# we're becoming common criminals



## MissToodles (Sep 20, 2006)

Not quite yet.

The Australian Healthcare Association is holding"health" conference on Obesity: Should There Be A Law Against It? What are they going to feed us? A few lettuce leaves and celery?
http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/events/event_details.asp?eid=1164


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Sep 20, 2006)

It's just another time filler for eggheads with billlions in grant money and no idea about how to spend that grant money constructively.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 20, 2006)

How do you enforce it? What about the politicans that are also fat? I don't think it's pratical.


----------



## NFA (Sep 21, 2006)

This, again, goes back to the assumpsion on the part of the anti-fat crusaders that all fat people just don't know any better or just don't care. Its such a fundamental misunderstanding about life as a fat person that one can scarcely guess where such an absurd notion could originate from. But it does explain the intense hatred exhibited towards fat people. Their easy blame leads directly to an easy bigotry. When the supposedly "serious" commentators regard our bodies as an easy problem with an easy solution, they provide justification for those who more explicit regard us as inferior people. When they offer bizarre and extreme "solutions" such as criminal actions or legal fines, they make everything seem even more obvious to a population already inclined towards a casual bigotry against fat people. There STILL is no reliable or safe method for making a fat person a not-fat person. Making it a crime to be fat is just a legal version of dieting. Its punishing people for something they have no honest control over. Whether by disordered eating and starvation or criminal penalty, its unfathomable and horrible. One can only hope that like previous such "brainstorming", the idea of making a fat body a crime is quickly dismissed for the extreme absurdity that it is. But by simply talking about such an awful idea, they are continuing to contribute to the discrimination and hatred directed towards fat people.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Sep 21, 2006)

Personally, I say why stop at punishing fat people? What about the elderly, the queer, the disabled, the pregnant, and hell, people with dwarfism. Come on. Fat bigotry is so passe.


----------



## missaf (Sep 21, 2006)

Oh yes, let's outlaw everything but the Aryan nation!


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 21, 2006)

So, how long would it before it would be a crime to be black or asian? 

Strongly worded emails should be sent to the email adress provived.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 21, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> So, how long would it before it would be a crime to be black or asian?


nobody in power is crazy enough to try that especially in the U.S.


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 21, 2006)

In the United States.... but this is down our way, and well it would be political suicide to something like this. It could be done, but political suicide.


----------



## Zoom (Sep 21, 2006)

Email sent:

Is this the sort of thing that Australians have sunk to? Deciding to stamp out people of a different lifestyle by discriminating against them? Finding ways to pass laws against fatness in an effort to get rid of it?

You don't need a conference to tell you that THIS IS A STUPID IDEA.

It's just as stupid as saying that fatness is a disease. (Actually that's the fault of the Americans who came up with that one, but I digress.)

There are people everywhere throughout the world who disagree with the AHA (and other national organizations on similiar ground) on any stance that might be made regarding fatness (note I am not using the medical term "obesity", with good reason). Are these people to be swept under the rug for holding contrary positions?

In case you disagree with this email and argue that you are being objective, ask yourself the following question: How many pro-fat speakers will be at your conference?

Eric Draves
CEO, Destructosoft

[/email]


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 22, 2006)

Well put indeed!


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Sep 22, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Personally, I say why stop at punishing fat people? What about the elderly, the queer, the disabled, the pregnant, and hell, people with dwarfism. Come on. Fat bigotry is so passe.


I'm for punishing the elderly. Leaving your turn signal on for more than 120 consecutive feet will be punishable by death.


----------



## blueeyedevie (Sep 22, 2006)

> nobody in power is crazy enough to try that especially in the U.S.



Just Remember this is the same U.S allowing our children to have their size published on report cards , as if graded by it.


----------



## rainyday (Sep 22, 2006)

Are weights included on transcripts now too, or just report cards. Just wondering if they show up when transcripts are sent to colleges and universities.


----------



## blueeyedevie (Sep 22, 2006)

Well you know in a lot of jobs today they do look at your weight as a factor! I know the issues came up these last past years at my mothers schools about weight and her looks. If she could not wear the clothing the principle wanted her to she needed to loose weight so she could! HOW far is the boss able to go? So I Wounder how far your off Rainyday form the question about transcripts etc. What's is next colleges that only except the thin and fit! You just have to stop and ask that..


----------



## blubrluvr (Sep 22, 2006)

missaf said:


> Oh yes, let's outlaw everything but the Aryan nation!



It's not right wing radicals who are heading up all the anti-fat propagandizing
out there. It's our good friends the leftists who try to legistate everything.
They're the ones who think a government program can fix every perceived problem. They're the ones who think they can write a law to global warming.
All their pseudoscience and governmental inteventionism has finally become hate speech against big folks.

I caught some flak about my position earlier, but I'll say it again:

Liberals: Phat Phobic
Conservatives: Phat Phrendly

Read what Tammy Bruce (hardcore lesbian) has to say about the left and you'll understand about the new thought police. 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0761534040/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20


----------



## ManOWar (Sep 22, 2006)

blubrluvr said:


> It's not right wing radicals who are heading up all the anti-fat propagandizing
> out there. It's our good friends the leftists who try to legistate everything.
> They're the ones who think a government program can fix every perceived problem. They're the ones who think they can write a law to global warming.
> All their pseudoscience and governmental inteventionism has finally become hate speech against big folks.
> ...




OT, Blbrlvr, I thought I had the copyright on your name! If you're wondering why you couldn't register that name with AOL, it's cuz I got it!


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 22, 2006)

The creation of a nanny state, or at least the extension of it. That is the fundamental difference between the two views, one view is that people have just enough sense to run their own lives without to much help, and the other that people are headless chickens who need to be told when they can shite, shave, wash and muddle their way through their lives.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 23, 2006)

When I first saw this, I was considered a joke, because it seemed so far fetched. However, if we let them do this it will become a scary truth. 

View attachment wright072104.jpg


In the worse case, if obese became illegal, cops will be stopping you to weight you. Cops will start having stake out at eateries, and grocery stores. Plus-size retailers will join the ranks of drug dealers, sell you clothes in secret. 

