Cheat on you spouse - Go to jail

Ok so this is for just the married one in the affair or the other way around. Does a ring have to be on or seen. To tell you the truth it makes it even better; before your cheating on someone who trust you, now you cheating and an outlaw.
 
What goes on in the bed room is for you and your partner, NOT FOR THE BLEEDING STATE.

Land of the free, anyone? At least, we let people adulterate as much as they want, after 1906 or something..
 
nomix said:
What goes on in the bed room is for you and your partner, NOT FOR THE BLEEDING STATE.

Land of the free, anyone? At least, we let people adulterate as much as they want, after 1906 or something..
Click to expand...

Hey look, more bullshit. How about you comment here: http://forums.finalgear.com/showthread.php?t=16161

And if you all actually read the article you would see that it is a technical thing. This is not a law of the federal government but of the state government, something completely different.

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in the state's criminal code.
Click to expand...
 
And the swinger community removes all video cameras from their parties.
 
I agree that adultery is clearly wrong, but I'm not so sure that state intervention is a good thing. Prison exists to keep the public safe and to rehabilitate criminals. Sure, life in prison would give the cheater a long time to think about what s/he'd done, but who is being "protected" from him/her?
 
It would never go that far. Its just one of those technical notes that lawyers use to extort more money from you in divorce.
 
epp_b said:
I agree that adultery is clearly wrong, but I'm not so sure that state intervention is a good thing. Prison exists to keep the public safe and to rehabilitate criminals. Sure, life in prison would give the cheater a long time to think about what s/he'd done, but who is being "protected" from him/her?
Click to expand...

I would not say that adultery is "clearly wrong." First of all, you are not taking into consideration alternate lifestyles, such as swingers. What about a husband who is paralyzed or injured, so he tells his wife she she should find sexual gratification else where? You are taking the state's definition of adultery, which is based on a very narrow view of what constitutes a relationship, and making a moral judgment based on a bureaucratic law. That's ass-backwards.

As far as I am concerned the only time adultery should ever enter into the state's frame of reference is when it is the basis for a divorce.
 
jetsetter said:
Hey look, more bullshit. How about you comment here: http://forums.finalgear.com/showthread.php?t=16161

And if you all actually read the article you would see that it is a technical thing. This is not a law of the federal government but of the state government, something completely different.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Right. The fact that the law excists, is basis to deem it barbarical. I was too quick, I appologize.

As for Chaves, he's the beginning of a dictator. He might be devoked, or even devoked by the US. The last alternative would, however, only be realistic, because he's not an "American dictator". Not that I find it very realistic. Maybe during the early 80s, but not now. I didn't comment it, sadly, didn't notice it.

epp_b said:
I agree that adultery is clearly wrong, but I'm not so sure that state intervention is a good thing. Prison exists to keep the public safe and to rehabilitate criminals. Sure, life in prison would give the cheater a long time to think about what s/he'd done, but who is being "protected" from him/her?
Click to expand...
I agree. Totally.

Sidenote: Who is being protected from the naive youth caught smoking pot?

Sadly, not all laws in a society is made to keep anyone safe, many laws are made from an ethnocentric viewpoint, where the laws are made by people who are to honorable, to even consider what they're making illegal. This is true for every country in the world. Sadly, these laws make as much sense as the foreign policies of Colonel Gadaffi.
 
Blind_Io said:
What about a husband who is paralyzed or injured, so he tells his wife she she should find sexual gratification else where?
Click to expand...

I know you're only trying to find an example, but I don't know any paralyzed man that would do that. As a paralyzed man myself (paraplegic), I can satisfy my wife just as well as I could before my injury. I've known quadriplegics that can do the same (You probably don't undestand how I know that, but when you're paralyzed, you develop sort of bond to other paralyzed people where you can share really personal things, mainly because of the similar circumstances, struggles, etc.). I've met many married paralyzed men since my accident, and I think it's safe to say that none of them would ever tell their wife that. If for instance my wife used that as an excuse to cheat/leave me, I think she would be only deceiving herself. Paraplegics are generally more sensitive to their wives needs than your average able bodied man since they know how important sensation is, so they tend go the extra mile to please their wife.

If I were you, I'd refrain from using that example again. Thanks ;)
 
Last edited:
What loonies think up this stuff? We get crap like this too, is there an office of crap government in the civil service coming up with this tosh? What if I wanted to suggest a law (which by definition would be loony like) how would I get it into parliament and on the statute I wonder?
 
And the government's grip gets a little tighter...


Meh, I don't really care in this case. It's that state up north anyway. :p
 
State up North today, yours next, then Federal, next a UN treaty and finally a Prime Directive. .. Cobol74's head explodes in a fit of indignation, soggy bits everywhere. ... Sorry about that vertical hold went a bit off there.
 
jeffy777 said:
I know you're only trying to find an example, but I don't know any paralyzed man that would do that. As a paralyzed man myself (paraplegic), I can satisfy my wife just as well as I could before my injury. I've known quadriplegics that can do the same (You probably don't undestand how I know that, but when you're paralyzed, you develop sort of bond to other paralyzed people where you can share really personal things, mainly because of the similar circumstances, struggles, etc.). I've met many married paralyzed men since my accident, and I think it's safe to say that none of them would ever tell their wife that. If for instance my wife used that as an excuse to cheat/leave me, I think she would be only deceiving herself. Paraplegics are generally more sensitive to their wives needs than your average able bodied man since they know how important sensation is, so they tend go the extra mile to please their wife.

If I were you, I'd refrain from using that example again. Thanks ;)
Click to expand...

My apologies, Jeffy, I honestly meant no offense. There are many people who live alternative lifestyles, and I have actually met one paralyzed man (quadriplegic) who had an "open" marriage with his wife. If I offended you, or anyone else I am truly sorry.

My point is that as long as no one is being harmed, the government should butt the hell out. If both spouses understand what is going on and accept and embrace it then who are we to say that is wrong? I have met people who have 4-way relationships, with all four adults living together in the same house, just because it's not "normal" does not mean it is wrong.
 
it's funny how none of you read or understood the article.
Nobody really expects prosecutors to go after cheating spouses. But the ruling has the local legal community twittering about its genuine intended target.

One theory floating around the courthouse is that the judges were taking a jab at the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must interpret statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

Many other states allow judges to reject a literal interpretation if they believe it would lead to an absurd result.

Judge Murphy wrote that he encouraged "the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling."
Click to expand...
The appeals court decision involved a man convicted of trading prescription painkillers for sex.

In an attempt to increase his jail time, prosecutors used an obscure provision of the state's criminal law to charge him with criminal sexual conduct, which occurs whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."
Click to expand...
 
Sidenote: Who is being protected from the naive youth caught smoking pot?
Click to expand...
Oy, whole other topic for another day :wacko:

I know you're only trying to find an example, but I don't know any paralyzed man that would do that. As a paralyzed man myself (paraplegic)
Click to expand...
Without sounding too .... I don't know what the word is, but I think you know what I mean... please fill us in on whatever uber-cool driving system you use! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top