by Ana Bazac<\/p>\n
First, the referendum as such \u2013 around the recommended change in the Constitution that the marriage be considered a freely consented union between a man<\/em> and a woman<\/em>, and not between spouses<\/em> as it was the formula until now \u2013 and its stake, the traditional family, namely formed, as basis, by a man and a woman, have nothing to do with politics<\/em>, 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n But obviously, the referendum and its stake were savagely politicized<\/em>: by the initiator<\/em> (the social-democrat party in power) that considered the referendum and its foreseeable large support as \u201cproofs\u201d of the public support \u2013 despite its huge slips from both the social vocation and democracy, thus its fundamental implicit<\/em> right-wing orientation\u00a0 \u00a0\u2013 and as prefiguring its victory in the future elections; by its opponents<\/em> (some opposition parties and some NGOs, all of them explicitly<\/em> right-wing\/confiscating the right to speak in the name of different social categories and aligning to the right-wing[1]<\/a>) 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 \u201cdemocratic\u201d \u201cright to diversity\u201d, i.e. indiscriminate rights of the homosexual partners to adopt and raise children.<\/p>\n \n And since the opponents are very vocal, while the traditional family was defended until now only by the (Orthodox) Church, let\u2019s examine the points of view of both parts.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n First of all, the position of the political initiator \u2013 to allow<\/em> the mentioned supposition of the political use of the referendum in favour of the ruling party, and to allow<\/em>, instead of civil and scientific arguments, the promotion of reasons and supportive ideas by the (Orthodox) Church \u2013 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\u00a0 the broad masses<\/em>, ignoring the popular common sense: that theses broad masses can distinct between problems<\/em>, can separate <\/em>the complex psychological and ontological aspects of the raising of children<\/em> and of the health and lasting of the human species <\/em>from the religious arguments of the sin against God\u2019s 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<\/em>. 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 \u201csalvation\u201d\/the price for \u201csalvation\u201d \u2013 as the neo-liberal propaganda insists[2]<\/a> \u2013 but for those complex psychological and ontological aspects of the raising of children<\/em> and of the health and lasting of the human species.<\/em><\/p>\n \n Well, only at the level of fundamental significances it is about that disdain<\/em> and ignorance<\/em>. Concretely, from a political<\/em> standpoint, the ruling social-democrat party \u2013 but perhaps this is also at a fundamental level \u2013 wants not to discuss those problems and aspects<\/em>. On the one hand, it allows the\u00a0 (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 \u2013 and the Opposition as well \u2013 know very well that people, and especially the young ones, can separate the fundamental arguments from those religious<\/em> 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<\/em>: which could lead to a broader critique than that of the conceptions about family.<\/p>\n \n In its turn, the\u00a0 (Orthodox) Church makes rather a work of public relations\/rougher, propaganda for itself: because its arguments \u2013 that a family formed by same sex persons is contrary to God\u2019s plan and organization \u2013 are weaker than those supposed to be presented by a \u201cspokesperson\u201d, since this is its assumed role of \u201cspokesperson\u201d of the initiator of the referendum.<\/p>\n \n 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 (\u201canti-modern\u201d and \u201cconservative\u201d, even \u201cfascist\u201d) have the function to attract and convince the youngsters and, generally, the urban middle classes assuming a \u201cliberal, modern\u201d view<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n However, the referendum as such and its stake, the traditional family, have nothing to do with religion<\/em>, 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<\/em>, concretely, of humans<\/em>. (\u201cHuman society thrives on the diversity of talents and capabilities of its members\u201d[3]<\/a>, 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]<\/a>). \u00a0The exceptions \u2013 determined by diverted physiological and neuro-physiological processes \u2013 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.<\/em><\/p>\n \n Thus, though the argument of the (Orthodox) Church is the authority\u2019s argument \u2013 i.e. of a discourse legitimised in an unquestioned idea \u2013 the position promoted by this institution is and reflects a popular wisdom arisen from experience<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n There is no here the place to discuss the social\/historical\/cultural<\/em> origin of homosexuality[5]<\/a>. Briefly, the proportion of natural<\/em> homosexuality \u2013 arisen as biologically innate and being \u201ca certain arrest of the sexual development\u201d (Freud[6]<\/a>) \u2013 was and is augmented<\/em> just by the concrete social conditions of so many youngsters: class divisions<\/em> (see the fact that pederasty was a practice initiated in the ancient Greek upper strata[7]<\/a>), domination-submission\/power relations<\/em> (including in male-female and elder-youngster relations), thus\u00a0 gender separation<\/em> in education and social life (including sport, see the athletic nudity), gender isolation<\/em> in some activities, slavery<\/em> and, later, poverty<\/em>, constraints <\/em>in prisons etc.