Florida Man Demands Right To Wed Computer

Ducman69 said:
It reduces his tax contributions to society and would allow him to adopt children. But who are we to say that children need a masculine and feminine touch and not a digital one? I know kids that were raised by iPads and they turned out just fine.
Click to expand...

Suggesting that children need a mother and father is homophobic. Suggesting that some women might find more happiness as homemakers is misogynistic. Suggesting that more black fathers should stick around is racist.

All these crazy ideas are so old and bigoted and prejudice and not fair and mean and poopy and the people who talk about them just need to be shouted down because freedom of speech only protect you from government censorship.

Social Justice Activate!
 
Stiletto said:
Suggesting that children need a mother and father is homophobic. Suggesting that some women might find more happiness as homemakers is misogynistic. Suggesting that more black fathers should stick around is racist.

All these crazy ideas are so old and bigoted and prejudice and not fair and mean and poopy and the people who talk about them just need to be shouted down because freedom of speech only protect you from government censorship.

Social Justice Activate!
Click to expand...

Frankly simply suggesting that one size fits all in every situation is inane. We don't know the possible outcome of every situation and it's impossible to paint all "positive" outcomes with the same brush. Just because a standard mother/father relationship works for one family doesn't mean it works for another or was in the "best interest of the child".
 
gerdawg said:
Frankly simply suggesting that one size fits all in every situation is inane. We don't know the possible outcome of every situation and it's impossible to paint all "positive" outcomes with the same brush. Just because a standard mother/father relationship works for one family doesn't mean it works for another or was in the "best interest of the child".
Click to expand...

And just because a standard mother/father relationship works for most families and historically has worked the best doesn't mean we shouldn't experiment with completely unorthodox arrangements in order that we get more good feels!
 
Stiletto said:
Yeah, but none of them have anything more than a USB 1.0 port. You can try hooking it up to the serial port in the back, but it takes too much trouble, is never worth it, and you have to worry about the memory dump afterwards.
Click to expand...

HAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA YOU WIN.
 
gerdawg said:
Last I checked, the laws didn't require more than a single adult to adopt a child.
Click to expand...
Historically only married couples could adopt... but with the rapid pace of law changes (thanks Obama), who knows they might let a 40 year old man adopt a 14 year old vietnamese girl.
gerdawg said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that single mothers are bad for their children?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Parja said:
Oh Florida.

Problem is, this guy's "sexual desire" is for the porn on said computer, not the computer itself. It's just a matter of time before the hard drive crashes and he files for divorce.
Click to expand...

Maybe he's a genius. A $80 divorce is not that bad.
 
Stiletto said:
And just because a standard mother/father relationship works for most families and historically has worked the best doesn't mean we shouldn't experiment with completely unorthodox arrangements in order that we get more good feels!
Click to expand...

Way off topic already but OK, I'll bite.

I'm curious what you based your scientific research on to come to this conclusion and statement above. To me everything you wrote sound more like conjecture than fact. Playing devils advocate here has there been any scientific studies provided over a 100 year period to prove that historically gay family arrangements "historically" could NOT work as effectively as a traditional marriage?

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, or you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it's wrong OR a worse situation than what a "traditional" marriage would provide.

Again severely off topic because this really doesn't have to do anything with a guy wanting to marry a computer outside of the people who scream, "oh the humanity" about something that's only being done in an illogical and extreme fashion to garner attention.
 
Imagine the picking the kid of a gay family will get at school. Gays are very selfish in putting a child in that situation.
 
B00nie said:
Imagine the picking the kid of a gay family will get at school. Gays are very selfish in putting a child in that situation.
Click to expand...

As opposed to being picked on for being - fat, ugly, poor or any other reason?

I guess only the wealthy and good looking couples should be allowed to have children so that their kids don't get picked on in school. I'm sure as soon as we raise childrens lives to those standards childhood bullying will stop along with it. /sarcasm.
 
gerdawg said:
Way off topic already but OK, I'll bite.

I'm curious what you based your scientific research on to come to this conclusion and statement above.
Click to expand...

