Man wants to marry his porn filled Apple Computer

[fskimospy]

A corporation is legally a person and capable of entering into contracts.

If marriage is "just a contract" on what legal grounds to you keep a person from marrying a corporation? :hmm:

No. corporations, as groups of people, can exercise some of the same rights as people, but not all. Just because they can enter into contracts does not mean that they can enter into all types of contracts.

I can't wait to see what retarded argument you will try next. At what point do you just give up?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
I can't wait to see what retarded argument you will try next. At what point do you just give up?

When people stop responding to his trolls. The only way to stop a troll is to starve it of the attention it craves.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

A guy wants to marry his computer? Wow, what an idiot. That's almost as bad as like, two guys wanting to get married or something. But at least the guy marrying his computer wouldn't be spreading any diseases.

Although, he may get a virus.

Since Apples are clearly female, he can't get a virus.

 

[thraashman]

No. corporations, as groups of people, can exercise some of the same rights as people, but not all. Just because they can enter into contracts does not mean that they can enter into all types of contracts.

I can't wait to see what retarded argument you will try next. At what point do you just give up?

When people stop responding to his trolls. The only way to stop a troll is to starve it of the attention it craves.

Hence why I finally just put him on block. There are those I disagree with and have arguments with like Matt1970, PokerGuy and Incorruptible. Those I think (or know) are genuinely crazy like stewox, Anarchist, and michal1980. As much as I am going to get annoyed or angry or disagree with some of their posts, I feel they can still contribute to a discussion (or at least be entertaining in their insanity for the crazies). But I don't think anyone else is as reprehensible an individual and as worthless a contributor as nehalem. I should've blocked him a year ago, reading the forums is less absurd now. I HIGHLY recommend everyone do it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

If you accept the logic for same-sex marriage there can be no legal argument made against a person marrying a corporation.

nehalem tries to make what he apparently believes is a logical, intelligent argument.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you mean taking convenient legal fictions too literally leads to retardism? You don't say.

Of course since the argument for same-sex marriage is based on using the convenient legal fiction of treating marriage as contract...

I guess what you are saying is that if you support same-sex marriage you have to support corporate emancipation.

Equality for all!

Marriage

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

 

[himkhan]

I didn't read total thread but was the problem that the toaster is already engaged?

 

[IronWing]

I didn't read total thread but was the problem that the toaster is already engaged?

It turned him down. He kept trying to stick his bread in the crumb door.

 

[thraashman]

It turned him down. He kept trying to stick his bread in the crumb door.

LMFAO! This may be the best comment of the year in P&N.

 

[shortylickens]

I should like to point out that if you look across all 50 states, corporations generally have more rights and are better protected than gay humans. Didnt California have gay marriage and recently ban it?

 

[nehalem256]

No. corporations, as groups of people, can exercise some of the same rights as people, but not all. Just because they can enter into contracts does not mean that they can enter into all types of contracts.

I can't wait to see what retarded argument you will try next. At what point do you just give up?

Someone doesn't understand corporate personhood

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

A corporation is a distinct individual. This is why you sue the corporation. Not the shareholders.

If marriage is just a contract involving things like property rights and inheritance I can think of no reason why a person should not be able to marry a corporation.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

How does any of that contradict what I said? I said thinking of marriage as a contract was a "convenient legal fiction". Meaning that yes in the legal realm we treat marriage as a contract because so long as you don't go full retard it works.

The problem is that liberals want to go full retard and go from treating marriage like a contract to saying that marriage is just a contract.

And well if marriage is just a contract why shouldn't a person be able to marry a corporation?:hmm:

 

[Victorian Gray]

How does any of that contradict what I said? I said thinking of marriage as a contract was a "convenient legal fiction". Meaning that yes in the legal realm we treat marriage as a contract because so long as you don't go full retard it works.

The problem is that liberals want to go full retard and go from treating marriage like a contract to saying that marriage is just a contract.

And well if marriage is just a contract why shouldn't a person be able to marry a corporation?:hmm:

The only explanation that I can come up with for the nonsensical statements you continually make is that either you have scrambled eggs for brains or, you're simply pants on head insane.

Beginning to think that actually was you with the toaster as reported in the news.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone doesn't understand corporate personhood



A corporation is a distinct individual. This is why you sue the corporation. Not the shareholders.

If marriage is just a contract involving things like property rights and inheritance I can think of no reason why a person should not be able to marry a corporation.

Someone doesn't understand corporate personhood.

Or the word 'may'.

Lol. Dumbass.

 

[SlickSnake]

What's awesome is that the guy filing this lawsuit had his law license in Tennessee suspended due to "mental infirmity or illness". He's also apparently a stalker.

Is anyone even slightly surprised that he and nehalem would have so much in common?

You also had to notice that the crazy gay marriage toaster poster completely ignored your enlightened comment about him.

And since nehalem obviously selectively ignored the crazy lawyer part just to protect his gay marriage trolling and bigoted, warped personality, now we pretty much know that nehalem is a total troll, completely out of his damn mind or both.

Just to clarify further:

A suspended US lawyer has had his bid to marry his porn-filled laptop overturned by a judge.

Chris Sevier, who has been suspended from practising law on disability/mental health grounds, claimed he fell in love with his Apple MacBook and "preferred having sex with it over all other persons or things".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-to-marry-porn-filled-MacBook-overturned.html

And the really scary part is: what if nehalem256 actually is this crazy lawyer?

 

[SlickSnake]

The computer is not recognized as a legal person. Gays are recognized as legal citizens or residents and have constitutional protection, (except in Texas I think, where they have a hunting season for them).

Of course, corporations ARE people, so maybe there will be corporate marriages.

You seriously wrote that?

That was very inappropriate sarcasm towards killing gays in Texas, even though you were desperately trying to be funny about it. Some of the stupid shit you post just ain't very funny, Shorty, and it needs to stay buried in your warped little head and not posted here.

 

[blankslate]

Computers like animals cannot give legal consent so using this as some sort of slippery slope argument against gay marriage makes as much sense as trying to nail jello to a tree in summertime in Georgia.



.....