since its an issue...divorce

[SwItChFoOt_FrEaK09]

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

 

[SirKenin]

If you look at it from a Biblical standpoint, the only time divorce is considered ok is when there is adultery or when the unbelieving partner leaves.. In the case of adultery, the marriage bed has been defiled and the marriage covenant (not contract) is broken. Soo.. My vote is definitely no.

 

[Kelly]

Yes. Especially if she had repented, but I would try regardless.

 

[vatuck]

I think I might be inclined to put my marriage back together for the sake of the whole family, including me, but not just for the kids, and it would depend greatly on the situation. I think I would try to do what is in everyone's best interest. Sometimes it is staying together and sometimes it isn't. Every situation is different.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Adultery Should Be a Very Serious Criminal Offense. It is a Crime in several states, but none treat it as seriously as they should or used to.

 

[Ave Maria]

I would but only if my husband promised he'd never do it again and then would go into counseling with me, preferably Christian Counseling. I would also ask him to go to church with me as often as he could and we would pray about it.

 

[Philosoft]

Adultery Should Be a Very Serious Criminal Offense. It is a Crime in several states, but none treat it as seriously as they should or used to.

Perhaps the United Fundamentalist Republic of South Carolina would support such lunacy. The rest of us will take our no-fault divorces and sexual privacy, thanks.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Depends on the situation I suppose. Sometimes it's best simply bow out and go your seperate ways. My parents are divorced and I'm thankful for it. When they were together all they did was argue over stupid stuff. When apart they can at least tolerate each other for short periods of time. I would rather have one parent and a halfway stable home than put up with that incessant idiocy.

That's not to say that you shouldn't try to make the marriage work, simply that you must realize when to let go.

 

[RJ1]

I voted No. I think I would stay if he was willing to work on it and get things straightend out, especially if it were a one night stand sort of thing. I'd stay and try to fix things with him because I love the big lug. I wouldn't stay just for the sake of the kids but they would play into it.
I think it would have to be a continuos affair or multiple cheating. Not saying I wouldn't put the hurt to him, just saying I would be willing to try if he were, under certain circumstances.

 

[Faithful-Frank]

I vote yes because of I Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: ELSE WERE YOUR CHILDREN UNHOLY NOW THEY ARE CLEAN.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Perhaps the United Fundamentalist Republic of South Carolina would support such lunacy. The rest of us will take our no-fault divorces and sexual privacy, thanks.

Adultery is ALREADY illegal in many states (including South Carolina). I find the fact that you seem to support adultery astonishing.

Further,

The ACLU invokes “privacy” and “personal autonomy” as if such phrases
were constitutional talismans. In the abstract, however, there is no fundamental right to either. See, e.g., Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 725, 117 S. Ct. at 2270 (fundamental rights are “not simply deduced from abstract concepts of personal autonomy”). Sherri Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama (11th Circuit July, 2004)



BTW: I wonder if you are against Covenant Marriages too?

 

[Philosoft]

Adultery is ALREADY illegal in many states (including South Carolina).

Great. When was the last time those statutes were successfully enforced?

I find the fact that you seem to support adultery astonishing.

Not so astonishing as your absurd rather insulting intentional mangling of my position.

Further,

The ACLU invokes “privacy” and “personal autonomy” as if such phrases
were constitutional talismans. In the abstract, however, there is no fundamental right to either. See, e.g., Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 725, 117 S. Ct. at 2270 (fundamental rights are “not simply deduced from abstract concepts of personal autonomy”). Sherri Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama (11th Circuit July, 2004)

I've commented on this case before. One of the Williams court justices wrote in the holding that they were unwilling to extend the specific privacy outlined in Lawrence to cover all sexual practices. However, no mention was made why a ruling in favor of the plaintiff by the Williams court would entail a slippery-slope sexual privacy protection when it apparently didn't for the Lawrence court.

BTW: I wonder if you are against Covenant Marriages too?

Eh? Why would I care? As long as they don't try some stunt to get civil marriage officially replaced by covenant marriage.

 

[Nexus`]

In no way did he say that he supported adultery. If you actually bothered to read his post, then that would have been clear as day.

He said he supported the right to sexual and marital privacy.

As to whether or not I'ld leave, I dunno. There's a lot of variables in adultery, so it all depends on the situation. But if were like a one time things, and she was honest about it, then chances are, I'ld stay.

 

[billwald]

"Stay with" is a different question than divorce. There is legal separation.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Great. When was the last time those statutes were successfully enforced?

Just earlier this year.

Not so astonishing as your absurd rather insulting intentional mangling of my position.

You stated that it was absurd to punish adultery and that you would rather have no-fault divorce and "sexual privacy". So How else am I to interpret your position. I can only guess that enforcing a Marriage Vow is not important to you.