Historical precedent, but I hear that's not so popular these days. Hint: to reach the point where we could debate gay marriage, we had to have only straight marriage.
 
gerdawg said:
As opposed to being picked on for being - fat, ugly, poor or any other reason?
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of any other sexual preference parents have that is declared openly enough for children to face ridicule over it.
 
Cali3350 said:
I really dont get this 'slippery slope' argument for gay marriage. Gay people are still wedding people, not other species/objects. I just dont see how this argument works.
Click to expand...

So, some day when computers/robots are smart enough to consent you would be ok with this?

What if someone figures out a translator that actually lets us understand animals enough that they could give consent. Would you then be ok with animals?

Once you start changing the definition of a word, to mean something it was never supose to, you end up on a very slippery slope.
 
Computer, a dog, a stuff teddy bear, whatever. Inanimate objects and other non-humans cannot "consent" and therefore cannot marry.

Sorry to shatter the right wing christian conservative aopocalyptic nightmare of choice, but no Rick Sanatorium, you can't marry your wobbie. :rolleyes::eek::p
 
I now pronounce you Man and Desktop.

You may kiss the Drive.
 
gerdawg said:
As opposed to being picked on for being - fat, ugly, poor or any other reason?

I guess only the wealthy and good looking couples should be allowed to have children so that their kids don't get picked on in school. I'm sure as soon as we raise childrens lives to those standards childhood bullying will stop along with it. /sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Yes as you realized kids do NOT need additional reasons to be picked upon. It must be a living nightmare for them.
 
Another mean-spirited conservative trying to impose his bigoted ideology on others despite it being absolutely none of his business.

I hope the court makes him pay the legal costs for wasting the courts time on such a frivolous lawsuit.
 
B00nie said:
Yes as you realized kids do NOT need additional reasons to be picked upon. It must be a living nightmare for them.
Click to expand...

Kids always have to deal with adversity. Shouldn't they be able to handle a little more for the sake of their parents? If not, perhaps the child is homophobic and needs to be re-educated. Little brat thinks their social development is more important than their parents publicly asserting their sexuality. Kids, these days...I tell ya.
 
Stiletto said:
Kids always have to deal with adversity. Shouldn't they be able to handle a little more for the sake of their parents? If not, perhaps the child is homophobic and needs to be re-educated. Little brat thinks their social development is more important than their parents publicly asserting their sexuality. Kids, these days...I tell ya.
Click to expand...

You seem to like to take general quotes and make extreme examples. There really isn't much room for a healthy debate here.

And yes, frankly as soon as you take away one reason for children to be made fun of, another one will just be found, regardless of sexual preference of parents or not. Should folks not be poor just so that their kids don't get made fun of? You take apple to apple comparisons and make apples to oranges quotations.

The matter is, as time and acceptance (which clearly you haven't considered in any of your scenario's) moves forward, then more than likely children in general will be more tolerable of children with homosexual parents. Just as a white person sharing a water fountain with a black person likely no longer crosses anyone's mind, even though racism still exists.

But again, keep making extreme examples and providing them as fact in order to support your agenda.
 
gerdawg said:
There really isn't much room for a healthy debate here.

...to support your agenda.
Click to expand...

Tell me what my agenda is, since you appear to know I have one. Looking forward to finding out what I think from you.
 
Stiletto said:
And men and women having kids and raising them is to be included in that nonsequitur?
Click to expand...
Just because you call it a nonsequitur (in either the logical or literary sense) doesn't make it so .

You brought up historical precedent as a defense of your position as if that was an argument. It isn't.
 
Stiletto said:
Tell me what my agenda is, since you appear to know I have one. Looking forward to finding out what I think from you.
Click to expand...

Why bother, I'm sure you'll come up with some other hypothetical non-equivalent combative and sarcastic remark, so I'll remove that ammo for you and will move forward with my day.
 
Wait a second. You're the same person who tried to argue against gay rights advocacy in western countries because you thought it detracted from more deserving causes. lol.
 
Doesn't "she" have to sign the marriage license? Without being forced (programmed)?

A lot of issues with it, and mostly because the PC isn't a free willed, understanding being.
 
