"Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege"

‘There's a time for everyone if they only learn

That the twisting kaleidoscope moves us all in turn.'

When Elton John penned ‘Your Song,’ there is no hint of gender difference. No notion that a ‘him’ must find a ‘her,’ no ‘she must fall in love with him,’ no ‘girl meets boy.’ Probably because him, like many others, supports the right for two people in love to get married, regardless of gender.

The debate has circulated society for years and people seem to be under the illusion that we have become liberal, supportive and even generous in our attitude towards same-sex relationships. However, need I mention that it wasn’t until 2004 that same-sex were given the right to civil partnerships and it was still another year before a civil partnership took place in the UK. The event provoked a backlash of religious protests, with protesters swarming outside the City Halls in order to voice their opposition; not something you would find on a heterosexual wedding day.

Today, two of the London Roman Catholic Archbishops declared in a letter that will be read in 2,500 Churches this weekend that same-sex marriage was a ‘profoundly radical step’ that would reduce the significance and effectiveness of marriage. To me, that’s like saying you would reduce the effectiveness of food if you let everyone eat it; marriage should be a basic right.

Some people argue that same-sex marriages shouldn’t happen because of the increase of sexual promiscuity between same-sex couples. Others argue that same-sex relationships don’t last long enough, that the people involved aren’t committed. It is an interesting – near impossible - feat to try and measure the level of someone else’s commitment. Furthermore, if you proportionally compare the divorce rate for gay marriage with heterosexual marriage it’s considerably lower. In rational terms, the argument that same-sex couples are merely physical just isn’t true; it is based on stereotypes and presumptions.

As have many debates, it comes down to the issue of redefining. In our society, we like things to stay the same – for secure notions to remain intact and not be challenged and challenge often brings about change. However, imagine a world today where women were just domestic, where Africans were just slaves. Whilst it is going to be a long road, it’s a journey we should all support.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17329902

Price of Vanity

Apple, pear, banana, strawberry.. I'm not naming fruit but types of female body shape. Whilst they are meant to distinguish between different figures, there is a similarity that lies with all three; every descriptor concentrates on how big (or non-existent) the womans boobs and bum are.

I’m not saying that we are under any illusion that this doesn’t happen; any girl on a night out will (well, should) attempt to adhere to the ‘legs or chest’ rule, the slogan ‘my dress is not a yes’ was created by Slutwalk in an attempt to dispel the relationship between clothes and promiscuity and if you open any legitimate men's magazine there will be boobs featured somewhere. It has come to be accepted. Almost.

However, the problem lies when technology comes into play. Whilst the first boob job (believe it or not) was in the late 1800’s, implants did not play a large or important role in society until the second half of the twentieth century. Now, with the right amount of money, you can pretty much guarantee someone will sculpt your ‘perfect’ boobs.

This is all fair enough. If, for any reason, you feel the need to add an extra couple of pounds to your chest, there should be no problem. Whilst some feel that adulterating the body is wrong, if the technology is there to make someone feel more comfortable, in my opinion it should be used.

However, with the bankruptcy of Poly Implant Prothese (PIP), a French company that made implants, a new debate has been aroused. Should the NHS be made to take out dangerous or ruptured implants that were put in by private companies? I don’t think so. If you have a hip replacement done privately then side-effects and complications will be amended by the private provider: at a cost. Furthermore, whilst there is speculation that the rupture rate is alarmingly high - up to 7% in the UK - we must consider that the failure rate for metal joint replacements can be as high as 17%.

Really, we must prioritise. Whilst boob jobs satisfy vanity, other major operations satisfy the ability to carry out daily tasks. If given the choice, I know what I would rather have my money spent on. Give me an A cup anyday.