Stream: When Marriage Can Be Anything, Marriage Can Be Anything. It’s a good bet you haven’t heard of objectum-sexuals before. Though you might have seen “self marriage.”
It is only irrational animus, bigotry, and hatred that causes some to deny that human beings and fairground rides cannot marry. Love is love, and sometimes love extends to the soaring tracks, twisting hairpin curves, and thrilling loop-de-loops of roller coasters.
Yes. Two women have married, not each other, which would not be unusual these days, but each has married a roller coaster. Not the same roller coaster, of course; that would be absurd; different roller coasters.
One lady, a Miss Wolfe, 33, church organist, fell in love with the roller coaster in Knoebels Amusement Park, Pennsylvania. According to one report, “Although she faces discrimination from employers, most of her family and friends have been supportive. ‘I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it,’ she said. ‘It’s a part of who I am.'”
Don’t scoff. No one chooses to be an objectum-sexual; it is something which is forced upon one. What’s that? What’s an objectum-sexual? As defined by the second wedded lady, Linda, 56, who tied her knot to the backside of a roller coaster, an objectum-sexual is a person who “has romantic feelings for inanimate objects.”
Psychology Today reports many are objectum-sexuals, folks who view their objects of love as “equal” partners. Who isn’t for Equality? Reports are coming in from the across the globe of objectum-sexuals marrying smart phones, steam engines, video game characters, rocks, trees, dolls, electronic devices, radios, pillows, cars, and, yes, the Eiffel Tower.
Animus, bigotry, and hatred not only motivates people to deny the rights of objectum-sexuals, but also to disparage the needs and desires of self-sexuals. Self-sexuals are people who love best themselves, making it natural that the objects of their matrimonial instincts are, well, themselves.
No less conservative an organ than Good Housekeeping reports that “Self-marriage is a small but growing movement, with consultants and self-wedding planners popping up across the world.”
One such person is Brooklynite Erika Anderson who recently married herself. “It wasn’t an easy decision,” she said. “I had cold feet for 35 years. But then I decided it was time to settle down. To get myself a whole damn apartment. To celebrate birthday #36 by wearing an engagement ring and saying: YES TO ME. I even made a registry, because this is America.”
There is even, because this is America, a website, I Married Me, which advises readers to “Choose love.” Love is, after all, love. The site provides the unofficial motto for the self-marriage movement, “To honor myself is to understand and acknowledge that I am worthy”. Anybody can marry themselves, even folks who are already married to others, or to objects.
“It’s not a legal process — you won’t get any tax breaks for marrying yourself. It’s more a ‘rebuke’ of tradition, says Rebecca Traister, author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation.”
Click here to join the nuptial fun!
The heart wants what the heart wants.
Given the choice, a fair number of men would marry their TV remotes. Maybe this explains the feelings I’ve had for the past 30 years form my Sig P220?
It reminds me of Arsenic and Old Lace.
As long as “Teddy” wasn’t too loud, no harm no foul.
The family tried to hide it. Even though they were mostly
unsuccessful, it certainly wasn’t anything the family celebrated.
In today’s society, Carey Grant would find himself in Happy Dale
or imprisoned for failing to recognize Teddy objectum-sexual desires
for his bugle. (And the ladies really did love their gentleman guests.)
Someone marrying an inanimate object, will at some point, get disappointed — the thing will break down or become obsolete. Then what — will another love interest become a focus — would this give rise to polygamy or divorce & remarriage? Or is annulment automatic (which would suggest the initial “marriage” wasn’t real to begin with, even under the absurd scenario)?
Upon marriage with the implicit legal requirement for spousal support did coaster maintenance shift from the amusement park owner/operator to the spouse? Could the State intervene on behalf of an indigent object that is the object of abuse or spousal neglect — for example, could the state argue at some point that the the roller coaster’s spouse has been negligent based on poor upkeep, then on behalf of the coaster file for divorce & alimony (for maintenance)? Of course, the spouse might counter-sue on the grounds of infidelity & demand damages based on how many others the thing “rode.” One could go on & on…
Until/unless some state actually changes the terms of its laws regarding marriage as between people (bona fide humans), the issue isn’t marriage so much as the normalization of mental illness (one of the perverse side effects of multiculturalism), which itself encourages even more such nonsense.
This is barbaric. What have we become? Some 3rd world country that allows forced marriage. The UN needs to do something.
This is how Donald Trump became president
I wonder how many self-marriers “saved themselves” until the wedding night.
If the rollercoaster is supposed to play a supportive role in the marriage, then the case can be made that a portion of the ticket sales would legitimately belong to the spouse. However, if the rollercoaster is in need of repair, would the spouse’s health insurance cover the expenses?
cricket :: how do you think they talked themselves into such a big step
Just how does a roller coaster consent to this?
well, you know what they say about marriage – it has its ups and downs.
In this age of the preening, selfie-posting narcissist, it was only a matter of time before some of them realized there was no one out there worthy of them except for themselves.
I never heard of objectum-sexuals before, I admit, but I’m wondering how long it will be before “species reassignment surgery” appears on the scene. You know, for those lost souls who’ve decided they are really a horse or a sheep…
John B(), well that’s what I’m thinking but in this libertine age it’s so tempting to take advantage of oneself without benefit of clergy, I would think a breach of promise suit being messy even with just the one party.
I am concerned about this human-rollercoaster relationship.
Does the roller-coaster have an existing owner / operator? What does this person have to say?
Is responsible for all of the maintenance of said roller-coaster? For richer or poorer, in sickness and in health?
If the roller-coaster allows other people aboard for a ride, is this infidelity?
If someone is injured by this roller-coaster, is she liable?
I’m in favor of arranged marriages. I want to marry this forest.
Ye Olde Scribe, South Park did an episode about this years ago. Kyle gets a “Negroplasty” because he feels tall and black instead of short and jewish. Then his dad gets a dolphinoplasty…
Sadly, the producers views have “evolved” since making this episode.