onthebeach: "Regarding the Christian religion, the old lefties would never have been intolerant towards religion."

Marx is an old lefty.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ contains his "On the Jewish Question"

From it:

"Selling [verausserung] is the practical aspect of alienation [Entausserung]. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity – money – on them.

In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest. We explain the tenacity of the Jew not by his religion, but, on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion – practical need, egoism.

Since in civil society the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized, civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed only the ideal aspect of practical need. Consequently, not only in the Pentateuch and the Talmud, but in present-day society we find the nature of the modern Jew, and not as an abstract nature but as one that is in the highest degree empirical, not merely as a narrowness of the Jew, but as the Jewish narrowness of society.

Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

Marx was extremely intolerant of Judaism and Christianity. Marx promoting the Jew-hating stereotype of the Jew controlling society sounds like a Nazi.

david f,

It's not so much crossing our border that defines the genuineness of refugees but the number of borders that they have crossed to get here, or the number of countries that they have passed on the way to our border.
Economic migrants is a better description than refugees.

david f, "Marx is an old lefty"

You may find that the old lefties in Australia that I referred to might not always equate Marxism with their socialism.

//Labor isn't about socialism? Say what?//

So what about all those Liberal politicians that have expressed support for same sex marriage? Are they socialists too?

Marriage is itself discriminatory as it excludes marriage of brother / sister siblings or mother / father parents. WHY? They love each other and are committed to each other for life as the proposed definition expresses. The definition proposed is fraught with legal complications, as it does not define the state of marriage. Which is an exclusive relationship between a man and woman. In the new World the definition does away with guilt from adultery, incest, and homosexual acts

//Marriage is itself discriminatory as it excludes marriage of brother / sister siblings or mother / father parents. WHY? They love each other and are committed to each other for life//

Josephus, is your last name Lannister or Targaryen by any chance?

//In the new World the definition does away with guilt from adultery, incest, and homosexual acts//

Guilt, in the legal sense, only applies to incest: adultery and homosexual acts aren't criminal. Nobody is proposing any changes to incest laws. You are tilting at windmills.

Guilt, in the sense of the emotion arising from acts that trouble one's personal conscience, can never be governed by legislation. It is impossible to legislate what a man feels or believes, merely what he says and does.