I am going to step out in a moment, but just to be clear.

@Orathaic: Are you denying that this intellectual philosophy and group existed? Because I can assure you that they did and I will paste links to their exact primary sources for you to read, assuming that you will read them.

What I do see far too often from far too many people attempting to discuss politics is the automatic assumption not simply that they're correct in terms of fact, but that they're also correct in terms of morality. This sort of assumption is inherently harmful to that kind of discussion.

@"i.e. men are in positions of power historically because men are physically stronger on average, meaning they took on the roles of fighter, hunter, etc., which evolved into the concepts of Chiefs, Kings, and so forth"

Men are in power because patriarchy. But lets look at the two closest living animal relatives to humans. The bonobos and the Chimpanzee. One is a patriarchal society where males rule, the other is matriarchal where females rule.

There are a variety of differences between these two species, but both are more closely related to each other than they are to us. So i think it is highly useful to understand the social structures they exist in, rather than refer to the 'nature of man'.

I will quote some wikipedia here: "The common chimpanzee has an omnivorous diet, a troop hunting culture based on beta males led by an alpha male, and highly complex social relationships. The bonobo, on the other hand, has a mostly frugivorous diet and an egalitarian, nonviolent, matriarchal, sexually receptive behaviour. Bonobos frequently have sex, sometimes to help prevent and resolve conflicts. Different groups of chimpanzees also have different cultural behaviour with preferences for types of tools."

These are both what i would consider 'successful strategies' - Human culture tends to be more complex, as we use symbolic language. But when it comes to simple things like how much bigger and stronger males are than females. It does not make sense to simply assume size differences lead to males being in charge.

It is entirely possible for males being in charge to lead to size differences, based on sexual selection. (ie not natural selection)

Anyway, male adult Chimps are about 52kg on average, while females are 38kg (36% larger)

For Bonobos, this is 39kg for adult males, and 31kg for adult females. (25% larger)

Humans are 86kg to 74kg on average, (males only 16% larger).

So the evidence seems to point that being larger doesn't make your culture leave the males in charge. (though modern availability of food in human societies has probably had a big impact on these kinds of figures.)

There are types of animals where there is huge sex differences, (gorrillas are 83% larger males) And there are animals where the males and female are almost exactly the same weight. Humans are somewhere in between.

I don't know what conclusions you draw from this.

"Rather than dismiss the term as an invention, perhaps we could come up with a more accurate description of the same thing?"

I'd like to know what you mean by Cultural Marxist first. Before i attempt to describe the same thing. Because, as i've said, all the explainations i've heard sound like lunatic fringe conspiracy theories.

"@Are you denying that this intellectual philosophy and group existed? Because I can assure you that they did and I will paste links to their exact primary sources for you to read, assuming that you will read them."

No, i am not denying they existed. I am denying that the descriptions of them, which i've heard in the past, are remotely sensible. I am claiming that they are a strawman created by the right to discredit the intellectual work done by the left over the past 50 years, from the civil rights movement to the LGBT movement. (Even if politicians like Hillary Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting something as obvious as marriage equality - i've never claimed she represents this group)

Let me respond with a question: Do you belief that this is an accurate description of cultural marxism? "Many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the twentieth century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development."

"something as obvious as marriage equality"
Would you look at that? My point is being served on a silver platter.

Interesting stuff orath. I need to spend some time looking into that. I wasn't exactly drawing conclusions, but simply putting on a pretty standard view on *why* there is a "patriarchy" such as it is.

@Chaqa, 'why' is that the current cultural norms have succeeded. They have managed to perpetuate themselves.

I suspect that tool use itself would reduce the advantages gained from being bigger, so maybe that contributes to the smaller differences in sizes between human males and females... I don't know.

@TrPrado, i'm not assuming that my morality is right. I'm saying that marriage equality is obvious from the perspective of my morality. And i will go to great lenghts to defend my moral stances - but they come down to,

1) Suffering is bad
2) You should not cause me to suffer
3) You should not cause others to suffer (derived with empathy in mind)

Anyway, that may seem trite, but i'm merely stating that it is obvious to some. Yet political leaders had to be forced into accepting it. Clinton's position on gay rights has been very slow to come to where it is today. That being due to the slow cultural shift in accepting it.

