"Adultery" site sued

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Granted, but the public procedure has still been followed. If the divorce is not mutually agreed to then there need to be grounds, and that there are grounds would seem to imply that the other partner has broken their vows in some way.

The relevant promise to this discussion is "forsaking all others". That is something reasonably under the control of the parties.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Quite possibly, but does a "no-fault" divorce require both parties to agree to the divorce?

Originally posted by lemon lime
You can't protect yourself from criticism by only asking questions, because your own opinions and point of view clearly show through in those questions.

I am pleased that my opinions and point of view clearly show through. That is my intention. I may be many things, but I am certainly not a poster who seeks to avoid criticism.

I'm tired of constantly working to guess your meaning and attempting to respond to poorly worded (declarative) questions.

Oh, OK. Maybe you should make your mind up.

Originally posted by lemon lime

I was saying cultures don't just spring up for no discernible reason. They come into being because of human nature, and not the other way around. Human nature isn't determined by cultures, cultures are determined by the people who inhabit those cultures. The idea that cultures only exist to determine human behavior is what I was referring to as putting the cart before the horse. Cultures do have influence over human nature in the sense that they provide a measure of control to insure the society/culture doesn't fall apart and succumb to anarchy... if there are no generally accepted rules (meaning rules accepted by most members of the community) then a culture can easily fall apart and dissolve into lone individuals living by their own rules. In groups where there are rules to insure some level of safety and freedom of movement, individuals don't need to spend every waking moment of their lives protecting themselves and their possessions... all anarchy can do for someone is to keep everyone so busy with survival issues there's no time for anything else.

And your point is that all this is different from "inanimate objects"?

Earlier you said "Being a part of a different culture isn't enough to change our DNA, or able to change what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring." I disagree with this ~ and it seems you have subsequently disagreed with it too. The realities of different cultures can substantially change what is considered normal.

Originally posted by DeepThought
We aren't talking about divorce, we are talking about adultery. So when the marriage is annulled the vows are publicly renounced, I'd extend that to couples who have separated obviously, depending on the separation. In a divorce or separation the former couple release each other from the promises. Adultery involves the breaking of vows which are still in place.

You're right, this is the long and short of it. Talk of divorce is a bit of a red herring. Adultery involves the breaking of promises that are still in effect and is therefore not morally sound behaviour.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

But still, one might wonder what was going through their minds as they were both going through the process of becoming (legally) married. Were they sincerely making promises they intended to keep? If they were, but then one or both of them changed their minds solely on the basis of incompatibility, then those promises were nothing more than paying lip service and never did any carry any weight... my point being, if those promises can so easily be rendered meaningless then what was the point of making vows in the first place?

Incompatibility is a relatively meaningless term... he always leaves the cap off the toothpaste tube, or she always refuses to do any grocery shopping, or he/she never wants to have sex when I want it. As far as I know simply claiming incompatibility, with no explanation or reason given by either party, is all it takes to legally dissolve a marriage. Alimony and pre-nupts are separate issues, and how a marriage is dissolved and who is responsible for it being dissolved can affect division of property and payments being made. But basically any marriage can be dissolved, and for no other reason than one or both parties want out.

The problem with this (as I see it) is whenever a society or culture makes it this easy to dissolve a significant bond such as marriage, they make it that much easier for anyone to enter into it. So if you're getting ready to be hitched, but you have your doubts, or you're not sure you really want to wake up next to this person every day, then don't sweat it... because your expressed commitment of marriage was basically a lie, and your marriage certificate is not worth the paper it's printed on. Why heck, signing a two year contract with a phone company is a more significant contract, and carries more weight than your written and verbal marriage vows... because the penalties for breaking a contract you make with the phone company are clearly spelled out. 🙁 Yup, no doubts about it, we have really come far as a species we have, yup yup yup yup... 😕😛😞



yup

The post that was quoted here has been removed

We human beings are much more closely related to other primates.
Chimpanzees are known for their very aggressive and often violent behavior.
As for bonobos (the other primate most closely related to human beings),
"Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners."
--Wikipedia

I became weary of the dating scene after a few short years, and was very happy to settle into a strictly monogamous relationship. There's not much chance of my being tempted to commit adultery now, but if it does happen and I get caught, I now know what to say to my wife...

"What are you so upset about? Monkeys do it all the time, so why can't I do it too?"

