The breaking importance of the Romanian referendum for the traditional family: philosophical arguments

by Ana Bazac

First, the referendum as such – around the recommended change in the Constitution that the marriage be considered a freely consented union between a man and a woman, and not between spouses as it was the formula until now – and its stake, the traditional family, namely formed, as basis, by a man and a woman, have nothing to do with politics, i.e. they are not firstly an artificial means to gain power, but they refer to a cardinal condition of the health and lasting of the human species.

But obviously, the referendum and its stake were savagely politicized: by the initiator (the social-democrat party in power) that considered the referendum and its foreseeable large support as “proofs” of the public support – despite its huge slips from both the social vocation and democracy, thus its fundamental implicit right-wing orientation   – and as prefiguring its victory in the future elections; by its opponents (some opposition parties and some NGOs, all of them explicitly right-wing/confiscating the right to speak in the name of different social categories and aligning to the right-wing[1]) which fought not only against the above-mentioned use of the referendum as possible vector of political support for the social-democrats, but also for the “democratic” “right to diversity”, i.e. indiscriminate rights of the homosexual partners to adopt and raise children.

And since the opponents are very vocal, while the traditional family was defended until now only by the (Orthodox) Church, let’s examine the points of view of both parts.


First of all, the position of the political initiator – to allow the mentioned supposition of the political use of the referendum in favour of the ruling party, and to allow, instead of civil and scientific arguments, the promotion of reasons and supportive ideas by the (Orthodox) Church – indicates (not only the theoretical inability of this party and the very low theoretical competence of its leaders, but also/in a profound manner) the disdain towards  the broad masses, ignoring the popular common sense: that theses broad masses can distinct between problems, can separate the complex psychological and ontological aspects of the raising of children and of the health and lasting of the human species from the religious arguments of the sin against God’s will; and not only that they can separate these aspects, but that they are fretting and reflecting as a matter of priority just concerning the first aspects. Although the Church is that which seems to be the only supporter of the referendum, most of people understands very well that the vote for the change of the formula in the Constitution is not an individual “salvation”/the price for “salvation” – as the neo-liberal propaganda insists[2] – but for those complex psychological and ontological aspects of the raising of children and of the health and lasting of the human species.

Well, only at the level of fundamental significances it is about that disdain and ignorance. Concretely, from a political standpoint, the ruling social-democrat party – but perhaps this is also at a fundamental level – wants not to discuss those problems and aspects. On the one hand, it allows the  (Orthodox) Church to show itself as an active, and positive, factor in society, since the general impression about it is not at all good (it does not pay taxes, and has consumed huge amounts of social wealth/money for the construction of thousand new churches and the mega-cathedral, as well as for the luxury condition of its priests and leaders); on the other hand, just because the ruling party – and the Opposition as well – know very well that people, and especially the young ones, can separate the fundamental arguments from those religious and that they are worrying and reflecting as a matter of priority just concerning the fundamental arguments, and not the religious ones, they want not give the occasion for these reflections: which could lead to a broader critique than that of the conceptions about family.

In its turn, the  (Orthodox) Church makes rather a work of public relations/rougher, propaganda for itself: because its arguments – that a family formed by same sex persons is contrary to God’s plan and organization – are weaker than those supposed to be presented by a “spokesperson”, since this is its assumed role of “spokesperson” of the initiator of the referendum.

The fact that the (Orthodox) Church has this role led the opponents to equate both the referendum and its theme, the idea of traditional family, with a lagging behind position, adverse to everything is modern and up-to-date, and with a politically conservative stance, similar to that of Nazism and, could it otherwise be?, of communism. Both these characterisations (“anti-modern” and “conservative”, even “fascist”) have the function to attract and convince the youngsters and, generally, the urban middle classes assuming a “liberal, modern” view.


However, the referendum as such and its stake, the traditional family, have nothing to do with religion, although the religions throughout the world as dominant ideologies have always advocated the union between a man and a woman. Actually and letting aside the cultural contexts and legal forms, the traditional family (union of a man and a woman) corresponds to the level attained by the biological evolution of the living beings and superior mammals, concretely, of humans. (“Human society thrives on the diversity of talents and capabilities of its members”[3], and this diversity and multitude of capabilities are the result of interactions of genes in individual chromosomes, the more diverse these interactions the more valid is the milieu of other genes and the resulted beings[4]).  The exceptions – determined by diverted physiological and neuro-physiological processes – could not determine new lines of evolution, just because these exceptions could not and cannot multiply. Consequently, the human species assures its lasting only on the basis of unions of men with women.

