Florida Man Says He Wants to "Marry My Porn Filled Apple Computer" in Federal Gay Marriage Case


#1

A Florida gay marriage case – known in the federal court system as James Domer Brenner et al., v. Rick Scott, which challenges Florida’s refusal to recognize gay marriages that are performed legally elsewhere (Brenner and his partner married in Canada) – is sure to be one of the landmark court decisions to grind through the Sunshine State. But at least one person is elbowing in to make his own point. Enter Chris Sevier, “a former Judge Advocate and combat veteran” who filed a motion to intervene on the Florida gay marriage case on behalf of “other minority sexual orientation groups.”

In the 24-page document, Sevier says that if gay couples “have the right to marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object.”
Which is?

“My porn filled Apple computer,” according to Sevier’s filing.

blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2014/05/florida_man_wants_to_marry_my.php

This is where you go after same sex marriage. Marriage has been reduced to ONLY its legal definition.


#2

Makes sense reductionist way I suppose. Oh heck why not? What difference at this point does it make.


#3

You don’t marry an object, you marry a person. A computer is not a person and is unable to conset freely to marriage. Also, people don’t marry simply for sex (well if your smart you won’t). It’s a very bad analogy. He proved nothing and made himself look silly.


#4

None of what you said is true, if the definition of marriage is fluid. Where are you getting your sources?

My source is the Lord, who has deemed marriage is between a man and a woman. But since society and some state’s have made up new definitions, you can’t exactly poke holes in the man. His definition is as valid as that of a same-sex “marriage.”


#5

Why can’t the definition of marriage be changed to between a person and an object?


#6

I have this friend;), whom some have said is married to his job.:slight_smile:


#7

I’d say the definition has been expanded, not changed.

Besides, what is it about same sex marriage that leads you and others to believe that it moves us closer to to the idea of marriage to an object? Gay people are persons, not objects. They are not closer to an object then straight people. I think this dog and pony show tells us more about how this man sees gay people then it does abou the law.


#8

Let’s not stop expanding now!


#9

Wonder if the Libs will allow the Muslims to marry the young now?:shrug:


#10

I don’t see why not. Lowering age of consent laws are being considered in many states right now.


#11

A better question would be about allowing polygamous Muslim marriages and/or recognizing such marriages.


#12

Don’t change the change, I’d say. :slight_smile:

Progress never ends.

And if there are people hurt by not being able to marry their loved one, should we as people of compassion not step in and help them out?


#13

Why, oh why, did this happen in my state? I think Florida is the new joke state. The media looks for the bizarre stories down here. If it happened in a more respectable state, they’d ignore it. We aren’t all nuttier than squirrel poo down here, I promise. :o


#14

"Short on sound legal grounding (and even shorter on wit), Sevier’s filing is obviously an attempt to punk the legal system because he doesn’t agree with gay marriage (as he says in the filing, “sexual orientation” never existed as a classification until President Obama came along to advance his “social agenda to make America a ‘gay nation.’”

Sevier says he’s here to make the courts “put up or shut up” on the equal protection argument upon which the push for gay marriage is based. He obviously thinks his obnoxious argument makes some point."

Sevier doesn’t sound nutty at all to me. He’s using their own argument against them.


#15

Honestly, I often wonder when society is going to legalize marriage between a consenting adult and their parent or grandparent. Then gay marriage proponents would be hypocritical to condemn it as unnatural. But unfortunately they’ll just allow it under “acceptance and tolerance”.

To be very honest, I’m pretty sure we’re getting very close to the end times, although I have nothing to back it up besides saying “look around you”.


#16

Agree 100%


#17

Legally, you are creating family bonds by marrying. You are already linked with legally-recognized familial bonds with your parents, grandparents, siblings, and descendants.

Polygamy is trickier - I’m not sure how you maintain a co-equal status among N participants. Given that most forms of polygamy in history have consisted of a man basically ruling over a group of subservient women as their superior, I’m not sure how you make that work now.


#18

It is a slippery slope we have stepped out on to. Culturally that is.:eek:


#19

That would be equating a person and an object. Gay people can love each other while an object cannot love or feel any kind of emotion (apart from HAL in the film “2001: A Space Odyssey.”) If one wants to dispute gay marriage on moral grounds, that’s fine; but this analogy is meaningless in my view. A better analogy would be a person who wants to marry their parent whom they love and who loves them.


#20

The movie “Her” comes to mind in this case. Also, I’ve seen you here years ago. For someone who is Jewish, you sure do hang around a Catholic forum an awful lot. Are you sure you’re not really Catholic? :wink:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.