Given how marriage has been de-valued in the “traditional” sense, something like this doesn’t come as a surprise. Personally, I am somewhat traditional in that I believe marriage should be a union between two people who love one another (regardless of gender).
What is astonishing is that media outlets, even the notoriously homophobic Daily Mail, are still providing an extremist like Green a platform to express his criminal views.
Why oh why did the Daily Mail ask Stephen Green to comment. It’s disgusting that any press are still giving this odious capital punishment proponant any voice.
Clearly they don’t love each other in the romantic sense. Yet they are perfectly within the law to get married.
And people who do love each other can’t get married if they happen to be of the same sex.
Their marriage thus makes a political statement – highlighting how unfair the law is.
Good on them for making a mockery of marriage. Because as the marriage laws stand, they deserve to be mocked.
At what point did “I wonder what Stephen Green thinks” become a popular thought among journalists?
Tom, were they actually setting out to mock the institution of marriage? They seem more keen to promote the idea of it being a union of art and ideas than having any political overtones. The only reason its made the Pink News is that the groom is gay. They’re kinda like the poor man’s version of Gilbert & George- a p!ss poor idea that’s been trotted out plenty of times before now.
Me and my best friends thought about doing this three years ago, why? Not in the name of art, but in the fact that if we got married, we’d get full students loan and grants as we went off to University as we’d be classed independent of our parents and the only incomes we had were our saturday jobs.
We didn’t do it in the end, and here I am very overdrawn ha.
Having read the article, it sounds to me like they are marrying for a perfectly normal reason; to put a formal seal on a union of hearts and minds.
Today, marriage is romanticised beyond belief; true love forever, happily ever after, etc, etc. Of course, life isn’t a fairytale and when the handsome prince or beautiful princess turns out to be a flawed human being with irritating habits- the formost being the failure to live up to their partner’s expectations- a feeling of betrayal sets in and the marriage starts to crumble. Most couples, therefore, have to have something to fall back on if they’re going to maintain their marriage and, if they are friends with the person they wedded or they share a passionate interest in a subject, that can be their salvation.
Conversely, some people who share a passionate interest in a subject and who collaborate closely with a colleague can feel a deep, platonic love for the aforesaid colleague. Sometimes, this can be mistaken for romantic love, usually because society does not really recognise such unions. In the past, when artists worked together, they called themselves brothers and, now, it’s not suprising that a couple of artists have placed their union in the ‘lovers’ catagory. The truth is that there is no real name or place for this unity in the public conscious; it’s not brotherhood, it’s not romance and it’s rather more than simple friendship. So, what can two people who feel this passionate, compulsive, addictive, essential yet platonic love call themselves? How can they explain what they have to the world?
Well, such a couple can, as some people do, pretend that they marry for love. They can also remain ‘single’ but live and work together. Or they can (as this couple seem to have done) admit that their first love is the bright, brilliant jewel which is Art and that they are marrying a friend who carries a shard of that jewel in their soul.
She looks like a total Nora Batty(enberg)
To be 21 again. Everything is permitted at that age.
Stephen Green again? Rent a bigot for lazy and homophobic journalists
Of course, the roman cult would refuse to marry them after declaring they do not intend to consummate the marriage, grounds for annulment.
Phoenix0879, love never entered into traditional marriage until not so long ago. It was a patriarchal contract where the husband had control over the wife who was considered chattel. Some religious cults of the abrahamic brand still practice it, in particular islam, orthodox judaism and of course fundamentalist so called “christianity”.
In reality of course it is the vile Stephen Green who denigrates marriage by claiming it is a mans right to rape his wife.
They look like a right couple of twats.
@Tom S: “Clearly they don’t love each other in the romantic sense. Yet they are perfectly within the law to get married. And people who do love each other can’t get married if they happen to be of the same sex.
Their marriage thus makes a political statement – highlighting how unfair the law is.”
Well, I agree it could. And it should. But they don’t seem intent on making that statement, but instead on some vague notion of walking performance art by coordinating their outfits. I think people have more hope for the impact of their union than they do themselves.
This just totally degrades the whole point of marriage. Whether you are religious or not, marriage is supposed to actually mean something.
I want to be married for the right reasons, yet myself and my partner have to suffer the ignominy of a second-class Civil Partnership, whilst these fvckwits with nothing better to do than come up with inane ways to spend their university grants can do it on a whim. I find it obscene.
They are asking Stephen Green to comment because they want to create controversy, get attention and et cetera.
What do mean when you say ‘marriage has to mean something’?
Mean what? What if I got married/civil unioned for tax purposes? I.e. it’s a ‘proper’ relationship but the only reason why we get married/civil unioned is because we want the tax benefits.
I assume that’s also wrong in your view?
Anyway, other people’s marriage doesn’t have an impact on yours. Mind your own business. You have a certain idea of marriage, then you live by that. Don’t interfere with others.
I think that this young lady and gentleman are doing what Salvador Dali and Tracy Emyn have done – turning themselves into their own principal work of art (though Dali actually had talent). Like Stephen Green, they are publicity-seekers.
SamB: I have no problem with tax purposes, at least it is a valid reason.
This is just people sticking two fingers up at convention for the hell of it.
And I beg to differ, it DOES affect how it impacts on mine. I CANT GET MARRIED, INSTEAD I’M STUCK WITH A CP!!
So, with the greatest respect, it IS my business, you sanctimonious little turd.
“Gay and straight students marry in the name of art”
There are less worthwhile reasons to get married…for sex for example …or for money… or simply because your parents arranged it and you don’t want to upset their precious plans.
This couple chose to marry for their own valid reasons and I think they make a wonderful couple.
Love that bug necklace!
How has this couple getting married meant that you can’t get married and have to stick to civil partnerships?
WTF does one have to do with the other?
SamB: Because it just things like this just give twats like Stephen Green ammunition. It devalues the entire process. If people demonstrate they respect the reasons for it, there is a better chance the rest of us might get to have it. Students that just do it as a stunt are simply going to push that opportunity further away.
@ Spanner: I really don’t think a couple of perhaps rather posey students are really going to damage the institution of marriage or seriously set back the campaign for equalising marriage at all, I think you’re imagining this stunt will have a lot more influence than it will.
The currrent divorce statistics surely do more to undermine the institution of marriage, but curiously you don’t seem to hear Green ranting about that (or maybe it’s just that I don’t read the Mail).
Rehan: it may not set it back that much, but it sure as hell doesn’t help matters.
Well maybe not, Spanner, but I think anyone rational who looked at the “denigration” of “traditional” marriage would be better to fix on the shallow narcissistic materialism of the Katie Prices of this world – who get infinitely greater media coverage – and their wedding/s, or the fact that the Labour leader has had a second child without bothering to get married.