Woman planning to marry a...

[Zerokku]

...Fairground ride.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html

Amy Wolfe, a US church organist who claims to have objectum sexuality, a condition that makes sufferers attracted to inanimate objects, plans to marry a magic carpet fairground ride.

This follows a "courtship" of 3,000 rides over ten years with the 80ft gondola ride called 1001 Nachts.

Miss Wolfe, 33, from Pennsylvania, will change her surname to Weber after the manufacturer of the ride she travels 160 miles to visit 10 times per year, according to reports
“I love him as much as women love their husbands and know we’ll be together forever,” she said.

Miss Wolfe first fell for the ride when she was 13: “I was instantly attracted to him sexually and mentally.

“I wasn’t freaked out, as it just felt so natural, but I didn’t tell anyone about it because I knew it wasn’t ‘normal’ to have feelings for a fairground ride.”

Ten years later, she decided to go back to Knoebels Amusement Park to declare her love. She now sleeps with a picture of the ride on her ceiling and carries its spare nuts and bolts around to feel closer to it.

She claims to believe they share a fulfilling physical and spiritual relationship and does not get jealous when other people ride it.

Although she faces discrimination from employers, most of her family and friends have been supportive. “I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it," she said. "It’s a part of who I am.”

And people wonder why I have no faith in humanity.

 

[Serah]

Yes...well, I certainly do question this woman's mentality. I think anybody who's in love with an object has some serious mental problems and really needs help. I don't see how anybody in their right mind would support something like this...but oh well. I guess whatever floats her boat, right? =/

 

[Fusilli]

I just don't understand why this is legal. Especially when there are people who are campaigning to ban gay marriage yet people are allowed to marry inanimate objects?
I mean alright, I know I could never understand why she would want to do this, but I do accept her condition. I still think that this shouldn't be legal though because it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Shu]

I just don't understand why this is legal. Especially when there are people who are campaigning to ban gay marriage yet people are allowed to marry inanimate objects?
I mean alright, I know I could never understand why she would want to do this, but I do accept her condition. I still think that this shouldn't be legal though because it's absolutely ridiculous.

Even if you meant to be serious, I laughed at the very thought of it.

I agree though, this is kind of whacked. I feel like she did some crytal meth and just got the crazy notion to do this. What happens if she wants a divorce?

 

[Caedus]

He won't sign the papers, that's for sure.
This mental problem needs to be corrected with a good dicking, is all. The hell.. honestly.. THE HELL!!!?? Marrying a thing? The wedding vows don't even apply... wtf...

 

[Zerokku]

What happens if she wants a divorce?

Give him back his nuts.

 

[Ilyena]

How exactly is she planning to marry it and who is going to officiate it? I also fail to see how this is legal or how it's even going to work. Is the company who designed the machine supposed to sign the marriage papers?

I understand the woman is 33 and an adult but she honestly does not sound mentally well. But I guess she's right. She really isn't harming anyone.

 

[Ewan]

This pretty strange, but the thing is, it wouldn't affect my life so I don't see any reason why I should oppose it.
Would it be fair to say they're likely to have a roller coaster relationship?

 

[Vladislak]

In my book true marriage requires both parties to agree on the commitment. I'm pretty sure most people will agree with that, because otherwise it's more along the lines of slavery.

If she can provide definitive proof that this magic carpet ride agrees to marry her then fine, but that won't happen since it's an inanimate object and it can't take any action outside of what it's been programmed to do by other people. So even if it somehow said "yes" to her, then it would the creator saying it, not the ride.

I'm also rather positive that amusement park rides don't have the legal right to marry in the first place.

 

[Zen]

As long as she can carry her husbands nuts around with her, I don't see how it'll be different from any other marriage.

 

[CassinoChips]

Why does the marriage have to be legally recognized for it to be valid?

Considering all the different fetishes, etc. people have, it's not that much of a stretch psychologically to go towards an attachment to objects.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[RioDragon]

...Let's let the furries and bestiality people marry their dogs/cats now. Because according to this, it wouldn't be too much of a freaking stretch. They could probably even claim they're disabled and get some Obama money! SURE!

/hatred of humanity.

 

[CassinoChips]

...Let's let the furries and bestiality people marry their dogs/cats now. Because according to this, it wouldn't be too much of a freaking stretch. They could probably even claim they're disabled and get some Obama money! SURE!

