What is the definition of "is" - as in adultery

[CADsortaGUY]

OK - Now since this is a touchy subject - NO FLAMING - NO TROLLING - ONLY REAL DISCUSSION PLEASE!!!
********************

Gay sex cannot be adultery, court rules

<snip>
If a married woman has sex with another woman, is that adultery? The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Friday said no.
</snip>

OK, now seriously - I'm confused. Now how can having homosexual "sex" outside a "marriage"(or "union") not be considered adultery? I thought homosexual "rights" activists wanted equality - how does this help them? It doesn't make sense that they shouldn't be held to the same "adultery" laws....why does the "act" differ just because it's a homosexual act? I thought this whole "gay" issue was about putting them under the same set of laws as "straight" people.
Most know where I stand on this issue, but this ruling confuses me since it seems that a trend was reversed kind of. The "liberal" judges said it wasn't "adultery" - yet they(maybe not them specifically though) want "equal" rights. It seems to me that if Homosexuality wants "equal" rights then they have to abide and be ruled by ALL of the same laws that Heterosexuals abide by - meaning that if someone "strays" from the monogamous relationship in ANY sexual way -it should be considered "adultery", no?

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Umm, why didn't you quote WHY the judges ruled the way they did, instead of spouting off on liberals and gays?

Robin Mayer of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce proceedings of David and Sian Blanchflower of Hanover, N.H.

After a Lebanon Family Court judge determined Mayer and Sian Blanchflower?s relationship did constitute adultery, Mayer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn?t qualify as adultery under the state?s divorce law.

?The Lebanon Family Court is attempting to overturn several centuries of the accepted definition of adultery, which is heterosexual sexual intercourse,? wrote Mayer, who represented herself in the appeal.

Three of the five Supreme Court judges agreed with Mayer?s position, but two ? generally considered the more conservative judges ? did not.

Part of the problem is that adultery is not defined in New Hampshire?s divorce laws.

Looking at a dictionary and old case law, the court determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges point to a Webster?s dictionary definition that mentions intercourse and an 1878 case that refers to adultery as ?intercourse from which spurious issue may arise.?

[............]

But the majority did not want New Hampshire courts to step onto the slippery slope of defining what sexual behavior might amount to adultery if acts outside intercourse were included.

?This standard would permit a hundred different judges ... to decide just what individual acts are so sexually intimate as to meet the definition,? the opinion reads.

It seems the judges were trying to follow the written word of the law as much as possible. It wasn't some biased pro-gay stance they had.

Of course homosexual cheating should be considered adultery. But it seems New Hampshire law hasn't defined it as such, and thus the "liberal" judges were following the word of law. I thought conservatives were the ones who hated "judges legislating from the bench"? I only make that point because you're bent on making this a liberal vs. conservative issue. Maybe the NH Legislature should clarify the definition of adultery.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK - Now since this is a touchy subject - NO FLAMING - NO TROLLING - ONLY REAL DISCUSSION PLEASE!!!
********************

Gay sex cannot be adultery, court rules

<snip>
If a married woman has sex with another woman, is that adultery? The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Friday said no.
</snip>

OK, now seriously - I'm confused. Now how can having homosexual "sex" outside a "marriage"(or "union") not be considered adultery? I thought homosexual "rights" activists wanted equality - how does this help them? It doesn't make sense that they shouldn't be held to the same "adultery" laws....why does the "act" differ just because it's a homosexual act? I thought this whole "gay" issue was about putting them under the same set of laws as "straight" people.
Most know where I stand on this issue, but this ruling confuses me since it seems that a trend was reversed kind of. The "liberal" judges said it wasn't "adultery" - yet they(maybe not them specifically though) want "equal" rights. It seems to me that if Homosexuality wants "equal" rights then they have to abide and be ruled by ALL of the same laws that Heterosexuals abide by - meaning that if someone "strays" from the monogamous relationship in ANY sexual way -it should be considered "adultery", no?

CkG

It leads to the questions: Do homosexuals really want equal rights, or special rights?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

dp

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

Lesbian Couples can't be married under the law so no.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

Right, but gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Seems like you employ a double standard in approving double standards.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

Lesbian Couples can't be married under the law so no.

But homosexuals are fighting for legalized gay marriage in New Hampshire. So, if they win the right to be married under New Hampshire law, this would seem like a double standard, no?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

LOL. Okay, let's explain this to you. When judges rule on cases, they're supposed to follow the word of law and prior rulings. It seems that NH law doesn't define adultery, so they went to two (2) sources: Webster's dictionary which includes the act of intercourse (this occurs when the penis enters the vagina if you didn't know) and the prior NH ruling which also used the term intercourse.

Should the law be changed (or clarified actually) to include gays and lesbians? Of course it should. But the 3 judges decided not to "legislate from the bench", and thus overturned the lower court's ruling which was legislating from the bench. Instead of blaming the judges for doing their job properly, or blaming lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy", blame the NH legislature for not writing a sufficiently concise law...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

Right, but gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Seems like you employ a double standard in approving double standards.

I don't think they should, but that is not the issue here.

If lesbian couples were allowed to marry, and this ruling remains, then lesbain couples would be free to have sex with as many women as they want without being labeled an adulterer. I don't see too many lesbian couples trying to reverse this ruling, despite the fact that it gives them special rights, and not equal rights.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

Right, but gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Seems like you employ a double standard in approving double standards.

I don't think they should, but that is not the issue here.

If lesbian couples were allowed to marry, and this ruling remains, then lesbain couples would be free to have sex with as many women as they want without being labeled an adulterer. I don't see too many lesbian couples trying to reverse this ruling, despite the fact that it gives them special rights, and not equal rights.

