UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Spiffier]

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

Interesting. And what of the others? Jewish marriage in Israel, Muslim marriage in the Muslim world, Buddhist marriage in Thailand, or the mandatory secular marriage in France? What is their telos?

I don't know, we're talking about the UK, whose very democracy comes from fanatical Protestantism.

[Olerand]

Interesting. And what of the others? Jewish marriage in Israel, Muslim marriage in the Muslim world, Buddhist marriage in Thailand, or the mandatory secular marriage in France? What is their telos?

I don't know, we're talking about the UK, whose very democracy comes from fanatical Protestantism.

I associate the beginning of British "democracy" with the Magna Carta, which arose out of noble privilege and contestation of the authority of the crown. Are you referencing the events of the 16th century in England?

[Souseiseki]

Interesting. And what of the others? Jewish marriage in Israel, Muslim marriage in the Muslim world, Buddhist marriage in Thailand, or the mandatory secular marriage in France? What is their telos?

I don't know, we're talking about the UK, whose very democracy comes from fanatical Protestantism.

yeah tbh we've been trying to get rid of a lot of the old foundations of our democracy because they were bad

i hope you're not catholic

[Spiffier]

I don't know, we're talking about the UK, whose very democracy comes from fanatical Protestantism.

I associate the beginning of British "democracy" with the Magna Carta, which arose out of noble privilege and contestation of the authority of the crown. Are you referencing the events of the 16th century in England?

No, I'm referencing the events of 17th Century.

[Spiffier]

I don't know, we're talking about the UK, whose very democracy comes from fanatical Protestantism.

yeah tbh we've been trying to get rid of a lot of the old foundations of our democracy because they were bad

i hope you're not catholic

Orthodox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U

[Mad hatters in jeans]

David Cameron defends same-sex marriage against Leadsom's statements.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/08/david-cameron-defends-equal-marriage-against-criticism-from-andrea-leadsom/

Kinda weird to pick out what he says about gay marriage while he's at a NATO meeting.

I know that's what the website quoted is focused around but the disconnect is still there.

Also, plans for Leadsomreich revealed: https://twitter.com/ben_hart/status/751117842079215616

To summarise: an end to positive discrimination, triggering of Article 50 in September, the repeal of the Human Rights Act, more grammar schools, a 'war on political correctness' and a focus on winning back UKIP voters.

You know how you all think New Labour were basically just Tories? They really weren't. They were progressive and forward-looking. This shit literally undoes the work the New Labour government did, so I'm pretty fucking miffed. The sort of society Leadsom is proposing would have been the one we would be living in if Hague won in 2001 or Howard in 2005 or even John fucking Major in 1997.

I'm excited!

EDIT: What is positive discrimination? Is that like American affirmative action?

Yes.

[Olerand]

I associate the beginning of British "democracy" with the Magna Carta, which arose out of noble privilege and contestation of the authority of the crown. Are you referencing the events of the 16th century in England?

No, I'm referencing the vents of 17th Century.

Ah, yes, the English Civil War and the Commonwealth were in the 17th century. My knowledge of British historical dates is weak. Do the English see their democracy beginning with the parliamentary revolt and the Commonwealth?

[Spiffier]

No, I'm referencing the vents of 17th Century.

Ah, yes, the English Civil War and the Commonwealth were in the 17th century. My knowledge of British historical dates is weak. Do the English see their democracy beginning with the parliamentary revolt and the Commonwealth?

Yes, but cemented by the Glorious Revolution.

The Magna Carta itself had zero to do with democracy, but it did serve greatly to as a meme in later times.

[Gauthier]

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/751521657215393792

Waiting for this bullshit.
Wasn't expecting it to be from Leadsom.

She looks more like the gene splicing of Maggie Thatcher and Aunt May than a mother.

[Risottia]

The telos of marriage!
What is that, in your opinion, exactly?

Anyway, it does not affect British heterosexual couples marrying in a church in any way, shape, or form.

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

Exactly, how are observant Christian couples, married according to their preference, affected by the presence of other couples married according to their own preference? Is it the effects of unChristian gay rays?

[Spiffier]

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

Exactly, how are observant Christian couples, married according to their preference, affected by the presence of other couples married according to their own preference? Is it the effects of unChristian gay rays?

It changes the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage. It's like if there is a certification given for everyone who does something, and then that certification is broadened to be given to people who do something that is quite different, obviously it changes the nature of what that certification means.

[Vassenor]

Exactly, how are observant Christian couples, married according to their preference, affected by the presence of other couples married according to their own preference? Is it the effects of unChristian gay rays?

It changes the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage. It's like if there is a certification given for everyone who does something, and then that certification is broadened to be given to people who do something that is quite different, obviously it changes the nature of what that certification means.

Fun fact: "Traditional marriage" as we know it has only existed for the last two centuries or so.

And I'm loving the way you seem to think people from other religions shouldn't be able to get married in their own traditions.

[Risottia]

Exactly, how are observant Christian couples, married according to their preference, affected by the presence of other couples married according to their own preference? Is it the effects of unChristian gay rays?