Thus, though the argument of the (Orthodox) Church is the authority’s argument – i.e. of a discourse legitimised in an unquestioned idea – the position promoted by this institution is and reflects a popular wisdom arisen from experience. And by supporting this wisdom, the Church certainly profits, because it supposes that since it has a so commonsensical position, people will give it a white ball, somehow forgetting/putting in parenthesis its facts leading to black balls.


There is no here the place to discuss the social/historical/cultural origin of homosexuality[5]. Briefly, the proportion of natural homosexuality – arisen as biologically innate and being “a certain arrest of the sexual development” (Freud[6]) – was and is augmented just by the concrete social conditions of so many youngsters: class divisions (see the fact that pederasty was a practice initiated in the ancient Greek upper strata[7]), domination-submission/power relations (including in male-female and elder-youngster relations), thus  gender separation in education and social life (including sport, see the athletic nudity), gender isolation in some activities, slavery and, later, poverty, constraints in prisons etc.

But another means to spread homosexuality – in order to both increase the number of homosexual partners and to lower the number of potential genitors, thus of children, thus to decrease population at world level, since the surplus has claims to decent living conditions, being even dangerous for the world rich and super-rich – is just the aggressive propaganda of homosexuality as normal and consequently having the same “right” as the heterosexual families: to raise children. For just the right of homosexuals to raise children is the core of the present pressure for institutionalizing homosexual families[8].

Or, since the homosexuals are human beings, thus worthy of respect and conditions for the development of their creativity and uniqueness as the other human beings, but having a deviated sexuality, they are exterior to the norm of constitution and reason of family as institution for the raising of children. They certainly have and must have the same economic, political and social rights as the heterosexuals: and they must have officially recognised partnerships implying the same economic and social rights as the heterosexual families; but not families having the right to raise children.

The homosexuals have no the right to raise children, irrespective of whose are these children. To have/raise children is not a right: it is a blessing, if this word is allowed. On the contrary, to consider the raising of children as a right means to consider them only as a means, and not first and foremost as an end: let’s remember Kant’s revolutionary ethical imperative. People, irrespective of their homo or heterosexuality, must consider the others – and certainly, first the children – as ends; first, as ends. Consequently, the self-restraint to desire to raise children is the proof of the humanity of the homosexual person: he/she thinks first to the child, and not to his/her desire to raise children. To be homosexual is a biological bad luck. No one is guilty for this. But homosexuals are focused not only on sex and raising children in un-natural couples – yes, they are un-natural – but also, and first of all on their creativity and altruism (as the hetero persons must be). So, to raise children is not and must not be a so ardent desire that it covers all the other contents of the human life of LGBTI persons.


The present turmoil related to the name of the unions of homosexuals – for since the Constitution will remain at the present formula (“spouses”, which have signified just “man and woman”, since at the moment of writing the Constitution, the pressure on behalf of homosexuals was not so decisive), the aggressive actions for “the rights” of homosexuals, i.e. the right to raise children, will have a legal basis – is a form of class diversion.

Opposing to the “traditionalists” – including the Church – who, letting aside the religious mark (as sin) they put on homosexuals, are fighting nowadays for a valid solution from the standpoint of the human ontology, are the “up-to-date” liberals/“people with modern, democratic views”. These ones are fighting for the personal rights the homosexual unions illustrate. And since the personal rights takes part from the human rights, what would be the class diversion?

The Church and the traditionalists participate too at this diversion. Their position forbids in fact the homosexual unions in the name of the word of God. But actually, both the traditionalists and the liberals are mutual perfect copies (but only with a reverse sign), doing mutually the same movements in the class diversion: for both the only problem is (the name of, or) the official recognition of homosexuals. They do not discuss the social causes, the tragic economic and social conditions which determine some youngsters to find a living by becoming LGBTI prostitutes. As they do no discuss the tragic economic and social conditions which determine some youngsters to find a living by becoming “normal” prostitutes.

The right to freely dispose of one’s own body is a personal right. The right to enter any sexual intercourse, hetero or homo, but based on free consent, is a personal right. The right to live with a same sex partner, or an opposite sex partner, is a personal right.  Yes, the neo-liberal “very up-to-date” views support the personal rights of homosexuals, but without discussing the above tragic conditions, neither the political pressure for spreading and use of homosexuality, neither the vulgarization of the concepts of rights and struggles for rights by promoting absurd goals and the end to adopt/raise children, nor that in this desire they ignore the rights of children.

