Like I said, it's not really a comment on marriage at all; it is a comment about self-esteem that uses marriage as a backdrop. It wouldn't be much of of a comment without that contrast.
How would that even work? What she did was mention marriage. How would she mention marriage without mentioning marriage? And what's wrong with using marriage as a backdrop for commentary? Is marriage some sacrosanct concept that is to be revered and never scrutinized? Heck, the most reverential thing I can think of - god - is not above irreverence.
The self affirmation is the important thing. That does not need marriage. Even in a ceremony. The whole point is I am good as I am regardless of whether I am joined with someone. Trying to pretend I am joining with myself does not add anything to it yet hints that perhaps I am not quite certain after all.
I really really wanted to marry myself But I turned myself down over something stupid I couldn't decide where to go for the honeymoon I also caught myself cheating on myself with my girlfriend But I forgave myself because I have done the same thing myself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, says you. But you're saying that from your armchair. It's easy to judge from a distance - and hypothetically. It's kind of like watching a video of someone being ambushed by a bear and saying 'That fool. Here's what I would have done."
I did finish up marrying myself and went to both places for my honeymoon But now living with myself in a married commitment I sometimes am finding I need some time away from myself Just a little MY time However when I tried it after I was married for a few months I found it very hard Myself stuck to myself closer than my shadow and a lot more solid And talk about the fights about what I want to watch on TV At least I am a good cook and always like what I feed myself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
anecdotes: 1) I worked with a 74 yr old well driller who hadn't married until well into his 50's. When I asked him why so late, he said: "My right hand was always good enough for me." Does that count? did he divorce his self or commit polygamy? 2) My son had a friend whose daughter married her dildo. She dressed "him" up in a little tuxedo. ...etc...(pity i missed that party). Does that count?
When the dust settles on that thought, it still seems more eccentric than depressing when compared to marrying oneself IMO -- i.e not so lonely.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, that was definitely mere co-habitation. 2) My son had a friend whose daughter married her dildo. She dressed "him" up in a little tuxedo. ...etc...(pity i missed that party). Does that count?[/QUOTE] OK, that might be just a little demeaning. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1/ I would think was a de facto marriage 2/ Since the dildo is independent of her that would be closer to wedding She seems to be someone who has issues of wanting to control those close to her Forget about going to the wedding I would not have minded going to the dildo bucks party No need to get the dildo drunk Slip out his battery to make him flacid Then the rest of us have the pick of the strippers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
YOU are judging at least as much as I am. Everything I said is valid. It IS STUPID. It is not marriage. You cannot marry yourself. Marriage is joining with another. That is what it is. I haven't called them fools. It definitely freaks me out that a man holding a loaded rifle 1 inch from a lake simply stands still when he sees a bear charging him. He had time to raise his rifle & fire it or run into the lake. I know I could not just stand there. I guess he couldn't do otherwise but I cannot understand why & I must hold him 50% responsible. I don't judge people harshly. I understand much better than most that people can do only what they can do. But I call it as it is. I certainly have no problem with a self affirmation ceremony but marrying oneself might as well be marrying Donald Duck. <>
OK, that might be just a little demeaning. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image![/QUOTE] for whom?
So, we need an acronym letter addition to LGBT so that no one is left out. Some Hermaphodites are no doubt sufficiently functional (both sexes) to allow self impregnation, but adding an H is problematic because the acronym could be easily mistaken for Heterosexual. But such an individual would obviously be a Sologamist as well. Being able to marry themselves would therefore provide them with tax breaks and other social benefits. And don't forget that if two such individuals marry each other, they should in principle be eligible for double social benefits equivalent to those of two married heterosexual couples. It gets complicated fast, and I've already lost count of how many gender specific bathrooms will be required, and this doesn't even consider the idea that all of those will in addition be able to accomodate handicapped persons of all such genders. I guess a common ramp to all of them would take care of most of the access issues. A full time staff will be required to clean and restock the facilities. If a Sologamist is ordained a minister, can he or she marry themselves to themselves? I don't thing most religions even considered such an eventuality. So, don't even bother asking Kim Davis what she thinks is right. She'd only say: Go f*** yourself, and that isn't very helpful.
I think the idea of self-marriage isn't a comment on the significance of the spiritual / religious institution that is otherwise between two people, but rather the tax and legal aspects of it. For example, a spouse can inherit their partner's assets without inheritance tax, in the UK at least. This is nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage but everything to do with the legal and tax benefits of being married. Married couples get tax allowances as well. What is the difference, say, between a couple who marry and have no children, and, say, two brothers who live together. Why (and this is a question from playing Devil's advocate) should one have tax breaks and the others not? Why should one be able to leave their spouse everything in their estate with no tax payable, and the other not? From an examination of the tax and legal ramifications of being married, the idea of marrying one's self is not that far fetched an idea - at least as a means of making a point of the apparent absurdity of some tax and legal matters.
I could see how the sex toy would be demeaned The toy unfortunately does not have a voice in the union Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
