Woman planning to marry a...

This case does beg a few questions, though...

1. When the Lions form Voltron, does that count as copulation?

2. Would the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower ever get together? And if they do, would that count as incest, seeing as they have the same designer (father)?

Just throwing things out there on a more lighthearted note. :wacky:
 
Addle said:
That's like saying people should stop using sex toys because they can't give consent.
Click to expand...

Sex does not equal marriage. Marriage without consent is slavery, sex without consent is rape.

Anyway, marriage with consent is a legal issue, sex with consent is not a legal issue. When two people agree to have sex they don't sit down and start signing papers. -_-

In addition: Marriage is a legal partnership, sex can just be a spur of the moment thing that never develops into anything other than a memory.

Regardless, this whole concept of sex toys giving or not giving consent is ridiculous, as sex toys don't have sex organs and therefore cannot have sex in the first place, and if you can't have sex with them, you cannot rape them. So there is no giving consent" or not giving consent, because the action cannot take place.

We're debating whether the action of marrying an amusement park ride can take place, if it can take place then someone could force it to take place, and as I said before, forcing marriage pretty much slavery.


By giving an inanimate object the right to be married, you're acknowledging that it deserves rights in the first place.
Start down that road and playing basketball will be considered assaulting the ball and wearing underwear will be considered sexually harassing an article of clothing. o_O
 
Vladislak said:
Sex does not equal marriage. Marriage without consent is slavery, sex without consent is rape.

Anyway, marriage with consent is a legal issue, sex with consent is not a legal issue. When two people agree to have sex they don't sit down and start signing papers. -_-

In addition: Marriage is a legal partnership, sex can just be a spur of the moment thing that never develops into anything other than a memory.

Regardless, this whole concept of sex toys giving or not giving consent is ridiculous, as sex toys don't have sex organs and therefore cannot have sex in the first place, and if you can't have sex with them, you cannot rape them. So there is no giving consent" or not giving consent, because the action cannot take place.

We're debating whether the action of marrying an amusement park ride can take place, if it can take place then someone could force it to take place, and as I said before, forcing marriage pretty much slavery.


By giving an inanimate object the right to be married, you're acknowledging that it deserves rights in the first place.
Start down that road and playing basketball will be considered assaulting the ball and wearing underwear will be considered sexually harassing an article of clothing. o_O
Click to expand...

First of all, it is illogical to bring slavery into this conversation because inanimate objects do not have rights. You call it "slavery", but do you think the object will complain? If this woman actually marries it, what will change? Objects cannot complain, they cannot sue you, they cannot feel anything. This thread isn't about the non-existent rights of the object, but of the rights of the woman.
 
What if... the objects had emotions, feelings... we just never knew because they had no way to express them!

How would the Ride feel!? (no pun intended) I honestly, think it is a big joke. She should just be able to own it, what's the point in marrying it to be honest? It sounds like either a loss of sanity or just a way to get recognized.
 
Addle said:
First of all, it is illogical to bring slavery into this conversation because inanimate objects do not have rights. You call it "slavery", but do you think the object will complain? If this woman actually marries it, what will change? Objects cannot complain, they cannot sue you, they cannot feel anything.
Click to expand...

I'm debating about an argument that directly relates to the topic. The argument says that it can't happen because objects don't give consent, those who oppose it compared it to using sex toys. All I'm doing is pointing out the futility in the comparison of marrying an object to using sex toys.

I'm fully aware that objects don't really have any rights, in fact that was my argument in the first place. I was countering a previous argument by proving that it would be wrong regardless of circumstances. In other words, I'm taking on their argument from the inside out, saying that if they did have rights, it would then be considered slavery. But since they don't have rights (much less hands), then they cannot sign any legal documents in order to marry in the first place.
To sum up: if they do have rights it's slavery, if they don't then they can't legally marry in the first place.
Thus I defeat my opponents arguments because there is no third option, they either have rights or they don't (which, quite obviously they don't).
I'm not stupid, I know a ball won't object to being forced into a marriage.

In addition, when I compared a forced marriage to slavery in the first place, I was speaking about forced marriage in general. I was simply pointing out that if a man forced a woman to marry him it would be comparable to slavery. It had nothing to do with inanimate objects and whether they had rights at that point. I went on to address that because someone had brought up the concept that they can't give consent.

To restate what I said at the beginning of this post, my entire post existed just to prove how foolish it was to compare marriage to using sex toys. That's all.

Please read into the arguments and what posts they stemmed from before you jump to conclusions.

This thread isn't about the non-existent rights of the object, but of the rights of the woman.
Click to expand...
I'd beg to differ there, the thread isn't about the rights of the woman. It's about the marriage of a woman and an amusement park ride. Therefore by definition it is a legal union and both parties must be considered, if one side of the party cannot be considered in the legal union (due to a lack of rights perhaps?), then the marriage wouldn't be a "union" at all.
As I said before, if an inanimate object is given the right to be married to someone, then you're acknowledging that it has rights in the first place. Which it doesn't, and that was more or less my argument.
 
She's getting married with an object because she's in love with it and she wants to (due to MENTAL CONDITIONS). I guess people didn't realise this when they read it. It's her life; why should we interfere?
 
