The reason invoked to argue that two men or two women can get married and adopt children is that sexual orientation would not have a natural link with the biological data, but it would be an independent factor that has the right to be implemented according to the choice of each. The close association of sexual orientation with organic data would be only a convention linked to socio-cultural situations and social patriarchal outdated prejudices (theory of gender).
The fact of being “woman” in the traditional sense, which bound together the biological structure, natural tendency to life in common with male partner – in the sense not only physical, but also psychical and spiritual, being the integration of complementary beings at all levels – physical and spiritual maternity, would not be reality-based, but would be only a socio-cultural construction that today’s society must reject as unfounded in nature and as such source of reaction and discrimination towards other ways of being and feeling and exercising sexuality.
In this perspective, the marriage between a man and a woman would not be qualitatively different or privileged in any way in relation to the marriage between two men, or two women, or even more persons of one sex.
And if there is no qualitative difference and privilege, of course there will be no maternal/paternal bond qualitatively different between a biologically fertile couple and the child physically generated by it in comparison to the bond formed between two (or more) people of the same sex and the child entrusted to them for adoption or produced for them or for one of them in any other way.
If this way of understanding sexuality, marriage and relationship between parents and offspring is correct and well-founded in fact, then it is mandatory that since an early age it be taught to children. So we will tell them that being a woman (or a man) is not a matter of nature, but a psychical choice. They will therefore be invited to scrutinize their trend and to begin as soon as possible to do, with respect to it, a free choice – possibly even to various forms of sexual orientation, not categorized according to the obsolete categories man/woman. This will eradicate from their psyches the prejudice that being a woman (or a man) is a natural fact from which would flow the privilege to be the natural partner of the other true “natural sex”, and the only real producer, and as such mother, nurturer and teacher, of offspring. This prejudice ought to be deleted in the bud, since it would be cause of discrimination toward other sexual orientations, for which of course, in this perspective, the role of husband, father and mother might not be considered unless “against nature”.
Therefore, from an early age children ought to be initiated to consider normal the transition from the genders traditionally linked to the biological sex to a freely chosen gender – i.e. from female to male gender, or vice versa, or from one or the other to a new gender of free choice – possibly with the aid of hormonal treatments or surgeries.
Another prejudice that ought to be eradicated from childhood is that the child would need, to grow psychically healthy, the traditional figures of a “father” and a “mother”, i.e. the biological man and woman. If it were so, obviously the privilege of “biological women” in comparison to other parental figures would be reintroduced. But this would be cause of discrimination and violation of the rights of one or more categories. Since discriminations towards any particular group or minority cannot be tolerated in a modern and democratic society, children must be educated from an early age to consider entirely equal the cohabitation of children with two persons of different sex and the cohabitation of children with two (or more) people of the same sex, without discrimination.
Moreover, if the homosexual – or other – condition is no longer considered “unnatural”, it will not be feasible any “therapeutic” path for a return to a condition known as “heterosexual”. Obviously, any transition would be lawful, provided it is clear that there is no “natural” privileged status to which one ought to direct him/herself – and therefore a person who holds a condition of gender that coincides with his/her biological sex must be convinced that he may keep it solely as a free choice and not as a natural condition, and so must accept the principle that he/she is able to enter, possibly helped by adults responsible for him/her, even with appropriate treatment, in any orientation.
Against this background, the homosexual movement claims to be discriminated against when:
1. The homosexual psychical state is considered unnatural, i.e. not corresponding to objective nature.
2. As a result, it is proposed to the homosexual to effect transition paths to a heterosexual condition, regarded as “natural”.
3. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is considered qualitatively different from unions between persons of the same sex.
4. People would like to prevent homosexual unions to adopt children with the qualification, corresponding to the real condition, of “sons” and “daughters”.
Those who support these points, which the homosexual movement considers discriminatory, are guilty, according to that movement, of the “tort” – or already established or to be introduced in national legislations – of “homophobia”.
To the homosexual movement is opposed the “Juridical Movement of Women against Gynaecophobia”.
