the guardian imagines what historical figures might look like today. my personal favourite is shakespeare, reincarnated as a shoreditch hipster.
but can you imagine how’d he’d sound a loft party?
“I’m going to subvert the whole, like, narrative ideal by telling you upfront that these two, like, teenagers are going to fall in love and die, and then do it. So there’s no more hiding in the words. Stark, yeah? And then, I think I’ll hide a sonnet in their big scene together, right? It’ll be subversive, because only, you know, people who are up on sonnets will get it…..what? No, she’s thirteen—a little edgy but that’s art, man. Art.”
From this article over at Salon:
One of the most fascinating things about the same-sex marriage battle has been the evolution of the arguments against gay unions. Not long ago, gays and lesbians were not only considered unsuitable parents; they were an active danger to children, child molesters and abusers. Kids raised by same-sex couples were said to fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.
No such arguments were made in Chicago on Tuesday, where lawyers for Wisconsin and Indiana did their best to defend their states’ bans on same-sex marriage before a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Their line of attack against gay marriage was quite the opposite: Gay parents are too responsible to need marriage.
That’s right — lawyers for Indiana and Wisconsin claimed that because a “fleeting moment of passion” can produce offspring, straight people need marriage as an incentive to stay together and raise their “unintended children.” Gay people, on the other hand, have to think and plan a lot harder if they want to be parents, so marriage doesn’t concern them. In other words, because an ill-considered, alcohol-fueled romp between two straight people can lead to a baby, gays shouldn’t be able to marry.
[REELS AWAY CLUTCHING HEAD]
The complete The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes on a T-shirt.
(Wanders off to find that wish list…)