Buy Official Merchandise!
Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Gay The latest in CA - the Prop 8 debacle

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

spacekadt Posted:

You’ve brought it up and GR continues to. I think it’s a fair discussion point here… especially because she didn’t address it to you specifically or on a quote about something entirely different.

I completely agree with her; marriage should not and cannot be defined in terms of making babies, for the very reasons she listed. It’s unfair to the infertile or to those who simply don’t want kids. It’s a stupid standard and I really feel like it’s the last bastion of the desperate and unintelligent who don’t realize how badly changing definitions of marriage to that extent would screw over people.

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
81

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Shii Posted:

How is it that attraction to another gender isn’t a fetish but attraction to children or animals or even people in fursuits for that matter is?

Does that mean that everything listed above is a sexual orientation and deserves equal rights as well? I’m sorry but I’m not giving a bestialist the right to marry an animal, nor a pedo the right to marry a child. All of the above are perversions of the normal, natural working order of nature, and as such, are all fetishes.

If it doesn’t make babies, it’s a fetish. Liking feet doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Liking fursuits doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Non-reproductory sexual objects/behaviors = fetishes, and homosexuality is lumped in there. Sorry to be blunt, but this is getting ridiculous.

bull****, shii. ridiculous is lumping gay people in with bestiality or pedophilia. as soon as animals or children are the same as *consenting adults* you can make that argument. until then, let’s keep apples and oranges separate, k?

edit: so wait, fetishes should not get the right to marry. anything that does not result in children is a fetish. but gay people should be able to marry?

spacekadt edited this message on 06/03/2009 2:31AM

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

How is it that attraction to another gender isn’t a fetish but attraction to children or animals or even people in fursuits for that matter is?

Does that mean that everything listed above is a sexual orientation and deserves equal rights as well? I’m sorry but I’m not giving a bestialist the right to marry an animal, nor a pedo the right to marry a child. All of the above are perversions of the normal, natural working order of nature, and as such, are all fetishes.

If it doesn’t make babies, it’s a fetish. Liking feet doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Liking fursuits doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Non-reproductory sexual objects/behaviors = fetishes, and homosexuality is lumped in there. Sorry to be blunt, but this is getting ridiculous.

Are you serious with this? If it doesn’t make babies, it’s a fetish? I’m really having a hard time taking you seriously if that’s actually your position. I’m sorry, but your religious beliefs do not in fact determine what is and is not a fetish.

And no, lumping pedophilia and bestiality in with homosexuality is not by any means okay. Need I remind you that gay marriage involves two CONSENTING adults? Children and animals cannot give consent. There is a huge fundamental difference there.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

spacekadt Posted:

bull****, shii. ridiculous is lumping gay people in with bestiality or pedophilia. as soon as animals or children are the same as *consenting adults* you can make that argument. until then, let’s keep apples and oranges separate, k?

I said in my previous posts I don’t think that they’re the same to the consent issue and the suffering implicit within the latter two, but as far as fetishes go, they all act the same.

It’s like saying “well, sounding is fine, but anyone who indulges in watersports is a sick ****.” Sorry, but personal preferences don’t give fetishes any different hierarchy. They’re all the same from a biological standpoint.

EDIT: I’m going to bed; there’s no point in arguing this further. We’ve all said our piece, and moral standpoints shouldn’t be and won’t be changed by a single thread in an online game.

I enjoyed the discussion; see you all later.

Shii edited this message on 06/03/2009 2:32AM

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[Forumwarz One Act -
Players
]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

Shii Posted:

How is it that attraction to another gender isn’t a fetish but attraction to children or animals or even people in fursuits for that matter is?

Does that mean that everything listed above is a sexual orientation and deserves equal rights as well? I’m sorry but I’m not giving a bestialist the right to marry an animal, nor a pedo the right to marry a child. All of the above are perversions of the normal, natural working order of nature, and as such, are all fetishes.

If it doesn’t make babies, it’s a fetish. Liking feet doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Liking fursuits doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Non-reproductory sexual objects/behaviors = fetishes, and homosexuality is lumped in there. Sorry to be blunt, but this is getting ridiculous.

So heterosexuality is a fetish? You don’t seem to understand what fetishes are.

I thought this thread was about gay marriage rights?

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
81

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Shii Posted:

I said in my previous posts I don’t think that they’re the same to the consent issue and the suffering implicit within the latter two, but as far as fetishes go, they all act the same.

It’s like saying “well, sounding is fine, but anyone who indulges in watersports is a sick ****.” Sorry, but personal preferences don’t give fetishes any different hierarchy. They’re all the same from a biological standpoint.

EDIT: I’m going to bed; there’s no point in arguing this further. We’ve all said our piece, and moral standpoints shouldn’t be and won’t be changed by a single thread in an online game.

I enjoyed the discussion; see you all later.

so are you denying marriage to someone that enjoys watersports?

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

was Posted:

So heterosexuality is a fetish? You don’t seem to understand what fetishes are.

I thought this thread was about gay marriage rights?

