Several of my computers, still in at least occasional use, would meet the 18 rule in the UK.
The Utah Attorney General's Office says marrying a laptop is not a constitutionally protected right, particularly if it's less than fifteen years old. Responding to a quixotic lawsuit that aspires to undo the US Supreme Court's recognition of same-sex marriage, David N Wolf, Assistant Attorney General of Utah, contends that …
I've got an old Epson HX-20 kicking around somewhere in its case, from 1980, known as the first laptop computer, with a built-in miniature tape recorder & printer!
In another box there's some Psion Organiser II's from the mid 80s.
Plus other old computer tech I've forgotten I own.
I'm not a hoarder, I'm an old junk tech collector....who collects old junk tech ;)
So if he had married the laptop and in the next Windows 10 update the thing died with a BSOD would Microsoft be up for a murder rap?
Or would the doting husband to be be now unable to remove bits of the machine's hardware because that would be harvesting organs?
All stuff that those crazee Utans need to tell us, I am sure.
No he is say the same sex marriage is wrong and absurd , that we must abide be his definition of marriage. In his mind letting gays get married is destruction of marriage (like he has the rights to that word). So in his mind if two guys can get hitched why can't marry my dog, my gun my computer. Wait on second though I would not mind if he married a shot gun and tried to consummate that marriage .
>>"People made exactly the same argument back when the issue was interracial marriage. If the government can't regulate who is allowed to marry who, then how can it legally stop someone marrying their horse?"
Where did this odd idea that marriage is about love come from? I thought it was all about ensuring proper inheritance and obligation to look after children. Interracial couples can have children. People and laptops (and horses) cannot. Gay couples sort of cannot but there are both adoptive and technological alternatives depending.
Marriage has served many purposes. Which purposes these are has varied throughout history. There are certainly many couples who married without love in order to secure alliances between powerful families, but there are also people who gave up much of their wealth and status to marry someone beneath their class whome they loved. Even the occasional royal marrying a commoner.
The importance for child-rearing is somewhat lessened today by the availability of contraception. It is no longer an inevitability that every sexually-active heterosexual couple will produce children, as used to be the case, so there is no longer that need to force them into a long-term legal union to make sure they would have no choice but to combine resources to care for those children.
"Marriage has served many purposes. Which purposes these are has varied throughout history. There are certainly many couples who married without love in order to secure alliances between powerful families, but there are also people who gave up much of their wealth and status to marry someone beneath their class whome they loved. Even the occasional royal marrying a commoner."
It's only recently that marrying for love was something a large fraction of the population did. Increased mobility and telecommunications have radically increased the ability to connect with other people, which has made it much easier to "find love".
" In his mind letting gays get married is destruction of marriage (like he has the rights to that word). So in his mind if two guys can get hitched why can't marry my dog, my gun my computer."
I think we're misjudging this guy here. From the article:-
"This is Sevier's third bite at the Apple, so to speak – or fourth if you count his 2015 lawsuit against Apple for his porn addiction"
So he's not on a crusade against gay marriage, he just wants to marry his laptop so that all the sex will stop...
I slept with a PDP-11/04 back in 1979. NYC was pretty crazy.
The PDP (RT11) was busy printing a massive General Ledger on greenbar fanfold paper. When the printing stopped I would wake up and see what it needed. Another box paper or something more serious. Then back to sleep.
Earlier in the evening I would start a job then walk over to Times Square to grab a liter of German beer. Finish that off and go back in time to start the next step.
I also developed the Financial software that was producing the reports.
I was a DevOP before there were DevOps with a side of BOFH.
There really should be a law forcing idiots who file this sort of "lawsuit" to pay for the all the time they waste. How much time has the AG and staff wasted on this? How much court time will this silliness consume?
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to file frivolous lawsuits, just that they should have to pay for their hobby, full compensation for the time they use up. Otherwise, the taxpayers foot the bill, and government already wastes far too much.
There is quite a bit wrong with that statement, where to begin:
1. You don't have to agree with the motives of these people to agree it is good they have the right to try to clarify law through a court of law and to want to uphold their right to clarify the law through the law.
2. Who is the arbiter of "social trolling" versus simply a different opinion? Having a society where there is social trolling, is certainly better than having a society where social trolling is disallowed. What kind of mechanisms would allow that and how could they look any different from despotism? The only answer I suggest is that you would devise a system of law that would end up looking very similar to the system that has given rise to this story.
3. They will lose their case, thereby the law will underline and protect legislation for gay marriage. That seems to me to be a good outcome and a good example of the law working well and in the interests of society and the intent of the legislation that has been passed.
4. There will have been demonstration everyone has recourse to the law but that these people have wasted their money simply through being idiots.
>2. Who is the arbiter of "social trolling" versus simply a different opinion?<
Currently, it seems to be the rabid left/feminazi/green/homosexual/globalist/humanrights Theocracy Cabal of Evil..
>Having a society where there is social trolling, is certainly better than having a society where social trolling is disallowed.<
Yes, it's a safety valve.
>What kind of mechanisms would allow that and how could they look any different from despotism<
There are no difference!
"I'm honestly surprised their have been no serious attempts to marry a corporation. Persons in the eyes of the law, right?"
Any moment now ...
After all, it's the US: you can actually apply for a patent of round corners and file a suit in a small claims court to recover $17.31 in expenses for a date gone awry.
It's just a matter of time.
"After all, it's the US: you can actually apply for a patent of round corners and file a suit in a small claims court to recover $17.31 in expenses for a date gone awry"
Seriously? Next you'll be saying they have a president who makes up fake terrorist incidents at Bowling Greens and in Sweden, and when a real one comes along he spouts unhelpful, out of context stuff about the city's mayor?
It could never happen ....
Is this the same Chris Sevier whose license to practice law was revoked due to mental health issues? Or the same Chris Sevier who has had several restraining orders placed against him for stalking and harassment? Or the same Chris Sevier who had a warrant for his arrest due to failing to pay child support and violating restraining orders? Or the same Chris Sevier convicted of assault?
I'm not sure his laptop would want to marry him...
"This lawyer trying to pull off a False Dilemma fallacy isn't that entertaining. I've seen more subtle and elegant attempts on good ol' usenet."
There is a... gentleman... who has posted 'OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason' on talk.origins last week. Apparently it's an effort to show that allowing same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to incest. In particular, according to the... gentleman, who is a math prof at the University of South Carolina if his sig line is to be believed, same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to gay incest involving elderly parents and their children-turned-caregivers.
I swear that I'm not making this up. Google Groups is your friend for those who want to see all 49 (as of the time I post this) replies in that thread.
name redacted 'cause otherwise El Reg's mods would kill this post.
Sounds like the marriage laws were badly written - possibly they got some of the Westminster legal drafters involved.
If a law on marriage doesn't start by saying something very like "marriage is a contract between two consenting, adult individual persons..." then it's badly drafted. That then simply excludes a) children (a problem in some states), b) corporations c) things d) animals and e) football teams or other groups of people. If you want to allow polygamy and polyandry then drop the 'two', but that does introduce some interesting complications for who gets a 'widows' pension!
...constantly asking me stupid questions that just serve to slow me down and piss me off
...crashing continually, throwing messages that have no correlation with the 'real problem' whatsoever
...no matter how big a hard drive I threw in it, just not enough
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019