Apple Destroyed My Marriage (Slightly NSFW)

[Racket_Man]

Uh, did he say he was having sex with his computer?

I sure hope he used protection. Don't want any I/O errors

Consider the implications of claiming to have had sex with something whose largest orifice is the USB port.

to quote Richard Jeni "He could fuck a Cheerio and not break it"

[wolfie]

Sounds like the kind of guy who, in high school, wouldn't get the "classic" sick joke: "But I don't wrap the hamster in duct tape, and it doesn't explode".

[catcul]

He's back. This time, he's trying to marry his laptop in Texas.

[HYHYBT]

I saw that! Didn't make the connection, or even remember this at all.

[Valinor]

What part of "consent" do these people not understand?

Children cannot consent.
Animals cannot consent.
Inanimate objects ...

These people need help.

[catcul]

He just won't go away. Not only is he suing the State of Utah to allow him to marry his laptop, he is introducing laws that are dangerous to free speech. He also has a warrant for his arrest for not paying his child support and violating his probation for assaulting his ex-father-in-law.

I like what the Office of the Attorney General had to say about this case.

These claims are untenable as a matter of law because Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims and the right to marry has not been indefinitely expanded, nor should it be. Simply put, marrying a laptop computer or multiple partners are not rights protected by the Constitution.

Furthermore, even if that were not the case, unless Sevier’s computer has attained the age of 15. it is too young to marry under Utah law.

It's quite possible that he's trying to undermine the polygamy case, too.

[mjr]

What part of "consent" do these people not understand?

Children cannot consent.
Animals cannot consent.
Inanimate objects ...

These people need help.

Robots can't consent, either...but people are wanting/trying to marry them...

[Pixelated]

Uh, did he say he was having sex with his computer?

I sure hope he used protection. Don't want any I/O errors

Nor any viruses ...

Holy moly. I'm waiting for the U.S. judicial system overall to bar him from trying to file any more deranged lawsuits/court cases/laws.

[mjr]

He just won't go away. Not only is he suing the State of Utah to allow him to marry his laptop, he is introducing laws that are dangerous to free speech. He also has a warrant for his arrest for not paying his child support and violating his probation for assaulting his ex-father-in-law.

I like what the Office of the Attorney General had to say about this case.



It's quite possible that he's trying to undermine the polygamy case, too.

Wait...hold on...you can get married in Utah at 15??

Aside from that, and I had this discussion with my liberal wife, why is marrying a 1st cousin or sibling still illegal?

If "two consenting adults" agree that they want to marry, aside from the "ick" factor, why is that illegal? Regardless of whether or not they want to procreate. Shouldn't they constitutionally be allowed to do so if they are "two consenting adults"?

[s_stabeler]

actually, 20 states allow unrestricted 1st cousin marriage, one requires "genetic counselling" (which I presume means they give you information on the possible consequences of cousins reproducing, if you still want to, fine) while 5 require you prove one of them is infertile first. As well as it only being illegal to have sex with your cousin in 5 states (though in Kentucky, if you cohabit after being convicted of marrying your cousin, it's also illegal)

as for siblings, there's a public policy reason not to encourage incestual marriages to that degree, so nope.

[mjr]

actually, 20 states allow unrestricted 1st cousin marriage, one requires "genetic counselling" (which I presume means they give you information on the possible consequences of cousins reproducing, if you still want to, fine) while 5 require you prove one of them is infertile first. As well as it only being illegal to have sex with your cousin in 5 states (though in Kentucky, if you cohabit after being convicted of marrying your cousin, it's also illegal)

as for siblings, there's a public policy reason not to encourage incestual marriages to that degree, so nope.

But in those examples you gave, why the caveats? Because that's what they are. Other than "legal" and "consenting" gays have no caveats.

So nationwide, why can't someone marry his sister or first cousin, without caveat, if the two are consenting adults? Why would/should they have to go through genetic counseling? Non-related hetero couples aren't required to.

I'm not saying get into polyamorous marriages. I'm talking TWO consenting adults.

If "public policy" can dictate who can and can't reproduce, doesn't that mean in theory that the government could essentially participate in eugenics, and start telling more people they can't reproduce? Especially if conditions/diseases run in a family?

Would you be OK with a doctor/the government telling you that you cannot reproduce?

And what's the punishment if you do?

[s_stabeler]

um... I have some bad news for you. They have done as recently as 2010 (148 female prisoners in california were sterilised in a supposedly voluntary program, but it was later determined they hadn't consented) and the courts have included bans on reproduction in some cases of unpaid child support (fortunately, only in the sense of "you can't have more kids until you pay the child support debt off", but it's not exactly a comfortable precedent(I don't disagree it's not a good idea to keep having kids when you can't afford you existing ones, but enforcing that...)

[mjr]

um... I have some bad news for you. They have done as recently as 2010 (148 female prisoners in california were sterilised in a supposedly voluntary program, but it was later determined they hadn't consented) and the courts have included bans on reproduction in some cases of unpaid child support (fortunately, only in the sense of "you can't have more kids until you pay the child support debt off", but it's not exactly a comfortable precedent(I don't disagree it's not a good idea to keep having kids when you can't afford you existing ones, but enforcing that...)

In the second example, though, usually a choice is given. I know I've seen the cases where it's "vasectomy or jail time" (which you could argue is a Hobson's choice, I guess, to be fair), but it is a choice. One could choose the jail time.

In the case of incestuous relationships, to use the quote I've heard so many times before, "It doesn't hurt anybody". Right? And again, if the couple is willing to accept any consequences of reproducing, why should a relationship/marriage between siblings and/or first cousins be illegal -- anywhere in the U.S.?

[s_stabeler]

1) in the second example I gave, there wasn't a choice- it was straight up "you can't have kids". Also, "don't do this or go to jail" ISN'T a choice. You could equally argue that murder isn't banned because you can choose to go to jail/be executed for it.
2)it could easily be argued that the % of kids of such marriages that have various health problems that wouldn't if their parents hadn't married/had sex are the victims.

[telecom_goddess]

But in those examples you gave, why the caveats? Because that's what they are. Other than "legal" and "consenting" gays have no caveats.

So nationwide, why can't someone marry his sister or first cousin, without caveat, if the two are consenting adults? Why would/should they have to go through genetic counseling? Non-related hetero couples aren't required to.

I'm not saying get into polyamorous marriages. I'm talking TWO consenting adults.

:snip:
And what's the punishment if you do?

And why not poly marriages? why can't you have THREE consenting adults marry legally? And for the record, I have no problem with consensual incest. Especially between siblings or cousins or whatever.

I'm in a poly relationship and want to marry both parties.