Even worse. Depending on how the law is interpeted, some jacka** in power, might decide the groups like NAAFA should be declared an illegal group.


----------



## Michelle (Sep 23, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> Not quite yet.
> 
> The Australian Healthcare Association is holding"health" conference on Obesity: Should There Be A Law Against It? What are they going to feed us? A few lettuce leaves and celery?
> http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/events/event_details.asp?eid=1164


 
I'm catching up this morning and just saw this thread. Wow. I find it extremely disturbing that this is actually an article and a serious one at that. It is reminiscent of the posts I used to read saying that WLS would become mandatory in the future (I thought those posts were nuts). We all need to be hyper aware of this kind of thing and make our thoughts known. We can't be silent about stuff like this, even if we think it's just all hot air. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Ms. T.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 23, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Even worse. Depending on how the law is interpeted, some jacka** in power, might decide the groups like NAAFA should be declared an illegal group.


illegal. hell NAAFA would be labeled a fat terroist group and become the fat alqaida. HUNGER JIHAD! lol.


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Sep 23, 2006)

Fat illegal? No. But legal discrimination? Most certainly.

We would be denied health insurance, denied boarding on planes, refused healthcare, service in restaurants, entrance to amusement parks, not hired for any number of jobs, and so on, because we would be considered an unacceptable safety risk. The perception that we are all slow, lazy, and unable to move would become legal reality, and become even more entrenched in the public psyche. 

See, you can't change ethnicity or any number of medical conditions, but hey, we can always diet, right? And that always works. And even if it doesn't, there's always WLS, which is the perfect long-term solution. Because being fat is a completely 100% reversible situation, it won't really be discrimination. And that makes it legal.  

Remember, your government cares about you and your health, and any legislation it passes is really only in your best interest, never in the interest of a big corporate entity, like insurance companies.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 24, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> Fat illegal? No. But legal discrimination? Most certainly.
> 
> We would be denied health insurance, denied boarding on planes, refused healthcare, service in restaurants, entrance to amusement parks, not hired for any number of jobs, and so on, because we would be considered an unacceptable safety risk. The perception that we are all slow, lazy, and unable to move would become legal reality, and become even more entrenched in the public psyche.
> 
> ...



Of course, and I have unicorns wandering threw my backyard.


----------



## seavixen (Sep 25, 2006)

Things like this always bring out my little anarchist core. Yet one more example of how politicians believe that adding layer after layer of legislation is a good idea. Add this to fix that law, this to fix the one fixing the other one, and this to invalidate all of the above if pigs happen to begin flying and chimpanzees seize control of the space station. IMO, if you want to add another law, it's time to consider the laws you already have, and probably get rid of a few of those. What does that have to do with this? Nothing! Bah.

Okay, let's be honest. Does this upset us because it applies to us, or because it is wrong? Or is it both? Honestly? This is exactly the same sort of reason that I have very strong feelings about drug, tobacco, gay marriage, etc. legislation. Let me clarify on tobacco, because I know this is going to piss people off.

Tobacco is a legal substance. Is it going to be made illegal? With the money in it, not blooody likely. Do *I* want to be around the smoke? Nope, sure don't. But I absolutely do NOT believe that the government should be able to tell you that you can NOT allow smoking on your property, whether it be a business or home. I'm talking ownership. If I own a bar - and I mean owning the property, not just renting or leasing - and I want to allow smoking, that's *my* business. I will post signs to alert people so that they can make the choice not to enter, and I'll follow any ventilation, air filtering, whatever laws and meet codes.... but what right does the government have to tell me what I can or cannot do or allow in/on my own property? We're talking legal substances. (I don't believe in illegal substances, by the way, and I am completely clean.. don't even drink but rarely. It's a matter of consent. The same goes for prostitution... when it comes to consenting adults and no one is being harmed without their consent (ie children being exposed to harmful substances, or, say, sadism with an unwilling party) I do NOT believe the government should be involved. Note I said without their consent... I believe in the right to die. Yes, I know.. more people are going to be cheesed off about that, too.) If you allow the government to tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property concerning one provision, you allow them to make more and more provisions. No sex on Sunday, and only in the missionary position on all other days. No watching of television after eleven PM, except in the case of an elevated terror alert. Okay, I'm getting carried away - but remember that obscenity laws have existed and do still exist.

Back to the issue. We are willing to allow certain degrees of discrimination simply because it doesn't affect us. Even if we think we're the most liberal people on earth, or the most anarchic minded, or what have you, most of us will sit back and let those who it affects duke it out - or we'll agree on some moral level and decide that that particular brand of discrimination is correct, okay, whatever. Take gay marriage. People treat gay marriage as a hot moral issue without ever considering the implications of banning one group of people from a basic human right - and partnership *is* a basic human right. I think, for the most part, we consider things like forced marriage barbaric... so why is a forced lack of marriage any better?

You can say, "Oh, they can still be joined, just not legally, or just not in a marriage ceremony," but you're still talking about a legal discrimination, a sanctioned isolation. This kind of special legislature is exactly what creates, perpetuates, and exonerates discrimination. If a law is going to be made, then it should apply to *everyone in an equal fashion*. That is the entire idea of equality. Equality does not mean that a special law exists for a special party, because there is no special party in a truly equal society. As long as [any] government continues to make laws specifically directed toward a sub-catagory of persons, there will always be a legal basis for discrimination. When it comes to the government, the legality of the marriage of two consenting adults should never be questioned. The government shouldn't be involved in this kind of interpersonal micromanagement to begin with, but since they are, they are obligated to be fair and unbiased. The government is supposed to protect rights and work for the people, not the reverse.

Laws like gay marriage bans and legalized discrimination against people who are doing nothing illegal (ie smokers) are the foundations of laws like this one. You can come back by saying that either of those former groups have their own ways of hurting others (smokers with second hand smoke, and gay people with.. I dunno... public gay affection?) but anti-fat individuals can say the same about fat people. Some of these things are certainly based on fact (well, second hand smoke is) which is why certain general laws governing them are fine... like, say, no smoking in public parks, or government buildings, schools, hospitals, and so forth. No having sex on the lawn in front of the White House. No riding on floatation devices where you exceed the maximum weight. These make sense! Legalizing and encouraging discrimination *never* makes sense.