It changes the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage. It's like if there is a certification given for everyone who does something, and then that certification is broadened to be given to people who do something that is quite different, obviously it changes the nature of what that certification means.

The fundamental nature of it would be creating a community whose members share time, work, resources and wealth (matrimonium, patrimonium) for the mutual benefit out of mutual love.

I wonder why would anyone need to force his favourite religious meaning on someone else to continue believing in his own religious stuff. Do you need people around you to think the same as you do in order to keep your own faith?

[Spiffier]

It changes the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage. It's like if there is a certification given for everyone who does something, and then that certification is broadened to be given to people who do something that is quite different, obviously it changes the nature of what that certification means.

Fun fact: "Traditional marriage" as we know it has only existed for the last two centuries or so.

And I'm loving the way you seem to think people from other religions shouldn't be able to get married in their own traditions.

The concept I'm talking about is a lot older than two centuries.

[Vassenor]

So how does same-sex marriage undermine "traditional" marriage that non-Christian religious marriages don't?

[Spiffier]

It changes the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage. It's like if there is a certification given for everyone who does something, and then that certification is broadened to be given to people who do something that is quite different, obviously it changes the nature of what that certification means.

The fundamental nature of it would be creating a community whose members share time, work, resources and wealth (matrimonium, patrimonium) for the mutual benefit out of mutual love.

And what is the etymology of "matrimonium"?

I wonder why would anyone need to force his favourite religious meaning on someone else to continue believing in his own religious stuff. Do you need people around you to think the same as you do in order to keep your own faith?

I think changing the definition of marriage is a pretty big thing and impacts everyone who makes use of the institution, since it changes the nature of the institution. I don't really want to argue about the validity of gay marriage per se here, because that would be a threadjack. The only pertinent issue is whether or not Leadsom had any basis for saying gay marriage negatively impacts Christians. We can say it does impact Christians, since it redefines the nature of the institution of marriage, which Christians are want to utilize; whether or not the impact is negative would of course depend on values.

[Vassenor]

I'm just going to leave this here.

And this one.

[Spiffier]

So how does same-sex marriage undermine "traditional" marriage that non-Christian religious marriages don't?

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

[Souseiseki]

*the desecrated corpse of henry viii rises from its grave and smashes the definition of traditional marriage once more, the bastard*

[Vassenor]

So how does same-sex marriage undermine "traditional" marriage that non-Christian religious marriages don't?

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

That doesn't actually answer my question. What about the religions that permit polyamorous marriage?

[Spiffier]

That doesn't actually answer my question. What about the religions that permit polyamorous marriage?

I don't think polygamy is legal in the UK, nor do I think Leadsom wouldn't object to it.

[Spiffier]

*the desecrated corpse of henry viii rises from its grave and smashes the definition of traditional marriage once more, the bastard*

His problem was more trying to order his proclivities according to it.

[Vassenor]

That doesn't actually answer my question. What about the religions that permit polyamorous marriage?

I don't think polygamy is legal in the UK, nor do I think Leadsom wouldn't object to it.

So how does SSM undermine "traditional" marriage more than polyamorus marriage?

[Philjia]

So how does same-sex marriage undermine "traditional" marriage that non-Christian religious marriages don't?

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

You know who else is allowed to get married? Straight people who don't love each other.

[Imperializt Russia]

because they were centre rightists standing against a leftist, not because they were women lol

That's fair enough, but does it justify the misogynistic abuse and bullying they received? Why did they face that rather than civil criticism of their platform and why is it justifiable?

Of course it does not.

They didn't receive civil criticism on twitter, because it's fucking twitter.
There was plenty of civil criticism of their platform. Twitter trolls are loud and steal headlines.

David Cameron defends same-sex marriage against Leadsom's statements.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/08/david-cameron-defends-equal-marriage-against-criticism-from-andrea-leadsom/

Leadsom's objections to same-sex marriage are fairly innocuous, they're basically just a conservative shibboleth. I'm surprised she's taking so much flak. She didn't even vote against gay marriage, she just abstained.

It says a lot more than you think it does.

Her objection isn't innocuous. Even Rees-Mogg, who simply said "this isn't in the faith and marriage is a faith thing" didn't go so far as to say "gay marriage is actively harmful to criticism".

David Cameron defends same-sex marriage against Leadsom's statements.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/08/david-cameron-defends-equal-marriage-against-criticism-from-andrea-leadsom/

Kinda weird to pick out what he says about gay marriage while he's at a NATO meeting.

I know that's what the website quoted is focused around but the disconnect is still there.

She has made publicly unpopular comments and directly criticised an unquestionably progressive move by Cameron that he had to fight to get by parliament.
Of course he's going to respond to them.

IIRC it's just NATO exercises rather than a full summit.

So how does same-sex marriage undermine "traditional" marriage that non-Christian religious marriages don't?

The Christian conception of marriage is a microcosm of humanity, two halves united.

That statement is not invalidated by homosexual marriage, which can still be well analogised as two halves united.