Paul 1405, two things. Firstly aboriginal people have the same type of kinship system where your first cousin is also your brother or sister and great aunts and uncles are known as grandparents. But the system of sharing around children is not confined to browned skinned people. European families have always done this as well. Babies born out of wedlock were frequently given to childless aunts or cousins, as were unwanted children born into marriages where too many children already existed.
As for same sex couples providing a secure home for children, well, that would have to be taken on a case by case circumstance because same sex couples are even less stable than opposite sex ones. The incidence of domestic violence, addiction and mental health issues are all higher in same as couples than in opposite sex.
So just because one couple can provide a stable home doesn't mean all can, just as with opposite sex couples.

Loudmouth,

"the Nazis also tried to interpose the fascist State between the family and their children".

Yes when I wrote "For the leftists and really any group that wants to see the elevation of the state" the "any group" I was thinking of were the various fascists. Really they should be understood as part of the left but many don't get that so I thought I head off Godwin responses.

I see Gramsci is rather thoughtful but terrifying. Lenin et al sought to replace the power structures of the state with their own creations and then point that power toward Utopia. Gramsci, I think, understood that when you just replace Tsars those replacements ultimately become Tsar-like....how is Putin different to Peter the Great? So his view was that everything needed to be parred back to first principles and then reconstituted to create a socialist Utopia. Never stood a chance of success.

___________________________________________________________

Toni Lavis,

Not an arts degree...just extensive reading over many decades to understand why totalitarianism was so successful among the so-called intellectual classes through the 20th century.

Sorry if we left you behind. I understand that many think Enid Blyton's Noddy had homosexual undertones. Maybe next time I'll discuss that so that you'll feel more involved.

______________________________________________________________

AJP

"porky pies"... do you really want to go there after being so badly burned last time?

Polygamy isn't just about one man multiple women. The reverse is possible. Very sexist of you to think that women would allow themselves to be 'hoarded'. Be careful or you'll be excommunicated from the I'm-so-woke fraternity. Islam allows for the 'hoarding' of women. Are you saying Islam is wrong and Christianity right? Wow, wonders never cease.

"Could you cite your references please?"
Research Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood. The Negro Project and eugenics.

AJ, Foxy, Toni, Mhaze et al,

I notice that much of the pro-SSM argument centres around the few remaining rights attached to marriage that de-facto relationships don't carry. So here's a theoretical question:

If an arrangement called a civil union was created that had all the rights of marriage without the name, would this satisfy both the pro-SSM advocates and the anti-SSM advocates?

That's cute, mhaze.

<<... do you really want to go there after being so badly burned last time?>>

You were the one who got burned. So bad, in fact, that you had slink off. But not before to digging yourself in a little deeper to announce your very conveniently timed departure. You lied about reading a book I referenced, to make it look like I was the one lying, and didn't that backfire spectacularly!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243969

You have a short memory.

<<Polygamy isn't just about one man multiple women.>>

Irrelevant. High-status people of any sex hoarding partners for themselves is not conducive to a healthy society. I had a feeling you'd pick on that inconsequential detail. That's why I left it there. You can quit the feigned outrage regarding, too, by the way. I don't think anyone's buying it.

My point still stands.

I take it you don't have any other examples of same-sex marriage supporters claiming that the idea of same-sex marriage is to destroy marriage, despite claiming that a search would reveal them?

Hi Mhaze,

What I was touching on was the break by Gramsci with earlier and outdated Marxist principles, given that the proletariat clearly wasn't going to be the vehicle of self-sacrificing revolution, on behalf of the disaffected intellectual class (i.e. Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, etc.).

Yes, in a way, Gramsci went deeper than Marx in analysing the sins of bourgeois society, but it meant jettisoning much of the entire Marxist rationale. So he had to work on ways to destroy bourgeois society without using the proletariat. Of course, those class relations are far less salient than even in his day, let alone Marx's.

The key seems to be: how can the disaffected, out-of-power intellectual class take power ? It worked for the Leninists, and Maoists and for Pol Pot. But the proletariat won't do it for them now, not since the 1920s really, not that there is much of one these days. So how to tear down all bourgeois institutions, traditions and mores without a sucker class ? Who can you play on ? Yes, there are always useful idiots ready to be dragged out for demos, students especially, so why not use them ? So first, that intellectual class has to capture academia, and work its magic on kids before they grow up, get jobs, start families and unlearn.

Seems to be working so far :)

Joe

" If an arrangement called a civil union was created that had all the rights of marriage without the name, would this satisfy both the pro-SSM advocates and the anti-SSM advocates?"

The SSM activists wouldn't be satisfied because they will continue to want more and more. Besides, there is already an "arrangement" called a 'defacto' relationship, with 'common law' wives and husbands. That this arrangement is not taken up by activists already - unlike many homosexual couples who have benefitted from this for years - clearly shows that they would never accept anything less than 'equality' which, of course is impossible and something they only pretend to want. Their real aim is to wreck yet another institution which has been around for millenia. Fake marriage is just a blind. Wreck families and communities and you wreck the nation and society.