Court Rules that 'Gay Sex' does not constitute Adultry.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Well I find this one very suprising. A man who found his wife to be cheating on him with another woman lost his battle in an adultry case. The New Hampshire Supreme Court defined adultry as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

Allow me to through a few more possibilities out there for the ATS crowd to debate.

Lets say that the man above came home found his wife in bed with another woman. The man became aroused and joined in the action. After all is said and done, since adultry is only sexual intercourse between a man and a woman then the woman could sue the man for adultry and the man could do nothing.

Now that adultry has been defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman this strikes a blow at the Gay Marriage cause. The reason it strikes a blow is the precident of the adultry case making it impossible for a Gay marriage to be consummated.

www.boston.com...




posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Does this mean that if I was married (which I'm not) and had an affair with a man (which I wouldn't do...) then I would be guilty of adultry and therefore risk divorce on the grounds of adultry -
BUT if I had a fling with another female (which also I wouldn't do) there would be no risk of divorce on the grounds of adultry?

Bizarre court finding...



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Does this mean that if I was married (which I'm not) and had an affair with a man (which I wouldn't do...) then I would be guilty of adultry and therefore risk divorce on the grounds of adultry -
BUT if I had a fling with another female (which also I wouldn't do) there would be no risk of divorce on the grounds of adultry?

Bizarre court finding...



Yep,

You can have sex with as many women as you like and your husband can't say anything about it.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
The reason it strikes a blow is the precident of the adultry case making it impossible for a Gay marriage to be consummated.

Nothing new there. I mean blue laws (religiously imposed morality laws) have always tried to designate anything NOT for procreation as sodomy.

A woman in Georgia (mid 90's I think) had her husband arrested for performing oral sex on her. That's sodomy. Even if you are man & woman you can't consumate a marriage with your mouth or in the [poopy shoot].

But court's allow impotent men & sterile women to marry, SO the argument for gay marriage remains strong. It really all boils down to striking arbitrarily enforced sodomy judgements.

Masterbation is a form of sodomy too. So are condoms. I really don't understand the 'line in the sand' about not allowing Gay unions/marriage as a "defense on the sanctity of marriage". I mean doesn't it seem outlawing DIVORCE would be a more effective tact?

It's all bigotry. Plain and simple.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Yep, You can have sex with as many women as you like and your husband can't say anything about it.

But I don't think the reverse would be true. This is about sodomy (again). The laws are male centric and require a penis for sex to take place. (Just like the old definition of porn).

Two men COULD be found in adultery. It's aribtrary enforcement of sodomy. Women can't do it (in the court's eyes....) And in the Bible, women just don't even matter. (Sorry, but largely true.)

Obviously I disagree with both the courts and the bible.


[Edited on 2-1-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
You can have sex with as many women as you like and your husband can't say anything about it.

Well...
I guess IF I was married and IF I swung both ways then I'd probably be going off to play "bridge" with the girls every chance I got...



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

I doubt that this will stand as it is for long. It's really idiotic.

About Gay marrage. I am all for it, except for one thing, it would allow gay "married" folk to adopt as easily as a regular couple.

Not that I think it is wrong so much, but it certainly is not in the best interest of the child.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.


About Gay marrage. I am all for it, except for one thing, it would allow gay "married" folk to adopt as easily as a regular couple.

Not that I think it is wrong so much, but it certainly is not in the best interest of the child.



Surely an adopted child would rather have two caring and perminant guardians as apposed to be being in care for their whole childhood or something?



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
This is crazy.

Its part of the problem with all the anti gay laws till EVERYONE is treated the same we will have nonsense like this





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join