Please give us your feedback so that we can make the community much better for you

Swinger Forum Swinger Information Wiki Questions & Advice  Thread:If Gay marriage is ok, Then why cant two swinger couples marry?



  PAGE 1 (1) :1 
Thread: If Gay marriage is ok, Then why cant two swinger couples marry?
 

 Mar 25, 2011 06:28:11 AM
Asked2Swingers
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

If Gay marriage is ok, Then why cant two swinger couples marry?
Lets remove any conversations about christianity from the issue (but truthfully, the very concept of humans making some kind of committed ceremonious act of joining stems from religion) If we say 2 people of the same sex can marry, then why not two swinger couples? Or Have two swinger couples adopt a single baby, and place all 4 as parents? if gays can marry, then why not 2 men and a woman? or a man and multiple wives (which is common in human history in non christian countries).
Or as the law stands, 16 year olds can marry with parental consent. So how about two or three of the same sex? Whatever reason given for blocking incestuous marriages also could be used against homosexual marriage. What reasons could we give for a father not marrying his own son or daughter once they are 16? Or a sister marrying a brother? Or a person marrying someone for citizenship? Can anyone judge the right and wrongness of such acts? Can anyone Step out with a "love" tape measure so as to say who is capable of "love" and who is not, without implying a level of biblical right and wrong taken from america's christian standards? Remember, Remove the bible from this argument, as many if not most of the pro gay marriage people want to do. So if we remove the moral issue of homosexuality, we also remove the issue of 1 on 1 marriage, and all the other things I listed. so lets be fair to all the polygamist, bigamists, and incestuous people. Let us not leave out "the other woman." Why cant I be married, and cheat with the other woman, and marry her too? Do I not love them both? Can anyone tell me I can't love both? why should they have to know about each other? that sounds like some kind of moral law. We dont want that right? What reason would you give to say ANY of what I am asking is wrong? and could those reasons not be used against gay marriage as well?

I want real, thought out answers, as to why any of these questions would be wrong to allow. Do not name call, or insult me or any other poster.
So let me add things that I dont want to hear:
1.Homophobe
2.Why does it matter to you what others do
3.We have heard this before (and then still dont give an answer)
4. Gays are capable of having a happy marriage, and straight people divorce so who can judge
5. bible thumper
6. Civil rights and blacks got rights, so gay marriage is equal (that one offends me the most, because is belittles black experience from millions dying from Africa to now, under tyranny and terrorism, building a country thru slave labor, being underpaid and arrested in mass, murdered by the police themselves, to this very day, and equates it with just a "civil rights, martin luther king" issue)
None of those are answers, and from tv, to radio to internet, those types of answers are thrown up and the next thing you know, the conversation is on those silly non-answers and not the original topic.

If you want to debate in the supreme court and things like that regarding why a law should change, I feel you need more reasons than "well Why not?"
!!!!Lets be open, without name calling anyone!!!!


 Mar 25, 2011 06:31:19 AM
SwingerGuest_
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Why can't three swingers couples marry along with a goat and a chicken ?

I mean don't they have right to be happy too ?

My opinion is not religious or even really a legal one. It's more a vocabulary / definition one.

Marriage already has a definition , The union of one man and one woman, why make such an effort to redefine a long standing term ?

If people want to have some kind of new , freaky union , why not come up with a new , freaky name to identify it ?

 Mar 25, 2011 06:32:20 AM
SwingerGuest_Spindrift
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Do whatever you want only don't ask for approbation because you will never get it. Enjoy.

 Mar 25, 2011 06:32:38 AM
SwingerGuest_Starfish
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

I suppose because gay marriage is still a union between two people, which is the reason for marriage. It doesn't challenge the idea that you can only fall in love with one person at a time, it doesn't challenge monogamy or commitment.

Essentially, gay marriage only puts forth the idea that two people of the same sex can still uphold the vows associated with marriage.

 Mar 25, 2011 06:34:22 AM
SwingerGuest_DLM
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Gay marriage is not ok.

 Mar 25, 2011 06:35:31 AM
SwingerGuest_Beth
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Because, in this country polygamy is illegal.
lol Ryde on

 Mar 25, 2011 06:44:06 AM
SwingerGuest_Al Rozz
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Society has come a long ways and people want more freedom to do as they please without provisions from their Government & Laws.
The Supreme Court never anticipated to make rulings on Gay marriages and or adoption from Gay couples. There is a new world developing with abortion activists and pro and con Gay marriages.

I personally feel that being Gay is a choice that should be recognized by all Governments. I remember when the USAF dishonorably removed an Airmen simply because he was Gay and his credit was ruined though he had an impeccable Airforce record for active duty. The Government basically took this mans life away by giving him a bad conduct discharge when he in fact was an honor in the Airforce and decorated, but it meant diddly squat to the Airforce when they discovered he was Gay.

The future of this world is education and those applicants qualified to fill the positions needed by their education and not their choice of gender.

 Mar 25, 2011 07:10:15 AM
SwingerGuest_Gary
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Actually, if you remove the Bible from any answers directed to your question, you remove any foundation for a definition of marriage. So everything is OK, including all the aberrations you mentioned. In fact, the institution of bringing two people together, legally, becomes no more than a legal contract. So, anyone willing to enter into that contract should be allowed. Any number of people, critters or items.

