Libération reports that “derogatory rumours” are spreading about presidential hopeful Emmanuel Macron’s sexual inclinations.
We are not particularly interested in these rumours, but find it noteworthy that even “Libération”, a media outlet hardly reputed for its upholding of traditional moral values, apparently considers that being gay (or rather: behaving in that way) would somehow make Macron a less suitable candidate… as it seems, they do not even themselves believe in their mantra that all sexual behaviours are “equal”.
But there is also another point in the article that is worth noting:
“… ce n’est pas une honte d’être, potentiellement, gay”
“…there is no shame in being potentially gay”
So it is only the adversaries, not Macron (or Libération”), who think that being “potentially gay” is shameful? But what on Earth do they mean by “potentially gay”? Was it not always their dogma that (perverse) sexual “orientations” are innate and unalterable, i.e. that someone either is gay, or he isn’t? How can Macron be “potentially gay”?
Far more interesting, however, than the question whether Macron is in the habit of sodomizing, or being sodomized by, other men is whether, if elected, he would continue pushing the sodomy agenda that sitting President François Hollande has so keenly promoted. As a former member of Hollande’s government, Macron certainly has never been seen or heard protesting against the ideologically driven undoing of marriage and the family. This is important, not any sexual perversions he may be engaging in during his leisure hours, or the salaries that another candidate’s wife may have received for (not) working as that candidate’s parliamentary assistant.
Let us stick to the real issues