Indeed, the neo-liberals do not discuss the stake of their mobilization: this stake is not the personal right to have a same sex union – because the idea to change the Constitution in order to specify the family as union of a man and a woman has nothing to do with the personal right of homosexual partnerships and does not oppose them, but the right of homosexuals to raise children. Their goal in the present battle is to call the homosexual unions/partnerships with the same name as the unions of heterosexuals: because on this basis of being “family”, they will press for the right to raise children.

In this demarche, they consider only the “personal right” of the homosexual partners “to be parents”, but never the third part, the children who have the right to not be aggressed by ideas and problems which have deep psychological – and broadly, ontological – consequences. For this reason, the homosexual partners have no the personal right to be parents.

No one of the neo-liberals discusses the economic interest that also fuels the frenzy for having in the core of Europe a large reservoir of homosexual partners and businesses (homosexual tourism etc.)[9]. And no one of these opposed parts discusses the beneficiaries of both this frenzy and its traditionalist counterpart: elements from the world and Romanian upper middle class that not only struggles for having different specific reservoirs but also and especially for diverting the class interests to identity politics and agitation.


The personal rights everyone must freely enjoy are legitimate only if they do not infringe the rights of the others: of both children when adopted by homosexuals and of youngsters when determined to become prostitute in a way or another because of their economic conditions without hope and because of the neo-liberal propaganda reducing the human problems and freedom to sexual identity and lust, and ignoring the rational criteria and analysis of the sexual behaviour and lability. The personal rights are framed by the social rights, and must not be separated from the social rights. But the neo-liberals are not at all liberal when they agitate the flag of homosexual families raising children, since just the old liberal definition of freedom had put the limit of the personal freedom in the free manifestation of others’ personal freedom. And no one can speak about personal rights when the other one has no the conditions to freely decide, but is determined by exterior conditions. The child, even if biologically belongs to one of the members of the homosexual partnership, has no the conditions to freely decide when it is adopted by homosexual couples. And when the neo-liberals insist on the free consent of LGBTI or “normal” prostitutes, they consciously ignore the conditions which led to the tragic status of prostitute.


The “modern” neo-liberals have too a disdain towards the broad masses, somehow deeper than that of the initiator. Because they, inherently consciously, transmit lies, in fact absurd lies related to the referendum.

They consider that, since the peculiarity of the family is the mutual respect of mates, it would not be any difference between the hetero and homosexuals unions. Or, it’s obvious that not regarding this aspect are there differences between the homo and hetero couples, but regarding the possibility of the latter to conceive and raise children. Thus, the referendum aims not at forbidding the homosexual partnerships: but only to forbid their possibility to raise children. And certainly, the referendum will not lead to the “stigmatization and hostility towards the community LGBTI”[10] and it’s absurd to speak that the referendum “could make it impossible to protect the same sex unions in the future”[11]: since the common people can very well differentiate between absurd and harmful “rights” and necessary rights as that of same sex partnerships.


The neo-liberal insinuate that the approval of the traditional family – thus, the necessary presence at the referendum and the approval of the traditional family – would exclude the families of widows and those of one parent and his/her child, or children. Or, the referendum does not exclude any such situations.  One parent and his/her child, or children constitute a family: it is a halt family, because two parents are better for the children, as everyone knows from the history of divorced couples and their children; and it’s sad to raise children by yourself, and as we see in all movies, books and songs, everyone wants a partner loving both him/her and the children; but nevertheless one parent and his/her child, or children constitute a family. Likewise, while a widow remained alone – a very sad case – has no longer a family and is no longer a family, but a household, a widow and a relative or another person with whom the widow shares his/her life do well form a family or a quasi-family.

 The only aspect the modification of the Constitution advocates is the prohibition of same sex couples to raise children, whether biologically belonging to one partner or adopted.

The neo-liberals insinuate that the approval of the traditional family in this referendum would block a future one or future decisions concerning the approval of same sex couples to raise children. Obviously, it’s stupid. There is no logical and legal obstruction against such future referendum or decisions.

And no, the referendum does not mean the further stigmatizing of homosexuals, on the contrary. The clear specification of the limits of individual rights – and these limits are everywhere and concerning all the humans, hetero and homosexuals alike – is rather a form of respect towards the reasonability of homosexuals, which form of respect is stronger than any abstract tolerance and positive discrimination towards them show.

