NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right, I'm a materialist polygamist (sp?)
(not really, but I hereby dedicate this thread to the discussion of why legalizing gay marriage will/won't set us down the slippery slope that would allow me to marry a toaster or a space shuttle...or both)

Is either the toaster or the shuttle capable (legally or morally) of giving consent to this unholy union?

I programmed an AI into each one, so yes.

Is either the toaster or the shuttle capable (legally or morally) of giving consent to this unholy union?
Probably no more consenting than dogs who have to bear that ridiculous ceremony that their owners think is awfully cute.
*Vomits*
*Chokes on vomit*
*Dies*

I programmed an AI into each one, so yes.

Fine by me, as long as they're truly sentient.

And assuming that you're truly sentient.

You make a good point, Opal. Gay marraige, like your engagements to kichen appliances and space vehicles, is both unnatural and does not allow you to reproduce except through unnatual means.

On a side note, I think I'll become a vegi-sexual and marry a cabbage and a Jell-o mold that have evolved into intelligent life forms.

That's right, I'm a materialist polygamist (sp?)
(not really, but I hereby dedicate this thread to the discussion of why legalizing gay marriage will/won't set us down the slippery slope that would allow me to marry a toaster or a space shuttle...or both)
Yes, but do they want to marry you?

Now, is it a specific brand??

Yes, but do they want to marry you?
I agree, I doubt Opal's own computer would marry him! :D

Anyway, let's try and concentrate on HUMANS marrying HUMANS for now. Unless we want to say that marrying a gay is no better than marrying a dog or a shoe...

I agree, I doubt Opal's own computer would marry him! :D

Anyway, let's try and concentrate on HUMANS marrying HUMANS for now. Unless we want to say that marrying a gay is no better than marrying a dog or a shoe...Well, there are plenty of people who believe that, retarded as it is.

Yes, but do they want to marry you?

I programmed an AI into each one, so yes.
Etcetera.


Anyway, the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not legalizing gay marriage will lead the path to people marrying inanimate objects. I happen to think that's absurd (and it's probably the same argument the conservatives used against liberals in allowing blacks to marry and in allowing interracial marriage...)

You make a good point, Opal. Gay marraige, like your engagements to kichen appliances and space vehicles, is both unnatural and does not allow you to reproduce except through unnatual means.

On a side note, i think I'll become a vegi-sexual and marry a cabbage.

What exactly is "natural" about heterosexual marriage? It's as much a cultural construct as its homosexual counterpart.

Now, pair-bonding does seem to be something for which we humans are hard-wired, but it certainly doesn't seem to be exclusive to heteros.

You make a good point, Opal. Gay marraige, like your engagements to kichen appliances and space vehicles, is both unnatural and does not allow you to reproduce except through unnatual means.

On a side note, i think I'll become a vegi-sexual and marry a cabbage.
Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to marry someone who is sterile then, if reproduction is important?

g'head

will there be liquid oxygen in the punch bowl?

You make a good point, Opal. Gay marraige, like your engagements to kichen appliances and space vehicles, is both unnatural and does not allow you to reproduce except through unnatual means.

On a side note, I think I'll become a vegi-sexual and marry a cabbage and a Jell-o mold that have evolved into intelligent life forms.

Dude.. you need to clean out your fridge more often

::holds nose and runs away::

Not really... it's totally unrelated to blacks marrying or interracial marriage.

A black man and a white woman may reproduce quite naturally....

2 men or 2 women, regardless of their race or whatnot, cannot.

Nor can you and an inanimate object.

Anyways, I don't think we'd see that kind of degredation for a LONG time, but it will probably happen eventually. Then people will be saying "oh who cares if it's an object? it has AI and they LOVE eachother. That's all that matters!"

So yeah, it would eventually... but by eventually I mean I don't think any of us, or probably our children would ever live to see such a horrible decline. After that, who knows....

Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to marry someone who is sterile then, if reproduction is important?

The current cultural conservative talking point on this question is that these couples are "modeling" proper behavior for the youngsters.

Because they, and only they, know what is "proper."

If the real issue at hand is whether or not gay marriage would lead to the marriage of inanimate objects, then why not take it head on! I'm going to start the "Americans against Inanimate love" coalition, and were going to lobby the congress, until a amemndment is passed saying that toaster will not marry me ever! Why? Because it is immoral, wrong and WILL destroy america, and marriage, and Jesus, Christianity, organized soceity, and kill puppies.