It is, and that’s why I’m done posting here. It’s just being derailed and no new opinions are being expressed.

EDIT: No, space, I was giving an example about how silly drawing lines between fetishes are. Every fetish is 100% exactly as legitimate as all the rest.

Shii edited this message on 06/03/2009 2:34AM

Ricket

MODERATOR
Avatar: 4300 2011-11-01 00:56:47 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

Good poster, upvoted.

Shii Posted:

If it doesn’t make babies, it’s a fetish. Liking feet doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Liking fursuits doesn’t make babies; it’s a fetish. Non-reproductory sexual objects/behaviors = fetishes, and homosexuality is lumped in there.

Okay, what about like abasiophilia, attraction to physically disabled people? It doesn’t impact the chances of reproduction (bumuming the appropriate pieces are still all functional) but is undoubtly a fetish. There are many others on this list so I just grabbed the first appropriate one.

I think your defintion of fetish fails.

Ricket edited this message on 06/03/2009 2:36AM

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[Forumwarz One Act -
Players
]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

Shii Posted:

It is, and that’s why I’m done posting here. It’s just being derailed and no new opinions are being expressed.

Okay, then I think we can agree that marriage rights shouldn’t be extended to only those of a particular fetish. I am sure we both agree that marriage should be allowed to two consenting adult irregardless of their chosen fetish. This fits with what we just agreed on.

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[Forumwarz One Act -
Players
]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

I would like to point out that two furries can marry without an issue only as long as they are of different sexes.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

was Posted:

Okay, then I think we can agree that marriage rights shouldn’t be extended to only those of a particular fetish. I am sure we both agree that marriage should be allowed to two consenting adult irregardless of their chosen fetish. This fits with what we just agreed on.

Going against my statement of “no more posts” as I shut off my compy to reinforce that I came into this thread saying that gays should have equal legal rights in partnership and that I still hold that view. My own personal viewpoints on homosexuality itself doesn’t abridge their rights as Americans to equal tax and legal benefits.

twas

Avatar: 40896 2011-11-01 00:47:59 -0400
15

[Forumwarz One Act -
Players
]

Level 35 Troll

Wher Have My Poor Imaginary Wife and Child Gone

Shii Posted:

Going against my statement of “no more posts” as I shut off my compy to reinforce that I came into this thread saying that gays should have equal legal rights in partnership and that I still hold that view. My own personal viewpoints on homosexuality itself doesn’t abridge their rights as Americans to equal tax and legal benefits.

Separate but equal.

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
81

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Shii Posted:

Going against my statement of “no more posts” as I shut off my compy to reinforce that I came into this thread saying that gays should have equal legal rights in partnership and that I still hold that view. My own personal viewpoints on homosexuality itself doesn’t abridge their rights as Americans to equal tax and legal benefits.

and we’re back to semantics. currently, the only way to bestow these rights is by a government recognized “marriage” (in quotes because that’s the exact word, not for sarcasm). however, 52% (a ****ing *slim* majority) just defined “marriage” as only being valid between a man and a woman. a damned slim majority just removed civil rights from a minority.

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how this is ok…

hell. take marriage out of the picture. with this law/court ruling, I could just as easily say that any registered independent voter should not be allowed to own a home. all I need is 50.1% of voters to agree with me and now I’ve removed that right as well. it’s a really ****ing slippery slope that I’m *not* ok with.

spacekadt edited this message on 06/03/2009 2:48AM

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

spacekadt Posted:

You’ve brought it up and GR continues to. I think it’s a fair discussion point here… especially because she didn’t address it to you specifically or on a quote about something entirely different.

I never posted anything pertaining to homosexuality. I never said it was wrong, or right, or a fetish or whatever.

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
81

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Shii Posted:

*sighs* I KNEW someone was going to bring this up. If you’d read the posts, plk, you’d know we aren’t talking about describing marriages in terms of who is able to have children or not. We’re merely discussing what constitutes a fetish.

spacekadt Posted:

You’ve brought it up and GR continues to. I think it’s a fair discussion point here… especially because she didn’t address it to you specifically or on a quote about something entirely different.

Generic Racist Posted:

I never posted anything pertaining to homosexuality. I never said it was wrong, or right, or a fetish or whatever.

the point was not fetish, the point was discussing marriage as a union between two people for the purpose of procreation.

Generic Racist Posted:

Marriage is not a right. It is a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a legal interest in unions that have, among other things, the potential to produce children. No one is trying to “strip” homosexuals of their rights. What “really ****ing scary” is that i have been stripped of my RIGHT to bear arms as I please.

