New Hampshire Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery (Dumbing down deviancy!)

Wnne31, The Associated Press. ^ | November 7, 2003 | AP

[laredo44]

Is it your contention that an individual cannot harm society?

Why would you even bother with such a silly question?

I made no specific inference

You made this specific inference: "no matter how much it cramps your style." You made an inference that my style was being cramped. What exactly did you mean by that? I'll tell you what I believe you meant. I believe you meant that I was arguing a position based upon advantages that might accrue to me personally. That you believe me to be a fan of adultery in my personal life. Tell me what you meant by "no matter how much it cramps your style" if not that. You know nothing of me. Tell me you weren't making presumptions.

[John O]

Absolutely.. Learning to control overzealousness is a key to mental health.. Keep on trying to hang in there.

Actually zeal for the Lord is such a good thing that you can't be overzealous. It's the only way to be truly healthy

You should read the bible more, it will help you understand things that you apparently are having a difficult time grasping.

BTW, your comments about Carlo3b's profile page made no sense whatsoever. What were you trying to say?

[Carry_Okie]

Why would you even bother with such a silly question?

To point out how pathetic your silly question was.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Actually I'd rather outlaw divorce except in cases of adultery or criminal conduct or abandonment. Divorce is a major problem and needs to be ended.

I agree with you.

However in this case New Hampshire allows 'irreconcilable differences' as grounds for a no-fault divorce. They also allow at-fault divorce in cases of adultery. This divorce will occur one way or another, the difference is just in how to divide the property.

As for the law of the land, recall that Judaism (and Islam) does not take the same harsh view of divorce that Christianity does. Harm to the families, and not Biblical authority, should be the basis for changing the divorce laws.

I have to laugh when I hear folks talking about 'defense of marriage' but don't care one way or another about divorce. The bar to divorce should be set very high for families with children.

If they are committing criminal conduct (such as battery or assault) then obviously they are unbelieving.

That's like saying that Christians never sin. There are many serious crimes that do not conflict with one's Christian beliefs, i.e. treason.

[laredo44]

To point out how pathetic your silly question was.

So, you believe "Is it your contention that the individual exists to serve the needs of society?" is a pathetic and silly question? It is a position many, probably most subscribe to. Communist China is such a society. Your ignorance is dangerous.

[John O]

As for the law of the land, recall that Judaism (and Islam) does not take the same harsh view of divorce that Christianity does.

As I understand it, Orthodox Judaism treats divorce exactly as Christianity does. At least that's what their scriptures command. Islam is a moon god worshipping cult that has no connection to Christianity or to the values upon which this country was founded and as such can be ignored in this discussion. (truthfully it should be ignored in all cases except for the attention needed to eradicate it)

The bar to divorce should be set very high for families with children.

Marriage is for life. Divorce should almost never happen.

me->If they are committing criminal conduct (such as battery or assault) then obviously they are unbelieving.

you->That's like saying that Christians never sin. There are many serious crimes that do not conflict with one's Christian beliefs, i.e. treason.

If they are disobeying the law, in cases where the law does not contradict scripture, then they are sinning. We are commanded to submit ourself to those placed in authority over us.

The point I was making is that a truly believing Christian would not abuse his wife or children. (note that he will spank his children, spanking is not abuse). Abuse doesn't square with biblical principles in general or with commands on how to treat our spouses in specific.

(one possible exception to the above paragraph is the case of the mentally ill. He may still believe but be too damaged to do anything with it.)

[Looking for Diogenes]

As I understand it, Orthodox Judaism treats divorce exactly as Christianity does. At least that's what their scriptures command.

What scripture? I think you are mistaken.

Deut 24:1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

If they are disobeying the law, in cases where the law does not contradict scripture, then they are sinning. We are commanded to submit ourself to those placed in authority over us.
The point I was making is that a truly believing Christian would not abuse his wife or children. (note that he will spank his children, spanking is not abuse).

Now wait a minute. You are dead set against divorce, but it is OK if a spouse violated some civil law? No divorce except in cases of adultery or speeding tickets? And abuse does not include physically beating someone?

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but your logic is a little skewed.

[George W. Bush]

if female/female cannot be adultery because it isn't sexual intercourse, then sexual intercourse must = male/female coitus. Therefore, male to male is also not sexual intercourse seeing that it is lacking exactly one vagina. Two observations: (1) If you cannot commit adultery then you obviously cannot be married; (2) If you cannot be having sexual intercourse, then the best description of this act is as it's always been....sodomy.

Impeccable logic.

However, you are obviously unqualified to sit on the bench since you evidently believe words have assigned and compelling legal definitions.

