Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Homovox Translations, Parts 1-4

Homovox: Une Vois pour les Homos, is a website put up by various gay men in France. Their portal is here:

I have translated the first four videos below:


I’ve been living with a (guy) for 20 years. As well, I’m mayor of my village, here in Bergueil… Speaking of the planned law (for gay marriage), I have an unusual position. My view isn’t being heard in the media.

What to say about the LGBT movement?

THE LGBT movement that speaks out in the media… Nobody voted for them. No homosexual voted them in. They don’t speak for me. They don’t speak in place of me.

What reasons for your opposition?

As a society we should not encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural. We (gays) do not have the fertility, in the sense of making a baby. We have plenty of other forms of fertility. Artistic, for example, and other forms of fertility. In my case, I feel I’ve connected with my village, and I’ve reinvigorated a village that was dying, fading. I know how to create ties within my community. In summary, the law I advise would be whatever’s best for the child. One must favor what is best for the child. Nobody can deny, I believe, that it’s best for a child to have a mother and a father who love each other as best they can.



I am Jean-Pier and I'm forty-nine years old.

I am a documentary author for TV and I'm homosexual.

What is your opinion of the proposed law?The law they're proposing, this marriage for all; I have to take pause. I have to wonder, "who's this law for?" I say to myself, "is it made for homosexuals?" I live in Provence and I work in Paris. I know very few homosexuals who wish to marry beyond the PACS (civil unions) they already have. In fact the number of people in PACS unions in France, couples of the same sex, is minimal. Therefore who's this law for? If it's for the 5,000 people who live in the district of Le Marrais, then it's just a militant act. But behind it all, it must be a question of the child.

Freedom, equality for all? Me, I'm not part of any political party or any association. For me, the question behind this, the fundamental issue, is the child. Among the responses I've heard, I've had this business of freedom and equality. Then I pose this question: What of the freedom and equality of the child? The child won't have its equality vis-a-vis its friends in school. Its peers may have divorced and blended families, but they have, at least, a father and mother.

What about adopting?Twenty five years ago -- remember, I'm 49 -- I truly wondered about having a child. Like everyone else, I wanted to have a child; it was a question of transmitting my heritage. But then I realized very quickly that if I were going to have a child that way, it would be for the wrong reasons.

What alternatives?The desire for a child, for me, is fulfilled. I am a writer and creator. I create stories for children. That's a way to address children and respect them. That's an act of love for them.

Final thoughts?[I had trouble following this, but here's my best -- ROL]:

Finally, when I look at this proposed law, I conclude that it's a law for gays, but not for homosexuals. I do not want to support it.


I am Philippe Ariño, 32 years old, essayist about homosexuality and Spanish teacher. Blogger of Desert Spider.

Your thoughts on "marriage" for all?I oppose this proposed law. I believe it's homophobic. First off, I think society is giving this to homosexuals for the sake of society itself, but it's without meaning.

Even worse, another reason that I think this is homophobic is this: This law encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do. It makes them think they have to follow the example of man, woman, and child, without respecting sexual difference. It denies respect to homosexual couples in reality, with regards to their specificity and who they really are. Gay couples do not exist so that they can be procreative; one doesn't recognize that (if one turns these into marriages). Even if you present this to gay couples like it's a gift, it's still denying who they really are.

But then, what about equality of rights?It's not a question of equality. Equality isn't inherently positive. There are bad/wrong equalities. We call that conformism, uniformity. A lack of recognition to the realities of people. The gay activists who treat equality as sacred do not differentiate between equal rights and the equality of identity. Equality of the law, and equality of self-respect or dignity.

Adoption?In my view, all kids need more than just two parents who love each other. They need two biological parents -- mother and father -- who love each other. Nobody is speaking about that condition for the development of the child. It would be a condition where desire and nature are conjoined. Let's say a child knows of its biological parents but knows that its parents do not really love one another. That's a trauma that it will carry like a burden, all its life. When people talk about gay adoptive parents, they talk a great deal about the feeling of the parents toward the child, but they don't speak about the difference of sex which is "crowned" with love. That's central, that will be with one for all one's life. One must know that one had more than just a biological origin -- also, that one came from true desire. And one must know that the two are linked. 


Xavier Bongibault, I'm 21 years old, I'm a homosexual and a business manager.

Do all homosexuals think the same way?People tell us that all homosexuals are for this proposed law, but that's an absolute lie!

[Tough making this line out--ROL] The majority make fun of this around the world, and homosexuals see it the same way as everyone else, looking at their childhoods as proof.

Most homosexuals make fun of this proposed law, because they had a mom and dad like everyone else. They want it to be that way for all kids.

The reasons for your opposition? I think first and foremost we need to protect the child. In France, marriage and child-rearing are extremely tied together. To oppose this marriage [for all] is equivalent to opposing a drastic change in the nature of child-rearing. I'm involved for the protection of the child.

The other claims?This proposed law is tied to the proposal to legalize gay adoption. But not so fast; it's necessary to take a closer look.  We have to keep in mind procreation that's medically assisted as we go into the debate among leadership in January. If we begin with the opening idea that "equality" is sacrosanct, consider this: If two women can have a child, thanks to science, then in the name of equality men must have this too, which brings us to gestation in someone else's womb. So it falls upon the minister for the rights of woman to step in and prohibit prostitution. It's scandalous that a woman would rent out her vagina, so how do we encourage women to rent out their uterus? It strains belief, it doesn't sit well in my head.

Marriage for all? In no way is marriage an institution for love. If it were only love, then based on what do we refuse to recognize the marriage of three people deeply in love with each other? What about a father who loves his daughter? One allows that to suppress equality in the meaning of family, or in the meaning of a couple. So when one suppresses all the [genesis?] of the child, one is then willing to destroy the familial circle, and therefore, to destroy the first venue for the socialization and social cohesion of the child.