Hi AJ,

In New Zealand my partners niece and her partner (same sex), sold their house to buy a larger one. They now have 6 children from the nieces extended family living with them. Those children were all abused and neglected in some way, both physically and emotionally. The children all came from dysfunctional heterosexual environments, where drugs, alcohol and violence were common place. The children were failing badly, but with the love and kindness of two caring people they are now slowly recovering, and are being given a chance in life. I don't care if those two people are female, male, one of each or hermaphrodites, I care about the children and what their "parents" are doing for them.
BTW our nieces partner is Pakeha, but without question she has taken on 6 Maori children and given her love and resources through the goodness of her heart, something the moralists detractors on here would most likely never do. Its not uncommon in Maori society for children to be "adopted" by other family when the natural parent(s) can't or wont look after them, or in some cases just as a loving act of kindness for a sibling or relative who has no children. In some ways Europeans might be shocked by what is seen as family, aka your cousin is your brother, its a bit hard to understand, and at times for us Pakeha the interrelationships within the extended family are a bit hard to fathom as well, having four equal parents for example or your auntie is your mother.

Those that call all those against SSM homophobes are just as bigoted and intolerant as those that actually are homophobes.

While I support SSM, given that most of the rights of marriage have been given to de facto straight or same-sex partnerships, that many find the change to the definition of marriage that has stood for millennia hard to swallow. I know of several couples that have spent decades doing charity and community work with one couple doing so for zero pay in 3rd world countries, who view marriage in the traditional sense.

:Anti SSM On A Par With Racism" ?? Not yet...but give it time.

Currently we are told that this is just about giving others the right to marry. It doesn't affect other's rights in any way and to say otherwise, we're told, is just fear-mongering.

But it won't be long before it will become, firstly frowned upon and then illegal, to suggest that all marriages aren't of equal value. People will still be allowed to hold their 'hateful' views privately (a sad state of affairs according to St Triggs) but it will become discriminatory to openly opine as such.

Initially it will be allowed for certain groups (churches etc) to respectfully decline to participate in these new marriage formats, but eventually it'll be found to be discriminatory and enforcement of right-think will occur.

Then they'll be on a par.
__________________________________________

What comes next? Polyamory. There is no argument used in favour of SSM that doesn't also apply to polygamy be it one man and a coupla women, one woman and a coupla blokes, and all the other possibilities. Equal right to marry whomever you love, kids doing just fine, no affects on anyone else. All apply as well to polyamory as SSM. They'll get the ball rolling 4.3 nanoseconds after the SSM legislation passes. And all those who currently pooh-pooh the idea will suddenly find that, 'ya-know-what' I've changed my mind, its now a human right and anyone who doesn't go along with it is a fascist (or whatever).

_____________________________________________________________-

Churches don't pay taxes on their 'income' because they are not-for-profit organisations. If they paid tax then their expenses would be deductible and they'd have no net income left to tax. Non-church not-for-profits are also not taxed.

I wonder if those who self-righteously demand taxation of the churches would demand that the Salvo soup kitchens be taxed, or Getup! or (horror of horrors) trade unions.

_______________________________________________________________

What is the evidence that the "agenda is to ultimately destroy the natural family".

First it should be noted that it isn't the agenda of all those advocating "Yes". But it has been a long held aim of the anti-capitalist left for over a century and its not wholly a stretch to see the other advocates as merely what Lenin called useful idiots.

To understand this needs extensive reading and consideration. MArx talked of the “abolition of the family", and Lenin for a time tried to do it. For the leftists and really any group that wants to see the elevation of the state, the family sits as a counterpoint to the state that needs to be destroyed. So you could look at the thinking and actions of people like Owen, Fourier, Frankfurt School such as (Marcuse and Reich), Sanger, Ayers, Dohrn, the Red Family colonists and a myriad other advocates for the notion that marriage is “bourgeois claptrap.”. If you care to search you'll find more than a few places where indiiduals and groups are advocating for SSM as a pre-cursory for the final assault on the family.

eg http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy

Yes, its just one view, but search and yea shall find. :)

Its not dissimilar to the understanding that the original pro-abortion advocates saw it as a means to destroy black culture in the USA. They haven't been entirely successful but not entirely unsuccessful either. Meanwhile the useful idiots supported them in their cause.

Hi Mhaze,

I suspect that, like Lenin, the Nazis also tried to interpose the fascist State between the family and their children. But perhaps the current crop of pseudo-left opportunists, if they have any principles at all apart from bringing everything down, are more Gramscian than Leninist. Maybe I've got him wrong but I think Gramsci was much closer to the Anarchists and Syndicalists, seeking the destruction of the state, all states, (and therefore of ALL social institutions) rather than being a strong Statist like Lenin and the Nazis were, who were more content to exploit social institutions while they were still useful, rather than destroy them outright.

Of course, Gramsci may have become disillusioned with the non-revolutionary - even pro-fascist - nature of the European working-class in the 1910s and 1920s and was casting around for a class which could do more damage. Lo and behold, he fixed on the intellectuals, preferably (given his Communist Party roots) of course intellectuals with working-class roots (yes, there were once some of those). When my parents were in the Old Party before the War, in the Sydney Railway Yards branch, they were the only working-class members in it, my mum used to say.

These days, there is a much smaller, and more fragmented, working class, and one less willing to throw itself onto the battlements for the good of the intellectuals, their rightful rulers. So the intellectuals (now often well-off bureaucrats) have to cast their nets wider: dumb-arse uni students who already know everything, high school students, etc., anybody they can persuade to shove a stick up the collective arse of bourgeois society.

Hey ! SSM might help the cause !

//So you could look at the thinking and actions of people like Owen, Fourier, Frankfurt School such as (Marcuse and Reich), Sanger, Ayers, Dohrn, the Red Family colonists and a myriad other advocates for the notion that marriage is “bourgeois claptrap.”.//

//But perhaps the current crop of pseudo-left opportunists, if they have any principles at all apart from bringing everything down, are more Gramscian than Leninist. Maybe I've got him wrong but I think Gramsci was much closer to the Anarchists and Syndicalists, seeking the destruction of the state, all states, (and therefore of ALL social institutions) rather than being a strong Statist like Lenin and the Nazis were, who were more content to exploit social institutions while they were still useful, rather than destroy them outright.

Of course, Gramsci may have become disillusioned with the non-revolutionary - even pro-fascist - nature of the European working-class in the 1910s and 1920s and was casting around for a class which could do more damage.//

Whilst I'm sure you guys are enjoying your political science tutorial, do you really think that the average voter gives the slightest toss about all that sort of wank? We didn't all do arts degrees...