The neo-liberals lie that the referendum would concern the prohibition of legalisation of same sex partnerships. But as it already was underlined, the referendum concerns only the dissolving of legal reference to the Constitution when homosexual couples will reclaim the right to raise children. Same sex marriages and partnerships will certainly be legal: but not the right to raise children.

The neo-liberals lie when they declare that the stake of the referendum would not be the right of homosexuals to raise children, since even today they may adopt a child as single/unmarried persons[12]. Or no, for the time being in the Romanian law there is also a condition:  the attestation of the family fit to adopt, and thus the obligation of the adopter to inform the state institution representing the protection of the child about all socio, psycho and medical aspects and changes[13]; and this attestation is the result of a serious process of assessment[14]; and well, in this process of attestation, the first, fundamental condition of adoption is a heterosexual family[15]: thus, a single/unmarried person may adopt a child only if it cohabits with a person of opposite sex. No actualization of this law – in 2016 and 2018 – has annulled this condition. Consequently, in the present Romanian law: only heterosexual persons, married or only cohabiting with a person of opposite sex – thus having an official or unofficial family –, may adopt/raise children.

The tragic alternative when the referendum will not pass is, thus, the gate through which the law of adoptions and rights of children will be subordinated to the selfish interest of some individuals, and thus annulled.


Selfish? The neo-liberal view considers even the homosexuals in a reductionist and simple way. For the neo-liberals, the homosexuals are not complex human beings whose main vector of complexity and creativity is reason, as the heterosexuals are complex human beings whose main vector of complexity and creativity is reason, but only beings led by yearning; and if they have the power to accomplish their craving for raising children, why not, isn’t it?

For the neo-liberals, the human being as such is fuelled only by selfishness: the consideration of the others is irrelevant. Only this selfishness is equated with “freedom”: “my freedom, pereat mundus”.

This perception is certainly unhealthy. Freud has explained that this type of freedom is specific only to pre or non-human civilisation, since civilisation imposes restrictions which must be respected by any individual, because the “replacement of the power of the individual by the power of a community constitutes the decisive step of civilization”, because again “the members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions” and thus  “the rule of law” is that “to which all have contributed by a sacrifice of their instincts”. Thus “no one shall escape those restrictions”[16].

However, the neo-liberalism, that denies the existence and reason of the human society, considering only the individual – and the individuals fighting for their interests –, ignores the complex interdependence of individuals and society. But how could it ignore all of these? Because: it represents the leading stratum, having its power from the domination-submission relations. The point of view of those having this power is so aggressive that it prefers the destruction of humankind and chooses this cost in the exchange of the powerful individual’s will.

Freud – as a utopian liberal – did not speak about classes and their opposition because of the structural domination-submission relations, but has explained the above situation as a contradiction between the “cultural development” that ought to master the individual-society balance and on the other hand, “the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction”[17]. But beyond the instincts of the species, both aggression and self-destruction are relations and ideas generated from the standpoint not of the species, but of the individuals/categories of individuals benefiting from the power relations.

What one must be careful about is, concerning our problem of the referendum, that the destruction of humankind is not fulfilled only directly, but also through the ideas which dissolve the criteria rationally constructed, in the name of relativism and ignorance of the consequences of the human deeds. But these ideas are taken over from the above beneficiaries of the power relations. And they are taken over just because large masses of youngsters are consciously deprived of rational instruments of inquiry and examination. And now, instead of a rationalist education of both homosexuals and heterosexuals – that what is the most important is the care for the others and the rational control of one’s facts from the standpoint of their consequences on the others – the aggressive propaganda of neo-liberalism induces the idea of “anything goes”.

Or, human reason means to think to the meanings and consequences of the thoughts and actions – or intentions to act – and to the necessity to be more altruistic than individualist. In this process, the humans arrive to forge, critique and re-found criteria, as milestones of their judgement. Certainly, the criteria themselves – as any idea related to the human being – are historical, and thus not absolute. However, there is a methodological aspect of criteria that explains their reason itself and their expanse: the aspect of universalizability of their reasoning. (This aspect is borrowed from Kant, obviously, as universal condition/ universalizability of the moral condition of the human beings: i.e. if one behaves in such a manner that his/her behaviour cannot be generalised to the whole humanity, it results that the behaviour must be changed; however, the humans were “Kantian” avant la lettre, because their moral representations and criteria were the result of logical universalising within heir historical condiions).