Why are these things all interconnected? Because if you allow one group of people to have their rights taken away, even if in small ways, you are allowing your own rights to be weakened and threatened. We're able to become upset about this because it *is* us this time. It is us pretty frequently. Will other people respond to this as we do? Probably not. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will nod their heads in approval and think they're saving us from ourselves. That's exactly what we all do when we don't stand up for the rights of others, even when we don't necessarily agree with them, and even if we don't make a fuss about it. Not fighting is the same as approving.

That goes for this, too. It wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to ban fat reproduction for fear of spreading fat genes, or ban fat people from marrying slim people because no self-respecting thin person should love someone who won't "fix" themselves. My examples are pretty poor tonight; I'm just argumentative. But the politicians and activists of the world never cease to surprise me with the stupidity and blatant animosity of their proposals.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 25, 2006)

People just believe you can legislate morality, or what they consider morality.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Sep 25, 2006)

The problem with legislating morality is that there is more than one standard of morality. 




EtobicokeFA said:


> People just believe you can legislate morality, or what they consider morality.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Sep 25, 2006)

I love your sarcasm here. 

I think that discriminating against fat people is senseless. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people (doctors, advertisers, personal trainers) whose way of life depends on continuing and furthering that discrimination. I also notice that some groups in America always have to have an enemy. It's no longer socially acceptable to target blacks and Jews. Now the enemies are homosexuals and fat people. I wish people would stop all this discrimination and just try to get along with others.




Renaissance Woman said:


> Fat illegal? No. But legal discrimination? Most certainly.
> 
> We would be denied health insurance, denied boarding on planes, refused healthcare, service in restaurants, entrance to amusement parks, not hired for any number of jobs, and so on, because we would be considered an unacceptable safety risk. The perception that we are all slow, lazy, and unable to move would become legal reality, and become even more entrenched in the public psyche.
> 
> ...


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 25, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> I love your sarcasm here.
> 
> I think that discriminating against fat people is senseless. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people (doctors, advertisers, personal trainers) whose way of life depends on continuing and furthering that discrimination. I also notice that some groups in America always have to have an enemy. It's no longer socially acceptable to target blacks and Jews. Now the enemies are homosexuals and fat people. I wish people would stop all this discrimination and just try to get along with others.



The one of the major roadblocks towards SA, is the misconception is that anybody considered fat, is unhealthy (and lazy).


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Sep 25, 2006)

This is true. So the way to help curb discrimination is to change people's attitudes about fat. People get fat for different reasons. Some are born that way. Some people get fat because of medications that can cause them to gain weight. And some folks don't eat a good diet. All too often, people who fit in the 3rd category have been used to represent all fat people.



EtobicokeFA said:


> The one of the major roadblocks towards SA, is the misconception is that anybody considered fat, is unhealthy (and lazy).


----------



## Rosie (Sep 25, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> Not quite yet.
> 
> The Australian Healthcare Association is holding"health" conference on Obesity: Should There Be A Law Against It? What are they going to feed us? A few lettuce leaves and celery?
> http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/events/event_details.asp?eid=1164





OMG, talk about waaaaaaaaaaay too much govt. interference in our lives. This is *not* the govt's concern, nor should it be. Govt. needs to stick to the business of running the country (in any country) with minimal intrusion into people's lives.


----------



## Rosie (Sep 25, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> In the United States.... but this is down our way, and well it would be political suicide to something like this. It could be done, but political suicide.



Well, if it was done here in Canada, our Prime Minister should be first charged, since he himself is on the pudgy side!


----------



## moonvine (Sep 25, 2006)

seavixen said:


> Why are these things all interconnected? Because if you allow one group of people to have their rights taken away, even if in small ways, you are allowing your own rights to be weakened and threatened. We're able to become upset about this because it *is* us this time. It is us pretty frequently. Will other people respond to this as we do? Probably not. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will nod their heads in approval and think they're saving us from ourselves. That's exactly what we all do when we don't stand up for the rights of others, even when we don't necessarily agree with them, and even if we don't make a fuss about it. Not fighting is the same as approving.




But I do fight. I am completely for gay marriage, and I make my elected officials aware of my position. I am a member of the HRC, for God's sake, and I'm the straightest straight girl ever. I fought against the smoking ban in Austin. I fight against the "Patriot Act." My Republican Senator probably hates me, cuz she's constantly getting letters, calls, faxes, etc from me, even though I know she will not vote the way I wish she would on anything.

So yeah, I think I get to fight for fat rights too.


----------



## seavixen (Sep 25, 2006)

moonvine said:


> But I do fight. I am completely for gay marriage, and I make my elected officials aware of my position. I am a member of the HRC, for God's sake, and I'm the straightest straight girl ever. I fought against the smoking ban in Austin. I fight against the "Patriot Act." My Republican Senator probably hates me, cuz she's constantly getting letters, calls, faxes, etc from me, even though I know she will not vote the way I wish she would on anything.
> 
> So yeah, I think I get to fight for fat rights too.



I'm glad to hear it.  I didn't mean to directly accuse anybody of *not* fighting, or of suggesting that we aren't allowed to fight for fat rights. It just really bothers me that people tend to get riled up only about those things that affect them in a direct, obvious way... and completely miss the rest, even though they are more affected than they think.

The Patriot Act? I keep trying to block that from my brain, just so I'm not constantly angry.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 25, 2006)

moonvine said:


> But I do fight. I am completely for gay marriage, and I make my elected officials aware of my position. I am a member of the HRC, for God's sake, and I'm the straightest straight girl ever. I fought against the smoking ban in Austin. I fight against the "Patriot Act." My Republican Senator probably hates me, cuz she's constantly getting letters, calls, faxes, etc from me, even though I know she will not vote the way I wish she would on anything.
> 
> So yeah, I think I get to fight for fat rights too.


i gotta go off topic for a sec. you are for gay marriage but i got a curve ball for you on another topic. are you for incest marriage/relationship or better yet do you think it should exist?


