It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;Mountain Brook native fights to marry computer to protest gay marriage 'charade'
Mark "Chris" Sevier
The Mountain Brook man who has made national headlines over the years
for filing several federal lawsuits regarding his desire to marry his
computer said he is on a mission to preserve the "integrity of the
Mark "Chris" Sevier filed a lawsuit in Alabama's Northern District last
month stating his rights, along with several "ex-gay" co-plaintiffs,
were violated by Gov. Kay Ivey, Attorney General Steve Marshall, and
Blount County Probate Judge Chris Green because Sevier's marriage to
an Apple computer-- which he claimed to marry in New Mexico-- was not
recognized in Blount County.
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.
Mountain Brook native fights to marry computer to protest gay marriage 'charade'
@Vaulk and @CYDdharta, while the marrying of the computer story is of course ridiculous, that shouldn't be taken as an excuse to block gay marriages. The point is that marriage instead of civil union comes with both recognition and legal protection that these couples deserve. We need to have faith in constitution and reasonableness of American people that the line will not be extended to things, animals, and other weird arrangements
@CYDdharta, as we evolve from stone age to modern society we will continue to encounter many ways of challenging interpretation of the older thinking. We cant avoid it. Even the very definition of what it means to be human will eventually be challenged as technoogy will augment our lives wih various biotech implants. We cannot avoid making such interpretations over time and just keeping forever the rules. We need to be able to interpret the line of constitution as new realities are exposed. I for one don't want to live like an Amish,and believe that world is changing and will always change. I am not saying I support changing the line easily, but do think that in this particular example its warranted.
@CYDdharta, my point is that the definitions evolve. With more information, homosexuality and genders seem to now be more fluent. There is much more information about it, and just like other things - slavery, women rights, gay rights - these groups demand acceptance and fare conditions. Before we didn't let women vote either, and now all of that changed.while it is ridiculous to say that it's okay for man to marry a computer, we will debate these notions in the future as well when the line between person and computer blur.
@CYDdharta, by that logic what changed between now and before for slaves, women, etc? Agreed that relationship is the same, but if we want to give them rights then lets give them legal protection of marriage. If there is a philosophical concern about actually calling it marriage then I am okay to give full marriage rights to a civil union.
@CYDdharta, I did see Chuck and Larry. It was a funny movie, but isnt sufficient ground for preventing gay rights. Many will argue that denying gay rights also prevent the same principles that all men are created equal.
@CYDdharta, if you are not trying to deny gay rights, why not offer these couples a chance for fulfilling marriage. That would qualify them for benefits if the other person dies. Opportunity for abuse is similar to man- woman relationships.
@ale5,I'm afraid your opponent is correct on this one. This isn't a matter of gay rights. If two horses can't get married because Marriage is between a Man and Woman...then two Men or two Women cannot marry each other because Marriage is between a Man and Woman. We don't violate the sanctity of things simply because other people want them to bend or contort in ways that benefit themselves...that's not how our laws work. We don't bend tax brackets to fit those of us who want to be in them but don't qualify for them. We don't bend licensing laws to somehow arbitrarily include people who don't qualify for the licenses. IF this is truly about the benefits that gay people are alleged to be owed then they should be fighting to bring the benefits of a Civil Union up to par with Marriage benefits...not insisting that the U.S. rewrite the law on Marriage to fit their agenda.
Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;
Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;The difference here is that this man wants to marry an inanimate object. You are comparing biotic and abiotic, reciprocative love to that of a non-living object. There are limits as to how you alter the definitions of many things, and you are acting like because there are homosexuals who want to marry, that the definition will for some reason be allowed into changing people to marry objects that they like or have addictions with BECAUSE of this alteration of the word marriage referring to gays and lesbians, too.