/hatred of humanity.

Slippery slope, SLIPPERY SLOPE!

One does not automatically lead to the other. Moreover, one has no relevance to the other. Inanimate objects are not equal to animate ..... animals..... yeah. And the random Obama jab out of leftfield was completely unnecessary.

 

[Donald Trump]

Slippery slope, SLIPPERY SLOPE!

One does not automatically lead to the other. Moreover, one has no relevance to the other. Inanimate objects are not equal to animate ..... animals..... yeah. And the random Obama jab out of leftfield was completely unnecessary.

You communist, this is how Obama is planning to let Iran take over America, or something.

Anyway I think she's saner than the women who decided to marry Michael Jackson and saner than women who go back to husbands that beat them. It may be stupid, but she's happy and not hurting anyone. So good luck to her.

 

[RioDragon]

Slippery slope, SLIPPERY SLOPE!

One does not automatically lead to the other. Moreover, one has no relevance to the other. Inanimate objects are not equal to animate ..... animals..... yeah.

Except that they both involve unconventional marriages with things that can't give consent. Yeah, you're right. Though isn't that the main point of the article in the first place? The only opposition to animal/human marriage would be PETA, and maybe Christians, both of which are typicially labeled 'mad' and crazy' (though in the case of the former, I agree)

And the random Obama jab out of leftfield was completely unnecessary.

Like a jab at Square-Enix, a jab at Obama is nine times out of ten, entirely neccessary, IMO.

Anyway I think she's saner than the women who decided to marry Michael Jackson and saner than women who go back to husbands that beat them. It may be stupid, but she's happy and not hurting anyone. So good luck to her.

I do admit this much, it doesn't harm anybody. Though it does make one question the sanity of the people in 'support' of it as well as her own.

 

[Zerokku]

Except that they both involve unconventional marriages with things that can't give consent. Yeah, you're right. Though isn't that the main point of the article in the first place? The only opposition to animal/human marriage would be PETA, and maybe Christians, both of which are typicially labeled 'mad' and crazy'

I think you'd find plenty of more people who would disagree.

Like a jab at Square-Enix, a jab at Obama is nine times out of ten, entirely neccessary, IMO.

You've all heard the phrase "two things you don't talk about in mixed company are religion and politics". and I'd prefer you leave such comments in their proper place rather then derailing my thread.

 

[CassinoChips]

Except that they both involve unconventional marriages with things that can't give consent.

Which means they are similar. But not the same. Animals are alive and can be abused. Thus, there are laws that protect against that. Which is why bestiality is against the law. A ten-ton hunk of steel is inanimate, therefore it cannot be abused.

Moreover, you can enact a law that deals with one without considering the other. They are mutually exclusive events.

Though isn't that the main point of the article in the first place?

No? The point of the article was that there's a lady in PA who wants to marry an amusement park ride. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything about animals.

The only opposition to animal/human marriage would be PETA, and maybe Christians, both of which are typicially labeled 'mad' and crazy' (though in the case of the former, I agree)

Considering "Christians" make up about 75% of the US population, that's a pretty significant "only" you've got working there.

Like a jab at Square-Enix, a jab at Obama is nine times out of ten, entirely neccessary, IMO.

Then this was that one time out of ten.

 

[Makatak]

Does this mean she gets all the legal perks associated with marriage like tax breaks and such?

If so, then maybe I should consider marrying my computer

 

[AddleBoy]

Except that they both involve unconventional marriages with things that can't give consent.

That's like saying people should stop using sex toys because they can't give consent. If the woman can buy the ride and own it (how big is the thing anyway?), then who really cares? I just don't see the benefit in marrying it.

Does this mean she gets all the legal perks associated with marriage like tax breaks and such?

If so, then maybe I should consider marrying my computer

lol I doubt it, since you don't have to feed it or clothe it. It just... sits there.

 

[SaShman]

To each her own I guess. The situation obviously seems strange to me but if it makes her happy then why not? I don't think she needs therapy or anything, she doesn't care if other people ride it and being with it makes her happy. The only person she will really be hurting is herself on her honeymoon.

Especially when there are people who are campaigning to ban gay marriage yet people are allowed to marry inanimate objects?

Apparently roller coasters have more rights than homosexuals.