----------



## moonvine (Sep 25, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> i gotta go off topic for a sec. you are for gay marriage but i got a curve ball for you on another topic. are you for incest marriage/relationship or better yet do you think it should exist?



Am I "for" incest? No.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 25, 2006)

i dont mean as in be in a incest life style. i mean if the government wanted to ban it would you fight against the banning?


----------



## moonvine (Sep 25, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> i dont mean as in be in a incest life style. i mean if the government wanted to ban it would you fight against the banning?



It is already banned almost everywhere, if not everywhere. I think it would be political suicide for a politician to propose to unban it. 

I don't particularly have a problem with any consenting adults having any sort of relationship they want to. I haven't seen any big movement of people involved in incestuous relationships seeking to get married, though.


----------



## seavixen (Sep 25, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> i dont mean as in be in a incest life style. i mean if the government wanted to ban it would you fight against the banning?



Do I approve of it morally? Is it a choice I'd ever consider making for myself? No, and no. But if we're talking about consenting adults, then does the government really have the right to say it's illegal? (which it is) No. Putting no provisions on marriages between two consenting adults does not suggest that the governmental system or its politicians morally condone any union... it is merely an acknowledgement of individual, consensual, freedom. That doesn't mean that individuals, churches, etc. do not have the right to object on a moral level - it merely says that the government - which should remain impartial - doesn't discriminate. It's really very simple... if there must be a marriage law, then it need only say that marriage is between two consenting adults. The end.

This is exactly how most basic rules should be as well - getting too specific merely creates more and more laws that muck up the works and contradict one another. Physical assault is intentionally physically assaulting a non-consenting person. Murder is intentionally taking the life of a non-consenting person. Intention is almost always considered as a key factor, but consent is extraordinarily under-utilised.

There are a lot of sticky situations when it comes to human behaviours, but there is real danger in allowing any legislation to single out individuals or groups just because they exist on the fringe. What is outside or on the edge of the norm is extremely relative; views can narrow and change, and popular opinion is far from consistent. If for no reason but a selfish desire to protect oneself, each person is obligated to consider the ramifications of discriminatory legislation... and fight it.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 26, 2006)

seavixen said:


> Do I approve of it morally? Is it a choice I'd ever consider making for myself? No, and no. But if we're talking about consenting adults, then does the government really have the right to say it's illegal? (which it is) No. Putting no provisions on marriages between two consenting adults does not suggest that the governmental system or its politicians morally condone any union... it is merely an acknowledgement of individual, consensual, freedom. That doesn't mean that individuals, churches, etc. do not have the right to object on a moral level - it merely says that the government - which should remain impartial - doesn't discriminate. It's really very simple... if there must be a marriage law, then it need only say that marriage is between two consenting adults. The end.
> 
> This is exactly how most basic rules should be as well - getting too specific merely creates more and more laws that muck up the works and contradict one another. Physical assault is intentionally physically assaulting a non-consenting person. Murder is intentionally taking the life of a non-consenting person. Intention is almost always considered as a key factor, but consent is extraordinarily under-utilised.
> 
> There are a lot of sticky situations when it comes to human behaviours, but there is real danger in allowing any legislation to single out individuals or groups just because they exist on the fringe. What is outside or on the edge of the norm is extremely relative; views can narrow and change, and popular opinion is far from consistent. If for no reason but a selfish desire to protect oneself, each person is obligated to consider the ramifications of discriminatory legislation... and fight it.


i 100% percent do not agree with incest. i hear it creates retards. plus family isnt supposed to get down like that.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 26, 2006)

Rosie said:


> Well, if it was done here in Canada, our Prime Minister should be first charged, since he himself is on the pudgy side!



Less not forget that some of the people in Congress and the Senate are "pudgy" too!


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Sep 26, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> i 100% percent do not agree with incest. i hear it creates retards. plus family isnt supposed to get down like that.


This comment begs the question then why did you bring it up in the first place? Methinks he doth protest too much.....


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 26, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> This comment begs the question then why did you bring it up in the first place? Methinks he doth protest too much.....


i wanted to see if she was for or against it. she was talking about gay marriage which is kinda a taboo relationship topic so i wanted to see how did she feel on another taboo relationship topic.


----------



## calauria (Sep 29, 2006)

missaf said:


> Oh yes, let's outlaw everything but the Aryan nation!




Too funny!


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 29, 2006)

Marriages are for defination by the churches. Civil Unions between same sex couples offer the same legal protection as marriage, but without the churches. The two are basically the same thing, but marriage is a question for the churches and religious organisations to debate, where as civil unions, which is marriage sans a church ceremony gives legal protection etc for the couple in question. That way everyone is happy.


----------



## Wagimawr (Sep 29, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Marriages are for defination by the churches. Civil Unions between same sex couples offer the same legal protection as marriage, but without the churches. The two are basically the same thing, but marriage is a question for the churches and religious organisations to debate, where as civil unions, which is marriage sans a church ceremony gives legal protection etc for the couple in question. That way everyone is happy.


Sounds right to me.


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 29, 2006)

In my opinion, that solves the demands of the couples, and keeps the churches happy to debate amngst themselves and bitch at each other, and solves the legal questions as well.


----------



## Wagimawr (Sep 30, 2006)

Absolutely - haven't many of the issues about gay marriage involved those legal rights?


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Sep 30, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Marriages are for defination by the churches. Civil Unions between same sex couples offer the same legal protection as marriage, but without the churches. The two are basically the same thing, but marriage is a question for the churches and religious organisations to debate, where as civil unions, which is marriage sans a church ceremony gives legal protection etc for the couple in question. That way everyone is happy.




And this points out the hypocracy of the whole marriage thing in the first place. Theres _supposed_ to be *seperation of church and state* as far as law is concerned. So every person who is non-religious, straight or gay, should have a civil union and not a marriage...if you want to make an equal system of it all.


