Peter Saunders on gay marriage

Peter Saunders is the only sensible sociologist I know so when he writes on issues such as gay marriage it is worthwhile carefully considering his view.

Two thoughts strike me about all this.
One is Friedrich Hayek’s warning about the vanity of the intellectuals. Intellectuals are affronted by social institutions (such as free markets and monogamous marriage) that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of years without people like them ever having consciously invented or designed them. They think evolved institutions are not ‘rational,’ and they believe they can do better. The only argument for leaving marriage unreformed is that it has been this way for a very long time, but that is never going to win the day with ‘modernisers,’ in whose ranks we have to include Prime Minister ‘Dave’ Cameron.

The second thought is that gay marriage will not bring the bourgeois social order crashing down, but it is one more step in Antonio Gramsci’s call in the 1930s for a revolutionary ‘march through the institutions.’ Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, realised that Western capitalism would not be destroyed by economic class struggle, for it is good at meeting people’s material needs. What was needed, therefore, was a long-term campaign against the core institutions through which bourgeois culture is transmitted to each generation. Break the hold of the churches, take over the media, subvert the schools and universities, and chip away at the heart of the citadel, the bourgeois family, and eventually, the whole system will fall.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

297 Responses to Peter Saunders on gay marriage

  1. Mk50 of Brisbane

    And here is why this is a load of bollocks being pushed by the left for left-wing purposes.

    About 2% of the population is homosexual.

    And the activists of the left are merely using them like toilet paper on this issue, as the left uses them to make progress on what Gramsci counseled his side to do: begin a “long march through the institutions”.

    So, FFS, draw the left’s teeth. Implement a purely secular, purely civil “Recognised Relationship” status which meets civilised requirements for any long term relationship between two adults (inheritance, joint accounts, recognition of a long-term emotional bond, property matters etc etc).

    This kills the slippery slope problem, too. A RR must be between only only two people, they must be adults… they must be homo sapiens (have to add an addition for sub-homo leftardus I suppose).

    No civilised person can disagree with this – and it’s not marriage either. Leave that for the 98%. Then their institution is protected, and it will make Gramsci’s followers cry.

  2. JamesK

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rePcaKIe8

    for JamesK

    Don’t be facile kae.

    I criticised your lightweight meqaningless rationale of indifference to this issue as more effective than if you were actually a proponent for ssm.

    You haven’t even attempted to answer thus far.

    Apparently conceding nothing is more important to you than engaging that criticism.

    Because the criticism is precise, pointed and correct so I acknowledge it would be difficult to counter if you were actually being honest.

    I see it’s pointless pointing out your feckless attitude to the institution of marriage.

    Don’t take it personally.

  3. kae

    Mk50

    Implement a purely secular, purely civil “Recognised Relationship” status which meets civilised requirements for any long term relationship between two adults (inheritance, joint accounts, recognition of a long-term emotional bond, property matters etc etc).

    Yes. Don’t call it marriage (isn’t there already civil union for same sex relationships?)

  4. JamesK

    @ MK50

    Words alomost fail me Mark.

    On the one hand you acknowledge that those who would s-s marry are but a small percentage of the homosexual population let alone the entire population and you also recognise that it is primarily a leftist driven agenda to destroy western cultures foundational institutions.

    Your response?

    Destroy the institution just as the Left want!!!!!!

    It’s a mindnumbingly stupid ‘solution’ from an intelligent man.

    But apart from that stupidity, marriage in the state/legal sense is hugely popular whether in observant religious populations, in name only religious/secular populations or indeed agnostic/atheist populations.

    In effect your ‘solution’ would be unpopular with true homosexual same sex marriage likely participants and the heterosexual population.

    Brilliant!

  5. Mk50 of Brisbane

    JamesK

    I think you misunderstand. I want to wreck the leftard agenda and protect marriage.

    That’s what a purely civil and secular ‘RR’ applicable only to homosexuals does.

    It leaves Howard’s Marriage Act intact and a RR is not a marriage. It’s more like a contract dealing with inheritance/super/assets etc.

    The idea strips the pretence away from the left and wrecks their asinine ‘argument’ that it’s all about the luuuurve. It also derails their Gramsci agenda by placing homosexual RR inside their own category, and also as something totally outside the Marriage Act.

    Even better, RR breakups get handled under either divorce legislation, or perhaps contract legislation. So when the RR’s break up, they get skinned by lawyers too. (I can see that ‘who gets the chihuahua’ might be a goldmine for some)

    No matter how various homo’s might prance and preen about being ‘married’ because they are RR (Bob Brown’s a current example), that will not be the case in law, not be the case in practise, and to change it the leftards would have to change TWO Acts.

    As someone with their first marriage well into its third decade, I view nobbling the left’s attack on marriage as critical.

    Currently, the ‘debate’ about this has the peddo’s all excited, as well as the polygamists and zoophiles. They fully understand that the agenda deliberately aims at creating the slippery slope. That’s why a ring-fenced RR should be defined as two adult homo sapiens of the same gender. No hope for a peddo, polygamist or zoophile there, is there?

