There are 6 choices, 11 votes for hollowandconfused's debate

Outlaw Gay Marrige?

Is it wrong or right to outlaw gay couples?

• Oh, heck no

  Gay people, I think, deserve to be happy just like the rest of us. Who are we to define love? Love is not just a man and a woman caring for eachother, but TWO PEOPLE caring for one another, regardless of faults. Outlawing gay marrige would be like outlawing certain couples to marry because of their sexual practices

  27%  Voted for by hollowandconfused, Weydon, popo.

  View 24 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 8, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Weydon, you realise that if you vote for something that says two people caring for one another, and positing this as the ultimate reason for acceptance, I am only going to throw something like incest or what not in your face.
  • 
    Kazrith
    November 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    yes and incest, pedophilia and bestiality, as we have discused many times, usually have an unwilling participant.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Incest usually has an unwilling partcipant? Hypothetical: So then, if even MOST cases of homosexuality and heterosexuality became non-consentual because all of a sudden everyone was raping people the minority that were engaging in consentual sex would be performing an ethically wrong action? Please..... True Story: Brother and sister fall in love because they met after being separated at birth and didn't know it. Consentual sex. After finding out the bad news, they decide to continue the relationship because they want to be together (in that way). However, the relationship was considered unlawful, and unethical. Consentual sex that is impeded upon and rejected by society. Come up with a different criteria. Little kids that like to experiment with each other, that would be consentual as well. Animals can very well consent to sex with humans because many have in fact raped humans, and had those people enjoyed it and rather actually wanted to engage in the activity, then that would also be consentual sex. And if we are to accuse animals of having an inability to discern and consent in a cognitive manner, then we should stop all animal sex, because when two beavers go at it, technically it wouldn't be consentual. Bottom line? A willingness to have sex with something, and to have that willingness returned by the something, does not constitute as instantly, morally correct.
  • 
    Weydon
    November 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Consenting and accidental incest is far better than rape. Incest in itself seems very gross to me and seems to lead to genetic disabilities in offspring. Perhaps some psychological research needs to be done in what drives people to do it? But aside from that, my going "EWWWW!!!!" is hardly reason to stop consenting adults from being together. *nd if we are to accuse animals of having an inability to discern and consent in a cognitive manner, then we should stop all animal sex* And if we were to bind animals to laws of murder or child support and taxes, we'd be idiots.
  • slder4crst
    November 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    weydon