----------



## KnottyOne (Sep 30, 2006)

Marriage is more then a piece of paper, it is about love, which the church is soupposed to enbody, but, it clearly has lost sight of that. If we are going to accept gays into our culture as being normal, shouldn't they be given all the same rights as everyone else? I feel that if people are going to fight, this hard for marriage, there love is more true then most. I think alot of Heterosexual couples take marriage for granted. They dont need to fight, with everything they have, just to be allowed to have something so small, yet so symbolic and important. At least gay couples know what love is, because they are willing to fight for it, and be given the right, to have the most blessed day of their lives, and actually be together for it.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 30, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> i gotta go off topic for a sec. you are for gay marriage but i got a curve ball for you on another topic. are you for incest marriage/relationship or better yet do you think it should exist?



Since we are "off-topic" I feel the need to ask how does incest compare to gay marriage, in your mind?


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 30, 2006)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Since we are "off-topic" I feel the need to ask how does incest compare to gay marriage, in your mind?


both are taboo.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 30, 2006)

blueeyedevie said:


> Just Remember this is the same U.S allowing our children to have their size published on report cards , as if graded by it.




Size on report cards? I haven't seen anything like that yet.


----------



## 1300 Class (Sep 30, 2006)

My point is, that marriage and civil unions have the same legal status, that is what this all boils down to, regardless of what you call it. 


> *So every person who is non-religious, straight* or gay, *should have a civil union and not a marriage*...if you want to make an equal system of it all.


Fine, get "married" or "unionised" at a registry office, instead of a church, therefore successfully removing the church aspect of things. 


> shouldn't they be given all the same rights as everyone else?


Legally yes, however the ceremonial and spiritual side of things is for the churches to decide upon. 


> Marriage is more then a piece of paper, it is about love, which the church is soupposed to enbody, but, it clearly has lost sight of that. If we are going to accept gays into our culture as being normal, shouldn't they be given all the same rights as everyone else? I feel that if people are going to fight, this hard for marriage, there love is more true then most. I think alot of Heterosexual couples take marriage for granted. They dont need to fight, with everything they have, just to be allowed to have something so small, yet so symbolic and important. At least gay couples know what love is, because they are willing to fight for it, and be given the right, to have the most blessed day of their lives, and actually be together for it.


I hate to burst your sentimental bubble, but love has zip to do with anything in this debate. Its a question of legal status.


----------



## saucywench (Sep 30, 2006)

Ella Bella said:


> Size on report cards? I haven't seen anything like that yet.


Not size, per se--body mass index.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Oct 1, 2006)

Actually, marriage is a legal arrangement between a man and a woman to share property with one another. Churches perform marriages, but the easiest and cheapest way is to go to a courthouse and get married. I see no reason why 2 gay people need to get a civil union instead of simply going to a courthouse.

Churches should not have to perform gay weddings if they don't want to, but that is no reason to say that no one should do so. 




Australian Lord said:


> Marriages are for defination by the churches. Civil Unions between same sex couples offer the same legal protection as marriage, but without the churches. The two are basically the same thing, but marriage is a question for the churches and religious organisations to debate, where as civil unions, which is marriage sans a church ceremony gives legal protection etc for the couple in question. That way everyone is happy.


----------



## KnottyOne (Oct 1, 2006)

> I hate to burst your sentimental bubble, but love has zip to do with anything in this debate. Its a question of legal status.



Eh, I was pretty blazed when I wrote that. Probly didn't understand what we were talin about lol


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 2, 2006)

I'm from Spain. As you may or may not know, our government (which, I can't avoid saying this, absolutely rawks, Go Socialist Party!) recently legalized gay marriage. This had zero to do with churches. The difference between marriage and civil union are fundamentally legal, mainly in what you can and cannot do with each one, the channels you have to go through and the guarantees you have. For example, banks don't look upon marriages and civil unions in the same way when considering a loan, and processes like divorce, legal sharing of material posessions and adoption are much more difficult for a couple engaged in a civil union to accomplish. It's a matter of legal equality, which should, yes, be totally moot in any state that separates state and religion and is against discrimination. It isn't, however, because of the fear of those in power. They fear the reaction of the people, and this shows a lack of understanding. The legalization of gay marriages in Spain was the political decision supported by the greatest number of people in probably the whole history of Spanish democracy. Hell, half of the right wing party (and you won't find much greater bigots than our beloved right-wing party) was in favor of the decision, although official party position was against. It's the first time that party has been in conflict since its foundation. It's just something so obvious that only the greatest defenders of hate could ever go against it.

(In other news, thanks to the efforts of the Socialist Party, the Church of Spain now pays taxes normally, and will soon stop receiving economic aid from the government. Yay! Go Socialists Go!)


----------



## The Obstreperous Ms. J (Oct 2, 2006)

Criminality in Adiposity.


I only have one question:

What about conjugal visits? Won't someone think of the conjugal visits?!?!
I have my rights! even if I don't have a man or a verb to conjugate with!
 



(Yay to me for my feeble attempt at humor on a very sad subject, I wish Mini were here, he's say something witty and funny)
(Sigh )


----------



## roundbird (Oct 2, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> Not quite yet.
> 
> The Australian Healthcare Association is holding"health" conference on Obesity: Should There Be A Law Against It? What are they going to feed us? A few lettuce leaves and celery?
> http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/events/event_details.asp?eid=1164


I wonder what the food processing industry thinks of that idea???


----------



## NFA (Oct 2, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> both are taboo.



You'll have to do better than that if you want to equate a gay relationship with incest. That is a VERY loaded comparison, and this "both are taboo" justification doesn't cut it. Comparing being gay to incest is entirely unfair. That some people object to them both and like linking the two to advance anti-gay bigotries is no excuse for bringing up the comparison.


