http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2014/05/florida_man_wants_to_marry_my.php
Ironically 40 years ago commonsense was sited by the courts as reason for restricting marriage to between man and woman:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
http://fox13now.com/2014/05/02/man-who-tried-to-marry-machine-wants-in-the-amendment-3-appeal/
Hopefully brave men like Chris Sevier do not have to wait 40 years for the courts to finish overturning commonsense and expand equal marriage rights to all sexual minorities :thumbsup:
Oh look nehalem, there's hope for you and your toaster yet.
So this was nehalem? :awe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/penis-stuck-in-toaster-firefighters_n_4064927.html
Anything for attention and a lack of imagination in the press these days I guess.A long as the Apple is at least 18 years old (or 13, whatever the age of consent is in Florida) more power to him. I assume the bride will be dressed in white?
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.
Of course, corporations ARE people, so maybe there will be corporate marriages.
People certainly would start reading those end user license agreements. :biggrin:If you accept the logic for same-sex marriage there can be no legal argument made against a person marrying a corporation.
If you accept the logic for same-sex marriage there can be no legal argument made against a person marrying a corporation.
If you accept the logic for same-sex marriage there can be no legal argument made against a person marrying a corporation.
And if the argument is accepted, then corporations cannot be owned because it would violate the 13th Amendment.
I think this is a valid case. Apple rapes you every chance it gets.
And if the argument is accepted, then corporations cannot be owned because it would violate the 13th Amendment.
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!
Actually, what it shows is that you don't know what corporate personhood is.
Dumbass.
Like I said, not surprising that you are using the same arguments that got a guy banned from practicing law in tennessee.