Generic Racist Posted:

The reason marriage is recognized by the government is they have vested interests in the marriage. Children are the future of the nation and government, so yes marriage has something to do with children AMONG OTHER THINGS. As I’ve said before, marriage is not a right. No where in the bill of rights does it say marriage is a right. Civil rights are rights IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. NOT AN INHERITANCE RIGHT. So if gays want marriage rights the government has to give it to them. Since we are supposedly self governing we should vote on the issue. If the amendment is unconstitutional then the courts will overturn it. Either way what is right will be done.

spacekadt edited this message on 06/03/2009 3:04AM

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

I’d still like to know where Shii got the idea that homosexuality is a fetish. Not even psychologists believe that anymore, and they are notoriously slow on the uptake.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

spacekadt Posted:

and we’re back to semantics. currently, the only way to bestow these rights is by a government recognized “marriage” (in quotes because that’s the exact word, not for sarcasm). however, 52% (a ****ing *slim* majority) just defined “marriage” as only being valid between a man and a woman. a damned slim majority just removed civil rights from a minority.

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how this is ok…

hell. take marriage out of the picture. with this law/court ruling, I could just as easily say that any registered independent voter should not be allowed to own a home. all I need is 50.1% of voters to agree with me and now I’ve removed that right as well. it’s a really ****ing slippery slope that I’m *not* ok with.

I already did. http://www.forumwarz.com/discussions/view_post/619626

Felon’s can’t vote and I don’t see you raging over that. Aren’t they a minority too? Should we protect them from the evil, ignorant majority? What about their civil rights? Or we just pick and choose who we need to “protect”.

Have you ever thought that maybe you are wrong on this issue? Have you ever though that if the evil, bigoted majority doesn’t want something it shouldn’t be imposed on them. And maybe the poor oppressed minority should pack up and leave if they don’t like it?

The whole issue is about money and acceptance. You can’t force people to accept something and the government can choose who it wasn’t to give money to. Everyone here is acting like these people are beaten and thrown into concentration camps. Go to China and see how they treat gays there, and then tell me we are discriminating against gays here.

I done posting in this thread but i may come back for more liberal OUTRAAAAAAAAGGGGE if I need a laugh.

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
81

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

Generic Racist Posted:

I already did. http://www.forumwarz.com/discussions/view_post/619626

I encourage you to re-read your own post. The government didn’t take these right away, the *people* took them away after *the government* granted them.

Generic Racist Posted:

Felon’s can’t vote and I don’t see you raging over that. Aren’t they a minority too? Should we protect them from the evil, ignorant majority? What about their civil rights? Or we just pick and choose who we need to “protect”.

That’s about as valid as comparing homosexuals to pedos.

Generic Racist Posted:

Have you ever thought that maybe you are wrong on this issue? Have you ever though that if the evil, bigoted majority doesn’t want something it shouldn’t be imposed on them. And maybe the poor oppressed minority should pack up and leave if they don’t like it?

What, pray tell, is being imposed on heterosexuals here? Are you afraid you’re going to be forced into a homosexual marriage? How is this any different from a white man that couldn’t marry a black woman?

Generic Racist Posted:

The whole issue is about money and acceptance. You can’t force people to accept something and the government can choose who it wasn’t to give money to. Everyone here is acting like these people are beaten and thrown into concentration camps. Go to China and see how they treat gays there, and then tell me we are discriminating against gays here.

The government didn’t do anything here. Literally. Some bigoted whack job got enough signatures to put a law on the ballot to define marriage. Never mind that we just had a law trump our state constitution and a court upheld it… but there was zero legislative action here. This isn’t about government defining anything. The government actually said it was pretty ok just a few years ago… this is about *people* telling *other people* who they can and can’t marry.

I honestly don’t know how China treats homosexuals, but it sure as **** doesn’t legitimize taking away rights here. Let’s go for an analogy here. My arm is broken and I got laid off the night before I broke my arm. That’s a pretty ****ed up situation. Some of my friends also got laid off, but they didn’t break their arms. Does that mean that they shouldn’t get unemployment, just because I have it worse? Just because my situation is ****ed doesn’t mean that those friends don’t have it pretty ****ty themselves.

spacekadt edited this message on 06/03/2009 3:51AM

Peregrine

Avatar: 135742 2011-10-31 19:55:54 -0400
6

[love is a dog from-
hell
]

Level 35 Camwhore

Forumwarz' Pretend Homosexual

i just want to find a nice guy and be happy with him and have all the same rights that we could have if i were a woman

i want to have the house on the corner with the front lawn and the sidewalk and the white picket fence and the dog and maybe kids but maybe not the kids

i think i’d want to have more sex than a regular hetero marriage has

Peregrine edited this message on 06/03/2009 4:13AM

Fiasco

Avatar: 46971 Thu Oct 16 00:30:33 -0400 2008
76

Level 69 Permanoob

“Permanoob”

Okay Shii, I’m not going to bust your chops over everything the others have. I am going to take exception to you referring to Canada as “Socialist”.

Over the last 15 years Canada has been a bastion of fiscally conservative policies especially compared to our neighbours to the South. Our current government- The Conservative Party of Canada – to be fair is not as right wing as the Republicans but is certainly to the right of the Democrats. Canada is far more socially liberal than the US (so is every other Democracy on Earth for that matter) but that is indicative of us being far less religious than you not far more socialist.

As far as gay marriage I’ll just say this: In 20 years your children will be as astounded by the fact that gays were not allowed to marry as we are when we consider that a few decades ago inter-racial marriages were illegal in many States.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!