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

[CADsortaGUY]

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

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.

I don't have to post it all - there is a link for people to go and read about it

You people don't seem to understand the question. This isn't about gay marriages - this is about ADULTERY. You know -when 2 people are married! When one goes out and has "sexual relations" why is it only "adultery when it is man/woman and not woman/woman? It is "sex" - is it not?
Then yes we get into the whole positioning of the court - Unlike monsta seems to think - I wasn't "bent on making this a liberal vs conservative issue". This was about why a court would rule that woman/woman sexual contact is NOT adultery. It seems like common sense(like our courts have any anyway

) that sexual contact outside marriage would be considered ADULTERY. You don't have to define every act and illegal/legal in regards to Adultery - it should be obvious that ANY consensual SEXUAL contact outside of the marriage(whether hetero/homo or not) is ADULTERY.

Now as to some people's argument about gov't in the bedroom - I agree...to a point. I don't think it matters who is doing who or whether it is hetero or homo - all that matters is that it happened and when legal proceedings(divorce and etc) rely on these factors to decide "fault". This woman would have been deemed adulterous if it were a man she strayed with right? Why should it make a difference if it was with a woman? Isn't the big push to have equal rights? If that really is the intention - then that sexual contact should be deemed "sex" and thus ADULTEROUS.

My position in this is NOT anti-gay in ANY way, but IF the courts and gov't are going to grant "rights"(such as "unions" and the like) to a group then they better fall under the SAME rules and such as other groups - lest it be "special rights" instead of just "rights".

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

The lack of a "right" to marry doesn't mean that sexual contact isn't Adultery. They are separate issues. This isn't about a lesbian couple where one commits adultery - this is about a hetero couple where the woman strays and has sexual contact out side her marraige. The question of homosexual marriages isn't even in the equation of Adultery because if a man strayed from a marriage(hetero) with another man...but didn't penetrate...but lets say was penetrated....would he not be commiting Adultery? This narrow view of Adultery as only being sexual intercourse via penetration with the <male unit> is ridiculous.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

The lack of a "right" to marry doesn't mean that sexual contact isn't Adultery. They are separate issues. This isn't about a lesbian couple where one commits adultery - this is about a hetero couple where the woman strays and has sexual contact out side her marraige. The question of homosexual marriages isn't even in the equation of Adultery because if a man strayed from a marriage(hetero) with another man...but didn't penetrate...but lets say was penetrated....would he not be commiting Adultery? This narrow view of Adultery as only being sexual intercourse via penetration with the <male unit> is ridiculous.

CkG

Well the narrow view that adultry only being sexual intercourse is ridiculous, but it is the way New Hampshire law is being interpreted/laid out. This has nothing to do with gays at all...but the definition of a criminal act.

 

[DealMonkey]

Let me ask a (relatively) serious question here: If your wife/girlfriend (I'm assuming most of you are guys ), had a lesbian encounter and you were allowed to watch/be there/join in, would you consider that adultery? Would you permit it? Now, same question, only she does it without your knowledge or consent. Is it adultery now?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Let me ask a (relatively) serious question here: If your wife/girlfriend (I'm assuming most of you are guys ), had a lesbian encounter and you were allowed to watch/be there/join in, would you consider that adultery? Would you permit it? Now, same question, only she does it without your knowledge or consent. Is it adultery now?

Yes - If my wife had any (consensual) sexual contact and/or participated in a sexual act outside of our marriage it would be ADULTERY.

Now that is not to say that I wouldn't watch a little before storming in J/K

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Let me ask a (relatively) serious question here: If your wife/girlfriend (I'm assuming most of you are guys ), had a lesbian encounter and you were allowed to watch/be there/join in, would you consider that adultery? Would you permit it? Now, same question, only she does it without your knowledge or consent. Is it adultery now?

Now you're just teasing us. I need to take a shower.



That's an interesting question. Would I join? Absolutely, I'm a normal heterosexual man. Is it adultery if she did it secretly? Yes ... and no. It certainly would be in a sense. However, it doesn't feel quite the same as male/female adultery. Of course I might see it differently if it actually happened. I think it would depend on the circumstances.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

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.