----------



## Blackjack (Oct 2, 2006)

I'll have you know that I'm not a common criminal, I am an _exceptional_ one.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 3, 2006)

NFA said:


> You'll have to do better than that if you want to equate a gay relationship with incest. That is a VERY loaded comparison, and this "both are taboo" justification doesn't cut it. Comparing being gay to incest is entirely unfair. That some people object to them both and like linking the two to advance anti-gay bigotries is no excuse for bringing up the comparison.



This is a dangerous comment to make, but I'm going to agree with him. What arguments can you bring against incest that you can't bring against homosexuality? The issue is, in fact, very similar. And yes, that means I'm in favor of incest, or to put it better, I'm against forbidding any kind of consensual relationship.


----------



## NFA (Oct 3, 2006)

Joseph the Weird said:


> This is a dangerous comment to make, but I'm going to agree with him. What arguments can you bring against incest that you can't bring against homosexuality? The issue is, in fact, very similar. And yes, that means I'm in favor of incest, or to put it better, I'm against forbidding any kind of consensual relationship.



Why is it dangerous? Because you want to think of yourself as some kind of ideological rabel for lumping in gays with incestuous predators? If you cannot recognize the difference between being a gay relationship and incest, then it can't be explained to you. No, the issues are NOT similiar. There is nothing more unique about a gay relationship than a straight relationship if trying to justify incest. So why draw the comparison with a gay relationship? Why bring it up when gay marriage is brought up? You claim you want to champion incest, but the original poster has made his contempt for incest clear. So, its not hard to gather his motives for dragging incest into a discussion of gay rights. And that's the point.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 3, 2006)

Your response is precisely why I said it was "dangerous". It was dangerous because it is an opinion that many people, and many people here, are hostile to. But considering it had been brought up (note that I didn't bring it up, and probably wouldn't have brought it up, and I'm not necessarily in agreement with the other poster's decision to bring it up) I felt I should add my opinion about it. 

And as for "If you cannot recognize the difference between being a gay relationship and incest, then it can't be explained to you.", if something can't be explained (to me, to you, to anyone) that tends to mean it's false... or at least not rational. A phrase like that one tends to accompany matters of faith (i.e. "If you don't believe in God I can't explain His existence to you"), which is fine, but my point still stands, because the law should not be based on points of faith.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 3, 2006)

^Joseph- Im not bashing you or anyone else here- just feel the need to point out the homosexuality is between two consenting adults- whereas incest is usually along the lines of a father raping his young daughter
See the difference?


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 3, 2006)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> ^Joseph- Im not bashing you or anyone else here- just feel the need to point out the homosexuality is between two consenting adults- whereas incest is usually along the lines of a father raping his young daughter
> See the difference?



Point. That's definitely a point. But then I did say "or to put it better, I'm against forbidding any kind of consensual relationship.". Note "consensual", and note that I do not advocate changing the laws or age of consent. A father raping his young daughter is not only incest, it's rape and pedophilia. I'd argue that the crime is in the second two, not in the first. Incest extends to relationships between all kinds of blood relatives. Brothers, cousins, etc... many of which give pretty reasonable scenarios.

...talking about that, I'm now unsure if incestuos marriage is legally forbidden, or just so frowned upon that it's not practiced anymore.


----------



## NFA (Oct 3, 2006)

Joseph the Weird said:


> Your response is precisely why I said it was "dangerous". It was dangerous because it is an opinion that many people, and many people here, are hostile to. But considering it had been brought up (note that I didn't bring it up, and probably wouldn't have brought it up, and I'm not necessarily in agreement with the other poster's decision to bring it up) I felt I should add my opinion about it.
> 
> And as for "If you cannot recognize the difference between being a gay relationship and incest, then it can't be explained to you.", if something can't be explained (to me, to you, to anyone) that tends to mean it's false... or at least not rational. A phrase like that one tends to accompany matters of faith (i.e. "If you don't believe in God I can't explain His existence to you"), which is fine, but my point still stands, because the law should not be based on points of faith.



You still fail to grasp the point of comparing gay relationships and incest. It is meant to demean and condemn gay people. The comparison wasn't drawn between heterosexual conduct and incest. THAT is the important distinction here which you are dutifully obscuring in your effort to shift the focus back onto incest and equalizing it with gay relationships.

No, this is not a matter of faith. But I trust you are aware of all of the rational reasons an incestuous relationship is fundamentally different than a gay relationship. You've chosen to ignore them or reject them. Thus, one should hardly bother bringing them up again to you as you will not prove an interested audience for such points. For you to make such a "dangerous" statement, you've clearly already made up your mind. Your challenge was issues in bad faith, as you are fully aware of the rational arguements to that point and you've already decided that they are irrelevent. You're allowed that viewpoint, but don't act like I'm asking that you take on an opinion as a matter of faith. I'm just acknowledging that you don't really care to listen to any rational explanation of the differences between a gay relationship and incest.

And again, the point is that we are being asked to explain the difference between a GAY relationship and incest. You want to start a topic pretending to want people to explain to you the difference between non-incest relationships between adults and with incest, you go right ahead. Hyde Park is waiting. But so long as the comparison is between only gays and those involved with incest, the point isn't incest. Its the gay folk.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 3, 2006)

That was decidedly a strange interpretation of what I meant. I am certainly not making the comparison to demean gay people or relationships. As such, even if these comaprisons are normally used for that, it can hardly be applied to my individual case. I was comparing them in the sense that they are both relationships frowned upon by society and the law, with similar drawbacks (not being able to have children comes to mind), and I was making a positive "if we're in favor of gay relationships, we should also think of incest, which is in a simialr position".

Also, you can hardly dismiss my opinion by saying I will surely ignore evidence against it, when I have yet made no move towards such a radical position. I would happily enter a rational debate of the issue, if you would put forth your own rational arguments. Or do you argue that my opinion on this isn't rational?

And, by the way, it is about the gay folk, in a way. By giving reasons why incest isn't bad, I'm eliminating that particular argument against gays, and as such, defending them.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Oct 3, 2006)

Why would you even bring this up on this thread? There is no connection between homosexuality and incest. Incest is a major taboo and usually involves a parent taking advantage of a child; homosexuality involves 2 consenting adults in most cases and is becoming less taboo.



gangstadawg said:


> i gotta go off topic for a sec. you are for gay marriage but i got a curve ball for you on another topic. are you for incest marriage/relationship or better yet do you think it should exist?


