[Request] Beyond Loving a Post - An Idiotic Proposal

[Zappit]

I can like a post. I can love a post. But I do not have a way to take the next step with that special post. There is no option to go steady with a post, or possibly even marry it. Beyonce laid down some clear ground rules. I should be puttin' a ring on it at the point of "Like". I clearly lack the option to wed a post.

While it's a serious commitment to a single post, sometimes posters and posts drift apart, so divorcing that post should be an option, too. Perhaps even annulments should be granted due to poor decisions, and subject to mod approval.

All I'm asking is for another way to like a post, truly, deeply like a post. So many hold the quotes of others in their sigs, their lives intertwined. Why not make it official?

We need not be post sluts, liking strange posts from many different posters.

And, with that, I end this ridiculous, completely non-serious post.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I agree. This is an idiotic proposal

 

[Chad Sexington]

I will only support this if we maintain the integrity of one-man-one-woman marriages. Should a forum member of the same sex deeply love another's post, they are welcome to do that in the privacy of their homes, but I won't let that kind of moral turpitude seep into this great forum, founded on sound family values.

 

[Dave]

I refuse to make a button that says "No homo."

 

[Emrys]

I, for one, support same-sex posts and am deeply offended by anyone forcing their narrow-minded ideology on my fellow posts.

 

[Dave]

Hell, just the name "post" is misogynistic and phallic! They should be changed to something like "word hug".

 

[Krisken]

I just want a button which is a steaming pile of poop. It should replace the disagree button.

 

[GasBandit]

I just want a button which is a steaming pile of poop. It should replace the disagree button.

My mouse would wear out too fast.

 

[Krisken]

My mouse would wear out too fast.

See? It would be used a whole lot more!

 

[Dave]

You're right. It would have been better.

 

[strawman]

A simple icon switch is all that's needed.

[DOUBLEPOST=1354106266][/DOUBLEPOST]Needs more steam.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Here's the thing. Every marriage ceremony in the US, and I'm sure in other places too, has one requirement: a statement of intent by both parties indicating this is consensual. In most marriage ceremonies, this is covered by the "I do"s. However, in this case, the post can't make a statement of its intent, so no marriage, be it one man-one post, one woman-one post, one man-many posts, one woman-many posts, or even one post-one post, can be legally considered a marriage.

 

[strawman]

Posts have no rights, so while noble, your effort to secure freedom for posts dragged into matrimony has no legal basis.

Long before we get to the right to marry, we should be determining if posts have a right to life, nevermind the pursuit of happiness.

I've already deleted one post in this thread. How many more will I kill before you convince the courts of post's rights?

 

[Krisken]

It's a fleeting, momentary love, not an eternal one.

 

[strawman]

It's a fleeting, momentary love, not an eternal one.

That's not love. That's a crush, or perhaps lust.

 

[Dave]

Republicans only care about posts until they become full fledged threads, then they no longer care.

 

[GasBandit]

 

[Krisken]

That's not love. That's a crush, or perhaps lust.

I'm not lusting your posts.

 

[strawman]

I'm not lusting your posts.

 

[PatrThom]

Do we really need a limerence button? I'm not so sure.

--Patrick

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Wait Wait. If post marriage becomes a thing, that means post divorce becomes a thing. And I would watch the ever-loving fuck out of a Post Divorce Court.

 

[Bubble181]

"I do"


Now can I marry this post?