Yeah!

You don't hate puppies, do you?

DO YOU?

g'head

will there be liquid oxygen in the punch bowl?
What sort of present do you get for a space shuttle? A toaster? :D

That's right, I'm a materialist polygamist (sp?)
(not really, but I hereby dedicate this thread to the discussion of why legalizing gay marriage will/won't set us down the slippery slope that would allow me to marry a toaster or a space shuttle...or both)

I see how you could make billions after the divorce.

The current cultural conservative talking point on this question is that these couples are "modeling" proper behavior for the youngsters.

Because they, and only they, know what is "proper."
Oh, how thouroughly offensive. Couples unable to have children are judged rather patronisingly to have "role model" value? Conservatives suck.

ok, the thread is finally starting to get to where Opal wanted it in the first place.

I've brought up polygamy many times in response to gay marriage topics. It just seems reasonable to me that if we, as a society, are going to allow gay marriages, what would then be the justification for disallowing polygamous marriages?

Of course, the arguement for gay marriages is that we, as a society, do not wish to withhold rights from one segment of the population, based solely on their sexual orientation.

If a man wishes to marry 2 women, and all 3 give consent, what basis do we have for not allowing that?

I programmed an AI into each one, so yes.

THe real question is: can you now program cyborg sex slaves? xD

ok, the thread is finally starting to get to where Opal wanted it in the first place.

I've brought up polygamy many times in response to gay marriage topics. It just seems reasonable to me that if we, as a society, are going to allow gay marriages, what would then be the justification for disallowing polygamous marriages?

Of course, the arguement for gay marriages is that we, as a society, do not wish to withhold rights from one segment of the population, based solely on their sexual orientation.

If a man wishes to marry 2 women, and all 3 give consent, what basis do we have for not allowing that?

What, indeed?

ok, the thread is finally starting to get to where Opal wanted it in the first place.

I've brought up polygamy many times in response to gay marriage topics. It just seems reasonable to me that if we, as a society, are going to allow gay marriages, what would then be the justification for disallowing polygamous marriages?

Of course, the arguement for gay marriages is that we, as a society, do not wish to withhold rights from one segment of the population, based solely on their sexual orientation.

If a man wishes to marry 2 women, and all 3 give consent, what basis do we have for not allowing that?
More issues come up in polygamy, such as divorce and splitting of assets if only one partner decides to leave, but on a basic level I have no opposition to it.

ok, the thread is finally starting to get to where Opal wanted it in the first place.

I've brought up polygamy many times in response to gay marriage topics. It just seems reasonable to me that if we, as a society, are going to allow gay marriages, what would then be the justification for disallowing polygamous marriages?

Of course, the arguement for gay marriages is that we, as a society, do not wish to withhold rights from one segment of the population, based solely on their sexual orientation.

If a man wishes to marry 2 women, and all 3 give consent, what basis do we have for not allowing that?

The only problem I can think of, is that an entire re-do of all marrige laws would have to happen. Or, we could, you know, just stop the government from humping marrige entirely. That'll work.

And yet, nobody ever thinks of that-or, they do, but nobody listens :p

More issues come up in polygamy, such as divorce and splitting of assets if only one partner decides to leave, but on a basic level I have no opposition to it.
That's about where I am as well--as long as the situation is a group marriage, where all parties agreed and were equal partners, I wouldn't have any issue with it. The issue is really one of equal treatment for me.

THe real question is: can you now program cyborg sex slaves? xD
Not anymore. I deleted the programs and such. Now no one has to worry about that slippery slope anymore. ;)

Oh, how thouroughly offensive. Couples unable to have children are judged rather patronisingly to have "role model" value? Conservatives suck.

Gotta love how 2 "liberals" can feed off each other and come up with "conservatives suck". That's a persuasive argument.

In todays society, there is no such thing as a couple "unable" to have children. Period. Whether through scientific methods (artificial insemination etc.) or through adoption everyone and their brother Bob can have children.

More issues come up in polygamy, such as divorce and splitting of assets if only one partner decides to leave, but on a basic level I have no opposition to it.

No real difference in issues dealing with divorce and splitting of assets for a dual partnership.

Traditional unions, usually 50% division.
Triple partners, 33% division.
Quadruple partners, 25% division, and so on.