 Well, the core of these criteria is just the necessity and primacy of altruism when considering the inter-human relationships. All humans, hetero or homosexuals, must behave reasonably: is this so difficult to understand?


In the battle for the “right” to adopt and raise children, the neo-liberal ideology makes basic methodological fallacies.

  • It mixes the problem of the (fight for the) right to civil partnership with the (fight for the) (non)right to raise children. But, as we saw, from the latter does not necessarily issue the second, because this interdiction defends the rights of children.
  • Consequently, we may observe that the neo-liberal ideology separates the problem of homosexuals’ right from the rights of humans depending just from the egoist hogging of their choices by the former.
  • The neo-liberal ideology equates the discrimination of homosexuals with the interdict to raise children. But the latter does not at all devolve from the former.
  • It mixes the attitudes towards homosexuality with the legal aspect of rights, “demonstrating” the “right” to raise children with some negative attitudes towards homosexuals. But the attitudes and the legal problem of rights are problems of different nature.
  • It does not include all the aspects when tackling the problem of the rights of LGBTI persons to raise children: namely, it does not discuss the non-comfortable pages of propagation of homosexuality, with all the political reasons behind this propagation.


The referendum – irrespective of its initiator and spokesperson – is not a form of hate, but on the contrary, a sincere respect towards homosexuals: they are considered rational human beings who may understand that they have eventually to sacrifice their desire to raise children, just in the name of love for them. But the manipulation reclaimed just by the neo-liberals is huge: far more insistent than that of the Church which promotes truths enveloped in primitive clichés. According to the neo-liberals, the referendum would be a sign of dictatorship and will separate Romania from Europe which is democratic; and both the Romanian dictatorship and the referendum would show Russia’s influence, then voting the referendum meaning “a clear pro-Russian position, implicitly a rejection of democracy”[18]. Yes, the reciprocal support of the Church and the political power is a strategy of both parts to fortify not only their strength, but also/firstly the confusion and the distancing of people from the communist values. But this is not specific only to Russia, isn’t it? The 4000 new churches erected from 1990 only till 2008[19] in a Romania where the Russian-phobia was and is official ideology, are the witnesses.

Obviously, the problems raised here – the rights of homosexuals – send, as it appeared above, to other aspects: the “normal” prostitution, the social causes, including those of the habiting with situations like prostitution etc.). From this standpoint of causes, one may think that all these problems are really resolved only when their social causes disappear; on the other hand, at least some aspects may be solved before: provided that the rationalist and humanistic perspective be strong enough.


It’s a pity that the referendum for the traditional family was proposed in the frame of struggle for power – inside the ruling party and between it and the explicit right –, by such a pharisaic party and such incorrect people as all its and their representatives. It’s a pity that this referendum is countered with the idea of “conservatory thinking induced by ‘the enemies of the country’”; it’s a pity that this referendum is countered with the irrational fuelling of the irrational Russian-phobia.

It’s a pity that the left-wing – that, obviously, is at the left of social-democracy but that does not exist, except some very few voices – did not distance itself from the, au fond, neo-liberal standpoint imposed from the 1990s on as “political correctness”: neither those left-wing voices did not understand that the ‘positive discrimination’ of homosexuals to adopt children is not a logical continuation of the legalisation of homosexual partnerships[20], but an infringement of the rights of children, with long-term consequences on both the individuals and the human species. However, the present left-wing considers that every claim of a minority is justified because all the minorities with all their claims would be progressive, because they were/are dominated and discriminated. Or: 1) the minorities themselves reflect the class division. Not all the homosexuals are in the same class position and having the same existential problems. And 2) by aligning under the flag of defence without limits of the minorities, the left-wing arrive to substitute the class position and class defence, of the majorities where the minorities belong to, and thus to take over the dominant strata’s agenda and logic.

The exaggerated struggle for the rights of homosexuals – not that the struggle as such is not the response to the persecutions of homosexuals in the 20th century, but that it is exaggerated (see the homosexuals marches/Pride parades, the pressure to adopt children) – is of different kind from the struggle for the rights of women or against racism. But not only that for the neo-liberals all these struggles are equivalent, but also that the exaggerated forms (as, for example, the Me too campaign of feminists) – which, au fond, are of nature to generate rejection of even justified goals – tend to cover the real causes and struggles and to only be defined as “politically correct”.