I don't have to post it all - there is a link for people to go and read about it

You people don't seem to understand the question. This isn't about gay marriages - this is about ADULTERY. You know -when 2 people are married! When one goes out and has "sexual relations" why is it only "adultery when it is man/woman and not woman/woman? It is "sex" - is it not?
Then yes we get into the whole positioning of the court - Unlike monsta seems to think - I wasn't "bent on making this a liberal vs conservative issue". This was about why a court would rule that woman/woman sexual contact is NOT adultery. It seems like common sense(like our courts have any anyway

) that sexual contact outside marriage would be considered ADULTERY. You don't have to define every act and illegal/legal in regards to Adultery - it should be obvious that ANY consensual SEXUAL contact outside of the marriage(whether hetero/homo or not) is ADULTERY.

Now as to some people's argument about gov't in the bedroom - I agree...to a point. I don't think it matters who is doing who or whether it is hetero or homo - all that matters is that it happened and when legal proceedings(divorce and etc) rely on these factors to decide "fault". This woman would have been deemed adulterous if it were a man she strayed with right? Why should it make a difference if it was with a woman? Isn't the big push to have equal rights? If that really is the intention - then that sexual contact should be deemed "sex" and thus ADULTEROUS.

My position in this is NOT anti-gay in ANY way, but IF the courts and gov't are going to grant "rights"(such as "unions" and the like) to a group then they better fall under the SAME rules and such as other groups - lest it be "special rights" instead of just "rights".

CkG

I agree wtih your views about adultery completely. Of course homosexuals can commit adultery just like heterosexuals. Its a dumb loophole that this woman got away with, and it should be closed (just like the tax loopholes the rich always abuse ). But I totally disagree with your view of the courts decision. To me, they were simply following the word of the law and the case that set precedent.

Adultery -> intercourse -> penetration -> lesbians don't have penises

There's nothing to suggest to me they were trying to give a particular group "special rights".

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The defense of discrimination is so lame from the right of center. According to the alleged foundation texts of our democracy - Declaration of Independence and Constitution - government was not established to grant or give us rights. Government's role is to protect our rights from those that would attempt to restrict them (be it foreign or domestic).

Despite CADs testimonial, our laws are not Biblical edicts subject to the interpretation of Southern Baptist ministers (justifying slavery by saying slaves should obey their masters or justifying the subjugation of women b/c it was Adam's rib). I really like his Ed Meese version of adultery - you know it when you see it. Arbitrary law produces arbitrary justice, we might as well borrow the Afghan pseudo-judiciary to interpret our laws if we are going to take that route.

All laws should have an explicit,nondiscriminatory purpose and in the execution of said purpose they should be unbiased. Our judicial code is full of laws that have an explicitly biased purpose. Some laws that are not inherently biased are applied/enforced in a discriminatory manner. The marriage/adultery laws in New Hampshire are handicapped by bias AND ignorance (ambiguity). The NH law codifies that only men/women can get married and assumes only men/women can have adulterous relations which it explicitly describes as intercourse. It's not surprising that most states have not codified:

Teleconference adultery
Internet adultery
Love letter adultery
Videoconference adultery

IMHO, adultery is an act of the mind AND the body but either element is sufficient. I flirt a lot less than I did before I got married but there are some women my wife doesn't even want me to talk to . . . hell she checks my cellphone log and only recently stopped reading my email . . . well I think she stopped reading my email.

I'm willing to wager there are millions of women (and a few men) that would affirm with emphasis that fellatio and cunnilingus are NOT sex . . . granted I'm sure a majority (though certainly not all) would say it was cheating. I know at least two women that claim anal sex didn't count as sex.

In the final analysis, we have plenty of anachronistic law and plenty of discriminatory laws/practices. Adultery fits all of those descriptions but IMO it's none of the governments business anyway. Even if the government managed to weasel it's way into the public's intimate relations, I'm not sure . . . nevermind I'm damn sure . . . I don't want Tom DeLay or a state legislator deciding the means/manner in which I get my groove on.