<\/p>\n \n But another means to spread homosexuality \u2013 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 \u2013 is just the aggressive propaganda of homosexuality as normal and consequently having the same \u201cright\u201d as the heterosexual families: to raise children<\/em>. For just the right of homosexuals to raise children is the core of the present pressure for institutionalizing homosexual families<\/em>[8]<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n 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<\/em>, but having a deviated sexuality, they are exterior to the norm of constitution and reason of family as institution for the raising of children<\/em>. They certainly have and must have the same economic<\/em>, political <\/em>and social<\/em> rights as the heterosexuals: and they must have officially recognised partnerships<\/em> implying the same economic and social rights as the heterosexual families; but not families<\/em> having the right to raise children.<\/p>\n \n The homosexuals have no the right to raise children, irrespective of whose are these children. To have\/raise children is not a right<\/em>: 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<\/em>, and not first and foremost as an end<\/em>: let\u2019s remember Kant\u2019s revolutionary ethical imperative. People, irrespective of their homo or heterosexuality, must consider the others \u2013 and certainly, first the children \u2013 as ends<\/em>; 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 \u2013 yes, they are un-natural \u2013 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.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n The present turmoil related to the name of the unions of homosexuals \u2013 for since the Constitution will remain at the present formula (\u201cspouses\u201d, which have signified just \u201cman and woman\u201d, since at the moment of writing the Constitution, the pressure on behalf of homosexuals was not so decisive), the aggressive actions for \u201cthe rights\u201d of homosexuals, i.e. the right to raise children, will have a legal basis \u2013 is a form of class diversion<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n Opposing to the \u201ctraditionalists\u201d \u2013 including the Church \u2013 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<\/em>, are the \u201cup-to-date\u201d liberals\/\u201cpeople with modern, democratic views\u201d. These ones are fighting for the personal<\/em> rights the homosexual unions illustrate. And since the personal rights takes part from the human rights, what would be the class diversion?<\/p>\n \n The Church and the traditionalists participate too at this diversion<\/em>. Their position forbids in fact the homosexual unions in the name of the word of God. But actually, both <\/em>the traditionalists and the liberals are mutual perfect copies (but only with a reverse sign), doing mutually the same movements in the class diversion<\/em>: 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<\/em>. As they do no discuss the tragic economic and social conditions which determine some youngsters to find a living by becoming \u201cnormal\u201d prostitutes<\/em>.<\/p>\n The right to freely dispose of one\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Yes, the neo-liberal \u201cvery up-to-date\u201d views support the personal<\/em> rights of homosexuals, but without discussing the above tragic conditions<\/em>, neither the political pressure<\/em> for spreading<\/em> and use<\/em> of homosexuality, neither the vulgarization of the concepts of rights<\/em> and struggles for rights<\/em> by promoting absurd goals and the end to adopt\/raise children, nor that in this desire they ignore the rights of children<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n Indeed, the neo-liberals do not discuss the stake<\/em> of their mobilization: this stake is not the personal right to have a same sex union \u2013 because the idea to change the Constitution in order to specify the family<\/em> as union of a man and a woman has nothing to do with the personal right of homosexual partnerships and does not oppose them,<\/em> 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 \u201cfamily\u201d, they will press for the right to raise children.<\/p>\n \n In this demarche, they consider only the \u201cpersonal right\u201d of the homosexual partners \u201cto be parents\u201d, but never the third part, the children who have the right to not be aggressed by ideas and problems which have deep psychological \u2013 and broadly, ontological \u2013 consequences<\/em>. For this reason, the homosexual partners have no the personal right to be parents.<\/p>\n \n No one of the neo-liberals discusses the economic<\/em> 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]<\/a>. And no one of these opposed parts discusses the beneficiaries<\/em> of both this frenzy and its traditionalist counterpart: elements from the world and Romanian upper middle class<\/em> that not only struggles for having different specific reservoirs but also and especially for diverting the class interests to identity politics and agitation<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n The personal rights everyone must freely enjoy are legitimate only if they do not infringe the rights of the others<\/em>: 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<\/em> 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. <\/em>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\u2019 personal freedom<\/em>. 