether, especially cancer patients, because, you know, it’s a sheltered interest you don’t share that doesn’t affect you, so why should we care, right?

    “That is unless of course, you have a personal and vested interest in doing so.”
    I see a vested interest in ensuring universal freedom.

    “I do not see an ethical high ground here.”
    I do, and it isn’t where you think it is.

  • Fiberal

    Libtard,

    I have to admit; I am superficial.

    POINT COUNTERPOINT:

    “Why do you have to watch gay people honeymoon? Are you forced to be in their bedrooms, or are you there by sinfully delicious choice? No, in all seriousness, this is a non-issue, and stems from argument ad yuck. AKA, you feel it’s gross, so you don’t want to deal with it. I get that, but you need to grow up and accept that people can be different than you, and that’s ok. Maybe I feel straight people kissing and stuff is gross, so by your logic, we should ban that too.”

    There is an extreme yuck factor, yes. But that is not really the point. Is it….? No one should have to be forced to accept unnatural behaviors as if they were normal. Gay people are looking for normality. They are looking for validation of their appetites and lifestyles. They are demanding acceptance through the courts. Society has no obligation to fulfill their demands.

    “The 1970s just called, it’s the American Psychiatrist Association, homosexuality is not a mental illness.”

    As with a lot of social science, this one carries a social agenda. The science attempting to normalize homosexuality is junk.

    ” And why would it be? It’s outside your normal, sure, but so is… say, left-handedness. ”

    You’re equating sodomy with left-handedness? (again) You’re not really serious here are you?

    “Does giving out freedoms to people that didn’t have those freedoms taking away your freedoms?”

    What ‘freedoms’? Homosexuals have as much ‘freedom’ as anyone. Unless you are talking about freedom of exhibitionism. If that’s what your ‘freedom’ issue is all about, you’re taking this back to the yuck factor.
    Society has a right not to be sickened.

    “And yet, states -have- ratified it!”

    States have approved it (except for Washington). And this has largely been due to frenetic leaders working in bills from hard-driven campaigns to collect signatures. In any event, my meaning was in the context of a constitutional amendment which would never be ratified by the states.

    “Why is it forced on you?”

    Because it has to be legislated. That is, it has to be put into law against the better judgement and common sense of a majority of people. That is coercion.

    “Corpses cannot give consent, next?”
    You could have an arranged marriage, pre-death. And at any rate, it depends on how you interpret consent.
    If you are accepting that polygamy could be an accepted form of marriage – then what are you arguing for? quantity? Why are you so prejudiced against non-breathers? You are insensitive to the needs and desires of a minority.

    ” So cultural normative is not a valid reason to deny people rights based on who they happen to like.”

    You are begging the question. That is my argument against the devaluation of marriage; namely that it has a singular and historical place in all societies.

    “So we should stop healing sick people altogether, especially cancer patients, because, you know, it’s a sheltered interest you don’t share that doesn’t affect you, so why should we care, right?”

    Don’t be so gay.

  • Fiberal

    BTW regarding your “kissing” tangent: I am personally not in favor of exhibitionism by anyone – gay or straight.

    As I’ve complained on these very pages, I do not understand why heterosexual kissing in the movies always has to sound like a herd of elephants stampeding through a field of grease.

    I would most definitely prefer not to have to listen to the sounds of salivary exchange from the mouths of gays.

    …movies or whatever.

  • BoJangles

    Those French protestors made the mistake of being unarmed.

  • Flu-Bird

    Becuase Pepi La Peuw would never consiter hanging out witha another guy skunk just a painted cat

  • Fiberal

    The Libtard,

    I will assume then that your silence is a docile admission of your incorrect thinking that has now prompted solemn reflection on your difficult pathway in life.

    The casual reader might notice that while The Libtard advocates for “human rights” and freedom for gays, at the same time he was desperate to bring the discussion into religion — which, while serving an important purpose for millions of people, he ridicules.

    That is the hypocritical position of all liberals– derision with coercion based on humorless superficial logic.

    .

    “And another one gone and another down and another one bites the dust. bum, bum bum. bum bum bumty bum….”

  • Comrade J

    The libtard is off his meds again huh?

    As you see ladies and gentlemen, this is the type of filth that we are dealing with. Prepare accordingly.

  • Tchhht!!!

    The liberal says:

    “Are you forced to be in their bedrooms,…”

    Bullshit!

    One doesn’t have to go into fag bedrooms since homosexual depravity is now being displayed on the public streets for all to see. Go to Zombietime.com and look at the links to the San Francisco “Folsom” and “Up Your Alley” street fairs.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy