Continues from above.

On the road to communism all exchanges and expressions of value need to be overseen by the socialist state, reproduction is an exchange, with me so far?
Single men and women don't have to work very hard to keep themselves alive, married couples with children on the other hand need to exchange things of value in ever greater amounts and using ever more complex means of exchange.

Same Sex marriage is an easy road to bringing all reproduction under state control because it needs scientific assistance to function, again, things like surrogacy,sperm and egg donation and adoption are transactions with their own value and means of exchange.
Where "Marriage equality" come in is that for everyone to be equal everyone, heterosexual and homosexual needs to be under the one system, one marriage act, one standard for construction of zygotes, one standard for IVF, adoption and so on.

I don't think many people understand the "Gay" movement because not many people understand Marxism, now that's not to say it will work out as the globalists plan, it most probably won't because there are so many, as we gamers say "modifiers" which could change the state of play. As I said above, one unwanted modifier in the globalist game could be that all married men unite and start making their own demands, the other modifier is that using force to get your own way usually only leads to the opposite outcome to the original plan.(the state is a monopoly on the use of force, legislation is that monopoly in action). Legislating same sex marriage will almost certainly have the opposite outcome to it's stated aim and may even have unintended and unwanted effects on the status quo.

Pericles,
False contradictions aren't arguments and William Shirer's opinions and anti Nazi propaganda cannot be trusted, there's no evidence that homosexuals were numerous in the early party or that they were tolerated, those titillations and dirty innuendos about Hitler, Roehm, Emil Maurice and the supposed perversions of the SA are completely baseless.
When Hitler was looking for a way to get rid of Roehm his homosexuality was revealed to the leadership and it was one of the charges used to denounce him,that is all, maybe Hitler knew beforehand, maybe he didn't but the regime was remarkably consistent on the issue of homosexuality.
To put this into context I refer you to Himmler's 1938 speech on the subject of homosexuals, it's pretty unambiguous, he wanted to entrap any gays who tried to join the SS then they were to be sent to concentration camps and then be "shot while trying to escape".
The point is that totalitarian regimes are threatened by groups of men whose oaths are sworn to each other or to a higher authority than the state, married Gays with kids would be far less likely to get involved in any insurgency against liberal democracy, would they not?
Whereas in the past the single, Gay "ronin" would have and did gravitate towards Anarchism and Trotskyism, just as they do today, bands of men have always been threat to globalist ambitions, from Robin hood's Merry Men to the Taliban, surely you can grasp that?

Don't get in such a lather, pet.

>>Pericles, False contradictions aren't arguments and William Shirer's opinions and anti Nazi propaganda cannot be trusted, there's no evidence that homosexuals were numerous in the early party or that they were tolerated, those titillations and dirty innuendos about Hitler, Roehm, Emil Maurice and the supposed perversions of the SA are completely baseless.<<

I don't know about "false contradictions", Jay of Melbourne.

But I'd back the thoroughly-researched and sober conclusions of the historian William Shirer against your shrill denials, any day of the week.

There's no use either, trying to muddy the waters with a couple of red herrings - neither Hitler nor Maurice were homosexual, as far as scholarly history of the period is concerned. Ernst Roehm, on the other hand, was most definitely homosexual, with a penchant for young boys. This is not only well documented by historians, but is apparent in his own handwriting, in letters to Dr. Heimsoth.

It shouldn't really matter, of course. In every administration, of whatever creed or philosophy, there has always been a sprinkling of gays. Your problem though is that to acknowledge this obvious fact would undermine your argument that only gays passively accept authority, while only butch heteros are freedom fighters.

Sorry about that.

.

Dear rehctub,

.

You wrote:
"... married refers to the union of a man and woman."

I am inclined to agree with you but I see that my Oxford dictionary defines "married" as "of person(s) so united".

Dictionary.com is a little more expansive:

married - adjective

1. united in wedlock; wedded: married couples.

2. of or pertaining to marriage or married persons; connubial; conjugal: married
happiness.

3. (of an antique) created from components of two or more authentic pieces.

4. interconnected or joined; united.

5. (of a family name) acquired through marriage.

Origin:

1250–1300; Middle English marien < Old French marier < Latin mar&#299;t&#257;re to wed, derivative of mar&#299;tus conjugal, akin to m&#257;s male (person)

.

Dear Rhrosty,

.

Your contribution to this debate is potentially paramount.

I presume there is solid evidence in support of your biological explanation of homosexuality. Would you be so kind as to elaborate further on this and indicate your sources.

.

Dear Constance,

.

That the social and political order is constantly evolving on a planetary scale is an evidence none can deny.

It commenced when mankind broke away from his common ancestor with the chimpanzee 5 to 7 million years ago and it is due to end in 500 million years time when the sun enters the final phase of its stellar evolution and we all disappear into cosmic dust.

New World Orders are a fact of life but attributing them to international social, political or economical conspiracies is a bit far-fetched in my humble opinion.

I am aware that a number of authors such as H.G.Wells, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, as well as politicians such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill had such visions in relation to dramatic change - various religious, political and sectarian organisations also, including Freemasonry.

As it happens, I was the international director of Continental Europe's largest insurance broking group for many years and have had first-hand experience of the difficulty of implementing world-wide strategies.

I am not convinced. In my view, it is more of the order of utopian and dystopian fiction.

.

.

Dear Jay Of Melbourne,

.

You wrote:

[The goal of Globalisation is one global standard for every facet of human life, with one global state overseeing all transactions for the well being of all, the end point is global communism in other words ...

Heterosexual relationships are based on a method of exchange, the male exchanges his surplus labour for the woman's reproductive capacity and vice versa, now do you see where a Marxist sees his entree to "our bedrooms"?]

Thank you for that detailed explanation of why you consider that "Gay marriage is just a relatively benign part of the globalist/imperialist agenda ... ".

However, I must confess it seems a bit far-fetched to me - as I just explained to Constance on page 8 of this thread.

In the case of my wife and I, for example, we both had previous experiences outside of wedlock with various partners before we married. Our marriage was the symbolical act we performed in order to distinguish this relationship from all others, marking its special nature. It was the symbol of our union.

I am not so naïve as to imagine that all heterosexual marriages have this as their sole motivation. I am sure there may be many others.

I, nevertheless, see no reason why the motivations for same-sex marriages should be any different from mine or those of other heterosexuals.

I looked-up the New World Order (conspiracy theory) on the web, as you suggested, and found this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

I can understand that it is a theory which may please some to imagine exists in real life. Perhaps others are even trying to implement it.

I have no idea if you have tried to implement it yourself or not but, quite frankly, I have very serious doubts that anyone could ever succeed in doing so.

People tend to get married for their own, personal reasons - not because of some theory about New World Order conspiracy.

If you have any proof to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear of it.

.

Mark, good post.