Pedophilia is bad. Incest is bad. Adultery is bad. But it's really only the first and depending on the circumstance 2nd that involve laws that might be necessary to protect the innocent from undue (direct) harm. The state can make it's case but considering elementary age kids are taking Viagra to school the age for pedophilia is becoming more arbitrary by the day. I think adult siblings having sex is disgusting but I'm not sure the government should disallow the practice. The risk of increasing the incidence of recessive genetic disorders is certainly real but I'm not sure it's something that should be legislated.

 

[dmcowen674]

The arguments that CAD and others bring up here seem to support that Adultery as described in the Ten Commandments and is a basis of U.S. Historical Law.

The push now is that the Ten Commandments is illegal, not a basis of U.S. Law therefore there is no such thing as Adultery in any form and is legal in the eyes of U.S. Law.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The defense of discrimination is so lame from the right of center. According to the alleged foundation texts of our democracy - Declaration of Independence and Constitution - government was not established to grant or give us rights. Government's role is to protect our rights from those that would attempt to restrict them (be it foreign or domestic).

Despite CADs testimonial, our laws are not Biblical edicts subject to the interpretation of Southern Baptist ministers (justifying slavery by saying slaves should obey their masters or justifying the subjugation of women b/c it was Adam's rib). I really like his Ed Meese version of adultery - you know it when you see it. Arbitrary law produces arbitrary justice, we might as well borrow the Afghan pseudo-judiciary to interpret our laws if we are going to take that route.

All laws should have an explicit,nondiscriminatory purpose and in the execution of said purpose they should be unbiased. Our judicial code is full of laws that have an explicitly biased purpose. Some laws that are not inherently biased are applied/enforced in a discriminatory manner. The marriage/adultery laws in New Hampshire are handicapped by bias AND ignorance (ambiguity). The NH law codifies that only men/women can get married and assumes only men/women can have adulterous relations which it explicitly describes as intercourse. It's not surprising that most states have not codified:

Teleconference adultery
Internet adultery
Love letter adultery
Videoconference adultery

IMHO, adultery is an act of the mind AND the body but either element is sufficient. I flirt a lot less than I did before I got married but there are some women my wife doesn't even want me to talk to . . . hell she checks my cellphone log and only recently stopped reading my email . . . well I think she stopped reading my email.

I'm willing to wager there are millions of women (and a few men) that would affirm with emphasis that fellatio and cunnilingus are NOT sex . . . granted I'm sure a majority (though certainly not all) would say it was cheating. I know at least two women that claim anal sex didn't count as sex.

In the final analysis, we have plenty of anachronistic law and plenty of discriminatory laws/practices. Adultery fits all of those descriptions but IMO it's none of the governments business anyway. Even if the government managed to weasel it's way into the public's intimate relations, I'm not sure . . . nevermind I'm damn sure . . . I don't want Tom DeLay or a state legislator deciding the means/manner in which I get my groove on.

Pedophilia is bad. Incest is bad. Adultery is bad. But it's really only the first and depending on the circumstance 2nd that involve laws that might be necessary to protect the innocent from undue (direct) harm. The state can make it's case but considering elementary age kids are taking Viagra to school the age for pedophilia is becoming more arbitrary by the day. I think adult siblings having sex is disgusting but I'm not sure the government should disallow the practice. The risk of increasing the incidence of recessive genetic disorders is certainly real but I'm not sure it's something that should be legislated.

Well said.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Adultery -> intercourse -> penetration -> lesbians don't have penises

Don't forget lesbians often use strap-ons. Now you have penetration. How do you feel about it now?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 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.

ah, the same good old reasoning that was used 2000 years ago as to why no one said women had sex with each other... because they can't have intercourse! brilliant!

does this mean that male-female blowjobs aren't sex for adultery purposes? hey, maybe i could get married and then move to new hampshire and get my duck sicked and never be able to get divored on adultery grounds!

what if the girls are using a double ended dildo?

 

[ElFenix]

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.

yay incest!