Originally posted by kmax87A marriage is a contract? You sign a deal? Well, then it makes perfect sense
Why not? You have failed to keep up your part of a contract.
I suppose. I thought it was more of a promise you make to a specific person
in front of a priest. Many promises are broken yet not punishable by law.
Why? Well, just imagine...
Well, another reason I won't ever get remarried. If (and let's face it, more
probably, when) the day comes when I decide to move on, she can hold me
liable as breaking a contract in the court of law.
Hubba-Bubba!
In response to both Wheely and Stocken, this edit which you may have missed.
Edit: This assumes that the out of marriage sex is partaken by a married person. In the case of unmarried unattached people the contract in a sense would be a contravention of the social contract whereby the consequences of sex (ie children) and the emotional responsibilities of sex( ie the mental and physical wellbeing of the participants, which tends to be a burden on the health system if those participants are not secured within the bonds of a loving relationship (ie marriage), then in a sense because society as a whole suffers because of all this potential dysfunction, society (ie Government) should be allowed to declare unmarried/ pre-marital and extra marital sex as being illegal.
3 edits
Originally posted by kmax87Or, because society as a whole will suffer due to a group of people not
then in a sense because society as a whole suffers because of all this potential dysfunction, society (ie Government) should be allowed to declare unmarried/ pre-marital and extra marital sex as being illegal.
being able to see the individuals right to do whatever the hell (s)he
pleases with his/her time as long as the worst consequences are hurt
feelings, people should be punished by law if they do not commit
adultery during a steady relationship. 🙄
Don't you see? Your logic eats itself. A relationship supposed to be built
on love, patience and understanding between two people cannot be
maintained by society forcing laws on people. If the relationship doesn't
work, it doesn't work. Those who are involved are responsible for dealing
with it. If they need help, they can ask for help, but you can't sentence
people to life in jail because they had a bad relationship going.
Bloody ford! I'm willing to bet you'd have to send 70%+ of earths
population to jail then.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenWell we send people to jail if they have a bad relationship with credit. It seems as long as the crime is not against property, the accepted wisdom is get over it.
but you can't sentence
people to life in jail because they had a bad relationship going.
But surely dishonesty in a non property relationship is still a betrayal of trust, and because you have taken from that person ie their innocence, their belief in the potential of love etc, you have also committed the crime of theft. If nothing else you have stolen the other persons time, at worse you have stolen their faith in the nobility of humanity and as such would have robbed them of one of the most precious of commodities. Hope.
Because faith leads to trust which in turn engenders hope. Hope for the future for the positive outcomes of all that is excellent within the human spirit.
So in reality what you are really saying is, that you will condone theft against human emotions but you will not uphold theft against property, because at the end of the day most social laws revolve around some concept of protection of the rights of ownership. That is unless you do not even respect the rights of property.
As a consequence then, your call for liberty is in reality nothing but a call to arms, to defend the rights of anarchy!
Originally posted by kmax87You go Girl!!
Well we send people to jail if they have a bad relationship with credit. It seems as long as the crime is not against property, the accepted wisdom is get over it.
But surely dishonesty in a non property relationship is still a betrayal of trust, and because you have taken from that person ie their innocence, their belief in the potential of love etc, you ...[text shortened]... your call for liberty is in reality nothing but a call to arms, to defend the rights of anarchy!
That was awesome!
Originally posted by torch71These were all drafted with the religion of Christianity in mind.
See, to me this is all part of the problem in America. After we won our independence we put together the constitution and the bill of rights. These were all drafted with the religion of Christianity in mind. Thus the pledge of all alligiance. I pledge the alligiance to the flag of the United Ststes of America, and to the republic for which it stands ONE NATI ...[text shortened]... live in. Except for the fact of slavery, I would take the 1950's over this day and age anytime.
No they weren't.
I pledge the alligiance to the flag of the United Ststes of America, and to the republic for which it stands ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The pledge was CHANGED to include the religious references in the 50's.
Except for the fact of slavery, I would take the 1950's over this day and age anytime
The US had no slavery in the 50's dumbass.
Originally posted by stockenIt's L. Ron Hubbard reincarnated!!!