    ___"But aside from that, my going “EWWWW!!!!” is hardly reason to stop consenting adults from being together."___ hmmm interesting, so by your point of view, you would consider prostitution to be acceptable? what about adultery? even though one is cheating on the other, it is consentual. and as far as i know they are having a good time in the proccess. ___"And if we were to bind animals to laws of murder or child support and taxes, we’d be idiots."___ hahahaha, i couldn't disagree there, but as wacked out as it sounds there are those who think it should happen.
  • • 
      Weydon
      November 10, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      *you would consider prostitution to be acceptable?* Yeah *what about adultery? even though one is cheating on the other, it is consentual* The sex itself is not as horrid as rape. But the cheating is different. If you skip out on your son's birthday to see a baseball game, seeing a baseball game is not bad but skipping out on your son is.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"And if we were to bind animals to laws of murder or child support and taxes, we’d be idiots."* The first of those, animals are bound to this already. If an animal kills a human, that animal (as well as maybe a thousand others that look like it) will be located and killed. It is the law. *"taxes"* That's what would make performing monkeys so rich. Monkeys that are able to earn an income, and not owned as a pet or considered property, would be able to 'beat the system'. If monkeys ever claim independence, we're stuffed.
  • • 
      Weydon
      November 10, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      *The first of those, animals are bound to this already. If an animal kills a human, that animal (as well as maybe a thousand others that look like it) will be located and killed. It is the law.* I meant more for animals killing other animals. But killing them is not the same as what happens to a man that kills a man (most times). The point is you can't equate animal morality to human morality.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Anyway, we have got off track once again. My point still stands, that incest is consentual, yet it is 'outlawed'.
  • • 
      Weydon
      November 10, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      I hadn't realized we were talking about legally. Yes, by definition it is against the law. But should it be?
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        November 10, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Well if you want to go with the whole consentual thing, I would suggest that you say 'no', otherwise you are double-minded and a hypocrite.
      • • 
          Weydon
          November 11, 2006
          Edit | Reply
          For the most part I am saying "no". Automatically I want to say "EWWW! WTF? It's gross and wrong!", but what does that mean? I can say the same thing about old people or fat people or generally ugly people. It is most likely just a societal imprint--perhaps evolutionary if there is in fact a genetic problem with inbreeding and it is not a giant embelishment. Assuming it is genetically safe, I am still inclined to suggest further studies into the psyche just due to a predisposed bias against it--which isn't exactly a valid reason. Overall, if it harms no one I can't say much against it.
        • • 
            TeChNoWC
            November 11, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            Pity you don't share the same passion for this persecuted minority.
          • • 
              Weydon
              November 11, 2006
              Edit | Reply
              I don't understand? Which passion and which minority?
  • 
    petethemeat
    November 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    slder4crst, I believe that prostitution is acceptable and legalising the practice would take much of the people trafficing and abuse prositutes suffer away. Adultery is not illegal but it is a factor in divorce cases. I believe adultery to be a personal matter between couples as peoples views often differ on the subject e.g open relationships etc...
  • 
    cosmosis
    November 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    For an interesting story dealing with incest, try reading the story of Oedipus by Sophocles. The story is about a man who was destined to kill his father and sleep with his mother. He did so and had four children, one of them being Antigone (who is the main character in the last part of the play).
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 12, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"I don’t understand? Which passion and which minority?"* Incestuals, as you do homosexuals. Ok, so if consensus is the requirements for acceptable, loving relationships, what about doctor/patient relationships? They too are consentual relationships yet highly contentious, frowned upon and from my understanding illegal, too.
  • 
    Weydon
    November 13, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *Incestuals, as you do homosexuals.* When presented a radical idea that makes me uncomfortable, I first need to think upon it before frivolously declaring my position. However, should people try to lynch or even kick out of a bar/restaurant for being incestual, I would have to go their aid. I may think it's gross, and for all I know it may have to do with a psychological issue, but they're not doing anything so wrong that they deserve to be persecuted. If proved to be not a psychological issue, I would laugh and be mildly digusted about the idea of 2 brothers in a relationship. I'm not perfect. But I would't tear them apart. I would, however, have a bit of an issue towards a brother and sister wanting to do it as it seems to cause genetic problems. *, what about doctor/patient relationships* Comparable to regular/mentally impaired, drunk/sober, adult/child. All are wrong to different degrees, but for similar reasons. One person is unstable and not in the position to be making certain choices. The children and mentally retarded are, I think obviously, the worst. Then would be doctor/patient as it's possible or even likely that the patient only believes they love the person because of all the secrets they've been able to unload on the doctor and how helpful they have been, when for the most part they're your sympathetic/professional ear you're paying for. If the 2 do seem to grow to love I would recomend they end their sessions for at least a few months and start hanging out as friends, to see if the feelings are genuine. And, as long as we're on the topic the drunk/sober is the least bad, as it is only a one night impairment. Depending on how drunk they are, as long as you don't take things too far it's probably not so terrible. The best thing to do would simply get drunk yourself!