It uses the same arguments used by the homosexual movement to prove that to be discriminated against is not the small minority formed by homosexuals, but what is much more serious, the immense majority constituted by women all over the world.
This discrimination takes place:
1. when the female bio-psychic condition is considered not natural, i.e. not corresponding to objective nature but a pure fruit of socio-cultural conventions;
2. as a result, it is proposed to women, from their childhood, to effect transition paths from their traditional biological condition – i.e. in accordance with the principles outlined above, a purely formal one – to another condition to choose freely. And the same choice to remain in their condition should be explicitly understood as the transition to a condition other than a condition that could be felt as “natural”;
3. when people claim to equate the natural marriage between a man and a woman to a union which in no way can have the characteristics of physical and spiritual harmony between two complementary beings. At the base of this equalization there is, in fact, a rejection of woman as a bio-psychical reality. So from that equalization it derives that the proper being of woman turns out to be discriminated against and humiliated in comparison to the being of the homosexual, to which it is equated, with the loss of all its own characters and rights;
4. among these characters and rights there is mainly the fact to be considered – as really woman is – the true and only procreatress, nurturer and educator, in full harmony with his male partner, of her offspring, by means of whom all over the world the generations of mankind are renewed. If we accept the principle that children do not need, for their healthy growth, the figures of a father and a mother, it follows that to a mother, whose separated spouse has chosen to live with one or more persons of his same sex, may be denied the natural relationship with her own offspring, having her feminine/maternal figure be esteemed as insignificant.
On the base of these arguments – which are the same put forward by the homosexual movement – it is clear that women around the world risk of being discriminated against in comparison to the minority of homosexuals who belong to that movement.
1. the psychological status of homosexuals results natural; on the contrary, the bio-psychic status of women results unnatural and to be a pure cultural construction;
2. as a natural condition, the psychic homosexual status is untouchable, so much so that one cannot lawfully offer it trend change paths; on the contrary, the bio-psychic status of women can be freely manipulated, so that from childhood one ought to envisage for them sexual reorientation paths, among which is the “choice” itself of “becoming” woman – “woman”, obviously, not in the traditional natural sense!
3. in the same measure in which homosexual marriage acquires rights imitated from those of the traditional marriage, woman sees her rights reduced from the dignity of expression of spiritual and physical complementarity founded on natural being, and possibly on divine creation, to a pure sexual-affective expression, which would be only a free and subjective choice. It is evident that the first situation involves a mission with its privileges and its obligations, while the second becomes a mere subjective fact, objectively meaningless, changeable and without spiritually based obligations;
4. perhaps the most serious discrimination point is the forced equality of rights on the offspring of the homosexual who is pursuing this case and of the woman who is the true source of human life. It is obvious that a homosexual, that is not and cannot be the generator of human life along with his partner, cannot have, in respect of “offspring”, but a relation imitated, artificial and simply legalized by a State law. Now, with the introduced equality of rights, a natural mother might have towards her own true offspring no other rights than those claimed by the homosexual. The State could, therefore, take the same measures in the educational field, toward the one and the other situation, because they have been equated, and a woman could not claim any privilege, for her relationship with her own offspring, in any circumstances in respect of any other type of relationship to be established between responsible adults and children. While in this it appears obvious the discrimination towards women and the violation of their rights, not less obvious it appears the huge and irreparable damage towards the children who are in unnatural situations, and therefore towards all mankind and its future.
Whoever therefore aligns with the claims of equation of the homosexual movement – claims that, as we have seen, are equivalent to a very serious discrimination not towards a minority, but towards the majority of all women in the world, who amount to more than half of mankind – is guilty of the tort, not yet introduced but to be introduced in the legislation of civil nations, of “gynaecophobia”.
The nascent “Juridical Movement of Women against Gynaecophobia” has, therefore, the specific objective of getting the introduction, in national and international legislations, of the tort of gynaecophobia, and the broader goal of defending in any suitable venue, at all levels, the inalienable rights of woman.
by Don Massimo Lapponi