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.

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 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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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