Pretty simple.

Gotta love how 2 "liberals" can feed off each other and come up with "conservatives suck". That's a persuasive argument.

1. I didn't say it, nor do I think it.
2. I'm not a liberal. Just a moderate who is more left-leaning on social issues and more right-leaning on fiscal ones.

1. I didn't say it, nor do I think it.
2. I'm not a liberal. Just a moderate who is more left-leaning on social issues and more right-leaning on fiscal ones.
Sorry, no offense meant.
Was looking for a one liner and probably oversimplified it.

You have my appologies.

Sorry, no offense meant.
Was looking for a one liner and probably oversimplified it.

You have my appologies.

Accepted.

AWWWWWWWW! Aren't we just the cutest ever?

no some couples just can't have children. at all. a friend of my parents had this problem and, after 10 years of trying every method, adopted 2 beautiful girls.

i also know a gay couple who adopted 2 girls


(all four children are well adjusted member of society...and, because some seem to think gay is an infectous disease :mp5: , the ones adopted by the gay couple are straight, as if it mattered)

That's right, I'm a materialist polygamist (sp?)
(not really, but I hereby dedicate this thread to the discussion of why legalizing gay marriage will/won't set us down the slippery slope that would allow me to marry a toaster or a space shuttle...or both)

Are the toaster and shuttle male and/or female? And what about you?

Not anymore. I deleted the programs and such. Now no one has to worry about that slippery slope anymore. ;)

But...that was one slippery slope we could all agree on! ;_;

Actually, and I'm asking that only out of morbid curiosity, doesn't mating with a toaster hurt(assuming it's hot for your love, of course)?

And, and here feel free not to asnwer if this is too personnal, but who's on top - you, or the space shuttle?

You make a good point, Opal. Gay marraige, like your engagements to kichen appliances and space vehicles, is both unnatural and does not allow you to reproduce except through unnatual means.

On a side note, I think I'll become a vegi-sexual and marry a cabbage and a Jell-o mold that have evolved into intelligent life forms.

I have a couple of lovely brides in the back of my fridge. You'll just have to get past their hot-tempered egg-salad dad.

why legalizing gay marriage will/won't set us down the slippery slope that would allow me to marry a toaster or a space shuttle...or both)

It won't. The government would simply throw this case out as being ludacris (they already do that w/some incidents, called "idiot cases").

please note that a j-ello mold, being plasitic is non-organic, non-evolving and therefore does not fufill your veggie-sexual desires. unless, of course, it has a materials-change (like a sex-change), in which case i hope you are very happy
[/sacasm]

you really can't be stooping to calling homosexuals a long the same line as animals or plants or friggin plastic food containers....wow, man.




and along those "artificial insemination for a couple to have a child" lines, then lesbians could get artificially inseminated and have a child, like Melissa Etheridge did using i think David Crosby's sperm

It won't. The government would simply throw this case out as being ludacris (they already do that w/some incidents, called "idiot cases").

Ludacris? The rapper?! He married a toaster?!!

Call the Weekly World News!

You make a good point, Opal. Gay marraige, like your engagements to kichen appliances and space vehicles, is both unnatural and does not allow you to reproduce except through unnatual means.

On a side note, I think I'll become a vegi-sexual and marry a cabbage and a Jell-o mold that have evolved into intelligent life forms.

Actually, there have been documented cases of homosexuality in a very large number of species. I can't remember the exact number, and I'm too damn lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure it was over 400. Also, marrying someone who's sterile also does not allow you to reproduce through natural means.

and though you speak of your appliances loving you due to AI, its just that, Artificial Intelligence, incapable of emotion...unlike gay humans, who are, (despite the beliefs of some homophobic conservatives) capable of the full spectrum of emotions including LOVE

Okay, some of you guys clearly haven't seized the sarcasm present in the initial post. He's making fun of the homophobes, not comparing gays to appliances.

Okay, some of you guys clearly haven't seized the sarcasm present in the initial post. He's making fun of the homophobes, not comparing gays to appliances.
Eh...exactly.

Eh...exactly.

I didn't want them starting to flame you for nothing. But you still haven't told me which of you or the shuttle is on top...

I didn't want them starting to flame you for nothing. But you still haven't told me which of you or the shuttle is on top...
It's not really a top/bottom posis so to speak.