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 \u201cnormal\u201d prostitutes, they consciously ignore the conditions which led to the tragic status of prostitute.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n The \u201cmodern\u201d neo-liberals have too a disdain towards the broad masses<\/em>, somehow deeper than that of the initiator. Because they, inherently consciously, transmit lies, in fact absurd lies<\/em> related to the referendum.<\/p>\n \n 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\u2019s obvious that not regarding this aspect are there differences between the homo and hetero couples<\/em>, 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.<\/em> And certainly, the referendum will not lead to the \u201cstigmatization and hostility towards the community LGBTI\u201d[10]<\/a> and it\u2019s absurd to speak that the referendum \u201ccould make it impossible to protect the same sex unions in the future\u201d[11]<\/a>: since the common people can very well differentiate between absurd and harmful \u201crights\u201d and necessary rights as that of same sex partnerships<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The neo-liberal insinuate<\/em> that the approval of the traditional family \u2013 thus, the necessary presence<\/em> at the referendum and the approval of the traditional family<\/em> \u2013 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. \u00a0One 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\u2019s 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<\/em>. Likewise, while a widow remained alone \u2013 a very sad case \u2013 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.<\/p>\n \u00a0The 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n The neo-liberals insinuate<\/em> 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\u2019s stupid. There is no logical and legal obstruction against such future referendum or decisions.<\/em><\/p>\n \n And no, the referendum does not mean the further stigmatizing of homosexuals<\/em>, on the contrary. The clear specification of the limits of individual rights \u2013 and these limits are everywhere and concerning all the humans, hetero and homosexuals alike \u2013 is rather a form of respect towards the reasonability of homosexuals<\/em>, which form of respect is stronger than any abstract tolerance and positive discrimination towards them show.<\/p>\n \n The neo-liberals lie<\/em> 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.<\/em><\/p>\n \n The neo-liberals lie<\/em> 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]<\/a>. Or no, for the time being<\/em> in the Romanian law there is also a condition: \u00a0the attestation<\/em> 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]<\/a>; and this attestation is the result of a serious process of assessment<\/em>[14]<\/a>; and well, in this process of attestation, the first, fundamental condition of adoption is a heterosexual family<\/em>[15]<\/a>: thus, a single\/unmarried person may adopt a child only if it cohabits with a person of opposite sex<\/em>. No actualization of this law<\/em> \u2013 in 2016 and 2018 \u2013 has annulled this condition<\/em>. Consequently, in the present Romanian law: only heterosexual persons<\/em>, married or only cohabiting with a person of opposite sex \u2013 thus having an official or unofficial family<\/em> \u2013, may adopt\/raise children<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Selfish? The neo-liberal view considers even the homosexuals in a reductionist<\/em> and simple way. For the neo-liberals, the homosexuals are not complex human beings whose main vector<\/em> of complexity and creativity is reason<\/em>, as the heterosexuals are complex human beings whose main vector<\/em> of complexity and creativity is reason<\/em>, but only beings led by yearning; and if they have the power to accomplish their craving for raising children, why not, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n 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 \u201cfreedom\u201d: \u201cmy freedom, pereat mundus<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n \n 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<\/em> which must be respected by any individual, because the \u201creplacement of the power of the individual by the power of a community constitutes the decisive step of civilization\u201d, because again \u201cthe members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions\u201d and thus\u00a0 \u201cthe rule of law\u201d is that \u201cto which all have contributed by a sacrifice of their instincts\u201d. Thus \u201cno one shall escape those restrictions\u201d[16]<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n However, the neo-liberalism<\/em>, that denies the existence and reason of the human society, considering only the individual \u2013 and the individuals fighting for their interests \u2013, ignores the complex interdependence of individuals and society<\/em>. But how could it ignore all of these? Because: it represents the leading stratum, having its power<\/em> from the domination-submission<\/em> 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\u2019s will.<\/p>\n \n Freud \u2013 as a utopian liberal \u2013 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 \u201ccultural development\u201d that ought to master the individual-society balance and on the other hand, \u201cthe human <\/em>instinct of aggression and self-destruction\u201d[17]<\/a>. But beyond the instincts of the species, both aggression and self-destruction are relations and ideas generated from the standpoint not of the species<\/em>, but of the individuals\/categories of individuals benefiting from the power relations.