Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Marriage Law By Hairy, With All The Vexing Silence

[Interruption point determined, recording begins]

-the metaphorical dust cleared? Is the same-sex marriage issue decided?

No. All evidence suggests much more argument to come.

Have we successfully predicted an end to arguments like this?

You have, in theory, been correct on multiple occasions.

In theory?

Your answer of 'Never' has shown to be a correct supposition so far.

[violent gill expulsion] Yeah, okay. [ambivalent tentacular gesticulation] So, what progress has been made?

Multiple state-level jurisdictions have ruled upon it and added more argument. Do you intend to pick a side?

Uh, well, not to put too fine a point on it, Shelob, but both male AND female humans are rather unattractive. The females are sometimes neat, especially when they have longer, more flexible arms--

Legs. You are supposed to say legs. Limbs will suffice.

Legs! Right. Thank you for keeping me in practice  . . . but I wouldn't be allowed to marry anyway, so--

[auto-rephrasal procedure activated as misunderstanding detected] Do you intend to blog upon this issue?

--oh . . .  [very long pause, during neuralink access to recent newsfeeds, blogs, etc.]  I'm not even sure why this is an issue at all.

You think the answer is obvious?

No, I mean, I don't know why it's an issue. If I had an acceptable mate, I wouldn't want the government involved at all. Why do 'straight' people want the government having any say over their marriages? Isn't there a slogan somewhere about 'Keep The Government Out Of My Mating?' I don't even understand why heterosexuals are called 'straight.' They're just as twisted as bisexuals, homosexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and the others I can't think of right now. Worse, they're just as crooked! Furth-

That slogan is an approximation of a 'pro-choice' slogan.

[one pupil dilates] -what?! Oh . . . well, okay. But seriously? Why should the government have any say over who, how, whether, or even why people should marry? I mean, marriage is a religious issue for many people--that means that the government shouldn't be involved under separation of church and state. Records probably DO need to be collected and kept, but why should there be any other governmental involvement?

Age limits, voluntary nature, tax purposes, and licensing.

[full five-eye roll] Those are all covered by other laws! Redundancy isn't that valuable! Age limits are covered by statutory rape laws, voluntary nature is covered under rape, kidnapping, and enslavement laws, licensing can be handled by event licensing for the ceremonies--and, really, why should the government license marriage? As for tax purposes, what difference should it make? Children are already tax deductions, right? Homemakers can already be listed as dependents on the tax form for a 'head of household,' right?

[sixteen seconds pass] Your legal interpretations do seem correct. Your suggestion is to eliminate redundancy and make government smaller?

Law is one of those things where less is more, Shelob. Do you want to blog on this for me since medbot hasn't released me yet?

Yes. [recording ends]

No comments:

Post a Comment