I've commented on this case before. One of the Williams court justices wrote in the holding that they were unwilling to extend the specific privacy outlined in Lawrence to cover all sexual practices. However, no mention was made why a ruling in favor of the plaintiff by the Williams court would entail a slippery-slope sexual privacy protection when it apparently didn't for the Lawrence court.

Actually the Court did discuss the issue. The Judges were not activists.

If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy,
this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity, and adult incest—even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults. See, e.g., id. at 68 n.15, 93 S. Ct. at 2641 n.15 (“The state statute books are replete with constitutionally unchallenged laws against prostitution, suicide, voluntary self-mutilation, brutalizing ‘bare fist’ prize fights, and duels, although these crimes may only directly involve ‘consenting adults.’”). This in turn would require us to subject all infringements on such activities to strict scrutiny. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721, 117 S. Ct. at 2268. In short, by framing our inquiry so broadly as to look for a general right to sexual intimacy, we would be answering many questions not before us on the present facts.

Hunting expeditions that seek trophy game in the fundamental-rights forest
must heed the maxim “look before you shoot.” Such excursions, if embarked upon recklessly, endanger the very ecosystem in which such liberties thrive—our republican democracy. Once elevated to constitutional status, a right is effectively removed from the hands of the people and placed into the guardianship of unelected judges. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. at 2267-68. We are particularly mindful of this fact in the delicate area of morals legislation. One of the virtues of the democratic process is that, unlike the judicial process, it need not take matters to their logical conclusion. If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter. On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases—including, for example,
those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like.

We find merit in the wisdom of Justice Felix Frankfurter in his concurring opinion inDennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 525, 71 S. Ct. 857, 875 (1951), when he observed:

"Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a
good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is
detachment, founded on independence. History teaches that the
independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become
embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary
responsibility in choosing between competing political, economic and
social pressures."

In any case, your question doesn't address the holding of the court, and is just a side-step of the issue. The fact is the “privacy” and “personal autonomy” claims that are brought up by the ACLU and Liberal Activists are not fundamental rights.

Eh? Why would I care? As long as they don't try some stunt to get civil marriage officially replaced by covenant marriage.

Really? I thought you wanted no-fault divorces. Why do you want no-fault divorce anyway?

 

[Nexus`]

You stated that it was absurd to punish adultery and that you would rather have no-fault divorce and "sexual privacy". So How else am I to interpret your position. I can only guess that enforcing a Marriage Vow is not important to you.

Marriage is between the 2 ppl getting married, not the state, not the government. It is not the government's job to enforce the "sanctity" of marriage, or the coventent of marriage.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Depends on the situation I suppose. Sometimes it's best simply bow out and go your seperate ways. My parents are divorced and I'm thankful for it. When they were together all they did was argue over stupid stuff. When apart they can at least tolerate each other for short periods of time. I would rather have one parent and a halfway stable home than put up with that incessant idiocy.

That's not to say that you shouldn't try to make the marriage work, simply that you must realize when to let go.

Wow, and I was beginning to think that I was the only one who was glad when their parents told them they were getting divorced. I actually said "it's about time" when they told me. All they did was fight, and it was very traumatizing. When they split up, life was so much happier and more peaceful for all of us. I must say that Mother did a great job raising me on her own (of course, she had a lot of help from my grandparents who lived with us). Because of my personal experiences, I always thought staying together "for the children" was foolish, as that could often be far worse for them. Of course, it depends on the situation. If the children have no idea there is any problem and the parents can still at least stand eachother than staying together until the children grow up (or they work out their problems) might be the best course of action. But if there is open hostility and constant fighting, work it out fast or by all means DIVORCE!

That said, I think people often jump to divorce to quickly. They should put a serious effort into working out their problems and only divorce as a last resort. If my hypothetical wife cheated on me and was sorry about it and still loved me, I would forgive her and move on. People screw up and I don't understand why so many people consider adultey to be such an unforgivable act. Honestly, as long as she still loved me and wanted to keep going with the marriage it wouldn't bother me very much at all. I consider things things like abuse and drug addiction to be far better grounds for divorce that adultery.

 

[Philosoft]

Just earlier this year.

And may I see that case?

You stated that it was absurd to punish adultery and that you would rather have no-fault divorce and "sexual privacy". So How else am I to interpret your position. I can only guess that enforcing a Marriage Vow is not important to you.

Since you are obviously not interested in replying to my arguments, I'll make this my final post so you can more easily argue with yourself.

Actually the Court did discuss the issue. The Judges were not activists.

I'll take my well water unpoisoned, thanks.

If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy,
this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity, and adult incest—even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults.

Okay, see this part? The author of this holding is simply wrong. There is no judicial "theory" that says this court must recognize a broad right to "sexual intimacy." The Lawrence court, in fact, noticeably avoided doing so. Furthermore, there are other legally defensible reasons - completely irrelevant to sex toys - to prohibit prostitution and incest. Obscenity doesn't even entail intimacy, so I don't know why it's included here.

On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases—including, for example,
those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like.