So what, I took my 360 to prom and it was the night of our lives.

cHTICyS.jpg
 
gerdawg said:
Why bother...
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You didn't like my satire, and therefore assumed I'm some homophobic bible-thumping crusader against the sinfulness of teh gheys, and then applied that assumption by accusing me of having an "agenda".

Now you won't answer because you realize you were being prejudiced, and you just settle on ad hominem because admitting your own prejudice is always hard for those truly uninterested in what the other side thinks.

lolz
 
jimmyb said:
You brought up historical precedent as a defense of your position as if that was an argument. It isn't.
Click to expand...

You said a lot of shitty things happened in history as a counter to the fact that male-female couples being mainly responsible for child-bearing made it possible for us to reach the point in our society when we can discuss things like whether lots more people on Earth should die, whether it would be better if children were brought up by homosexual couples, and whether free speech is a good thing if it protects people who think things we don't like.

Just because a lot of shitty things happened in history doesn't mean gender equity in parental units is one of them.
 
I'm really excited for this thread now after remembering who you are.

Stiletto said:
therefore assumed I'm some homophobic bible-thumping crusader against the sinfulness of teh gheys, and then applied that assumption by accusing me of having an "agenda".
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell he never called you any of those things. You're putting insults (directed at you) in his mouth that he never said and then accusing him of ad hominem. How wonderfully absurd!
 
Stiletto said:
Oh, I see. You didn't like my satire, and therefore assumed I'm some homophobic bible-thumping crusader against the sinfulness of teh gheys, and then applied that assumption by accusing me of having an "agenda".

Now you won't answer because you realize you were being prejudiced, and you just settle on ad hominem because admitting your own prejudice is always hard for those truly uninterested in what the other side thinks.

lolz
Click to expand...

No actually nothing like that at all actually. I just tend not to continue nonsensical debates with varying degrees of irrationality.
 
I can see two men trying to reproduce but I think the probable outcome of their efforts is going to be not pretty. It always makes me smile when a gay couple talks about having a child together lol.
 
This is a silly argument. It doesn't hold any validity in comparison to gay marriage until computers can think for themselves.

It's the same reason you can't marry a horse. They can't, in their own admission, enter a contract. Find a horse that can talk, and we can review it further.

Case dismissed. Please send all court costs to plaintiff and may god have mercy on his sole.
 
Stiletto said:
You said a lot of shitty things happened in history as a counter to the fact that male-female couples
Click to expand...

If you reread my post you'll note I wasn't countering any specific claim other than your appeal to history as precedent without substantiating it at all. Sorry if you misunderstood.
 
Attempts to legalize marriage twixt man and machine is all just part of the Silicon Agenda.
 
B00nie said:
I can see two men trying to reproduce but I think the probable outcome of their efforts is going to be not pretty. It always makes me smile when a gay couple talks about having a child together lol.
Click to expand...

You can produce a human being from cells. If all men died tomorow, the human race would keep rolling.

That said, there are plenty of kids living crappy lives that need adopting. My gay cousin has 2 awesome kids (a boy and a girl, I think her girlfriend was the mother in their case) and they are doing a lot better than the average kid I see being yelled at at the supermarket.

Being a man and a woman doesn't garantee good parenting, but people trying to deny you something out of pure discrimination make people take really good care of it.
 
B00nie said:
I can see two men trying to reproduce but I think the probable outcome of their efforts is going to be not pretty. It always makes me smile when a gay couple talks about having a child together lol.
Click to expand...

And yet I know half a dozen gay couples who have kids. Sperm donation, adoption etc.
 
Dekarx said:
You can produce a human being from cells. If all men died tomorow, the human race would keep rolling.

That said, there are plenty of kids living crappy lives that need adopting. My gay cousin has 2 awesome kids (a boy and a girl, I think her girlfriend was the mother in their case) and they are doing a lot better than the average kid I see being yelled at at the supermarket.

Being a man and a woman doesn't garantee good parenting, but people trying to deny you something out of pure discrimination make people take really good care of it.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly confident that without men things wouldn't be rolling much at all. Natural conception is not bullet proof in a lab even when using real sperm and egg cells. If cloning was the only means of reproducing, the planet would become a very lonely place.
 
does semen work as an immersion liquid?




-and there is a sentence that has never before been placed on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top