You’ll probably read about it first here, but last week another “party” asked to join in the lawsuit filed last October to have declared unconstitutional a part of Tennessee’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman. “Legitimate” media outlets probably won’t report on the motion filed to join in the lawsuit, because it shows how silly things get when society decides it can redefine marriage. But it may not be as silly as one might think.
The “party” in question is a graduate of Vanderbilt University’s law school, so we’re not talking here about some “jail house lawyer.” What he wants is to get the court’s permission to assert his own claim to have his particular form of marriage recognized. And he uses the logic advanced by the same-sex couples in the Tennessee lawsuit to argue that his marriage should also be given legal recognition.
And what is his marriage? According to the complaint, he lawfully married in another state his computer. Yes, you read that correctly. His computer. More specifically, as he states in his pleading, he is “as equally addicted to having sex with [his] computer, as the same-sex proponents are addicted to having sex with a member of their own sex, who can also be classified as ‘sexual objects in kind.’”
As he goes on to say:
“There is no question that all of us have issues. For someone to think that they do not have an issue – that is their issue. So, if the [same-sex] Plaintiffs are going to rewrite the law to get what they want to fit their particular desire, I should have the equal right under the exact same principles to do the same for the sake of equality. The proponent of gay marriage want (sic) to have the right to be married to their sex partner, which must be an equally applied right to all classes of sexual orientation.”
Once you stop laughing, I invite you to consider the fact that once people would have laughed at the idea of same sex marriage. It was “unnatural.” But people aren’t laughing anymore.
“Natural marriage” is a concept from which the same-sex marriage crowd has intentionally distanced itself. They have denied the procreative potentiality of heterosexual intimacy has anything to do with defining marriage. Instead, to them marriage is at best only about love, or at worst, only about sex.
When it comes to love, same- sex marriage advocates say their “love” is the “same love” as heterosexual love, as if biological differences are irrelevant. In fact, there’s a song by the name Same Love.
So, essentially the young lawyer, sadly addicted to pornography, has taken those arguments to say that if procreation and biology are irrelevant to marriage, then why should the only thing that’s left — love — be restricted only to human relationships?
Before you write me off as crazy for even “reporting” on this man’s effort to join the same-sex marriage lawsuit, let me refer you to a movie currently showing in theaters. The movie is Her. It explores a man’s love affair with an inanimate object, a “woman” named Samantha who is generated by highly sophisticated, intuitive software that allows for interaction with the computer generated image. It’s sort of Siri™ software on steroids. And lest you think this is some B-run movie, it stars Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, and Scarlett Johansson.
Marriage is the name societies have given to a special type of relationship between men and women. However, if marriage is merely a creation of society that it can redefine, then who is to say what can or cannot constitute a marriage? We know at least one person thinks cyber-marriages are a good idea.