What the hell does this have to do with gay marriage?
What the hell does this have to do with gay marriage?
That other guy wrote:
What the hell does this have to do with gay marriage?
Exactly. #slipperyslope
thejeff wrote:
...
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.
I try to maintain the illusion that I'm communicating with people who don't need it all spelled out like that. I got that wrong. I need to take my own medicine and try to "see the world as it really is" and not assume everyone gets the point.
On what legal grounds could I not own a nuke?
keep sloping wrote:
On what legal grounds could I not own a nuke?
On what legal grounds could I not marry a nuke?
DiscoGary wrote:
keep sloping wrote:On what legal grounds could I not own a nuke?
On what legal grounds could I not marry a nuke?
Sure, that too.
Wait...you're telling me that laws and cultural norms may change over time as evidenced by the fact that they've changed in the past?
This is a stunning revelation you've uncovered.
brahmamama wrote:
Wait...you're telling me that laws and cultural norms may change over time as evidenced by the fact that they've changed in the past?
This is a stunning revelation you've uncovered.
Some things change, some don't. Has your position on murder changed?
john utah wrote:
brahmamama wrote:Wait...you're telling me that laws and cultural norms may change over time as evidenced by the fact that they've changed in the past?
This is a stunning revelation you've uncovered.
Some things change, some don't. Has your position on murder changed?
What position is that?
I know you're slow but...you know, this is "news" from over a year ago.
thejeff wrote:
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/man_who_married_his_computer_s.html#incart_river_homeMan 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?
OP, I have not read the entire thread and will not because you're just being silly and juvenile. This has nothing to do with gay marriage and slippery slope arguments do not apply. Why do you object to gay marriage anyway? What do you care if gays want to marry?
It's going to be denied on the legal grounds that it is ridiculous. It would not even survive a motion for summary judgment and would likely have the man cited for filing frivolously.
Go ahead.
Let them file taxes together and let him get on the computer's health benefits.
But for the taxes he needs a social security number for that computer.
Marriage is between two consenting adult humans.
How is this tricky?
At this risk of giving a serious response to a not-so-serious thread, my opinion is that the legal and financial protections of marriage should be available to any pair of consenting people whose emotional and financial lives are suitably intertwined to want that. If two elderly sisters live together and own everything together, why not have the inheritance protections of marriage. I don't see the issue. If it's three people, that's fine too so long as no one is being exploited. In practice that's often an issue though.
None of this extends logically to marrying animals or inanimate objects. You can own those things and do whatever you want with them anyway. None of the legal advantages to marriage make any sense when you own the thing you are marrying. Taking the slippery slope argument to marrying inanimate objects doesn't make any sense at all.
thejeff wrote:
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/man_who_married_his_computer_s.html#incart_river_homeMan 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?
Definition
"The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law."
Right off that bat, I'd say a computer doesn't have the ability to give consent.
3hr-marathoner wrote:
At this risk of giving a serious response to a not-so-serious thread, my opinion is that the legal and financial protections of marriage should be available to any pair of consenting people whose emotional and financial lives are suitably intertwined to want that. If two elderly sisters live together and own everything together, why not have the inheritance protections of marriage. I don't see the issue. If it's three people, that's fine too so long as no one is being exploited. In practice that's often an issue though.
None of this extends logically to marrying animals or inanimate objects. You can own those things and do whatever you want with them anyway. None of the legal advantages to marriage make any sense when you own the thing you are marrying. Taking the slippery slope argument to marrying inanimate objects doesn't make any sense at all.
FLASHBACK:
None of this extends logically to marrying Negros. You can own those things and do whatever you want with them anyway. None of the legal advantages to marriage make any sense when you own the thing you are marrying. Taking the slippery slope argument to marrying Negros doesn't make any sense at all.
The new racism is inanimatism, discrimination against inanimate objects. Don't be a bigot. Stand up for the rights of computers! Computer Lives Matter!
Now the dumbed down version for my intellectually challenged liberal friends:
People used to treat blacks as property and used that excuse to claim they had no rights in society. Now they are using the same logic to say that a computer is property and therefore has no rights in society. We learned to accept that kind of treatment of blacks as bigotry and now treat them as equal under the law. Today's battle is to accept our treatment of computers as bigotry and learn to treat them as equals under the law. If it helps, then assume that Wayne typed "I identify as human" on the screen and left it there. Now morally slippery liberal logic forces us to accept that inanimate object as a legal person.
Obvi wrote:
Marriage is between two consenting adult humans.
How is this tricky?
We are getting close to 60 posts and you are the first to mention it. You tell me.
By the way, are you sure everyone agrees with you? How will you defend you view to a polygamist? Or to two adult siblings that want to marry?
thejeff wrote:
By the way, are you sure everyone agrees with you? How will you defend you view to a polygamist? Or to two adult siblings that want to marry?
The argument against two adult siblings has to do with their potential offspring. Gays don't have that issue, so there's no point in trying to equate the two, no matter how conveniently it fits your agenda.
There is no gay marriage "slippery slope." If you aren't the kind of person who is actively trying to push your moral values on others, gay marriage simply won't impact your life at all.