Sweet Dreams Piano Tab

begins correspondence with Mr Christian Vanneste ( wikipedia for those who do not know )
Reads from the bottom.

This exchange proves to me that the words are prisons before we become mutineers (or we try to be).

---

} Interesting philosophical exchange.

In your second shipment, you point out what offends you. The idea of a minority does not make sense to me. Homosexuals are not a community if, for some, so spooky. This is a behavior that can be neither permanent nor unique. It can result in attitudes, tastes vary widely. Proust and Gide, this is not the same. Also, I have never in my interventions stigmatized "the" homosexual, but only "the" behavior I said it was "morally inferior" which earned me a conviction that I hope the provisional name of freedom of expression.

"inferiority", which would, based on its closure to life, and hence the difficulty with otherness is called narcissism. The presence of this behavior, which for me is not to be encouraged or protected by more than another company, can perfectly coexist with obvious qualities of creativity. The examples are numerous. But I do not think there is a cause and effect, but only a link echo or reverberation.

Christian Vanneste
MPP UMP North
Vice-President of CNI
Meet me on my website: www.christianvanneste.fr

---

Mr. Vanneste,

I respect your right to speak , even though his background bothers me, it goes without saying that I do not write to keep you quiet, quite the contrary.

Regarding the consideration that a reversal of Voltaire, homosexuality is diverted from its essential character of a minority to be given the quality of general conditional on this definition gives an absurd character. Your recovery from this definition is meant to be indicative of the object itself, not its absurd. You do not talk in hypothetical terms and false as Voltaire assumed (by the "if"), but the emphasis of a maxim. The purpose is hijacked, biased: you do not speak over homosexuality as a whole would be threatened, but homosexuality as (minority, even if you are looking to appoint the general behavior, it is a minority and is not significantly different ) that she would be threatened. For the term of vice, it is only the author's own value.

I totally agree with you when you say that being the bearer of life must be promoted, but homosexuals are alive, have the power to educate (some are teachers). You make a confusion between being a carrier of life and the act of reproduction. Life is not only reproduction, it is thought, poetry, feeling, living together ... Furthermore, you say you want to promote these breeders, but does not push us help to judge others.
Finally, you finish with the fact that the sex is average, the spiritual end, but that claim the opposite sex is incidental to the spiritual. Do not need it before reaching its end, to rely on the way? If it is the sexual way, then there must be erased before the spiritual. But to deprive a minority of its resources, arguing that it is dangerous conditional, it is also depriving them of the following, spirituality, and so the Church does not officially Pope faith of inverts, and countering their "means" it deprives them of an "essential".

COMBES Clément

---

Sir

philosophy is primarily the pedagogy of liberation from prejudice. I myself have no prejudice against homosexual behavior, for which I developed as considerations primarily based on the general interest of society in which we participate.

But I think many of those who are the apologists for this behavior are determined by a fad for the least, irresponsible.

Also, I must remind you that the joke or hyperbole if you will, that I used in the context of classical rhetoric, was a resumption of free Philosopher ... Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, "this vice, that it was general, would be fatal for mankind."

This reflection of common sense implies that indeed before being a spirit, man is first a living being. Ideally, behavior brings life better for mankind that he who denies. That is also the thought of the Pope. To agree with Voltaire and the Pope does not seem particularly suspect ...

My reference to the Pope shows that I respect the spirituality that allows humans to express its most essential, but can not proceed from a living man. There are behaviors that, for reasons of purity, rising beyond life. They are respectable, but can not be generalized. As for those who oppose life by narcissism, they do not seem to me admirable ...

Far from reducing human beings to sexual reproductive, I emphasize that it is also, as a means to an end, which is indeed spiritual. This means that all those who attach importance to the pseudo claims of sexual orientation seem to neglect the essential accessory.

I have no intention to impose such a thought, but I want to be respected in the name of freedom of expression.

remain at your disposal,

Yours

Christian Vanneste
MPP UMP North
Vice-President of CNI
Meet me on my website: www.christianvanneste.fr

---

Mr. Vanneste,

I am baffled by your remarks on homosexuality as "a threat for humanity. "
Indeed, I find it amazing the idea that a professor of philosophy as the foundation for humanity mere sexual reproduction, and therefore by the heterosexual love. I do not want there to defend homosexuality, but only to help you have a look a bit more human about what humanity is.
If one follows your consideration, the basis of humanity would first be a penis and a vagina, a sperm and an egg, but it is called animality, sexual reproduction or some other term which the field net join them.
It seems more fair to base the term on the spirit of humanity, what has made homo animal, a human man, a being endowed with future and continuity.
If homosexuality is a threat to humanity, it would be a threat in mind? What links a love for her own sex and the end of thought? On the contrary, it would be fair to say that this love, rises from a logic of reproduction, gives humans a future elsewhere, a future outside of materialism animal out of a sense of continuous production, and So something much more specific to the man, not only to continue to breed the species, but humans do something else.
If it is this other thing that bothers you, please find us another argument to prove to us that we would be wrong, but do not give a biased and distributed imprint of fear of differences.

COMBES Clément