SOMETIMES I GET SO FUCKING ANGRY WHEN I REMEMBER THAT I AM A GIRL BECAUSE MY MONEY HAS TO GO TO BUYING BRAS FOR THESE STUPID ORGANIC MILK BAGS AND PADS FOR MONTHLY UNWANTED SUBSCRIPTION OF LUCIFER’S WATERFALL LIKE WTF MAN WHY DONT THESE THINGS COME FREE WHEN MY UNWANTED PACKAGE IS GIVEN TO ME SERIOUSLY THO
organic milk bags
monthly subscription to lucifer’s waterfall
John does realize that people are already marrying inanimate objects and dogs right?:
Man to marry his VW Beetle (and he has apparently already consummated the relationship over 1000 times)
So you see John, when people who are against “marriage equality” use this as a reason to oppose it they do so because crap like this is already happening. We are already sliding down the slippery slope.
So it appears the only dumbass machine on the Daily Show, is you John.
Slippery Slope fallacy….
The slippery slope fallacy would only be in play if I didn’t have concrete examples and was making wild claims. However I have several examples and these are just the first few I culled from google search, trust me there are many more than these.
You’re creating a false correlation. You’re assuming that marrying animals/objects is BECAUSE of same-sex marriage. It’s not. Do not create a false line between two unrelated occurrences. The fact that two consenting adults are now allowed to marry is not the reason for the examples you provided.
“So you see John, when people who are against ‘marriage equality’ use this as a reason to oppose it they do so because crap like this is already happening. We are already sliding down the slippery slope.”
And, yet, in most places in the world, gay people still can’t even marry, so maybe instead of marking it down as the “slippery slope effect of same-sex marriage,” you should reevaluate how your society doesn’t want to give two consenting adults marriage rights because they are of the same sex but will let some random asshole marry his anime pillow and countless of heterosexuals marry and divorce three months later. Maybe the reason “we are already sliding down the slipper slope” is because heterosexuals have made an entire mockery of marriage as an institution to a point where it no longer holds so much weight that some person can marry his fucking car. But, no, I’m sure the problem is “the gays” and their need for trivial things like equal rights.
Take a seat, boo!
You’re quickly becoming one of my favorites for posts.
Thank you for cutting through the bullshit.
Oh, and just because I’m the mood to to keep bitches seated, let me also point out a few things:
"Man marries anime pillow":
"True love can take many forms. In this case, it has taken the form of a Korean man falling in love with, and eventually marrying, a large pillow with a picture of a woman on it.”
As in: this man is interested in the female form, however it may be printed. Whether on a pillow, or a piece of cardboard, or a wall. He specifically “married” a pillow with a female picture on it. That makes him heterosexual, and delusional, because he seems to not be in love with the pillow as so much with the character:
"…the ‘magical girl’ anime series Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha."
Not that being in love with a pillow is less delusional, but he didn’t just marry the inanimate object for no reason. He didn’t pick a random pillow. He picked a specific one because he is in love with a fictional female character.
But, just so we’re also clear, it mentions nothing about the legal status of the marriage, only that a special ceremony was performed in front of a priest. Depending on the place in question, a religious/spiritual ceremony does not equate to a legal binding contract. In Korea, in specific, it does not. This is not a legal marriage sanctioned by the law. So keep your bullshit link to yourself.
"…has wed the pillow in a special ceremony, after fitting it out with a wedding dress for the service in front of a local priest.”
"Man marries VW Beetle":
"You see, Smith is actually GETTING MARRIED to his Volkswagen Beetle. He loves ‘Vanilla’ so much that he calls the car his girlfriend.”
Note: no mention of the car as an “it” or a male.
As far as this article in particular is concerned, he didn’t marry the actual car. It reads:
"Smith has actually admitted to having, er, relations with his car and will be wed to it in due course.”
Whatever that means.
"Woman marries building":
This, literally, has nothing to do with sexuality. The woman is an activist who is trying to make a point.
"If corporations can have the rights as people, so can buildings,’ said Aivaz, referencing a Supreme Court decision on political advertising."
"On her Facebook wedding invitation page, she explained that her intent is to reclaim the warehouse as a place to address the needs of the neighborhood."
And, specifically, she is not performing a legal, binding ceremony. She wants to challenge the laws for a point, but her ceremony isn’t legal.
"Woman marries dog":
Full title: Woman marries DOG in ‘romantic’ wedding ceremony - after marriage to man didn’t work out.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over her HETEROSEXUALITY.
There is also zero statement here on whether or not her marriage is legally binding.
"Man marries dog":
Which brings me to my final point: I question the veracity of all of your links. Provide proper sources next time and I won’t feel compelled to shit on your entire life like it’s the Oregon Trail and about to die of dysentery.