Og, you’re an idiot.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with letting Gays marry, aside from which the slippery slope argument that this will lead to people marrying animals-or (Lol, you moron, Og) inanimate objects, is insane.
Also, there’s no way that the government would ever force churches to do things like pay for abortions or provide contraceptives. That could NEVER happen.
I’ll take y’alls silence on the matter as apology to me.
15 comments Og | Uncategorized
Marrying animals and inanimate objects means those people won’t breed.
Not saying I’m advocating it, just throwing out a bonus most people haven’t thought of.
Or trying to start shit. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t even tell which I’m trying to do anymore :)
ROFL! Grau, you have my permission to stir shit here anytime.
But when we let inanimate objects marry, they’ll want to adopt.
Ed, isn’t that the next step in computer dating???
Ed, you know that ramshackle garage out back? They’ll send in Protective Family Services and take it away from you and give it to a more loving family. And you thought you only had to worry about the Kelo decision? Once they take your shack away for neglect, they’ll decide you can’t keep any of your kids.
That woman married the building to save it from gentrification and for historical preservation. Marriage as stunt. Almost three years ago a woman married the Eiffel Tower, for real, really really truly truly out of affection. I think her story better fits your analogy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
In order to do my part for the community I’ll gladly volunteer to be a foster owner for any misused sports cars or fishing boats protective services feel should be removed for their own well being.
Gram, I would do the same for any 30-40 year old “classic” cars out there. Specifically something along the lines of a Chevy Nova or Chevelle SS. Someone has to have more of them then they should really allowed to have (it’s just not fair), and in light of that, one should find its way to my driveway.
I am really not getting why the Slippery Slope argument is considered a logical fallacy. It seems pretty reliable from where I am sitting.
And you left out the whole polygamy crowd. While it is pretty easy to live that way under the radar, I am sure that such people would prefer a legally recognized relationship. You know, so they can visit each other in the hospital.
“Someone has to have more of them then they should really allowed to have ”
Auto-polygamy?
Mts: The whole POINT is that it cheapened the word marriage.
Here’s my favorite bit. “Saved from gentrification”. It’s a ramshackle abandoned old warehouse. It is abandoned because the industry that once used it has been chased out of existence in the US< due to overregulation or taxation, or whatever, and now they want to make it into something NICE. That's what gentrification IS< making an old area NICE. let's put an end to THAT shit NOW!!!
Gave Deb two lightly misted Greek poolboys…they gentrified her right up!!
Seriously, isn’t this the same bit of skullduggery that went on out east, where a city used “emanate domain” to take over a couple of houses in order to put in something “nicer” (for the city tax coffers)?
No, as far as I can tell, this is a private company who owns the building and is tearing it down to build something they can actually sell.
I’d like to drop an off the cuff joke like “Polygamy is its own punishment”, but the facts of how young men are ostracized and cast out to reduce competition for the limited supply of women, and the cold fact of how those women are treated pretty much as property makes me want to retch.
I can laugh at the moron who wants to marry his Xbox, polygamists not so much.