He claims that he should be allowed to marry his pornography-filled computer but then argues that marriage should be limited to one-man one-woman. You can't have it both ways. You can't ask to marry your computer while at the same time saying you shouldn't be allowed to marry your computer.
He is totally stupid on so many levels but let's go through the obvious ones.
1. Marriage is between one man and one woman who have corresponding sexual parts that are designed to pro-create (paraphrasing) and pro-creation is really the purpose of marriage
So if you have a man who has a deformed penis or a woman who, for whatever reason cannot be penetrated they must be denied a marriage license. So if you have a man and a woman where one or the other are sterile they cannot marry - and virility must be determined before the license is issued. If you have a man and a woman and they don't pro-create within who long? one year? five years? should their marriage license be rescinded?
2. We are a Christian Nation
Not. This has been debunked so many times it hurts but let's just review. The Founding Fathers were Deists and not overt Christians. There is NO mention of God, Jesus, the Christ, etc. in any of our founding documents. There is mention of the "Creator". That is the language of Enlightenment Deist thinking - not Christianity.
3. A marriage could ever exist between a person and an inanimate object
Marriage is a legal contract. It would indeed be a legal precedent if we began recognizing the right of inanimate objects or even non-human living objects such as a plant, a dog, a horse, etc. to marry.
There is a minimum legal requirement to enter into a contract. Both parties must have the ability to understand what they are doing, the significance of the act and the objective of the act in order to enter into a contract.
No plant or non-human animal of which I am aware could meet those qualifications. I guess it is possible that at some point in the future with artificial intelligence a computer, robot, etc. might meet those requirements but I am inclined to think our legal system would reject such acts as shenanigans.
= new reply since forum marked as read