<\/em><\/p>\n \n 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<\/em> which dissolve the criteria rationally constructed<\/em>, in the name of relativism<\/em> and ignorance of the consequences<\/em> of the human deeds. But these ideas are taken over<\/em> 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<\/em>. And now, instead of a rationalist education of both<\/em> homosexuals and heterosexuals \u2013 that what is the most important is the care for the others<\/em> and the rational control of one\u2019s facts from the standpoint of their consequences on the others <\/em>\u2013 the aggressive propaganda of neo-liberalism induces the idea of \u201canything goes\u201d.<\/p>\n \n Or, human reason means to think to the meanings <\/em>and consequences<\/em> of the thoughts and actions \u2013 or intentions<\/em> to act \u2013 and to the necessity to be more altruistic than individualist. In this process, the humans arrive to forge, critique and re-found criteria<\/em>, as milestones of their judgement. Certainly, the criteria themselves \u2013 as any idea related to the human being \u2013 are historical, and thus not absolute. However, there is a methodological<\/em> aspect of criteria that explains their reason <\/em>itself and their expanse<\/em>: the aspect of universalizability <\/em>of their reasoning. (This aspect is borrowed from Kant, obviously, as universal<\/em> condition\/ universalizability<\/em> 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 \u201cKantian\u201d avant la lettre<\/em>, because their moral representations and criteria were the result of logical universalising within heir historical condiions).<\/p>\n \u00a0Well, the core of these criteria is just the necessity and primacy of altruism<\/em> when considering the inter-human relationships. All humans, hetero or homosexuals, must behave reasonably: is this so difficult to understand?<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n In the battle for the \u201cright\u201d to adopt and raise children, the neo-liberal ideology makes basic methodological fallacies.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n The referendum \u2013 irrespective of its initiator and spokesperson \u2013 is not a form of hate, but on the contrary, a sincere respect towards homosexuals: they are considered rational<\/em> 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 clich\u00e9s<\/em>. 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\u2019s influence, then voting the referendum meaning \u201ca clear pro-Russian position, implicitly a rejection of democracy\u201d[18]<\/a>. 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<\/em>. But this is not specific only to Russia, isn\u2019t it? The 4000 new churches erected from 1990 only till 2008[19]<\/a> in a Romania where the Russian-phobia was and is official ideology, are the witnesses.<\/p>\n \n Obviously, the problems raised here \u2013 the rights of homosexuals \u2013 send, as it appeared above, to other aspects: the \u201cnormal\u201d 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.<\/p>\n \n **<\/strong><\/p>\n \n It\u2019s a pity that the referendum for the traditional family was proposed in the frame of struggle for power \u2013 inside the ruling party and between it and the explicit right \u2013, by such a pharisaic party and such incorrect people as all its and their representatives. It\u2019s a pity that this referendum is countered with the idea of \u201cconservatory thinking induced by \u2018the enemies of the country\u2019\u201d; it\u2019s a pity that this referendum is countered with the irrational fuelling of the irrational Russian-phobia.<\/p>\n \n It\u2019s a pity that the left-wing \u2013 that, obviously, is at the left of social-democracy but that does not exist, except some very few voices \u2013 did not distance itself from the, au fond, neo-liberal standpoint imposed from the 1990s on as \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d: neither those left-wing voices did not understand that the \u2018positive discrimination\u2019 of homosexuals to adopt children is not a logical continuation of the legalisation of homosexual partnerships[20]<\/a>, but an infringement of the rights of children<\/em>, 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<\/em>, of the majorities where the minorities belong to, and thus to take over the dominant strata\u2019s agenda and logic.<\/p>\n \n The exaggerated<\/em> struggle for the rights of homosexuals \u2013 not that the struggle as such is not the response to the persecutions of homosexuals in the 20th<\/sup> century, but that it is exaggerated <\/em>(see the homosexuals marches\/Pride parades, the pressure to adopt children) \u2013 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) \u2013 which, au fond, are of nature to generate rejection of even justified goals \u2013 tend to cover the real causes and struggles and to only be defined as \u201cpolitically correct\u201d.<\/p>\n \n As we know, the post-89\/91 disoriented left by the fall of existing socialism has taken over the neo-liberal thinking let\u2019 say sans le savoir<\/em>: since the communist ideology proved to be incorrect, was the official stance of this left \u2013 do not forget, the communist ideology<\/em>, without discriminating the (sexual) minorities (but, do not forget again, the concept of minority <\/em>concerns identity external to the class appurtenance), was and is, as class ideology<\/em>, 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 \u2013 then the oppressed all kinds of minorities are\/will be the only worth to be defended[21]<\/a>. But this defence became one \n