Ok, defenders of gay marriage: is this what you wanted? On what legal grounds could this man's request be denied?

No, it's not what I wanted, but I also don't really care.

I'm sorry to say that I went to law school with that guy. He's been on a long, downward spiral.

Sad wrote:

I'm sorry to say that I went to law school with that guy. He's been on a long, downward spiral.

For reals?

Machines, animals, children and whatever else you want to put cannot consent. Two adults can consent to a marriage license.

Until AI develops to the point where machines can consent, this is just silly.

Side note: who cares who the crazies marry? Get rid of marriage tax breaks and let nutballs marry their toaster. First romantic candle light bath as a couple will fix the situation

local lib wrote:

No, it's not what I wanted, but I also don't really care.

All actions have repercussions. In this case, it might include getting uncle wiggly stuck in the thumb drive. Just a quick question: were these insane people always present, but just now more visible because of social media/internet?

I don't really care either, but gay marriage requires consenting adults, so I'm not particularly worried about this or some idiot that wants to marry their pet, or car, or whatever.

thejeff wrote:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/man_who_married_his_computer_s.html#incart_river_home

Man seeking to marry his computer sues Alabama over gay marriage

In the filing, Sevier claimed he "married an object in New Mexico with female like features" and asked Green to either recognize the union or issue him a new marriage license. "Defendant Green issues marriage licenses to individuals who self-identify as homosexual, but he refuses to issue marriage licenses to zoophiles, machinists, and polygamists license on a basis that can only be described as procedurally arbitrary," the complaint states.

On what grounds could this man's request legally be denied?

So now that a couple of us have mentioned the need for consenting adults, will thejeff admit he is wrong?

This affects me how?

thejeff wrote:

Sad wrote:

I'm sorry to say that I went to law school with that guy. He's been on a long, downward spiral.

For reals?

Yes, Vanderbilt University class of 2006. There was a string of about 3-4 weeks where our property law professor would call on him, and Sevier was never there. Honestly, I'm surprised he graduated.

Here's a more comprehensive history of his "career".

exthrower wrote:

[quote]Consent wrote:

Machines, animals, children and whatever else you want to put cannot consent. Two adults can consent to a marriage license.

Until AI develops to the point where machines can consent, this is just silly.

Side note: who cares who the crazies marry? Get rid of marriage tax breaks and let nutballs marry their toaster. First romantic candle light bath as a couple will fix the situation[/qu

Look at the 'big picture'....

Throughout the ages societies have encouraged traditional marriage because it's the bedrock of the family which is the bedrock of a succesful, thriving society....

Liberals/leftists continue to 'chip away' at our country....

You mean like the societies that allow polygamy and child brides, and stone a woman to death if she gets raped? Just because something happened "throughout the ages" doesn't mean it was a good thing, or should be continued. Crawl out of your cave.

Civil marriage confers legal rights to the partners in a marriage that society clearly does not confer upon machines.

Duh.

dang old consenting adults wrote:

thejeff wrote:http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/man_who_married_his_computer_s.html#incart_river_home

On what grounds could this man's request legally be denied?

So now that a couple of us have mentioned the need for consenting adults, will thejeff admit he is wrong?

Religious types can't admit they're wrong. That would be admitting that the supposed word of god is wrong.

I'm just glad that angry conservatives are slowly going the way of the dinosaur. Currently the last gasp before they become endangered species.

Viewed a certain way, you can't marry your toaster for the same reason that you can't marry a 10 year old- neither is able to properly consent to the marriage.

Regarding exthrower's sentiments, I don't think that allowing someone to marry non-traditionally will affect those who wish to marry traditionally.

Count Chocula wrote:

exthrower wrong again wrote:

You mean like the societies that allow polygamy and child brides, and stone a woman to death if she gets raped? Just because something happened "throughout the ages" doesn't mean it was a good thing, or should be continued. Crawl out of your cave.

Viewed a certain way, you can't marry your toaster for the same reason that you can't marry a 10 year old- neither is able to properly consent to the marriage.

Regarding exthrower's sentiments, I don't think that allowing someone to marry non-traditionally will affect those who wish to marry traditionally.

My toaster is sexy as hell. Plus, if I don't get the right toast, I hit it.

Dude's gonna be pissed when his computer sues him for divorce...

Monkeys typing wrote:

Civil marriage confers legal rights to the partners in a marriage that society clearly does not confer upon machines.

Duh.

dang old consenting adults wrote:

thejeff wrote:http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/man_who_married_his_computer_s.html#incart_river_home

On what grounds could this man's request legally be denied?

So now that a couple of us have mentioned the need for consenting adults, will thejeff admit he is wrong?

Wrong about what? I asked a question; I didn't make a claim.

Follow up: Should the standard be "Exactly two consenting adults", which would rule out polygamy? Is the definition of "adult" left up to the states? I am also a little fuzzy on the concept of "consent" as it applies to marriage. I have read that consent cannot be given if under the influence of alcohol or drugs; would this make the majority of Las Vegas weddings null and void? Could a dog happily wagging its tail be construed as "consent"? (Asking for a friend.)

can't be wrong wrote:

dang old consenting adults wrote:

So now that a couple of us have mentioned the need for consenting adults, will thejeff admit he is wrong?

Religious types can't admit they're wrong. That would be admitting that the supposed word of god is wrong.

When did I mention religion or God?

Wrong about what? I asked a question; I didn't make a claim.

Follow up: Should the standard be "Exactly two consenting adults", which would rule out polygamy? Is the definition of "adult" left up to the states? I am also a little fuzzy on the concept of "consent" as it applies to marriage. I have read that consent cannot be given if under the influence of alcohol or drugs; would this make the majority of Las Vegas weddings null and void? Could a dog happily wagging its tail be construed as "consent"? (Asking for a friend.)

Consent wrote:

Machines, animals, children and whatever else you want to put cannot consent. Two adults can consent to a marriage license.

Until AI develops to the point where machines can consent, this is just silly.

Side note: who cares who the crazies marry? Get rid of marriage tax breaks and let nutballs marry their toaster. First romantic candle light bath as a couple will fix the situation

That would be shocking.