He took computer dating a bit literally.
According to the UK Telegraph, Chris Sevier of Florida filed suit in that state and in Utah, claiming he was denied a license to marry his sweetheart, a pornography-laden Macbook. Both suits have been rejected at this point, and it’s unknown if Sevier plans to appeal.
His reasoning is that if homosexuals are allowed to wed the object of their desire despite clear biological incompatibility, then he has a right to marry his.
Sevier claims in his suit that if homosexuals are “second-class” citizens, then “those of us in the real minority, who want to marry machines and animals, certainly feel like third class citizens.”
It sounds like a joke, but Sevier claims to be sincere, and he points out previous cases from around the world, such as one in which a woman married a dolphin.
“Over time, I began preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women,” he told the Florida court.
He argues that giving one sexual minority — homosexuals — special privileges but denying them to others is discriminatory. “We are in different classes of sexual orientation,” he argued in Utah. “… The exclusion from marriage to a machine denies myself a dignity and status of immense import.”
The Utah filing appears to be an effort to influence an ongoing homosexual marriage case, so presumably the Florida suit is also just to make a point, and Sevier makes several by using the same arguments advocates for homosexual marriages have used.
“Allowing my marriage to go forward will not adversely impact the fertility rate any more or less than a same sex couple’s,” he wrote. “If there is a risk that is posed to traditional marriage and children, both man-man couples and man-machine couples pose it equally. … In considering the equal protection clause, there are no fewer policy reasons for preventing man-machine couples from marrying than there are for same-sex couples.”
His suit underscores the main argument against homosexual marriage, which is that it’s changing the definition of marriage from a union centered around procreation and the need for a stable environment in which to raise children, to one that is focused exclusively on sexual and personal gratification.
That being the case, any limit on the new definition of marriage is completely arbitrary, whereas real marriages are defined by biological design and imperative. Once a society allows homosexual marriages, there is no rational reason left not to allow child marriages, sibling marriages, multiple marriages, animal marriages and any other deviancy people can come up with.
The argument that homosexual couplings don’t affect your own personal marriage is self-centered at the very least, because allowing two men or two women to marry will affect marriage for all couples who come afterward. If marriage can be anything, it will ultimately become nothing, and the most likely result will be an increase in out-of-wedlock births, unwed teen motherhood, a rise in abortions and an increase sexually transmitted diseases as people choose promiscuity over commitment.
As specious as Sevier’s arguments are, the scenario he presents one day soon could actually come to pass.