If you want to cite 'natural' role models for human sexual behavior, then
why not cite those creatures that are most closely related to human beings?

I wasn't citing animals as roles models for humans. My point had to do with animals who behave in ways appropriate for their particular species.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Incompatibility is a relatively meaningless term... he always leaves the cap off the toothpaste tube, or she always refuses to do any grocery shopping, or he/she never wants to have sex when I want it. As far as I know simply claiming incompatibility, with no explanation or reason given by either party, is all it takes to legally dissolve a marriage.

Do you have any experience of married relatives or friends who changed as they grew older or who grew apart? I think "incompatibility" can be framed as a relatively meaningless term if one chooses to apply a particular slant to it by citing things such as people leaving the cap off the toothpaste tube; such things are the fodder of TV movies and sitcoms, of course.

But the problem of "incompatibility" can also be a deeply personal and spiritual matter and it can encompass truly deep issues pertaining to who one really is and who the person one is with really is, and the dysfunction that can arise and persist can eventually pervade and deform the relationship.

These are things that cannot be known by the people involved until after they have experienced married life together. To suggest that a desire to marry and to commit to one another was, retrospectively, a "lie" because incompatibility later destroyed the relationship, seems to me to be a rather misanthropic and simplistic analysis of human relationships.

Originally posted by FMF
You're right, this is the long and short of it. Talk of divorce is a bit of a red herring. Adultery involves the breaking of promises that are still in effect and is therefore not morally sound behaviour.

I also feel the talk of evolutionary aspects of sexual behaviour is a bit of a red herring because "adultery" is a contemporary sophisticated homo sapien descriptor of what other species would consider normal behavior, and which exists only within the concept of committed monogamy, or at least committed polygamy.

To discuss the morality of adultery we must first agree on what adultery is (and I suppose on what morality is). If we can agree that, for example, adultery is "having sexual relations with another person without the knowledge or true concent of one's committed partner", then we can see that supposed adultery is more than just the sexual act; it is also the outcome of a series of deliberate decisions taken by one person in a committed sexually exclusive relationship, in order to secretly obtain sexual intercourse with another person outside of that committed sexually exclusive partnership.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you have any experience of married relatives or friends who changed as they grew older or who grew apart? I think "incompatibility" can be framed as a relatively meaningless term if one chooses to apply a particular slant to it by citing things such as people leaving the cap off the toothpaste tube; such things are the fodder of TV movies and sitcoms, of cour ...[text shortened]... ionship, seems to me to be a rather misanthropic and simplistic analysis of human relationships.

People don't get married because they believe they are incompatible, so obviously something changes between the time they get married and when they become incompatible.

So what do you suppose might change? They obviously don't become incompatible because they are willing to compromise or accommodate each other, or because they learn to be tolerant of each others minor shortcomings or annoying habits. Incompatibility can become an issue later on, in the face of selfish desires and because of a general lack of respect and tolerance.

By the way, 'incompatibility' becoming a legitimate excuse for divorce opened the door a bit wider for the next legitimate reason... no fault divorce. And with that one you don't need a reason or make any kind of claim, you need only agree to call it quits.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So what do you suppose might change? They obviously don't become incompatible because they are willing to compromise or accommodate each other, or because they learn to be tolerant of each others minor shortcomings or annoying habits. Incompatibility can become an issue later on, in the face of selfish desires and because of a general lack of respect and tolerance.

I think incompatibility does not have to be caused by things like minor shortcomings and annoying habits or be a result of selfishness. I think it can be far more fundamental than that. But if the 'toothpaste cap left open' variety happens to be the only kind of incompatibility between partners that you have witnessed up close ~ among say relatives and intimate friends ~ then it's understandable that your perception of incompatibility will be limited to something that you then describe in rather shallow censorious terms.

Originally posted by lemon lime
People don't get married because they believe they are incompatible, so obviously something changes between the time they get married and when they become incompatible.

Do you have any experience of married relatives or friends who changed as they grew older or who grew apart?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You appear to have taken the 'adult' out of 'adultery.'

Adults are free to make their own decisions and mistakes. Adultery is just another form of 'temptation' and it is the act of overcoming temptation that is the true foundation block of a civilized society.

To fear temptation is to capitulate before it.

Adultery is the act of succumbing to temptation.

"Adults are free to make their own decisions and mistakes."

Of course! It's called free will. Volition. Everyone has the right to be wrong. But are we really "free" when we're wrong?