And ND/Teacon, before you ask, yes i believe there has been a cultural shift, which was intentional, and which advocates for things like equality, which i support. I believe this can be traced to the French revolutionary idea of liberty, egality, fraternity. Or by way of the American declaration of independence "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (although ' that all men are created equal & independent' does seem to fail to mention women, the french 'fraternity' does likewise... so... )

@orathaic

most anti-gay marriage people want the government OUT of marriage, but because RIGHT NOW it is a part of government, then it's right to allow gay marriage

however, if this were a purely Christian ideal, then there would be no right to infringe upon religious rights. Many churches would change, but some churches wouldn't and that would be their religious right.

The way I see it, marriage in the "traditional" (religious) sense is separate from marriage in the "modern" (official) sense. Two men could be married (governmentally) but not be married (religiously) by various churches.

i dunno. Organized religion is dumb either way so I don't particularly care.

Even as an atheist I can understand that it's not such a simple issue.

We still need to secularlize the government, but the fact that the Federal government put an OVERRIDE on State governments, is going to put a stunt on this, as now marriage is inexorably intertwined with government.

The oldest reasons for marriage in terms of the state were for the producing of babies... and that's not a problem at all the USA has right now

@chaqa

the higher conjoined tax brackets from marriage is a slight detriment, but this is counteracted by "child production" tax benefits. Other transfer of property and inheritance benefits also apply...

so there are some reasons why marriage is legally beneficial.

There was a time that the Catholic Church recognised same sex unions. I believe we have church records of this 'tradition' - but i think it is fair to distinguish between religious 'marriage', and civil partnership - with all the tax incentives and other state benefits (like hospital visitation rights) there-in.

There is also a reason to object to the term 'civil partnership' if you believe that the state should treat all citizens equally. And that again, can be derived from the French revolution/American declaration of independence. (ie not marx.)

1. I'm not sure what time period THAT was... but I know homosexuality did occur, but to the best of my knowledge I don't think they've ever done a marriage... if you could link a source that'd be an interesting read

2. The French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence are NOT interchangeable, and our Constitution expressly disallows infringing upon religious liberties

the main problem, is that these religious and legal acts are being tied together. I say we have 2 completely distinct ceremonies: one marriage for religious purposes, but all state purposes via a civil union - for straight people/gay people/occasional rabbits

*The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

doesn't even mention religion, except secularization, so it's not a great comparison to today's social structure

@ND/Teacon: i did some reading/research, as suggested - here is a nice article that i'm sure you will disagree with: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

or for the tl;dr check out the 4th and 5th definitions here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural%20marxism

Rational wiki is a liberal propaganda site.

@ Leon : Please therefore give your own definition of "cultural marxism"

@Leon, three quick things.
1, if you don't like rationalwiki, i also linked urbandictionary.com
2, attacking the source rather than the message is an adhomine, so you're being rather lazy.
3, if you have a preferred definition Jamie's point stands.

Yes, urban dictionary is a very scholarly resource.

"There was a time that the Catholic Church recognised same sex unions."

Source?

@KC - my source would be, 'oh i heard it somewhere' but google also shows this: http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm

Though i've never heard this particular story before.

Also, quick note, saying a source is propanda when it's being used to slight something as a conspiracy theory doesn't sound like a fallacy to me.

@TrPrado, my source confirms my earlier assessment. It being propaganda doesn't change that.

To repeat, when i hear someone talking about 'cultural marxism' as if it is real, it sounds to me like a lunatic conspiracy theory.

I'm not making claims about anything other than what it sounds like to me. The evidence i have shown proves that other people also believe this - if it is false propaganda then i am wrong to believe it. But that possibility doesn't change what i have said here.

I am not going to attempt to convince you of this 'propaganda'.

Do you believe the idea of liberal indoctrination is also simply a "lunatic conspiracy theory."

KC, i did some more reading, and i have no choice but to conclude that both Boswell and his detractors have political reasons for their interpretation of the 'facts' of this history.

As such i should remain true to my skepticism and remain agnostic on the matter, to quote wikipedia: "After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships were increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the Church or the state. Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church. Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. However, the historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church[citation needed], and his scholarship critiqued as being of dubious quality by theologian Robin Darling Young"

I have no idea which is true, but wikipedia doesn't seem to know either.