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 3, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> Incest is a major taboo and usually involves a parent taking advantage of a child COLOR]



not necessarly. your thinking of incest with rape.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Oct 3, 2006)

You did not even answer my question. What is the relevance of incest to a thread about homosexuality? What point were you trying to make?




gangstadawg said:


> not necessarly. your thinking of incest with rape.


----------



## Wagimawr (Oct 3, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> You did not even answer my question. What is the relevance of incest to a thread about homosexuality? What point were you trying to make?





gangstadawg said:


> both are taboo.


What he said.


----------



## Ericthonius (Oct 4, 2006)

MissToodles said:


> Not quite yet.
> 
> The Australian Healthcare Association is holding"health" conference on Obesity: Should There Be A Law Against It? What are they going to feed us? A few lettuce leaves and celery?
> http://www.aushealthcare.com.au/events/event_details.asp?eid=1164



*HOW*, from what Miss Toodles posted above, redirects _anyone_ to some mish-mosh about incest? And that being gay is some kind of equivalecy on some hypothetical, "No-No Scale", to nibbling siblings as well?

This has to be the *WORST* game of 'Telephone'... *EVAR!*


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 4, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> Actually, marriage is a legal arrangement between a man and a woman to share property with one another. Churches perform marriages, but the easiest and cheapest way is to go to a courthouse and get married. I see no reason why 2 gay people need to get a civil union instead of simply going to a courthouse.
> 
> Churches should not have to perform gay weddings if they don't want to, but that is no reason to say that no one should do so.



Marriage = Decision for the churches, legal union between a man and a woman. 
Civil Union = Decision for the government to make, legal union between a two people of the same sex. 
Both equate to the same legal status, only in the means do they differ and their "religious overtones". Because marriage and church (ie domination of religion) are closely linked, some in the the mainstream churches (some more than others) don't quite like the idea of their church being aparty to civil unions or same sex marriage for reasons X, W and Z. 


> Churches should not have to perform gay weddings if they don't want to


Exactly my point.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 4, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Marriage = Decision for the churches, legal union between a man and a woman.
> Civil Union = Decision for the government to make, legal union between a two people of the same sex.
> Both equate to the same legal status, only in the means do they differ and their "religious overtones". Because marriage and church (ie domination of religion) are closely linked, some in the the mainstream churches (some more than others) don't quite like the idea of their church being aparty to civil unions or same sex marriage for reasons X, W and Z.
> 
> Exactly my point.



That would be a perfectly good opinion if they did equate to the same legal status. However, they don't. Or at least they don't in any of the European countries I've looked this up for.


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 4, 2006)

Care to have any sources back up this opinion?

And further more, I am stating what is/ought to be achieving/aiming for. Whether it exists or not, is a different affair. As in the case of the United States.


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 4, 2006)

Wagimawr said:


> What he said.


exactly. im not trying to make a connection or make it seem like one. just seeing if you support one type of taboo relasionship would you support another totally unrelated one thats been frowned apon


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 4, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Care to have any sources back up this opinion?
> 
> And further more, I am stating what is/ought to be achieving/aiming for. Whether it exists or not, is a different affair. As in the case of the United States.



"During the 1990s, several of the city councils and autonomous communities of Spain had opened registers for civil unions that allowed unmarried couples of any sex to enjoy some local benefits. Also, Spanish law allowed single people to adopt children. Thus, a same-sex couple could de facto adopt a child, but the partner who was not the legal parent had no rights in case of breakup or death."

Source: Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage in Spain

This is for the Spanish case, which is closest to me, in particular. For other countries you can see the article on civil unions in different countries, a quick read of which does reveal that civil unions almost always enjoy less rights than marriages (except in the UK as of December 2005, it seems).


----------



## NFA (Oct 4, 2006)

Australian Lord said:


> Marriage = Decision for the churches, legal union between a man and a woman.
> Civil Union = Decision for the government to make, legal union between a two people of the same sex.
> Both equate to the same legal status, only in the means do they differ and their "religious overtones". Because marriage and church (ie domination of religion) are closely linked, some in the the mainstream churches (some more than others) don't quite like the idea of their church being aparty to civil unions or same sex marriage for reasons X, W and Z.



To my knowledge, none of the small group of governments that recognize gay marriage force any churches to perform them. Nor do any reasoned supporters of gay marriage suggest that we ought to. Some will choose to perform such cermonies and do so. But that is up to each church.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot seperate things into "Marriage" and "Civil Union". Civil unions, as envisioned, are not an equal to marriage. In some places they come close, but they are still set up a distinct institution from civil marriage. This is the problem. No Democratic government ought to regulate what marriages a religious institution performs, but so long as "marriage" is a legally acknowledged term and procedure, equality demands that it be provided to all who reasonably seek it. You cannot have a legal process which is exclusively dictated by religious institutions. Indeed, here it is religious institutions who are appropriately powerful, as some religions do perform gay marriages. If it is a LEGAL union, then religion must not dictate the terms for all. They can only decide for themselves what they will do.

If we want to do away with civil marriage entirely and set up distinct procedures for civil unions which do not permit them to be issued by a religious institution, then that's a solution. I'd think it rather dramatic and unnecessary, but that could be a solution. But only if gays and straights BOTH have to engage in such duel recognition will it really be equal. "Seperate but equal" never is and religions have no business dictating legal definitions for all citizens.


----------



## NFA (Oct 4, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> exactly. im not trying to make a connection or make it seem like one. just seeing if you support one type of taboo relasionship would you support another totally unrelated one thats been frowned apon



So, since you are an FA, I think you owe us all an answer on how you would react to child rape. If you support sexual attraction to fat women, why wouldn't you support sexual attraction to toddlers? Both are outside of social norms, so I think you need to tell us whether you support child rape or not.

