Loudmouth,

I understand what you're saying. Essentially once you've completed the march through the institutions, what then? Is capturing the credentialed classes sufficient to usher in the revolution? While it may be in the third world, clearly its not in the first world since the masses haven't to date bought in. As Orwell observed "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."

To some extent the Trump phenomena is the reaction of the 'deplorables' to the credentialed classes monopolisation of power over the past three decades. (I say credentialed as opposed to educated..they have the degrees but aren't educated).

The deplorables were simply waiting on someone to provide them with the wherewithal to take back their lives from those who sought to control them. The Bushes disappointed as did many of the 'Tea Party' leaders. If Trump likewise disappoints then they'll look elsewhere, but they won't stop looking.

If, on the other hand, Trump tries but fails due to the deep tentacles of the credentialed classes, then look for all hell to break loose. The one after Trump will make him look like a teddy bear if Trump is defeated. I am reminded of the last century of the Roman Republic as each side escalated the attacks on the other.

It may well be that the institutions which have been conquered by the left will remain so. But they will be marginalised by those who don't buy the Utopian fantasies. Think in recent months of the travails of the MSM, the NFL and Hollywood.

__________________________________________________________________

As to the notion of the ultra-left manipulating the agenda of the left, I found this items rather amusing:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/31/thousands-protested-trump-last-november-rally-organized-russia/

________________________________________________________________

AJ I stopped discussing your error earlier because I was done with it and it was going nowhere. I see that you made an error, sought to walk it back by erroneously referencing a text that no one could check, which I then checked! You see something different.

"You can quit the feigned outrage"

It wasn't feigned outrage, it was mockery of all the way the various left-leaning pieties end up contradicting themselves.

Oh and is it your position that all poly-amorous relationships involve a high-status one 'hoarding' low status others? (I'm just gathering your views now so that we can compare them to those that will apply when in the (near?) future it becomes obligatory for the woke to support polygamy) So many of the left opposed SSM a decade ago but changed their minds when it became convenient, political necessary or trendy to do so...it'll happen again.

Thanks, Mhaze, good points. I love that Orwell quote - so true !

Cheers,

Joe

Shadow Minister,

For myself (and many others), the argument for same-sex marriage is fundamentally one of equality, not legal rights. Legal rights are a practical concern, but then there is also the symbolic significance of referring to such arrangements as “marriage”.

How about we tell black and brown people that, while they have all the same rights as white people, they can’t be called or considered “people”? I don’t see how this would be any different, despite the level of offence such a comparison causes.

Marriage is an internationally recognised arrangement. How would your proposed compromise work in countries with mutual recognition of same-sex marriages?

If the compromise you propose would be still be recognised as a marriage in countries with mutual recognition of same-sex marriages, then it would seem a little silly to not call it marriage in our country only, just to appease a few who harbour an irrational concern. I suspect we’d become a bit of a laughing stock.

If, on the other hand, same-sex couples would have to actually get married in a country that recognises same-sex marriage for other countries with mutual recognition to accept their relationship as a marriage, then no, that’s not equality and I don’t see how it would be acceptable.

I have never heard a rational reason as to why same-sex couples need a different word. When I hear one, I will be happy to take it into consideration. Until they, they can be dismissed as freely as they are demanded.

mhaze,

Only it wasn’t an error, and I demonstrated that with a scan of my source which you tried to claim never said what I had said it did.

<<I stopped discussing your error earlier because I was done with it and it was going nowhere.>>

You stopped discussing it because you lied and that lie was revealed. You then blunderingly rejected what my source claimed - citing only some mysterious “multiple problems” with the information contained therein - and then slinked off. That link again:

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

What’s worse is that you claimed that I didn’t have the wherewithal to “fess up” to my alleged lie, then, when it was shown that you were the only one lying, you didn’t (and still don’t) have the wherewithal to fess up to that.

<<I see that you made an error, sought to walk it back by erroneously referencing a text that no one could check, which I then checked! You see something different.>>

And you’re still claiming that you check the booked! That scan again:

http://i.imgur.com/2Eav0GI.jpg

You have no credibility.

<<It wasn't feigned outrage, it was mockery of all the way the various left-leaning pieties end up contradicting themselves.>>

Well, instead of putting me in a convenient little box, how about you show me where I have contradicted myself?

<<Oh and is it your position that all poly-amorous relationships involve a high-status one 'hoarding' low status others?>>

That’s how polygamy has worked most of the time throughout history. Are you suggesting that people will flock to, and shack up with, low-status people? Yeah, right, I could see that happening.

<<So many of the left opposed SSM a decade ago but changed their minds when it became convenient, political necessary or trendy to do so...it'll happen again.>>

Considering they had no reason to object to same-sex marriage before, that’s a perfectly reasonable change of heart. Your resorting to ad hominem and conspiracy suggests a lack of basis for your own position.

AJ,

Even the British recognised Aboriginal people, not just as people, but as British subjects, right from the outset. They recognised their rights to use the land as they always had done, only taking away the right to exclude others. Those rights were written into every pastoral lease, and still prevails in SA's Environment Act.

Try to keep up with the nineteenth century, AJ.

In what way, incidentally, is the recognition of a simple right, equivalent to recognising people as people ? You really do go over the top sometimes.

Joe