Yes, it’s true. You can’t make this crap up. Do you see what happens when marriage becomes a social convention? This is just LOL: “The Fargo-based yoga teacher also takes herself on dates to treat herself and “to invest in this relationship”. Come on, do you kiss yourself in the mirror too? Idiots.
Subscribe
Like a go/stop sign, God's grace helps guide us to follow the right path because He cares about our safety. As a Walking Christian, our mission is to study these signs and obey them to the best of our ability in everyday life.
5 Responses to Egotistic Woman Marries Herself
Robert June 2, 2012
Do you see what happens when marriage becomes a social convention?
This isn’t a result of that. From what it looks like, her friend gave her the idea to “marry herself” in a metaphorical sense (like how Catholic priests sometimes say they’re married to the Church), and she took it too literally. And from what I can tell she’s not legally married anyway.
Adriana June 2, 2012
Wait…what? I think she just had this little party to feel better about herself and celebrate “how far” she has come in her life. This “marriage” definitely has no official legal stamp on it.
“Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. (…) A spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
-North Dakota Statute
Chapter 14-03, Section 1 (14-03-01)
*shaking my head*
Gil Sanders June 2, 2012
Thanks for the clarification guys, but my focus was how reducing marriage to a “social convention” allows for reconstructing its definition to fit any practice. This is true regardless of whether it is currently legal or not. There are real individuals out there that practice self-marriage and they tend to make the exact same arguments that are used for SSM. Observe:
– Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor, Single
Notice several similar argumentative features: 1) Tax breaks, 2) Equal rights, 3) Freedom, 4) Sexual Preference, 5) Commitment. This is not a coincidence. Tax breaks are beneficial for anyone, not just a traditional marriage. While a case can be made for for why heterosexual couples *exclusively* deserve such tax breaks, that does not to be argued for here. Anything is permissible with this kind of reasoning, I just wish more people would see this. You either bite the bullet and embrace the conclusion or you reject the entire non-traditional package. There’s no consistent middle ground.
Robert June 2, 2012
They may be co-opting the SSM arguments, but doing so doesn’t make any sense to me. For example, does the self-marrying “John Doe” want the right to jointly file taxes with himself? Or to make medical decisions for himself in the event that he can’t make medical decisions for himself? Or to visit himself in the hospital? Marriage grants a *set* of benefits; a single individual cannot logically receive all of them, while a couple can.
What we could do is simply remove the benefits of marriage which are impossible for a single person to receive; but such benefits are often considered the most important ones by couples. All in all, maybe it’s time for the government to get out of marriage business altogether (no benefits for anyone, yay!), cause this is getting really messy.
Gil Sanders June 3, 2012
Most of it does make sense, though. Not every benefit can be provided, but such is the nature of that particular marriage. For example, even same-sex couples cannot possess every benefit from traditional marriage has because they’re inherently incapable of procreation and therefore ought not to have the rights or benefits that come along with that responsibility. It’s possible for them to have it as a result of “adoption” or the like, but that’s not the same as a child being created out of the fruit of your own relationship. The government respects your right over caring for that child and provides tax benefits that are relevant to that. So really, I don’t think your objection says much. It actually seems to beg the question because you point to such things being the most important to “couples” but of course, such relationships involve more than one person. It’s like saying that the opposite sex is most important to heterosexuals and then use that to rule out SSM. That just wouldn’t follow. To clarify, there’s a difference between legal benefits and tax benefits. My comment referred to the latter, not necessarily to the former. Tax benefits do not need to be “jointly filed” to be received. The government merely needs to give as much a tax cut they give to couples to single people.
Furthermore, I do not see what makes these legal benefits so “exclusive” to marriage. Why can I not have a friend that I trust with my life to make certain medical decisions, visit me in hospital, etc? There’s no need to attach these benefits to what we call marriage. For society today, it’s much more than just benefits and yet it is being treated as if it was just that. Really, this is about using the government as a social platform to approve of other relationships. They’re seeking acceptance and forcing their radical agenda onto everyone else, without (or while) realizing that it makes all other relationships possible as well. That’s what really bothers me about all of this and I am glad to see that you see how “messy” this is getting. I’d personally prefer it if the government did get out to marriage if it is going to be reduced to this kind nonsense.