  6. .

    Currently, the ‘debate’ about this has the peddo’s all excited, as well as the polygamists and zoophiles

    You are nuts.

  7. Mk50 of Brisbane

    No, Dot, they are nuts.

    Being very careful with word choice here, there are those who monitor the activity of certain of these groups, as certain of them do, or wish to do, things which are not legal.

    And certain of these groups see the slippery slope very clearly.

    Example from public sources. Sharia-law supporters like the idea. They believe that once it is in, they can enlist the same people to support legal recognition of polygamous marriage. Some of these types are already crunching the social security income implications, and it’s seen as rather lucrative. They are careful to caveat, of course, when talking to their own. Normally it’s caveatted as ‘once we take over, we can execute all the homosexuals as the koran requires’. They are nuts.

  8. .

    Do you really think that is SSM happens, that paedophilia and bestiality will be accepted?

    I think you’re insulting a large section of the community who are not as liberal as me. You are saying if SSM comes in they would start voting for the pedo party etc.

    I fail to see how that works unless society is very, very stupid.

  9. JamesK

    JamesK

    I think you misunderstand.

    Sorry. I did.

    I missed the part in italics: “….and it’s not marriage either. Leave that for the 98%.

    But a “purely secular, purely civil “Recognised Relationship” status” already exists.

    It doesn’t satisfy the leftist ssm activists.

    It doesn’t satisfy some genuine longterm gay couples who want to be ‘married’ just like heterosexual couples for the ‘romance’ of a marriage.

    I completely understand the latter and loathe the former.

  10. Jarrah

    “Then their institution is protected”

    Marriage doesn’t need protection.

  11. JamesK

    Marriage doesn’t need protection.

    As an institution it clearly does.

    Try and contribute rather than staining the thread Jarrah.

  12. C.L.

    Any gay ‘marriage’ advocates explained yet why a man shouldn’t be allowed to marry a beagle?

    Thought not.

  13. SteveC

    Because it’s a completely stupid point CL.

  14. Jarrah

    “As an institution it clearly does.”

    As an institution, its foundations are far stronger than government statute.

    Social institutions don’t need protection, and imposed stasis isn’t protection anyway.

  15. JamesK

    There really should be a Jarrah carpology klaxon alert.

  16. dover_beach

    CL, you are a beaglophobe. You should be ashamed.

  17. Jarrah

    It’s funny how your spelling deteriorates whenever you don’t have an argument, James.

  18. Gab

    Because it’s a completely stupid point CL.

    Speciest

    ~booo, hisss~

  19. dover_beach

    The love that dare not speak its name.

  20. Mk50 of Brisbane

    JamesK:

    But a “purely secular, purely civil “Recognised Relationship” status” already exists.

    It doesn’t satisfy the leftist ssm activists

    .

    Agreed on both counts, because to the Gramscists (and most retarded lefties but I repeat myself) the milieu of this matter is irrelevent. it merely provides an issue to further their own agenda against western societies. They are merely using the homosexuals as cover for something else.

    Denying them the issue acts to isolate them, and to limit the damage they can inflict.

    It doesn’t satisfy some genuine longterm gay couples who want to be ‘married’ just like heterosexual couples for the ‘romance’ of a marriage.

    True, but there’s very few of them this extreme (maybe 5% of the ~10% of homosexuals who support this argument, and with homo. pop. at 2% of the population that’s what, about 2100 at most scattered across the country. Bugger ’em, the numbers are too small to worry about. And most of them have already flown off to Holland to be pronounced ‘pitcher and catcher’ in some bogus foreign caricature of marriage.

    So who cares?

    To my mind it’s about defanging the left on this issue.

  21. JamesK

    It’s funny how your spelling deteriorates whenever you don’t have an argument, James.

    Is there a non-crapological argument to counter a crapologist sprouting crapology?

    There’s certainly an argument against legigitimising a craplologist by engaging said crapologist in discussions of his crapology.

    Please stop polluting threads Jarrad

  22. JamesK

    To my mind it’s about defanging the left on this issue

    Yes Mark but that means defending marriage as understood for 6000 years.

    It means making the argument.

    I’m astonished the shallowness of the ‘debate’ (for wont of a better word) thus far in the public square.

    People who say ‘we have bigger fish to fry right now’ and ‘it’s not a pressing issue’ are helping the leftists.

  23. JamesK

    The love that dare not speak its name.

    woof woof

  24. Jarrah

    Answer one simple question, James: why does marriage need government protection?

  25. John Mc

    The love that dare not speak its name.

    Satan’s Alley!!

  26. JamesK

    Answer one simple question, James: why does marriage need government protection?

    It already has.

    All countries in the civilised world have a version of the same thing.

    You explain why they shouldn’t.

  27. Mk50 of Brisbane

    James, I think the biggest win for us was the Marriage Act. That’s what these idiots are taking aim at IMHO.