As we know, the post-89/91 disoriented left by the fall of existing socialism has taken over the neo-liberal thinking let’ say sans le savoir: since the communist ideology proved to be incorrect, was the official stance of this left – do not forget, the communist ideology, without discriminating the (sexual) minorities (but, do not forget again, the concept of minority concerns identity external to the class appurtenance), was and is, as class ideology, the ideology of the majority: not from the standpoint of identity external to the class appurtenance, but just from the viewpoint of the class identity – then the oppressed all kinds of minorities are/will be the only worth to be defended[21]. But this defence became one without any reference to class and class struggle. As in the neo-liberal projection, in the representation of this disoriented left the minorities were separated from the majority/the class, as if the logic of the domination of minorities would be exterior to the logic of class domination. It seemed that if all discriminations will disappear, things will be fine and capitalism – relatively OK. But the idea of defence of minorities – letting aside the type of defence – within capitalism is like the goal of struggle against the extreme right: as if this extreme right would not be the result of the right politics and of the logic of capitalism.

This kind of “left”, definitely (becoming) social-democrat, thus promoting firstly the interests of the private property, has taken over the neo-liberal position. It’s inherent from its standpoint. And thus, instead of being sensitive towards the social conditions leading to the adoption of children and instead of administering the country so that minimise these conditions, the ruling “left” party – with all the other ones – is focusing on the stimulation of adoptions, while the explicit right-wing Opposition wants to insert the possibility of homosexual couples to adopt and raise children. But, pay attention, not only the explicit right. In the present project of the Government for the stimulation of adoptions, we read: “the adopter or the adopter family”[22].

And certainly, we should not omit the common propaganda of the explicit right and the social-democrats that the families of heterosexuals are the source of all bad phenomena: just for making more acceptable the adoptions by homosexuals. And, let’s repeat: this propaganda was not accompanied by a consistent strategy to dissolve the social causes of the bad behaviours in the hetero families.

The social-democrats have taken over the minimalist standpoint of the right: “it’s not possible more (than defending the minorities)” (so, we must adapt to the neo-liberal view about the human life). But the left critique of this standpoint shows that it’s possible.

So, it’s time to the self-critique of the left.


Irrespective of its organisers and their will and expectations, the referendum for the traditional family is, through its meanings, a radical one and is/will be a precedent.  And its victory may be a glorious one: a warning of people to not take over the neo-liberal standpoint.  Otherwise, the general domination – despite the freedom of homosexuals to adopt children – will be complete: since the fuller domination is just that where the dominated classes arrive to consider the position of the ruling stratum as fully entitled.

[1] See the declaration of the so-called representatives of the Romanian students, who show an unpleasant ignorance of the problems concerning the referendum: Studentii critica referendumul pentru familie: Dezvolta homofobia, intoleranta si discriminarea, 19 Septembrie 2018, [Students are critiquing the referendum for family: it develops homophoby, intolerance and discrimination].

[2] Liviu Dragnea are nevoie de popor si il promite pe Dumnezeu. Cine il ajuta?,18 Septembrie 2018, [Liviu Dragnea needs the people and promises God. Who helps him?].

[3] Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance (1982), Cambridge, Ma., London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2000, p. 624.

[4] See only William D. Hamilton, Robert Axelrod and Reiko Tanese, “Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 87, May 1990, pp. 3566-3573; N. Colegrave, “Sex releases the speed limit on evolution”. Nature. 420 (6916), 2002: pp. 664–6. Bibcode:2002Natur.420..664C. doi:10.1038/nature01191; Clare O’Connor,  (2008) Meiosis, genetic recombination, and sexual reproduction. Nature Education 1(1), 2008: 174;

  1. Bernstein, C. Bernstein, RE. Michod, “DNA Repair as the Primary Adaptive Function of Sex in Bacteria and Eukaryotes”. Chapter 1, pp. 1–50, in DNA Repair: New Research, Editors S. Kimura and Shimizu S., Nova Sci. Publ., Hauppauge, New York, 2012.

[5] Homosexuality is not only a biological problem, but also/at the same time a social/cultural one. It may be learned, one may influence the adolescents: in different types of influences. And if the young children learn from their caretakers that it is normal to be homosexual, they may be more permeable to the influences when they become adolescents.

