TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[thraashman]

Good news, then! You and I are getting married!

Don't like it? Too bad. I don't need your consent.

I believe you may have just won this argument.

 

[BudAshes]

Good news, then! You and I are getting married!

Don't like it? Too bad. I don't need your consent.

Do we have to buy wedding presents?

 

[BudAshes]

I believe you may have just won this argument.

There is no winning this argument. You might as well argue with a chimp about throwing his own poop.

 

[nehalem256]

Good news, then! You and I are getting married!

Don't like it? Too bad. I don't need your consent.

We dont live in Canada

And you obviously missed where I thought it was good thing to have consent required for any people in a marriage

No, he's sane, and you're pedantic. Your entire claim is based on lack of consent. Welcome to the USA, you thick skulled &*(^$. The animal cannot consent,

My entire claim is based on the idea that consent is not relevant to things involving animals.

and sexual intercourse is going to cause the animal harm.

And slaughtering an animal for meat doesn't? :hmm:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Good news, then! You and I are getting married!

Don't like it? Too bad. I don't need your consent.

I'll officiate. And I'll throw in an M. Night Shyamalan twist at the end where both of you simultaneously wed a dog. And the dog? Been dead the whole time.

 

[thraashman]

I'll officiate. And I'll throw in an M. Night Shyamalan twist at the end where both of you simultaneously wed a dog. And the dog? Been dead the whole time.

And MrPickins is a super hero that thinks he lives in the 17th century but actually it's nehalem's views that are from there!

 

[woolfe9998]

Uh, apart from the entire "consent" issue, there is another obvious reason the state should never recognize marriage between humans and non-human animals or inanimate objects. The very purpose of having the state recognize a marriage is so that there is a set a rules in place to divide assets upon dissolution, since there is usually no written agreement. Also, the state of marriage in the legal sense can affect the distribution of public benefits. Since dogs and chairs cannot own money or assets, there is no reason for the state to recognize a marriage involving either, even assuming in theory a dog or a chair could consent. Now if someone wants to call their relationship with their dog a "marriage" then that is fine. But there is no point in the state ever recognizing a marriage involving anything other than humans because the only reasons the state is involved to begin with do not apply to non-humans.

Aside from that, I feel some of you are being cruel in telling Nehalem he can't marry his dog. Why be so intolerant? Let him marry the pooch for crying out loud. It's not like he can actually find a woman.

 

[PottedMeat]

Good news, then! You and I are getting married!

Don't like it? Too bad. I don't need your consent.

i get both your stuff when you die, i put it in your contract.

 

[Zxian]

This is basically nehalem's argument.

 

[nehalem256]

Uh, apart from the entire "consent" issue, there is another obvious reason the state should never recognize marriage between humans and non-human animals or inanimate objects. The very purpose of having the state recognize a marriage is so that there is a set a rules in place to divide assets upon dissolution, since there is usually no written agreement. Also, the state of marriage in the legal sense can affect the distribution of public benefits. Since dogs and chairs cannot own money or assets, there is no reason for the state to recognize a marriage involving either, even assuming in theory a dog or a chair could consent. Now if someone wants to call their relationship with their dog a "marriage" then that is fine. But there is no point in the state ever recognizing a marriage involving anything other than humans because the only reasons the state is involved to begin with do not apply to non-humans.

That the purpose of marriage is divorce? That seems like the most backward argument for marriage possible.

 

[almightyobo]

Oh my science..

my neck hurts from SMH so much at Texashiker's posts... please just die already, not too fast! Nice and slow..

 

[nehalem256]

This is basically nehalem's argument.

You also apparently missed this post I made

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35056231&postcount=455

Although I think the last frame works equally well for those opposing HDM. Except replace gays with bestial-sexuals.

 

[Zxian]

Nope. You're forgetting the others who have pointed out about the whole consent/contractual/legal matters that nullify any argument for HDM.

The comic in the post you made also has no mention of SSM. It's either that people are being forced to marry, or that they are forced into polygamous relationships. The bible has always portrayed marriage as being a union between a man and a woman/women.

 

[werepossum]

I'll officiate. And I'll throw in an M. Night Shyamalan twist at the end where both of you simultaneously wed a dog. And the dog? Been dead the whole time.

LMAO!

 

[MrPickins]

I'll officiate. And I'll throw in an M. Night Shyamalan twist at the end where both of you simultaneously wed a dog. And the dog? Been dead the whole time.

I never saw it coming.

 

[MrPickins]

That the purpose of marriage is divorce? That seems like the most backward argument for marriage possible.

More like to allow people to share assets and finances, and then upon dissolution of the contract, allowing a way for those shared assets to be divided.

What assets can your dog share with you, pray tell?

 

[MrPickins]

And you obviously missed where I thought it was good thing to have consent required for any people in a marriage

But not for dogs, huh?

You see how silly your argument is?

 

[shortylickens]

This is basically nehalem's argument.

Wait, if I rape a girl I get to own her ass?


:hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

Nope. You're forgetting the others who have pointed out about the whole consent/contractual/legal matters that nullify any argument for HDM.

They don't nullify. As has been pointed out their are numerous examples of marriage not requiring consent.

And the whole nullifying "argument" relies on the idea that marriage has an inherent fixed definition that cannot be changed to be less discriminatory. And argument obviously rejected by those supporting SSM.

The comic in the post you made also has no mention of SSM. It's either that people are being forced to marry, or that they are forced into polygamous relationships. The bible has always portrayed marriage as being a union between a man and a woman/women.

The comic is suppose to be poking fun at those that claim there is a biblical definition of marriage. ie opponents of SSM.

I amused myself by using it to argue that imposing on OSM was not imposing the biblical definition of marriage on society

 

[nehalem256]

But not for dogs, huh?

You see how silly your argument is?

The concept of consent does not make sense for animals.

More like to allow people to share assets and finances, and then upon dissolution of the contract, allowing a way for those shared assets to be divided.

What assets can your dog share with you, pray tell?

So you are saying that "marriage" is not a life-long relationship. It seems you are once again arguing for the idea that liberal "marriage" is not marriage.

 

[MrPickins]

So you are saying that "marriage" is not a life-long relationship. It seems you are once again arguing for the idea that liberal "marriage" is not marriage.

50% of marriages end in divorce. You are aware of this, right? :hmm:

You and me, though? We'll never split. :wub:

 

[nehalem256]

50% of marriages end in divorce. You are aware of this, right? :hmm:

And? Acceptability of divorce is a liberal ideal. Which was my point. The liberal idea of marriage has nothing in common with the traditional idea of marriage.

 

[Vaux]

I haven't read this whole thread, but now since we have changed marriage rules, what happens when 3 people want to be married? Or if a guy wants to marry his sister? Has that been covered yet?

 

[BlueWolf47]

For some reason people do not understand that this country is not a theocracy. The traditional view of marriage doesn't matter. What does matter is that one group of people is recognized under the law and the other is not. By talking about polygamy and beastiality, you are using bigotry to distract from the actual issue.

People like to say "I'm not a bigot because im just following my religions values". Well if your religion has a bigoted view towards same-sex relationships and you embrace that view, then you my friend are a bigot.

 

[woolfe9998]

That the purpose of marriage is divorce? That seems like the most backward argument for marriage possible.

It only seems backwards if you're conflating the reason marriage is a legal concept with the way marriage is thought of culturally. Two different things. Fact is, there is no real reason for the state to recognize marriage except because it may have to apply some rules for division of assets on divorce. Let me know if you can think of another reason.

Otherwise, marriage can be handled by religious, secular traditions, whatever. If it's just about conceiving of a relationship in a certain way, the state need not recognize it.