Would you walk down the aisle with someone who doesn’t share your politics?(deseret.com)
deseret.com
Would you walk down the aisle with someone who doesn’t share your politics?
https://www.deseret.com/2023/1/24/23564290/would-you-walk-down-the-aisle-with-someone-who-doesnt-share-your-politics
10 comments
There seems to be a prevailing opinion that one can't even be friends with someone who doesn't share the same political views.
Love the "both sides" that Deseret and BYU argues.
Far Loony Left: "People should be allowed to exist as long as they don't harm others." Standard Right: "Gays should be drowned." Centrist: "See, both sides are the same."
Jared, a 'centrist', in the article and how he puts in the words to basically say "I don't like women who think too much and don't want to be treated as property."
Then the next paragraph, they understate Emily, who is basically saying "I shouldn't be murdered at a traffic stop because a cop is having a bad day and doesn't like blacks." to "She said she worries conservatives don’t believe the same things she does about respecting racial differences or social causes."
I keep wondering how big of an incel problem BYU has due to the Mormon ethology of what a family structure must be and the servitude of females to the primary male. (Not talking about polygamy as that is supposed to be gone and was actually a reason one of my forefathers was kicked from their wagon train because he didn't want to take on another wife.) But just how the man's word in the family is law. So, the women seeing this might not want to get trapped like that which basically is like dry kindling to the fire that spreads incellism.
Far Loony Left: "People should be allowed to exist as long as they don't harm others." Standard Right: "Gays should be drowned." Centrist: "See, both sides are the same."
Jared, a 'centrist', in the article and how he puts in the words to basically say "I don't like women who think too much and don't want to be treated as property."
Then the next paragraph, they understate Emily, who is basically saying "I shouldn't be murdered at a traffic stop because a cop is having a bad day and doesn't like blacks." to "She said she worries conservatives don’t believe the same things she does about respecting racial differences or social causes."
I keep wondering how big of an incel problem BYU has due to the Mormon ethology of what a family structure must be and the servitude of females to the primary male. (Not talking about polygamy as that is supposed to be gone and was actually a reason one of my forefathers was kicked from their wagon train because he didn't want to take on another wife.) But just how the man's word in the family is law. So, the women seeing this might not want to get trapped like that which basically is like dry kindling to the fire that spreads incellism.
If politics didn't prevent you from deciding that you loved the person, why not?
I wouldn't even marry anybody that didn't grow up, after the age of ten or so, in the same country as myself.
(I class those as a kind of 'mixed-marriage' - people whose background knowledge, slang and mind-sets are too different.) I don't say they will never work. I am merely saying that the factors against it working are too numerous.
I wouldn't put myself in that position again. I had too many misunderstandings with merely ways of speaking:
"I could care less about .." does not mean the same if you grew up saying "I couldn't care less about ..".
In some countries "I think so." often means "I believe this to be a fact." in some other places it means "I'm not sure about this."
When the word 'fanny' means 'behind' in one language and 'vulva' in the other language.
When the word 'rubber' means 'eraser' in one language and 'condom' in the other.
When 'socialist' is akin to 'communist' in one mind-set and 'safety-net for the underprivileged' in the other mind-set.
It just gets all too difficult for a proper meeting of the minds. 'Mixed-marriages' like that just can not last.
(I class those as a kind of 'mixed-marriage' - people whose background knowledge, slang and mind-sets are too different.) I don't say they will never work. I am merely saying that the factors against it working are too numerous.
I wouldn't put myself in that position again. I had too many misunderstandings with merely ways of speaking:
"I could care less about .." does not mean the same if you grew up saying "I couldn't care less about ..".
In some countries "I think so." often means "I believe this to be a fact." in some other places it means "I'm not sure about this."
When the word 'fanny' means 'behind' in one language and 'vulva' in the other language.
When the word 'rubber' means 'eraser' in one language and 'condom' in the other.
When 'socialist' is akin to 'communist' in one mind-set and 'safety-net for the underprivileged' in the other mind-set.
It just gets all too difficult for a proper meeting of the minds. 'Mixed-marriages' like that just can not last.
You get to build your own language in a couple, as in any partnership, all along the discussions you get to have.
It’s not about what/how you used to say/think it before that matters so much, it’s just a starting point. It’s what you get to decide what matters what now and for the future for both of you.
Even at 45yo, you’re far from a complete person with a definitive mind and personality. The amount of changes you go through on your own, let alone with a partner, is staggering.
It’s not about what/how you used to say/think it before that matters so much, it’s just a starting point. It’s what you get to decide what matters what now and for the future for both of you.
Even at 45yo, you’re far from a complete person with a definitive mind and personality. The amount of changes you go through on your own, let alone with a partner, is staggering.
If you wouldn't, you probably shouldn't walk down the aisle with anybody. It means you only love them as long as they comform to your political (and probably other) ideas.
Marrying someone, espousing someone, is among other things having/building a common perspective of the world, and of how you want to grow old in it.
If, before getting together, your political views are hard to reconcile enough, it’s highly likely your other views are such as well.
If, before getting together, your political views are hard to reconcile enough, it’s highly likely your other views are such as well.
If one is so shallow to concider political affiliations as crucial, especially in the US, where the two parties are both sucking off the corporations, bankers, and their billionaire friends, are warmongering, and are feeding their voters BS, while making every day life for the average person even shittier with neoliberal policies ever since the 70s, I wouldn't want to know what else they find crucial...
Politics is much more diverse and complex than binary, and much more serious than the play some incarnation of parties do here and there.
Your political preferences, whatever they are, process from principles (most of the time, though) and from circumstances, to which you react. So they are likely in line, somehow, with both your character and your philosophy of life.
That’s not shallow at all, only a significant enough signal.
Your political preferences, whatever they are, process from principles (most of the time, though) and from circumstances, to which you react. So they are likely in line, somehow, with both your character and your philosophy of life.
That’s not shallow at all, only a significant enough signal.
[0] https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2019/04/01/married-by-30-youre-now-i...