[6] Freud quoted in Henry Abelove, ”Freud, Male Homosexuality and the Americans”, in The Lesbian and Gay Reader, Eds. Henry Abelove, Michèle A. Barale, and David M. Halperin, N. Y. and Lond., Routledge, 1993, p. 381.

[7] See

[8] Propaganda Kremlinului are succes: Referendumul lui Dragnea si congresul familiei de la Chisinau, 15 Septembrie 2018,, [Kremlin’s propaganda is successful: Dragnea’s referendum and the family congress in Chisinau] where the representative of a NGO is asked ’what if the next years the EU will decide the recognition of families formed by same sex parents’ and responds that obviously, Romania will assume this decision.

[9] Inde: un marché LGBTQ prometteur après la dépénalisation de l’homosexualité,

[10] As the representative of the Amnesty International in Romania said, 12 Septembrie 2018,

[11] Amnesty International ataca in justitie referendumul pentru familie, 18 Septembrie 2018, [Amnesty International attacks in court the referendum for  family].

[12] Ioana Ene Dogioiu, Boicotati recensamantul urii si al manipularii! Nu-i faceti ultimul joc lui Dragnea!, 16 septembrie 2018, [Boycott the census of hate and manipulation! Do not play Dragnea’s last game].

[13] Legea nr. 57/2016 pentru modificarea și completarea Legii nr. 273/2004 privind procedura adopției, precum și a altor acte normative, În vigoare de la 12 august 2016:

  1. La articolul 16, după alineatul (6) se introduce un nou alineat, alineatul (61), cu următorul cuprins:

 (61) Pe durata de valabilitate a atestatului, adoptatorul sau familia adoptatoare are obligația de a informa direcția cu privire la orice schimbare intervenită în situația sa socio-psiho-medicală, anexând, după caz, acte doveditoare.”

  1. La articolul 16 alineatul (8), litera a) se modifică și va avea următorul cuprins:

“a) în situația în care se constată faptul că persoana/familia adoptatoare a ascuns sau a furnizat informații false cu ocazia realizării evaluării sau pe durata de valabilitate a atestatului;”.

[14] A process that lasts for 90 days and consists of at least six meetings with a social worker, at least four meetings with a psychologist, and three meetings for acquiring parenting skills. At the end of this period, the specialists of the Directorate determine whether the person or family is fit to adopt or not. If the application is rejected, the person has the possibility to challenge the decision.

[15] Legea 273-2004, CAPITOLUL II Condiţiile de fond ale adopţiei:

Art. 6

Două persoane nu pot adopta împreună, nici simultan și nici succesiv, cu excepția cazului în care sunt soț și soție.

Cu toate acestea, o nouă adopție poate fi încuviințată atunci când:

  1. a) adoptatorul sau soții adoptatori au decedat; în acest caz, adopția anterioară se consideră desfăcută pe data rămânerii irevocabile a hotărârii judecătorești de încuviințare a noii adopții; b) adopția anterioară a încetat din orice alt motiv;
  2. c) copilul adoptat are un singur părinte, necăsătorit, iar acesta se află într-o relație stabilă și conviețuiește cu o persoană de sex opus, necăsătorită, care nu este rudă cu acesta până la gradul al patrulea, și declară prin act autentic notarial că noul adoptator a participat direct și nemijlocit la creșterea și îngrijirea copilului pentru o perioadă neîntreruptă de cel puțin 5 ani.


Art. 7: 3) Interdicția se aplică și persoanelor care doresc să adopte singure.

[16] Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (1930), Translation from the German by James Strachey,  The Standard edition, With a Biographical Introduction by Peter Gay, New York, W.W. Norton and Co., Reprint edition, 1989, p. 52.

[17] Idem, p. 111.

[18] See the reference 1.

[19]; Why One of Europe’s Poorest Countries Is Building a New Church Every Three Days, 8/21/ 2013,

[20] As Costi Rogozanu, Parteneriat civil acum! – măcar plătiți-vă bâlciul, 12 septembrie 2018, considers [ Civil partnership now! – at least pay your shindy].

[21] See the well-known cliché found in every “left-wing” document – just as in all the right-wing ones: the rights of women, races, homosexuals.

[22] Guvern: Familiile care adopta copii sa primeasca 600 de lei pe luna de la stat, 20 septembrie 2018, [Government: families adopting children to receive 600 lei/a month as state support].

The breaking importance of the Romanian referendum for the traditional family: philosophical arguments

2 thoughts on “The breaking importance of the Romanian referendum for the traditional family: philosophical arguments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top