L’amour à la française

Ach… l’amour l’amour…
Non ! Chari n’est pas obnubilé par le sexe et l’amour, ce serait juste une impression…
A vous de juger avec ces morceaux choisis entre le 12 octobre et le 18 décembre 2010 :

(…) So you see, it is from below to the top or the other way down, when churches condone same-sex marriages, perform same-sex marriages. Soon a day will come when perhaps, in Athens or Barcelona or somewhere, you will find a man marrying a cow. (...) – Discours du 12/10/2010
(…) The heart no longer features in our human equations — not even in the much vaunted field of love (l’amour). The heart has lost its place; therefore all the misery in the world, the divorces, repeated divorces, multiplicity of liaisons. (…) Today’s world is full of children who hate their parents. “I hate my Mummy. I hate my Daddy.” Why? Because Mummy and Daddy are not Mummy and Daddy; they are just sex partners who have produced me and have left, so that we have these beautiful institutions called single-parent family. How can a child have a single parent? So when you break what should be whole, you have destroyed. So you see, everything follows from love which has become degraded, de-humanized, and become merely an animal thing; of couplings producing unwanted babies, who at best are left on the church step for adoption, and at worst become children of parents who are not their parents.(…) – Discours du 14/10/2010
(…) So, you cannot expect love without loving. Now in the modern world, it is very commonly used, “Darling, love me.” What does it mean? It generally refers to sex. It is only said in bed. But sex is not love. Love may be sex, but sex by itself is not love. You find it in the bazaars of any city or town or village. It goes by the name of love. And without love, if it is done, they still call it love-making. How can you make love? You can love but you cannot make love. So don’t be shy that I am speaking in front of ladies because you are all grown up, you all know what I am speaking about. It is possible to have ultimate sex through all your lives without ever having loved even your husband. Ditto for the males, who can do it probably much more, without ever loving their wives. And when this sacred bond between a husband and wife is misused like this, what to speak of the public? What to speak of morality?
Without love, true morality is impossible. Because then, like many people of the West, you just say, “Honey, it is just another hunger.” You are thirsty. You are hungry for food. You are hungry for sex. When skin touches skin there is no sin, and when two are agreed on it, it is allowed. Consensual sex, it is called you know, and everybody finds out; that is why sex is growing in such an enormous proportion. Everybody finds out that sex without love produces no result. Therefore you go on looking for it again and again in repetitive, sinful acts, it takes you nowhere. It is mere indulgence without any satisfaction, any emotional value. And as Chakrapani said in his morning’s speech, you become more and more hateful to yourself, and because you cannot hate yourself and harm yourself, you lash out at society. You become a criminal, you become a terrorist. “If I cannot kill myself, let me kill a hundred of them.” (…) – Discours du 30/11/2010
(…) People are not scared of sex, of SIDA (AIDS); they are scared of marriage. Why are you scared of marriage? A shrug is the answer. And there are so many couples where I have met the husband and the wife, and they say, "My suitcase is packed." "But," I say, "you have been married eighteen years, twenty years, fifteen years." "Yes, but you know how it is, Chari." That is the answer. Does this point to a happy, adjusted, real life, or does it point to some sort of artificial life when we all think we are happy, when we all think we are modern, living in a family as a group? And, like the world, we are expecting separation and unhappiness all the time.(…) – Discours du 18/12/2010

A propos de sexe et de mariage, Chari ferait bien de lire l’un de nos philosophes français, Luc Ferry et son livre « La révolution de l’amour ». Celui-ci décrit le passage du mariage traditionnel, institution patrimoniale de 2 familles qui unissaient biens et noms, au mariage d’amour, manifestation sociale du lien amoureux entre 2 personnes.
Mais c'est précisément parce qu'on s'est mis à se marier par amour qu'on s'est mis à divorcer et à se remarier. Le legs de cette révolution, c'est aussi la faillite du mariage pour la vie, et donc la banalisation du divorce et des familles recomposées.