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Comparable to regular/mentally impaired, drunk/sober, adult/child. All are wrong to different degrees, but for similar reasons. One person is unstable and not in the position to be making certain choices. The children and mentally retarded are, I think obviously, the worst. Then would be doctor/patient as it’s possible or even likely that the patient only believes they love the person because of all the secrets they’ve been able to unload on the doctor and how helpful they have been, when for the most part they’re your sympathetic/professional ear you’re paying for. If the 2 do seem to grow to love I would recomend they end their sessions for at least a few months and start hanging out as friends, to see if the feelings are genuine. And, as long as we’re on the topic the drunk/sober is the least bad, as it is only a one night impairment. Depending on how drunk they are, as long as you don’t take things too far it’s probably not so terrible. The best thing to do would simply get drunk yourself!"* You play a fine line. There would also be a) doctor/patient relationships that have no basis of 'domination', but rather are completely consentual, unforced and well thought out (despite the lawful risk) b ) relationship types that have not been addressed as unlawful due to domineering, even in a simple man woman relationship. c) The drunk scenario which is exactly the same if not worse than the doctor/patient scenario, yet this still continues without prejudice. This is, as I said, hypocrisy.
  • 
    Weydon
    November 20, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *a) doctor/patient relationships that have no basis of ‘domination’, but rather are completely consentual, unforced and well thought out (despite the lawful risk)* Such as what? If they are your therapist it is always the same scenario as the peotential (if unintentional) "domination" over a vulnerable person. If it is another kind of doctor, it is not unethical or illegal as far as I know. Though in-house regulations probably say that outside of an emergency, the doctor isn't going to be the one operating on a family member or something. But maybe not even. *b ) relationship types that have not been addressed as unlawful due to domineering, even in a simple man woman relationship.* Such as? *c) The drunk scenario which is exactly the same if not worse than the doctor/patient scenario, yet this still continues without prejudice.* There is of course prejudice against it. Have you ever heard of someone that goes around completely sober taking advantage of drunk chicks getting nothing but praise or indifference? There's simply no way to regulate this however because drunk hook-ups are generally one time things. If the girl doesn't agree to it but is too drunk to fully resist, it is date rape.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 23, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Such as?"* I gave you the example. The idea is that domineering in relationships is not restricted to relationship type, as it may seem so easy to biastly assume. A woman could dominate over a man in a heterosexual relationship, or vice versa, and it's not unlawful. If a man had an IQ one point above the limit for retardation, then his intellectual wife could be taking advantage of him.
  • 
    Weydon
    November 24, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    So what is your argument? That because there are bitches that can find a spineless man and they can live miserably together, then it's not much different than a grown man taking advantage of a child or someone his own age who is mentally handicapped where their mind is that of a 12 year old? Regardless of whatever you're reaching for, there is a definite difference. If someone is being taken advantage of in a relationship, it is WRONG. Cheating, domineering, whatever. It's wrong. It's also solvable. Suck it up. Grow a backbone and/or wise up. If you're too scared or sturbborn, then live on in misery. Retarded people and children don't have this option.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    November 25, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"So what is your argument? That because there are bitches that can find a spineless man and they can live miserably together, then it’s not much different than a grown man taking advantage of a child or someone his own age who is mentally handicapped where their mind is that of a 12 year old?"* My argument predominantly centred around the doctor/patient issue, sorry if I was a bit jumpy. I see that you have now established a definitive, but it still contradicts the initial post. Two people caring for each other "regardless of faults" as it was put. Well, doctor/patient seems to be a minor fault to me, yet unnacceptable. Contradictory. Also, if we cannot define love, or elaborate on what love is and what it should be restricted to as the poster suggested, then here is another problem, as one could then not criticize other relationships that are seemingly love based but we tend to label as 'not so', eg incestual relationships, yadda yadda and so on. My aim is not to debase your criterion, it is to tweak and correct it.
  • 
    Weydon
    December 1, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "Two people caring for each other "regardless of faults" as it was put. Well, doctor/patient seems to be a minor fault to me, yet unnacceptable. Contradictory"
    
    Well, I don't see it as a minor fault if it's a therapist thing. People are generally going to a therapist because they are unstable about a sensative issue. The therapist is someone they can confide most everything to, and helps them solve their long-standing life-troubling issues. This person who was/IS in an unstable state is not in the perfect position to declare love.
    
    
    "Also, if we cannot define love, or elaborate on what love is and what it should be restricted to as the poster suggested, then here is another problem, as one could then not criticize other relationships that are seemingly love based but we tend to label as 'not so', eg incestual relationships"
    
    Just because love is difficult to define doesn't mean we don't generally understand what it is. The main problem is the different levels of love, and the capability one can love in given circumstances such as being intoxicated, unstable, a child, etc. It's feasible an incestual relation is somewhat similar to the therapist/patient issue. Mostly I just find it intesely disturbing.
    
    "My aim is not to debase your criterion, it is to tweak and correct it."
    
    No problem.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: