Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-30-2013, 03:36 PM
 
12,535 posts, read 15,156,955 times
Reputation: 29087

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
Ha!~ precisely.

Let's face it, the only reason OP is interested in other peoples sex lives is because he hasn't got one.

OP - the quickest and easiest solution to this is to get laid. There are lovely girls on Craigslist who will take care of this for you.

Please call one, before you implode or drown from the inside out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
Anyway this experiment is already in place, it's called Religion.

It doesn't work.

See - Evangelical preachers caught with their c*ks in the cookie jar; paedophiliac priests; polygamous Mormons, divorcing Catholics, et al?
That is a GREAT point. If people are going to behave that way despite being threatened with excommunication from their church and their god, does anyone really think intervention by Uncle Sam is going to be a deterrent?

 
Old 08-30-2013, 03:43 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 7,213,418 times
Reputation: 11987
Exactly.

I don't know about where you live, but 3 times I have tried to report the stolen bikes dumped in my backyard to the police, and 3 times they have declined to file one.

They can't even be bothered to enforce the laws we've already got.

Imagine if the ordinary police were the morals police too. I picked up a (turned out to be married) cop once while he was raiding a nightclub and I also worked with LE who had a girl in every street almost.

Hahahahha!

A tall handsome man in uniform knocks on my door and says, I've come for your monthly morality check up, lower your pants.

I'd invite him in for an inspection.
 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:01 PM
 
1,341 posts, read 1,620,522 times
Reputation: 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew View Post
Well I don't think anyone has such a right to not feel betrayed that we ought to legalize it.

I think custody should be based on what is best for the children. Period.


Because money soothes all hurt feelings.





Because what I want in my marriage is someone who avoids doing me wrong because of government sanctions. THAT is healthy.

Anyway. This is a reasonably dumb discussion. Peace out.
I'd beg to differ. Someone happens to have an affair that may even cost you your money. Someone may divorce you and take away lots of assets. Think of a bank loan and you trying to avoid to meet the terms that bank gave you. It's not like anyone asks anything that is socially unacceptable or hard - if you don't want to be sanctioned, don't have affairs. I'm arguing that adding just a few lines would alter everyone's view on lots of things and newer generations would reason differently.

Instead of that, people throw in religion. Legislation of numerous civilizations never or very rarely had a legislation that accepted killing your spouse as the religious leaders promoted in many occasions. Even though this was the official stance - people would often lynch someone on occasion, because officials would watch it from sidelines and pretend it never happened. This just isn't acceptable behavior either.
I've already mentioned what was the common practice before you could sue someone for libel - they'd either "suck it up" or they'd call you out on duel. Society watched those duels for centuries before trying to regulate them.
Another example would be domestic violence. You may think it was common for some court to issue orders to deal with it, but that's rather the result of 19th century's laws. Prior to that they'd simply say it's not their concern and even if husband beats his wife they'd say it's his way of disciplining her.
Without courts getting involved, the only way to deal with it was to have whole families involved into even bigger violence that would often result with deaths. How many families do you know today that they need to gather to beat up or kill someone? They'll call the police and/or gather evidence for court.
Same is with land disputes. You may think that there would be some third party regulating where the border of your land is, but human history teaches something else. Clans would fight over land and even water passing near their land. They'd kill each other over moving the fence when other clan isn't looking. Until the courts started playing bigger and bigger role.


General conclusion is that people either disengage from such activities that will expose them to problems - such as avoiding to due someone over libel that may affect your whole life.... OR you resort to only things you have, since no legal protection exists.
I think this is so obvious - most violence related to cheating would cease to exist if they could sue you in court and most folks would always have in mind those sanctions as well - so they wouldn't attempt to "emotionally disengage" either.


Oh well, it's better to do it this way. Keep noting how people will never realize and even told that I'm stupid for telling that current marriage and divorce laws are specifically made to discredit marriage as an institution and make it cease to exist. I'm considered ignorant even though I'm born in ex communist country of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavians copied "no fault" and all the laws from Soviets. Yet Yugoslavs learned from mistakes done by Soviets and even though they copied those laws, they made sure not to publicly undermine nuclear family structure.
Soviets had let their ideologists to implement legislation in an attempt to deregulate it and make people leave marriage institution altogether, they planned to outright ban marriage altogether. Yet even Soviets soon realized, after decades of such practice, that it leads to societal disruption and instability and they decided to at least stop with promoting marriaige devaluation.
This isn't the case today in either USA or UK because the media and society embraced such stance, thus it goes its own way to make marriage part of human history. People who want marriage on its way out shouldn't bother really. It's flawed on so many things so this is just another nail in its coffin.
 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:15 PM
 
1,341 posts, read 1,620,522 times
Reputation: 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew View Post




Because what I want in my marriage is someone who avoids doing me wrong because of government sanctions. THAT is healthy.

Anyway. This is a reasonably dumb discussion. Peace out.
I'd beg to ask another thing. Do you also want someone who won't pay alimony, child support or give you half of his assets because government forces him to do so. Sounds cynical on your part if you think that things should be enforced selectively, I guess.
 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Katonah, NY
21,192 posts, read 25,088,385 times
Reputation: 22274
So - then would open marriages become illegal? Would the "other" woman or man also receive jail time or a penalty? Would this all be public so that any children of the parents would not only be subject to a possible divorce but public humiliation as well? If a married couple chooses to have a threesome - would that be punishable, too?

For those of you that want to make adultery punishable - revenge seldom tastes as sweet as you think it does. And I can't imagine people WANTING the government involved in your personal life. Should we all have microchips implanted at birth so that someone can see where we are and what we are doing at all times?

Like I said - might as well bring back public stoning or the scarlet letter. If my husband ever cheats on me - I'll be devastated - but I don't see how making him pay a fine (which would come from OUR money) or sending him to jail would make me any better off. And for those of you who think that penalties would deter people from having affairs in the first place - think again. If that were the case, our jails would be empty.
 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:39 PM
 
1,341 posts, read 1,620,522 times
Reputation: 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93 View Post
#1So - then would open marriages become illegal? Would the "other" woman or man also receive jail time or a penalty? Would this all be public so that any children of the parents would not only be subject to a possible divorce but public humiliation as well? If a married couple chooses to have a threesome - would that be punishable, too?

For those of you that want to make adultery punishable - revenge seldom tastes as sweet as you think it does. #2And I can't imagine people WANTING the government involved in your personal life. Should we all have microchips implanted at birth so that someone can see where we are and what we are doing at all times?

#3Like I said - might as well bring back public stoning or the scarlet letter. If my husband ever cheats on me - I'll be devastated - but I don't see how making him pay a fine (which would come from OUR money) or sending him to jail would make me any better off. And for those of you who think that penalties would deter people from having affairs in the first place - think again. If that were the case, our jails would be empty.
Bold #1. There's no need for that. I.e. if you add a clause in difference between marriages depending on sexual exclusivity, then this won't be an issue.
In fact, Arabs have similar thing - but only for men. Their first wife can effectively ban them from re-marrying by having such marital contract by default. Rich men avoid it by negotiating different conditions. Saudis avoid it also via so-called misyar contracts which are a story for themselves (since they usually aren't known to many people, so the wife cannot even know in most occasions).
In terms ot open marriages in a modern western marriage, a simple clause at marriage would be enough. Same could be done for swingers. In fact, the same clause could be changed at mutual consent later on.
Legislation can regulate it quite well IF they wish to do that. Thing is that legislators DON'T want to do that. Same is with the farce regarding gay marriage. I don't know how can you really have a guy who married several times and had affairs in each of those marriages, and then have that guy to give lectures regarding gay marriage. In fact, it's just a farce because they don't even want to truly oppose it, they are just a-holes. They have no arguments, they won't bother to bring any arguments either, they are discredited morally, they are morons. And the Republicans generally destroyed marriage institution anyways.