[xzins]

Why, thank you GW.

From you, that is a high compliment. Logic is one of your strong suits.

[longtermmemmory]

so the feminazi definition of rape is now entrenched in the idiot courts. I hope they at least TRY to get this to the USSC.

This makes no sense. On its face it is also sexist.

Unless there is more than in this article.

[longtermmemmory]

no that is not right. This is attempting to use the letter of the law to violate the spirit. This is not different than a husband trying to convice his wife that a oral sex from his secretary was not really sex and adultery.

No this is judicial activism.

[longtermmemmory]

intercourse could also be used as a way to say verbal conversation. These judges must of skipped english language class in law school.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the issue these days (from cases I have handled and seen) is the bigger better deal. Women especially view divorce as a means of "cashing out" a marriage. Not unlike a whole life insurance policy. Adultery, in ALL its forms, MUST be penalized. It should be used to determine custody and visitation.

The biggest problem is that young couples have zero/zip/nada when it comes to proper marriage role models. In fact any positive models are ridiculed and despised. Any traditional roles of husband and wife are derided. God forbid a husband or wife turn down some extramarital recreational sex.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Adultery, in ALL its forms, MUST be penalized. It should be used to determine custody and visitation.

There's a tension between wanting to minimize the number of divorces and wanting to allow divorces because of the least infidelity. If you wnt to set the bar high for divorce, that means excluding some of the minor infidelities like phone sex or masturbation. Should a family be ruined because a wife catches her husband with his hand on his secretary's bosom? Let the couple figure out how to punish each other for those minor foibles and reserve court-sanctioned divorce for the major cases of adultery.

[laredo44]

intercourse could also be used as a way to say verbal conversation.

The ruling was not about the definition of "intercourse" but that of "adultery". That definition leaves no doubt about which type of intercourse.

adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.

[laredo44]

Life isn't a quiz show my secular, libertine buddy, you can't pick the common laws of a sane society that fits your narrow view. You can't expect the rest of us to sit quietly, while you infect the rest of us with your sad and lonely, destructive lifestyle, without a fight.. well this is the fight.. .

Nor is life that which is contained in your narrow mind. You'd make a fine taliban my fanatical, control-freaking pal. Perhaps that's why can't you follow logical thought.

Me: Among other things, it means I don't want laws based on people's religious views.

You: what about ""THOU SHALT NOT KILL"", can't you tolerate

Your reply is unresponsive to my post. The Bible is far from the sole prohibiter of murder. The appeal of the prohibition of murder and theft extend beyond any religion and that is why they are good laws. Even in the godless Soviet Union you couldn't commit murder.

P.S. Do you consider the initiation of gratitous, ignorant, libelous name-calling one of your better qualities?

[laredo44]

and that old hat ""HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER"",

Do you propose we make a law enforcing honor?

[carlo3b]

P.S. Do you consider the initiation of gratitous, ignorant, libelous name-calling one of your better qualities?

It's how I deal with sadness, and disappointment.
You and your well honed rabbit tracts theory, has been heard, considered, and soundly dismissed and disregarded by your peers..

I believe you have issues my friend. And that these issues are somehow so important to you that you must find away to overcome their distaste, by bullying, cajoling, and twisting the facts. Having accomplished that simple chore, you see that as an acceptable alternative to being thought of as a freak.. so be it.. I don't think you are a freak anymore.  I now believe that you, and your perverted cabal that wish to shove your immorality in the clean faces of normal folks can not be redeemed by mere mortal men, you need divine intervention..

You and your friends are just ill, deeply ill, and fatally scared. Pity, I know that there must have been someone that once had hopes and faith in your future happiness. I doubt that is still the case. Go away and hide, and seek forgiveness, but leave us, and especially me alone.. You are far beyond anything I can do to help you.. sorry.

[carlo3b]

This makes no sense. On its face it is also sexist. Unless there is more than in this article.

Nope, I have done a bit of research and can't find anything more than the Judges not wanting to disturb a already flawed law. There is an agenda in place and we are just going to have to watch this slippery slope finish it's descent, until the backlash. God help us if there isn't a backlash..

[Looking for Diogenes]

To: laredo44
From: carlo3b
" YES, my dear FRiend,"
"Better yet, my earthy friend,"
"Life isn't a quiz show my secular, libertine buddy,"
"I believe you have issues my friend. "
...
You and your friends are just ill, deeply ill, and fatally scared. "

That's the best Freudian slip I've seen this week. (or did Carlos include himself in that rant on purpose?)

Anyway, thanks for brightening my day with this over-the-top foolishness.