Because we're human beings. And people are stupid. Why do we care about Britney Spears' life or Elian Gonzalez? The money-hungry media thinks differently, because they know that throwing something that deviates from the norm or is even remotely controversial out in the open is like crap for flies. And it gives Addle and Vladislak something to argue about.
 
Apolyonn said:
And it gives Addle and Vladislak something to argue about.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have very little interest in the actual situation with this woman. In short I simply have an intellectual interest in the concepts behind the situation. I couldn't care less if she married an amusement park ride, I just don't think it's legally possible.

Why the hell did Plato go out of his way to try and define the perfect city? It had no real relevance to his life as it could only exist in an ideal world. Simply put, sometimes the most trivial of things make the most fascinating topics.

But I digress, discussing why we are discussing women marrying objects is not this threads topic.

P.S. If you'd mentioned Brittney Spears or Elian Gonzalez I would have lost interest immediately. I hate talking about celebrities and things promoted by the media in that fashion almost as much as I hate talking about politicians (who are often celebrities themselves, so the hate is even bigger :awesome:).
 
I'd say defining the perfect city is a bit more interesting of a concept than marriage rights. Most people don't take marriage very seriously at all, or maybe they just can't get it right the first time. I'd be more interested in how she'd react if she got a divorce or cheated on it.
 
Apolyonn said:
I'd say defining the perfect city is a bit more interesting of a concept than marriage rights.
Click to expand...
You know, that's what I thought when I read Plato's work on it; I thought it would be interesting. But he likes to drag things out a lot, he takes like 200 pages to say what could easily be said in maybe a page and a half. o_O

Anyway, I guess it's fair to say that everybody has different tastes. I like talking about things unusual (such as whether objects can get married).

I'd be more interested in how she'd react if she got a divorce or cheated on it.
Click to expand...

Generally I detest cheating in any way shape or form, but I'd have to say... If there's any person with an excuse to see other people, it's someone who's married to an amusement park ride. :P
 
I thought that this sounded a tad too strange to even be allowed?

Why are we allowed to marry inanimate objects, yet people are still fighting to have the right to marry their same sex partners?

It's ludicrous in my opinion.

Such conditions can only fall into the mentally ill category.

She definitely needs counseling in my opinion.

Though if she is happy with the fact that she has the love of her life forever and ever, and doesn't mind other people riding him then I guess she's doing no real harm.

It's just insulting to same sex couples and their battle to be able to do the same thing. <_<
 
Kandy-Sugar said:
It's just insulting to same sex couples and their battle to be able to do the same thing. <_<
Click to expand...
I actually didn't think about that. I'd say, good point, but I doubt the government would really go through the hassle of legalizing this as a marriage. Besides, she might just be doing this for attention. Most people who claim they have a mental illness don't; it's often the people who turly have these illnesses that think nothing is wrong with them.
 
Damn it, that's the most ridiculous thing I've read all year. The lady needs to be put somewhere safe, like a mental asylum. Although they need to make sure she doesn't fall in love with the sofa. :P
I wonder what her church has to say about this, and especially if the church she plays the organ for is against same-sex marriage.
 
Why is this even allowed? It's complete idiocy. Is a priest REALLY going to stand there and marry them? How will it say its bloody vows?
 
This is disturbing.

I wouldn't mind heading on over to that amusement park to have an affair with her ride. I have some of his nuts, too! Mmmhmm. I even quit my job to get the job of operating this particular piece of equipment during the open season. We spend all day together. Hell, we even sleep together. During sex, we take proper cautionary measures. Gotta wrap those gears up.

Yeah, you get the idea. But seriously, freaky stuff. She needs to be committed.
 
You know, it's stories like this that make me wonder how 'special' marriage really is. When you allow someone to get married to an inanimate object and not to someone of the same sex, who is a human, with feelings, needs, etc...I just...yeah.
 
Check out some of the related articles. Nifty stuff for sure.

"MAN HAS SEX WITH PICNIC TABLE!"
"WOMAN ENDS 29 YEAR RELATIONSHIP WITH BERLIN WALL!"

...and something about having sex with a fence. I dunno. I'm going off memory since I'm too lazy to bring the webpage up again. People fail.
 
Bun said:
You know, it's stories like this that make me wonder how 'special' marriage really is. When you allow someone to get married to an inanimate object and not to someone of the same sex, who is a human, with feelings, needs, etc...I just...yeah.
Click to expand...
Marriage is entirely up to interpretation. Some people still see it as a special union. Others see it as a joke. The fact that you can be married to someone you just met by an Elvis impersonator shows that some people don't take marriage very seriously. And because divorce is so readily available these days, marriage may seem like not that big a deal to some. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that marriage is what you make of it. As such I can't see why gay marriage isn't legal either.

Anyway this women could very well have a mental disorder of some sort. I've never met her so I can't jump to conclusions. But I don't think she needs to be committed or anything. People have done a lot worse things than her. However, on that note I think it's a pretty stupid idea to try to marry a rollercoaster.....Actually on second thought the legal benefits would be a plus..and this certainly isn't the first time someone has had a sexual experience with an inanimate object :wacky:
 
Lmao! I love rollercoasters/rides, maybe I'll marry one too!

Seriously though, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard! They're not honestly allowing this are they? She's clearly mental! It seems no one wants to offend anyone these days and will let them do whatever they want no matter how stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top