Why same sex marriage is statism

When I used to waste my time commenting on Kiwiblog I often tried to make the point that the redefinition of marriage by politicians was statism, and not the oh so compassionate expression of liberal thoughts and feelings as the sanctimonious preachers of atheism who rule on that site would proclaim it.

Of course I was shouted down in the usual cacophony of monkey noises from the hillbillies and the brain damaged and soon realised it was a waste of time trying to introduce argument that was any small degree above the intellectual pay grade of mainstream media so called journalists, the people the Kommiebloggers get their ideas from. Example, calling same sex marriage by the propaganda driven euphemism “marriage equality”.

I praised Brendan O’Neill’s words on this issue in the preceding post. He actually had a bit more to say on it later, in the above video, and more specifically about same sex marriage being an example of statism. As in the video before, Brendan articulates the argument so well.

If you’re searching for the words to tell Progressives who posture as liberals that Same Sex Marriage is statism, then please watch the video. Once again, Brendan argues the case perfectly.

Video length= 1 minute zero seconds.

5 thoughts on “Why same sex marriage is statism

  1. Agree, Red.
    I had the same problem on (chuckle) Kommieblog. I was howled down as a godwacked or a religious nutter – when I didn’t even mention my religious views on marriage, but attempted to point out that it is a very ancient social institution for the nurturing of children – the prime building block which evolved over millenia for the preservation and building up of society.
    And as for that useless a***hole Maurice Williamson and the other shallow thinking MP’s that “rule” us, their birds will come home to roost, but sadly not in this generation, but down the track two more generations.
    History shows us that whenever this social institutions collapses or are over-ridden, that society has a life span of three generations.


    • Maybe its just me Don but I believe I detect a growing desperation among Progressives as challenges to their orthodoxy become more widespread and public.

      They seem more loud and desperate these days. Almost panicky.


  2. Exactly right redbaiter, as I’ve tried to say again and again, the definition of family as far as the government is concerned is where the child and youth can be developed into adults (child, youth, family, ministry of social development), and the parent who looks after the child is called the guardian. So by saying same sex couples can adopt, at any point in time if the government isn’t happy with how you are raising your child, they come after the child, with many people ready to take care of it.


    • Yes, the natural connection between father mother and child means nothing to many progressives, and they are therefore ever ready to deprive a child of that connection whenever they think such action is necessary.


  3. Yep redbaiter exactly, civil unions and anti smacking bills were the government’s way of saying you are a guardian to the child and any time your not up to it, we are the final custodian. Ah but we’ll give you working for families if we are happy with you. Same sex marriage is scary, the more people who are same sex, the more people who are willing and ready to take over.


Comments are closed.