Monday 20 May 2013

Is someone else having something a legitimate reason for the meaning of you having the same thing changing?

If it’s something superficial maybe; but then who cares about superficial things? Apart from everyone. Marriage, though, is not a superficial thing. And what more can stand testimony to the meaning of marriage than people denied the right endlessly campaigning for the right to marry?

It seems to me like the sanctity of marriage might be protected more if celebrities had the right to wed revoked; the image of marriage means less when it is constantly seen as what people do after a year of going out when both people are famous. Banning famous people from getting married – only allowing them to have a legal, civil partnership is surely the best way to protect marriage and it’s sacred meaning?

But no, no-one would conceive of such a ridiculous notion. You can’t ban celebrities from getting married can you? They’re not really so different from me and you, are they? Sure, they like to dress in expensive clothes and hang about in special bars for people just like them. But away from all the window dressing they’re just human beings – we’re all just human beings. Does the 40-year marriage of my parents lose meaning because Katy ‘Price’ Jordan is on her nineteenth marriage this decade? No, because the marriage of my parents is defined by the relationship between my mother and my father.

When celebrities marry they aren’t intending to sell their divorce survival story to Hello! magazine months later; they are chasing the dream of a love that last forever. We can’t take away their rights to have the same things as us just because it has only been acceptable for people to be openly celebrities in recent decades.

At this stage you’re probably wondering what point I am trying to make. Clearly there was a point in there about how everyone has the right to marriage and you grasped that it was linked to the ongoing battle for people of the same sex to have the right to be married. But, did you get confused about what I was trying to say? Did it seem like I was saying that homosexuals were like shallow celebrities? Because I know I got confused somewhere in there..about the time I talked about special bars.

I wasn’t trying to say celebrities were the same as homosexuals – there has been a lot of mean spirited things said about homosexuals recently but that would be going too far. It was a poor allegory. And, worse, the comparison of a tier of fame to a sexuality is misguided at best, at worst as bad as the things that I was trying to mock. Go figure.  The original idea in my head was to be about the inventors of cars to say that only heterosexual people should be allowed in cars and how the value of modern cars would be devalued by homosexual people driving them as though the sexuality of the driver somehow affected the innate car-ness of a car. You can see why I changed the idea. Only should have changed it to something better and not something worse.

Just to be clear I don’t think there should have to be some modification of the word marriage to encompass people based on their sexuality. How ridiculous does it sound to start putting the word gay in front of everything when it involves gay people? Very stupid is the answer. It’s just marriage and if people getting married who have the same junk really offends you then maybe you should just accept that you’re a fucking bigot and you can’t sulk in the corner with your toy and refuse to play (because the toy is just a concept and everyone can play with it – even celebrities).


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s