Bold #2. Welfare state. Enforcement of various laws regarding both private, workforce and public life in general. There are numerous more intrusive and more illogical legislation acts than enforcing a sanction for breaking a legal contract. Think of the legislation that takes away your home if you can't pay your bank loan, or a law that literally sends you to jail for alimony payments. You're the one mentioning jail penalties for adultery, I've proposed very logical laws that would i.e. change dafault child custody awarding in case of marital affairs, ban the other party from claiming certain shares in property, etc. State can send you in jail for not paying child support and can force you to work manual labor to pay off your debt as well, yet those laws aren't intrusive at all.

Bold #3 - Straw-man argument. By the way, i.e. divorcing a spouse and i.e. stopping your spouse to take away 1/2 of the house is a huge deal. It's not your mutual house any more, it becomes your own. Lots of people will think again when they need to pay heavy fines for libel. Lots of people will think against when they know what their affair may bring to them. Like someone said earlier - they'll divorce. And that's find. There is a no-fault divorce and anyone can walk in and ask for divorce, then do whatever they want. However, this doesn't mean that division of marital property in divorce isn't flawed already and it needs a re-work anyways.
 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Katonah, NY
21,192 posts, read 25,088,385 times
Reputation: 22274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald View Post
Bold #1. There's no need for that. I.e. if you add a clause in difference between marriages depending on sexual exclusivity, then this won't be an issue.
In fact, Arabs have similar thing - but only for men. Their first wife can effectively ban them from re-marrying by having such marital contract by default. Rich men avoid it by negotiating different conditions. Saudis avoid it also via so-called misyar contracts which are a story for themselves (since they usually aren't known to many people, so the wife cannot even know in most occasions).
In terms ot open marriages in a modern western marriage, a simple clause at marriage would be enough. Same could be done for swingers. In fact, the same clause could be changed at mutual consent later on.
Legislation can regulate it quite well IF they wish to do that. Thing is that legislators DON'T want to do that. Same is with the farce regarding gay marriage. I don't know how can you really have a guy who married several times and had affairs in each of those marriages, and then have that guy to give lectures regarding gay marriage. In fact, it's just a farce because they don't even want to truly oppose it, they are just a-holes.


Bold #2. Welfare state. Enforcement of various laws regarding both private, workforce and public life in general. There are numerous more intrusive and more illogical legislation acts than enforcing a sanction for breaking a legal contract. Think of the legislation that takes away your home if you can't pay your bank loan, or a law that literally sends you to jail for alimony payments. You're the one mentioning jail penalties for adultery, I've proposed very logical laws that would i.e. change dafault child custody awarding in case of marital affairs, ban the other party from claiming certain shares in property, etc. State can send you in jail for not paying child support and can force you to work manual labor to pay off your debt as well, yet those laws aren't intrusive at all.

Bold #3 - Straw-man argument.
Your points just don't make sense to me. They all just sound like someone who is so afraid of getting cheated on that they want some legal recourse to punish their imaginary spouse should it ever occur.

Whether or not a parent has an affair - it is no reflection on how they are as a parent. I don't think that should have anything to do with custody of the children.

I can't imagine having to "pick" what kind of "marriage" I want to apply for. That should be MY business - not the governments. If my husband and I decide we want an open marriage at some point (not going to happen but hypothetically), I don't want to have to let the government know of our decision.

And I have no ideal why you think the bank taking your home away if you default on your loan is illogical.

You have some crazy ideas of "justice."

Do you plan on ever getting married? It doesn't seem like such a good idea for you.
 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,262,613 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen
A fine and the implicit penalty of a criminal record, which maybe could be expunged later. For people who cheat repeatedly, I'd support public shaming per a publicly accessible database and maybe denial of a marriage license for a period of time (lest a cheater gets divorced and later wants to remarry). I'd also like counseling to be mandated in some cases, and that could tie in with expunging cheating from the public record.
What the hell?
What's wrong with you?
 
Old 08-30-2013, 05:21 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 7,213,418 times
Reputation: 11987
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
What the hell?
What's wrong with you?
Backed up
Overflowing
Full to the brim
About to burst

Is there such a thing as semen-induced psychosis?
 
Old 08-30-2013, 05:23 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 7,213,418 times
Reputation: 11987
By the way, the OP was about the OP getting laid.

No great moral goals here, no wish to save humanity or make the world better.

Just a wish for all the women to be in chastity belts with only one key - his.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top