    I have argued on many fora and the left actually don’t care about the argument because it is not about that to many of them. The debate on the value of marriage is long won, they don’t contest it at all (they know they have no leg to stand on): they just want to undermine it. They want to wreck the marriage act and undermine the institution. It’s pure Gramsci.

    I think we are talking on this from different views, but from the same root, and with the same purpose. You are talking strategically I think. I am talking tactically.

  28. Jarrah

    “You explain why they shouldn’t.”

    I did. You called it “carpology”.

    Now answer the question, please.

  29. JC

    Now answer the question, please.

    No don’t. Jazzabelle never answers questions left for him. Don’t think of it until he does first.

  30. Gab

    No, Jarrah asked first and James didn’t answer, so really, James should answer before Jarrah.
    Fair’s fair.

  31. JC

    Gab

    I’ve asked jazzabelle numerous questions and I think there was one higher up the thread which he never answered, so it’s hypocritical of Mr. Jazzabelle Sanctimony to be asking anyone any questions and really audacious to be demanding answers. What a hypocrite.

  32. Jarrah

    “James should answer before Jarrah.”

    Except I already explained my argument. He hasn’t explained his.

    If he doesn’t want to, maybe someone else who believes government should ‘protect’ marriage can answer.

  33. JamesK

    Except I already explained my argument. He hasn’t explained his.

    Actually I have and you haven’t.

    Moreover I don’t even know what it is you are trying to argue, Jarrah.

    Nobody does.

    ‘Da Question:

    ‘ Answer one simple question, James: why does marriage need government protection?

    So Jarrah wants a rationale of 6000 years of the history of marriage and that’s supposedly a”simple” question.

    You’re a a-hole Jarrah.

    I gave an argument further up the thread as to the obstacles ssm proponents and pseudolibertarian/no legal marriage proponents need to overcome which already answers your “simple’ question, Jarrah.

    Jarrah, you want the legal purge of this institution from the statute books as far as I can guess but I’m not sure cos you talk in gobbledygook under the misapprehension it’s intellectual.

    Actually your comments here are meaningless assine drivel.

    In other words the usual standard from you.

    Argue against the status quo for millenia or stfu with your utterly inane thread derailing ccomments.

  34. .

    pseudolibertarian/no legal marriage proponents

    Fuck off.

  35. Jarrah

    “6000 years”

    Government involvement in marriage is much, much less than that, you ignoramus.

    And I’m not asking for any rationale for the social institution itself. I’m asking what possible harm could befall it if, for example, the Marriage Act was abolished.

  36. dover_beach

    The government merely accepting the standard definition of marriage doesn’t appear to me to constitute ‘protection’.

  37. JamesK

    I’m asking what possible harm could befall it if, for example, the Marriage Act was abolished

    If that was what you were asking why didn’t you ask that plain english question earlier?

    I have already answered your breathtakingly silly question earlier in the thread as I indicated in the previous comment

    Moreover marriage is incredibly popular so the government would not be allowed to rescind it.

    This is not a monofaith society so marriage would effectibely become meaningless.

    Why would a pagan marriage be recognised by the baha’i for instance?

    How would two atheists marry and what would be the point if society didn’t recognise it?

    Why could Florida court recognise a muslim wife originally from Sydney if her ‘husband’ dies intestate in an auto accident 6 months aftewr settling there?

    You are painfully dense/stupid Jarrah.

    I don’t want to waste any more time dealing with your inane drivel

  38. This “argument” could have equally been made against
    (1) equal rights for Jews
    (2) abolishing slavery
    (3) equal rights for women
    (4) giving workers the vote
    etc.

  39. Sinclair Davidson

    Lorenzo – you were doing so well until ‘giving workers the vote’ … 🙂

  40. dover_beach

    Except that the current situation of gay men and women is unlike that of Jews, slaves, women, or workers in each of those historical situations.

  41. Peter Patton

    Lorenzo

    I know quite a few gay couples, and I can assure you that none of them thinks they are living in slavery or ineligible to vote!

    db

    The government merely accepting the standard definition of marriage doesn’t appear to me to constitute ‘protection’.

    This is an absurd statement, especially on the history of marriage in the western world. The Roman state was always tinkering with the definitions/requirements of marriage, which the christians seamlessly adopted.

  42. dover_beach

    This is an absurd statement, especially on the history of marriage in the western world. The Roman state was always tinkering with the definitions/requirements of marriage, which the christians seamlessly adopted.

    Not at all, PP. The fact that states might have ‘tinkered’ in the past with the definition of marriage is neither here nor there since marriage historically, particularly in the West, has enjoyed certain recognizable features, notably that it is a union of man and woman.

  43. Abu Chowdah

    For a minute there I thought this was yet another tedious Marmite thread.

  44. Pingback: Peter Saunders on gay marriage II at Catallaxy Files

  45. Pingback: Skepticlawyer » None so blind

Comments are closed.