And when you're done with that, I think you need to answer the question of whether you endorse bestiality. If you think its it okay to want to date BBWs, what is your position on dogs or sheep? Do you think that's okay? Is that the meaning of your user name?

And once you've addressed that, please enlighten us all on your feelings towards necrofilia. You've indicated approval of sexual relationships outside of social norms when the object of attraction is a fat woman, but I don't believe you've answered the related issue of an attraction to dead bodies. What is your position on this?

After all, if you buck social norms in one way, it only makes sense that you should have to answer as to how you respond to any other deviance from social norms. I'm not *saying* that you are a pedofile, necrofile, or engage in bestiality. But I do think you need you answer questions about them.

Well, actually I don't. But apparently, you do. So start explaining us to all what your feelings are on every paraphilia imaginable. I mean, being attracted to a fat woman is taboo and so are these things. And since that's enough to justify asking questions of gays or those who support them, I think you need to start providing a lot of answers yourself.


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 4, 2006)

NFA said:


> So, since you are an FA, I think you owe us all an answer on how you would react to child rape. If you support sexual attraction to fat women, why wouldn't you support sexual attraction to toddlers? Both are outside of social norms, so I think you need to tell us whether you support child rape or not.
> 
> And when you're done with that, I think you need to answer the question of whether you endorse bestiality. If you think its it okay to want to date BBWs, what is your position on dogs or sheep? Do you think that's okay? Is that the meaning of your user name?
> 
> ...


to answer those question im not for any of em. i think that all 3 of those things should not exist.


----------



## Blackjack (Oct 4, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> to answer those question im not for any of em. i think that all 3 of those things should not exist.



In that case, why should people be attracted to larger females?


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Oct 4, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> In that case, why should people be attracted to larger females?


Is "Because I'm hot" the answer you're looking for? If not, can it be?


----------



## Blackjack (Oct 4, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> Is "Because I'm hot" the answer you're looking for? If not, can it be?



Well, that's not exactly what I was looking for... But it is true, I suppose. I was just playing devil's advocate there; I dunno why, though. I know that gangstadawg's answer will be laughable anyways.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Oct 4, 2006)

Actually, civil unions have secondary legal status to marriages. 

What I was pointing out earlier is a lot of people got to court and get married. It's cheap and quick and you are married. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It does not have to be church-sanctioned. No law requires that.




Australian Lord said:


> Marriage = Decision for the churches, legal union between a man and a woman.
> Civil Union = Decision for the government to make, legal union between a two people of the same sex.
> Both equate to the same legal status, only in the means do they differ and their "religious overtones". Because marriage and church (ie domination of religion) are closely linked, some in the the mainstream churches (some more than others) don't quite like the idea of their church being aparty to civil unions or same sex marriage for reasons X, W and Z.
> 
> Exactly my point.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Oct 4, 2006)

And there are some people who feel that larger females should not have dates and that we are sick freaks for dating them. 

Really, bringing up incest was unnecessary and inappropriate. Just because homosexuality received legal recognition does not mean that incest or any other paraphilia should also receive legal recognition. Again, homosexuality and incest (or any other sexual paraphilia) are discrete entities. 

I know the conservative fearmongers promote this way of thinking that if homoexuality receives legal recognition, then a host of other paraphilias must also receive it because they want to scare and anger people into voting a particular way. The fearmongers are operating on lies and misconceptions. 






gangstadawg said:


> to answer those question im not for any of em. i think that all 3 of those things should not exist.


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 5, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> In that case, why should people be attracted to larger females?


because its not bad at all since its just a bigger body size thing. an the other ones are freakin sick. sex with kids, bestiality, necrofilia, cmon thats some really sick shit. i really shouldnt have to list the reasons why.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 5, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> because its not bad at all since its just a bigger body size thing. an the other ones are freakin sick. sex with kids, bestiality, necrofilia, cmon thats some really sick shit. i really shouldnt have to list the reasons why.



Oh, come on, are you being ironic on purpose? You do realize that you're giving the exact same reasons against those things as the people against incest gave against incest, no? Isn't that a bit contradictory?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 5, 2006)

NFA said:


> So, since you are an FA, I think you owe us all an answer on how you would react to child rape. If you support sexual attraction to fat women, why wouldn't you support sexual attraction to toddlers? Both are outside of social norms, so I think you need to tell us whether you support child rape or not.
> 
> And when you're done with that, I think you need to answer the question of whether you endorse bestiality. If you think its it okay to want to date BBWs, what is your position on dogs or sheep? Do you think that's okay? Is that the meaning of your user name?
> 
> ...




Would you mind if I list you as my heroes over in the hero thread? :happy:  :kiss2:

hehehehehhehehehehehehee


----------



## Blackjack (Oct 5, 2006)

gangstadawg said:


> because its not bad at all since its just a bigger body size thing. an the other ones are freakin sick. sex with kids, bestiality, necrofilia, cmon thats some really sick shit. i really shouldnt have to list the reasons why.



Dude, seriously... _what keeps your ears apart_?


----------



## NFA (Oct 5, 2006)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Would you mind if I list you as my heroes over in the hero thread? :happy:  :kiss2:
> 
> hehehehehhehehehehehehee



We have a hero thread? :huh:


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 5, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> And there are some people who feel that larger females should not have dates and that we are sick freaks for dating them.
> 
> Really, bringing up incest was unnecessary and inappropriate. Just because homosexuality received legal recognition does not mean that incest or any other paraphilia should also receive legal recognition. Again, homosexuality and incest (or any other sexual paraphilia) are discrete entities.
> 
> I know the conservative fearmongers promote this way of thinking that if homoexuality receives legal recognition, then a host of other paraphilias must also receive it because they want to scare and anger people into voting a particular way. The fearmongers are operating on lies and misconceptions.


Fear mongers are usually people who are get upset if the world doesn't go the way they want it to go. For example, they get mad if they see a mixed race couples, women in power and etc. They usually use the gateway agreement to jusify their point of view. If you can prove that A is bad for society, then say that A leads to B that everyone know harms the society. 

One of the greatest pieces of SA activites, is a loving BBW/FA couple.


----------

