since its an issue...divorce

[MKalashnikov]

And he's apparently appealing, so I would suggest you say your peace to the adultery statute, just in case.

You asked when the last time the Adultery Statutes were enforced. You just keep side-stepping the issues. You THOUGHT that there was no case of Adultery being punished recently, now when proven wrong, you run to "Well he is appealing."

The fact remains that he was charged, and pled guilty to the statute.

Further, the Adultery Statutes can pass the rational basis test that The USSC used in Lawrence.

You've attributed to me positions I do not hold. You've inferred arguments where you had no authority or right to do so. You are in no position to accuse me of "side-stepping."

I can infer anything I want.

And the fact is, you are side-stepping.

Get a book on logical fallacies. What you're doing is meritlessly attacking the opposing judicial opinion by labeling it "activism" before substantive discussion of said opinion takes place. Hence, well-poisoning.

I know exactly what "Well-Poisoning" is and I didn't do it. I made a statement of fact, The Judges in the Majority on the 11th Circuit are Strict Constitutionalists. They are not activists.

Judicial activism: The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs. On such a view, judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society.
You and other leftist/atheists on this board consistantly throw out terms like "Support or retract" and "Well-Poisoning" when you are losing arguments.

It must be nice not having to support your content-free statements. I'll try it sometime.

I supported everything I said. Nice try though.

Heh. That *poof* was the sound of your "judicial activism" accusation going up in smoke. After all, you can say a judgment is wrong all you want, but it holds no weight.

See the above definition of Judicial Activism. A statement of fact is just that, even if you don't like it.

Oh, too bad. This charge appears but a paragraph too late.

I will put my "charges" in whatever paragraph I choose. Don't like it, don't read it.

Neither of which are relevant to my argument. Or to Roe. Or to Griswold. Or to Lawrence...

The 11th Circuit addressed Lawrence, and the points that they made are precisely related to your "argument."

Emotional rhetoric? Is that all you have?

Nice Ad Hominem.

Sure it is. Love has nothing to do with marriage, after all.

Nice Side-Step Again.

You mean when divorces are easier to obtain, people get more divorces? Wow, whoda thunk it?

Another Side-Step.

 

[SwItChFoOt_FrEaK09]

thanks for posting people

 

[oldrooster]

Wrong I got rid of my unfaithful spouse, and I was perfectly justified in doing so....

 

[Oblivious]

well i was wondering if you think divorce is ok at all and if so then when...i think that it is acceptable if partner has truly been unfaithful or are abbusive. those are the main things that i think are acceptable situations. please vote in the poll

If my husband ever cheated on me or became abusive he would be gone. So yes, I believe these are both exceptable reasons for divorce IMO.

 

[TwinCrier]

Being once in this situation myself, I just didn't see taking the risk of getting AIDS from a cheating spouse beneficial in raising my children.

 

[Firscherscherling]

My children deserve my doing everything I can to keep my family together. My walking out the door because my wife cheated isn't fair to my kids (or to me or to my spouse for that matter).

Adultery is usually a sign of a larger problem. It is usually a symptom. Anger, pain and resentment are natural responses. But such an episode should also trigger a little self examination and criticism.

I am not saying I would succeed, but I'd at least try for the sake of my kids. But if and when trying became more destructive and painful to them than helpful, I'd go for an amicable and cooperative divorce.

So I voted, Yes (with qualifiers).

 

[Seeking...]

I voted no. I would not stay in any marriage "just for the kids" - especially if I looked at it that way. Some parents martyr themselves and then expect the children to be eternally grateful - I wouldn't want to burden my children that way.

On the same token - adultery isn't enough for me to leave. Honestly, I don't really expect a significant portion of the population to be capable of complete fidelity for long term relationships. It isn't really a requirement for me.

Abuse, on the other hand, is a one shot deal. Emotional abuse I might be willing to work out in couples/individual therapy. Any physical and/or sexual abuse and the relationship is over and they are going to jail ASAP.

Divorce is not a bad thing. It is a neccesary thing for some situations.

 

[anoraky]

I think some people are mistakenly thinking that the problem is always the ending of the marriage, when the actual mistake was getting married in the first place. If more people would consider the long-term when deciding to marry someone, they might not end up regretting it two months down the road* (J.Lo, anyone?). If a marriage isn't going to work, there's no reason to stay with that person. If both partners are willing to work it out, then I say go for it. I think most people sincerily intend to keep the vows they recite at the altar. But you really have no way of knowing what the future holds for you and this person, and I don't think you should be trapped into something if things don't turn out as planned. We're humans, we're fallible.

*sidenote to say this comment doesn't refer to all divorces, just ones that come about because one (or both) partner(s) didn't give the idea of marriage enough thought before-hand.