Convenient that your opinions dont matter here but theirs do?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If adultery requires intercourse (I assume the term "intercourse" means with your naturally-endowed organs) then it is impossible for two women to have sex. But it is certainly possible for two men to have sex. I don't see this as a hetero vs homo issue . . . it's apparently a gender issue. I doubt NOW will protest any time soon.

So, lesbian couples are not adulterers if they have "sex" with a thousand other women while they are "married".

Talk about a double standard...

LOL. Okay, let's explain this to you. When judges rule on cases, they're supposed to follow the word of law and prior rulings. It seems that NH law doesn't define adultery, so they went to two (2) sources: Webster's dictionary which includes the act of intercourse (this occurs when the penis enters the vagina if you didn't know) and the prior NH ruling which also used the term intercourse.

Should the law be changed (or clarified actually) to include gays and lesbians? Of course it should. But the 3 judges decided not to "legislate from the bench", and thus overturned the lower court's ruling which was legislating from the bench. Instead of blaming the judges for doing their job properly, or blaming lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy", blame the NH legislature for not writing a sufficiently concise law...

Where did I blame the judges or lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy"? I just said this is a double standard. Where the problem lies, I don't know. If the problem is with the New Hampshire legislature, then it should be fixed.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Where did I blame the judges or lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy"? I just said this is a double standard. Where the problem lies, I don't know. If the problem is with the New Hampshire legislature, then it should be fixed.

A double standard imposed by whom? The judges or gay/lesbian community, I'm not sure who you're blaming for the double standard. The "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy" thing is called a "joke".

 

[privatebreyer]

Technically, adultery requires intercourse. Legally anyway. I'm not quite sure what folks want here.

What I'd like to know is why the husband is taking legal action, when he could ask to join in. ;-D

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Technically, adultery requires intercourse. Legally anyway. I'm not quite sure what folks want here.

What I'd like to know is why the husband is taking legal action, when he could ask to join in. ;-D

LOL. I was thinking that myself...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Where did I blame the judges or lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy"? I just said this is a double standard. Where the problem lies, I don't know. If the problem is with the New Hampshire legislature, then it should be fixed.

Actually, it seems completely consistent to me. Lesbians cannot legally marry; they also cannot legally be said to have committed adultery. If the law is someday changed to allow same-sex marriages, perhaps that will be the time to revisit the legal definition of adultery.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Anybody with a clue knows federal (and most certainly state/local) law is rife with bias, inconsistencies, and occasionally straight up BS (see Jeb Bush/Schiavo). IMO, it is indeed the less conservative majority that ruled correctly on the law. Now if NH was enlightened

enough to have one of those atrocious alienation of affection laws then even lesbians (or bisexuals) would have reason to worry.

Personally, I don't think you need intercourse to violate the spirit of your wedding vows but that's not what the law says. As the law is written in NH (and likely other states), this woman could have performed the same acts with a man and technically would not meet NH's legal standard for adultery. IMHO, the law is bad but of course I believe gays and lesbians should be able to get married, beat the spouse, cheat on the spouse, and divorce just like the rest of us.

 

[privatebreyer]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Where did I blame the judges or lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy"? I just said this is a double standard. Where the problem lies, I don't know. If the problem is with the New Hampshire legislature, then it should be fixed.

Actually, it seems completely consistent to me. Lesbians cannot legally marry; they also cannot legally be said to have committed adultery. If the law is someday changed to allow same-sex marriages, perhaps that will be the time to revisit the legal definition of adultery.

Are you trying to tell us this about the right to stand up and proudly say "I committed adultery"?

This gay pride stuff is getting rediculous.

I suppose they would be doing just the opposite if this case involved people in the military were adultery is crime.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Where did I blame the judges or lesbians for some "vast lesbian-wing conspiracy"? I just said this is a double standard. Where the problem lies, I don't know. If the problem is with the New Hampshire legislature, then it should be fixed.

Actually, it seems completely consistent to me. Lesbians cannot legally marry; they also cannot legally be said to have committed adultery. If the law is someday changed to allow same-sex marriages, perhaps that will be the time to revisit the legal definition of adultery.

Why is it OK to evryone to have Government in the Bedroom?

 

[privatebreyer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674Why is it OK to evryone to have Government in the Bedroom?

Who said that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: privatebreyer

Originally posted by: dmcowen674Why is it OK to evryone to have Government in the Bedroom?

Who said that?

Ditto. I firmly believe the government has no right to dictate what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

DMCowen - I didn't mean to suggest it was OK, merely that it would be consistent.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: privatebreyer

Originally posted by: dmcowen674Why is it OK to evryone to have Government in the Bedroom?

Who said that?

Ditto. I firmly believe the government has no right to dictate what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

DMCowen - I didn't mean to suggest it was OK, merely that it would be consistent.

I know exactly what you meant. No one should any business into who the adults are or what they are doing behind bedroon doors.

Interesting can't have "In God We Trust" on our money or buildings yet OK to have Government control in the bedroom.

Boy are we in deep sh1t.

 

[glenn1]

I thought homosexual "rights" activists wanted equality - how does this help them? It doesn't make sense that they shouldn't be held to the same "adultery" laws....why does the "act" differ just because it's a homosexual act? I thought this whole "gay" issue was about putting them under the same set of laws as "straight" people.

The difference is that the action was brought by one homosexual person, not a group or organization of them. You can't extrapolate this one person's issue into being an issue for a larger group. Now when and if gay/lesbian organizations take a stand on this, then we can have this discussion.