I absolutely agree with you. If two same sex people can get married then why not all the other corruptions you listed, plus many, many more. Not that I agree that they should be able to, but I agree with the arguments posted.

Still, removing the Bible entirely from our civilization would be absolutely devastating. The Bible holds the foundation for probably 90= of all our laws and norms. Without it to guide and direct us, there would be rampant chaos.

Man would have to quick react and rewrite laws that would be based only on people and their attitudes. My Gawd, leave something like that entirely up to our currently elected officials??? Until they finished with their man-made laws, everything would be legal!

The only way I could say any of those things contained in your question is OK, is either by my own personal opinion, or by some brand new, man made law that addressed the specific act. As of today, right now, this minute, by removing the Bible, I have no leg to stand on. I would also have to eliminate almost every man made law, especially those dealing with social issues. Laws that are totally separate from the Bible. are almost non existent.

Having man make their own laws only from people's opinions would mean that most aberrant behavior would probably not be recognized. We would have to get a majority decision on everything. I know being "Gay" is the hot topic in the news right now, but I still do not believe the majority of voting Americans believe Gay should be legislated or recognized.

As far as facing difficult decisions when you come out and admit being Gay, it is your own doing. Everybody can be and do whatever they want, as long as it fits within established guidelines. At the time of the USAF incident it was not acceptable to be Gay in the military.

If you decide to be a child molester, the profile will follow you for life. Should we have legislation that recognizes child molesters and rewards them?

 Mar 25, 2011 07:12:39 AM
SwingerGuest_Dave B.
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

Alright, fair question. I'll answer to the best of my ability, and skip over the religious contexts as you've asked.

Marriage is, above all, a legal arrangement. That's a very unromantic way to look at it, but in any modernized country, there is no marriage without the consent of law. That's the very issue we're looking at, otherwise a dozen homosexual, polygamist siblings could just state, "Hey, we're married," and that would be that.

From a legal perspective, only two people can be married. This is due to complications in taxes and property rights that arise from a marriage of more than two people. The government does not want to encourage whole colonies of people to become married as a group in order to save on taxes. There are numerous legal headaches involved in this, one example being when one person from a married group wants a divorce. Is the remainder of the marriage then invalid? How would licensing a wedding work if an unlimited number of people could be on the marriage certificate? Does a third person in a marriage automatically have custody rights if two others in the marriage have a child?

Addressing marriage between people who are related, incestuous marriages are illegal because they cause inbreeding. Children of sibling couples, cousins, etc. are far more likely to have birth defects and various types of mental and physical retardation, and therefore sanctioning a marriage (which is sanctioning sex as a byproduct) between closely related people is tantamount to sactioning child abuse. In the case of homosexual siblings being married, that is unallowable becasue heterosexual sibling couples do not have that right for the aforementioned reason.

So, formal marriages between more than two people and marriages between closely related people cannot be allowed. Ideally, I feel that polygamy should be legal, although I can certainly understand why it is not, given all the legal complications. Regardless, relationships involving more than two people are perfectly legal, and those people may be as personally committed to the others in any sense that they choose. To my knowledge, relationships between relatives are not illegal; only sex between relatives is.

In the case of homosexual marriage, there are no problems that exist that do not exist in traditional heterosexual marriage. The tax advantages are no better, the legal paperwork is no less workable, and there is no legal or ethical reason that they should not be allowed to marry. What remains are cultural and religious biases against gay marriage, and constitutionally, those should not influence our law. I admit that there are cases to be made against gay marriage. For example, it has been stated to me that homosexual relationships are on average far shorter and less committed than heterosexual relationships. This may be due in part to the fact that gays and lesbians cannot marry, but let's leave that out of it. We'll assume that by nature, homosexuals' relationships just do not have the same longevity as heterosexual relationships. That is still not an argument as to why they should not be married. If I was able to present evidence that black couples stayed married significantly less often and for a significantly shorter duration than white couples, would it be ethical to deny black couples the right to marry? I'm not trying to break rule #6 by bringing that up, but the point is that you can't deny rights to one group based on that kind of argument.

I feel like I'm rambling. To summarize, polygamy is illegal due to the legal headaches caused by it. Incestuous marriages are illegal because of the reproductive dangers. Neither of these are factors in homosexual marriage. If we are to call ourselves a free country, everything must be legal by default unless it is causing excessive problems, hurting something or someone, or infringing on someone's rights.

 Mar 25, 2011 09:51:40 AM
SwingerGuest_PennyLeeD2
Posts: 592
Responses: 988
Location: N/A

The issue making its way to the Supreme Court is: If the government says that two consenting legally competent adults can form a union with significant benefits to themselves and society, the government should not unreasonably restrict who those two people should be. At one time, couples of different nationality could not marry. Or of different religions or races. Gender should be no different. The issue is the state recognizing the marital contract.

3 people can "marry" without the state recognizing it. Two dogs can. It's not a legal contract, it has no tax or legal benefits. Minors aren't competent to make an informed decision for a contract.

  PAGE 1 (1) :1