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

So, the dog has to wag his tail AND bark?

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

Get rid of the fundamental element of society? Sounds like you might be one of the crazies. Have fun with your toaster.

How about this, we stop letting fringe minority groups drive public policy decisions?

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

How old is that computer?

John utah wrote:

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

Get rid of the fundamental element of society? Sounds like you might be one of the crazies. Have fun with your toaster.

How about this, we stop letting fringe minority groups drive public policy decisions?

Good thinking. Minorities should not have rights.

Does that also include white evangelicals?

Personal experience wrote:

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

How old is that computer?

Well done.

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?

Let's suppose his request makes legal sense - who cares? If he marries his computer it doesn't change my life at all. And it probably spares some poor woman being married to him.

Who would have thought that Wayne Gretzky would have trouble finding women?

asdlfj;alsdkfj 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?

Let's suppose his request makes legal sense - who cares? If he marries his computer it doesn't change my life at all. And it probably spares some poor woman being married to him.

His computer will then be eligible for benefits. Do you see the problem now?

Let's look at college admissions to see what percentage of computers have been admitted. Uh-oh, looks like a lawsuit followed by a quota system for computers is coming. The fun never ends.

DiscoGary wrote:

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

Who would have thought that Wayne Gretzky would have trouble finding women?

The first non-ironically funny thing you've ever posted. Well done.

DiscoGary wrote:

Who would have thought that Wayne Gretzky would have trouble finding women?

DiscoGary FTW.

(I threw up a little writing that.)

DiscoGary wrote:

asdlfj;alsdkfj wrote:

Let's suppose his request makes legal sense - who cares? If he marries his computer it doesn't change my life at all. And it probably spares some poor woman being married to him.

His computer will then be eligible for benefits. Do you see the problem now?

Let's look at college admissions to see what percentage of computers have been admitted. Uh-oh, looks like a lawsuit followed by a quota system for computers is coming. The fun never ends.

What's benefits would those be? You can't pay a computer so...? And computers don't apply for college. Oh why am I even bothering with your idiocy?

You should have quit when you were ahead with your joke.

classic that this liberal uses islam to talk sh*t, yet this is the same barbaric religion that he will defend at all costs....liberals, they are so confused

Fok wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

His computer will then be eligible for benefits. Do you see the problem now?

Let's look at college admissions to see what percentage of computers have been admitted. Uh-oh, looks like a lawsuit followed by a quota system for computers is coming. The fun never ends.

What's benefits would those be? You can't pay a computer so...? And computers don't apply for college. Oh why am I even bothering with your idiocy?

You should have quit when you were ahead with your joke.

I don't think you understand the concept of a "slippery slope".

Based on your thread, I don't think that you do either.

Pictures of the computer?

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?

Bizarre world wrote:

Just a quick question: were these insane people always present, but just now more visible because of social media/internet?

Yes. They've always existed. A quick google search turns up crazier characters than we have nowadays. But social media lets things proliferate very quickly. Also, social media lets you put your own spin on something to make it look crazier than reality.

thejeff wrote:

Fok wrote:

What's benefits would those be? You can't pay a computer so...? And computers don't apply for college. Oh why am I even bothering with your idiocy?

You should have quit when you were ahead with your joke.

I don't think you understand the concept of a "slippery slope".

I'll humor you - as though he is really going to "marry" his computer. Please explain the slippery slope that this would lead to. Just be sure that each example you give is actually plausible. (Hint: Computers can't get monetary benefits, or be admitted to college. So you're going to have to do better than Gary. An admittedly low bar.)

Fok wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I don't think you understand the concept of a "slippery slope".

I'll humor you - as though he is really going to "marry" his computer. Please explain the slippery slope that this would lead to. Just be sure that each example you give is actually plausible. (Hint: Computers can't get monetary benefits, or be admitted to college. So you're going to have to do better than Gary. An admittedly low bar.)

As I said, you don't understand the concept. It isn't about what is "plausible", it is about how a ruling could be abused, misinterpreted, and otherwise misapplied. Of COURSE it is lunacy to think that a computer could get benefits... now. Just like a few years ago, it would be lunacy for someone with a penis, testicles, and a Y chromosome to be able to identify as female.

The first instance always seems like idiocy. The second instance is less shocking. Eventually, people get used to the idea, until some judge somewhere decides that boys should use women's restrooms, or men should marry men, or computers can apply for financial assistance.

Careful there Utah wrote:

John utah wrote:

Get rid of the fundamental element of society? Sounds like you might be one of the crazies. Have fun with your toaster.

How about this, we stop letting fringe minority groups drive public policy decisions?

Good thinking. Minorities should not have rights.

Does that also include white evangelicals?

Are you saying that every fringe minority viewpoint should dictate public policy and eclipse hundreds and/or thousands of years of tradition, practice, and standards?

Good thinking, dude. Sounds like you have it figured out.