I've noticed this really becoming a subject of debate lately. Personally, I think it's the right of everyone to marry, regardless of how frosted their hair is or how tight and fashionable their clothing. This is especially true given how unclear it is whether or not metrosexuality is a choice. Yes, there's probably some societal influence, but some people must be born with naturally silky, swept bangs. They may be extremely thin as well and just not look good in any other style.
Of course there's always the age-old debate that marriage between a metrosexual man and woman would devalue the long-standing religious institution of marrying more traditional couples. I understand that. Perhaps the best choice in this case is to allow extremely hip, effete couples civil unions or some other sort of label with all the legal tidings of marriage. In effect, the government could step out of the "marriage" business all together, allowing each religious institution to apply the label as they see fit. That way, traditional couples could still be married at their churches or other worship building, and metrosexuals could simply receive government licenses and continue to be married at Express or H&M.
I don't know though. Thoughts?
Of course there's always the age-old debate that marriage between a metrosexual man and woman would devalue the long-standing religious institution of marrying more traditional couples. I understand that. Perhaps the best choice in this case is to allow extremely hip, effete couples civil unions or some other sort of label with all the legal tidings of marriage. In effect, the government could step out of the "marriage" business all together, allowing each religious institution to apply the label as they see fit. That way, traditional couples could still be married at their churches or other worship building, and metrosexuals could simply receive government licenses and continue to be married at Express or H&M.
I don't know though. Thoughts?
Last edited:
