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

[Spiffier]

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?

I don't think she's suggesting it does.

[Spiffier]

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

I don't really see how a gay marriage can be a microcosm of the two halves of humanity in unity. Could you explain?

[Frank Zipper]

So Andrea Leadsom is turning out to be about as honest as Michael Gove is loyal.

[Souseiseki]

So Andrea Leadsom is turning out to be about as honest as Michael Gove is loyal.

loathe as i am to cast aspersions on the overall integrity of the internal high-ranking politics of the conservative party, but it seems like...

[Imperializt Russia]

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

I don't really see how a gay marriage can be a microcosm of the two halves of humanity in unity. Could you explain?

I don't see how what you're saying makes a lot of sense or why it matters.

Marriage is a unity between two people. Two halves.

[Souseiseki]

I don't really see how a gay marriage can be a microcosm of the two halves of humanity in unity. Could you explain?

I don't see how what you're saying makes a lot of sense or why it matters.

Marriage is a unity between two people. Two halves.

but you need an inny and outy or it doesn't work

[Philjia]

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

I don't really see how a gay marriage can be a microcosm of the two halves of humanity in unity. Could you explain?

Two lovers united forms a greater whole. It doesn't matter what the church thinks anyway; marriage is civil business that religious organisations merely happen to partake in.

[Spiffier]

I don't really see how a gay marriage can be a microcosm of the two halves of humanity in unity. Could you explain?

I don't see how what you're saying makes a lot of sense or why it matters.

Marriage is a unity between two people. Two halves.

I don't see how that is a microcosm of humanity.

[Val Halla]

So Andrea Leadsom is turning out to be about as honest as Michael Gove is loyal.

Yeah but I don't think supporters will really care

[Souseiseki]

I don't see how what you're saying makes a lot of sense or why it matters.

Marriage is a unity between two people. Two halves.

I don't see how that is a microcosm of humanity.

but seriously man "one man and one woman together because they love each other" is really really new in the grand scale of humanity and we're never going to stop snarkily pointing it out every few posts

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see how what you're saying makes a lot of sense or why it matters.

Marriage is a unity between two people. Two halves.

I don't see how that is a microcosm of humanity.

I don't see why that matters.

[Spiffier]

I don't see how that is a microcosm of humanity.

but seriously man "one man and one woman together because they love each other" is really really new in the grand scale of humanity and we're never going to stop snarkily pointing it out every few posts

Yeah, not really. Marriage for love happened all the time, it's just both people had to be of the same social class.

[Souseiseki]

but seriously man "one man and one woman together because they love each other" is really really new in the grand scale of humanity and we're never going to stop snarkily pointing it out every few posts

Yeah, not really. Marriage for love happened all the time, it's just both people had to be of the same social class.

even if accept this is true without qualification that still only accounts for a very small portion of humanity's existence

[Rufford]

I don't really see how a gay marriage can be a microcosm of the two halves of humanity in unity. Could you explain?

I don't see how what you're saying makes a lot of sense or why it matters.

Marriage is a unity between two people. Two halves.

Thats true, but this really dosn't matter.

[Spiffier]

I don't see how that is a microcosm of humanity.

I don't see why that matters.

That's because your view of marriage is inverted, relative to Christianity's. Christianity sees marriage as an ongoing institution which individuals are taken into; you see marriage not as a grand continuing institution that initiates people into it, but a series of isolated arrangements that are constructed by couples.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see why that matters.

That's because your view of marriage is inverted, relative to Christianity's. Christianity sees marriage as an ongoing institution which individuals are taken into; you see marriage not as a grand continuing institution that initiates people into it, but a series of isolated arrangements that are constructed by couples.

Yeah, the logical view.

Of course it's not "isolated", as marriage conveys a wealth of legal benefits.

[Spiffier]

Yeah, not really. Marriage for love happened all the time, it's just both people had to be of the same social class.

even if accept this is true without qualification that still only accounts for a very small portion of humanity's existence

No, not at all. Marriage for love dates back to ancient times. Arranged marriages were the norm in some societies (like India), but in the West you generally chose whom you wanted to marry based on attraction, provided they weren't out of your class. Certainly there were marriages just for social advancement and diplomatic ties, but most marriages did not afford these.

[Souseiseki]

even if accept this is true without qualification that still only accounts for a very small portion of humanity's existence

No, not at all. Marriage for love dates back to ancient times. Arranged marriages were the norm in some societies (like India), but in the West you generally chose whom you wanted to marry based on attraction, provided they weren't out of your class. Certainly there were marriages just for social advancement and diplomatic ties, but most marriages did not afford these.

i feel like we're rapidly going to approach the "how long has humanity actually existed" problem because you're still in the realm of a very small portion of humanity's existence

[Spiffier]

That's because your view of marriage is inverted, relative to Christianity's. Christianity sees marriage as an ongoing institution which individuals are taken into; you see marriage not as a grand continuing institution that initiates people into it, but a series of isolated arrangements that are constructed by couples.

Yeah, the logical view.

Of course it's not "isolated", as marriage conveys a wealth of legal benefits.

I don't see how your view is any more logical, it's just a different idea of what marriage is. You see it as a purely individualistic expression instead of an expression of humanity.

It's isolated in the sense that it doesn't make you a part of anything greater, you see it as purely contractual between two persons.

[Spiffier]

No, not at all. Marriage for love dates back to ancient times. Arranged marriages were the norm in some societies (like India), but in the West you generally chose whom you wanted to marry based on attraction, provided they weren't out of your class. Certainly there were marriages just for social advancement and diplomatic ties, but most marriages did not afford these.

i feel like we're rapidly going to approach the "how long has humanity actually existed" problem because you're still in the realm of a very small portion of humanity's existence

Yeah, mating mainly out of attraction has only been around for a fraction of our existence.

[Frank Zipper]

I don't see why that matters.

That's because your view of marriage is inverted, relative to Christianity's. Christianity sees marriage as an ongoing institution which individuals are taken into; you see marriage not as a grand continuing institution that initiates people into it, but a series of isolated arrangements that are constructed by couples.

I'm struggling to understand why the rest of us are supposed to give a tinker's cuss about it?

[Souseiseki]

i feel like we're rapidly going to approach the "how long has humanity actually existed" problem because you're still in the realm of a very small portion of humanity's existence

Yeah, mating mainly out of attraction has only been around for a fraction of our existence.

no, the concept of two people making a formal and legal arrangement through a church has only been around for a fraction of our existence

[Spiffier]

That's because your view of marriage is inverted, relative to Christianity's. Christianity sees marriage as an ongoing institution which individuals are taken into; you see marriage not as a grand continuing institution that initiates people into it, but a series of isolated arrangements that are constructed by couples.

I'm struggling to understand why the rest of us are supposed to give a tinker's cuss about it?

I don't really see how that anything to do with what we're discussing, which is Leadsom's assertion that gay marriage negatively impacts Christians.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, the logical view.

Of course it's not "isolated", as marriage conveys a wealth of legal benefits.

I don't see how your view is any more logical, it's just a different idea of what marriage is. You see it as a purely individualistic expression instead of an expression of humanity.

It's isolated in the sense that it doesn't make you a part of anything greater, you see it as purely contractual between two persons.

And the state.

[Spiffier]

Yeah, mating mainly out of attraction has only been around for a fraction of our existence.

no, the concept of two people making a formal and legal arrangement through a church has only been around for a fraction of our existence

So has women's rights, what's your point?