Yes, the ten commandments has had a great influence on how people
here in the west think and act, even atheists. But, last time I looked,
adultery was not illegal in this country and I really don't think it should
be. When laws are decided upon, it shouldn't be because a large group
of people points to a work of fiction, claiming that their God says ...[text shortened]... other peoples feelings. It's really no reason to
start punishing people by the law.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Not quite. Adultery is not an act specifically targeted at the one being
So in reality what you are really saying is, that you will condone theft against human emotions but you will not uphold theft against property, because at the end of the day most social laws revolve around some concept of protection of the rights of ownership.
cheated on. In life, we're all inevitably going to get sad, angry and a
range of emotions in between. We can't go prosecuting every single
cause to those emotions. Deal with it. It's part of being human.
If I'm in a relationship and my lady decides to have fun with Johnny
Opportunist (my worst enemy and boss who tricks me into working late
so he can have my woman in every way I always wanted her), that is
really none of my business. They're not exposing me, personally, to
anything other than the hurtful insight of not being enough for her. I
have two choices here: (1) Stay in the relationship and allow her to hurt
me again somewhere down the road, or (2) dump her and get on with
living my life without her.
Let's see what you think of this. Considering the case above, I leave her
and she's hurt by that because it was all in my head and she really loves
me. Should I be prosecuted and sentenced to jail for "stealing her
hope"?
Originally posted by stockenMaybe. Maybe you could sue someone in your past for turning you into an insecure person willing to raise irrational doubts that your boss would offer you overtime for the express purpose of seducing your woman.
If I'm in a relationship and my lady decides to have fun with Johnny
Opportunist (my worst enemy and boss who tricks me into working late
so he can have my woman in every way I always wanted her), that is
really none of my business. They're not exposing me, personally, to
anything other than the hurtful insight of not being enough for her.
The comment of him having her in every which way that you could only dream of indicates an underlying fear of intimacy that is probably the result of being put through the emotional wringer of a mating dance that we all know and love as the New Age, no risk,no blame relationship.
For anyone to be that paranoid of the motives of others, is probably the result of being incapacitated by the erosion of self esteem that goes hand in hand with the freedom of not being responsible for any of the consequences of our emotional entanglements.
Sure it sounds fair and equitable and all grown up and adult and sophisticated, but it is the very lack of consideration for the emotional impact that having an intimate sexual relationship with another person has, that cumulatively across a whole society is also probably at the root of many of the underlying social problems and embedded inequalities that seem to now so effectively handicap modern western civilization.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87You're obviously missing the point. Let me put it this way.
Maybe. Maybe you could sue someone in your past for turning you into an insecure person willing to raise irrational doubts that your boss would offer you overtime for the express purpose of seducing your woman.
The comment of him having her in every which way that you could only dream of indicates an underlying fear of intimacy that is probably the result ...[text shortened]... and embedded inequalities that seem to now so effectively handicap modern western civilization.
A sex crime is when a person is forced into a sexual act against his/her
will. Am I right? Whatever you feel if you're not really involved is besides
the point. I know that to religious people this whole marriage thing is like
part ownership of the other person, where if that person betrays the
"holy" vows it's a vile act against their union, and so they take it fairly
personal. But this is all in their head. It's got nothing to do with reality.
And if you're not religious you really shouldn't be held accountable by
religious laws (unless they make sense, such as when the victim is
actually a victim).
The truth is that the act was not done to the spouse against his/her
will, but with an entirely different person. Hence, you cannot punish the
adulterer. You may think (s)he's a horrible person for allowing
him/herself to hurt who should be the most important person in the
world, but it's not really a sex crime as the people involved in the act
weren't forced into anything.
If the law is for real, then I can see other crazy laws forming. For
instance, when you marry in church (all religions) you give your vows for
life (until death do you part). Now, let's say we have two people who
clearly aren't doing too well but driving each other crazy, so much so that
they feel almost a murdering rage on a daily basis (yes, I know, most
marriages are like that - or in denial). Let's call our couple Janice and
Burt, and let's also consider the possibility that Janice wants a divorce.
Well, I think Janice should be sent to jail because she's now broken a
contract for life. Never mind the fact that she finds herself seriously
thinking of new ways to end Burts life on a daily basis. Divorce is
absolutely out of the question, right?
If she wants a divorce she's not specifically forcing Burt into anything, but
leaving Burt alone (if it's a healthy divorce which of course by this time
it's a bit naive to expect). However, if the law is forcing her to stay in a
marriage that is absolutely unendurable for her, well.... then I think they
should be allowed to suit the government (or the church who decided
this) for driving them to literal madness, because the only option she
has to break free is held from her by the government (controlled by a
religion).