See, I don't understand this. Why must they find that this "right" automatically encompasses things outside the purview of this case?

In any case, your question doesn't address the holding of the court, and is just a side-step of the issue. The fact is the “privacy” and “personal autonomy” claims that are brought up by the ACLU and Liberal Activists are not fundamental rights.

So what? There are limited privacy rights explicitly derived throughout case law. Roe v. Wade is probably the most famous, and Griswold v. Connecticut cited a "maritial privacy." The court has consistently held that, for a privacy right not to apply, the state must have a compelling interest to prohibit the activity in question.

Really? I thought you wanted no-fault divorces. Why do you want no-fault divorce anyway?

For one, fault divorce was absurdly anti-feminist.

 

[MKalashnikov]

And may I see that case?

Sure, John Raymond Bushey Jr. Was convicted in Luray, VA under Virginia's Adultery Law and plead guilty. He was fined $125 and $36 in Court Costs.

Since you are obviously not interested in replying to my arguments, I'll make this my final post so you can more easily argue with yourself.

Actually I did reply to your arguments, you are just side-stepping now.

I'll take my well water unpoisoned, thanks.

This seems to be a common quote from you. Get better material. There is no "well poisoning" going on. I stated a simple fact, The Judges were not activist judges.

Okay, see this part? The author of this holding is simply wrong. There is no judicial "theory" that says this court must recognize a broad right to "sexual intimacy." The Lawrence court, in fact, noticeably avoided doing so. Furthermore, there are other legally defensible reasons - completely irrelevant to sex toys - to prohibit prostitution and incest. Obscenity doesn't even entail intimacy, so I don't know why it's included here.

No, you are wrong. The Judges in this case are quite correct. Besides it is their opinion that is binding Federal Case law, not yours. So you can say they were wrong all you want, but it holds no weight.

See, I don't understand this. Why must they find that this "right" automatically encompasses things outside the purview of this case?

Because that is precisely the result when Judicial Activists invent new fundamental rights.

So what? There are limited privacy rights explicitly derived throughout case law. Roe v. Wade is probably the most famous, and Griswold v. Connecticut cited a "maritial privacy." The court has consistently held that, for a privacy right not to apply, the state must have a compelling interest to prohibit the activity in question.

You are dodging again, the people on this forum keep claiming a Fundamental Right to Sexual Privacy and Personal Autonomy. Neither of which exist.

For one, fault divorce was absurdly anti-feminist.

You mean it was harmful to radicals who wanted to destroy the family. I guess you could be right about that, as radical feminists, like sexual deviants exist to destroy the family and promote immorality.

BTW: No-Fault Divorce is absurdly anti-family.

Family scholars debate whether no-fault regimes have influenced rates of divorce at all. However, a recent analysis has suggested that "for most of the 32 states that implemented no-fault divorce during the divorce boom (1965-1974)our resultssupport the interpretation that no-fault laws resulted in a substantial number of divorces that would not have occurred otherwise."
-- Sean E. Brotherson and Jeffrey B. Teichert, "Value of the Law in Shaping Social Perspectives on Marriage", 3 U. of Utah Jnl. L. & Fam. Stud. 23, at 47, citing Joseph Lee Rodgers, et al., "Did No-Fault Divorce Legislation Matter? Definitely Yes and Sometimes No," 61 J. Marriage & Fam. 803, 804 (1999).

"One researcher estimated the impact of no-fault divorce legislation may have accelerated state divorce rates upward by twenty to twenty-five percent."
-- Sean E. Brotherson and Jeffrey B. Teichert, "Value of the Law in Shaping Social Perspectives on Marriage", 3 U. of Utah Jnl. L. & Fam. Stud. 23, at 47, citing Thomas B. Marvell, "Divorce Rates and the Fault Requirement", 23 L. & Soc'y Rev. 543, 544 (1989).

Several States to this day do not have Real No-Fault Divorce as most people think of it, as each requires a seperation period (sometimes lengthy) before a divorce can be granted.

In any case there is no rash of "oppression of women" and abuse in those states.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/6191B9DC-00BF-42CA-A5ADA95C2AEC5196#0CAC0AF8-7003-433C-8182E88A667577F2

The states are: Arkansas, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.

 

[Philosoft]

Sure, John Raymond Bushey Jr. Was convicted in Luray, VA under Virginia's Adultery Law and plead guilty. He was fined $125 and $36 in Court Costs.

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

Actually I did reply to your arguments, you are just side-stepping now.

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."

This seems to be a common quote from you. Get better material. There is no "well poisoning" going on. I stated a simple fact, The Judges were not activist judges.

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.

No, you are wrong. The Judges in this case are quite correct.

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

Besides it is their opinion that is binding Federal Case law, not yours. So you can say they were wrong all you want, but it holds no weight.

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.

Because that is precisely the result when Judicial Activists invent new fundamental rights.

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

You are dodging again, the people on this forum keep claiming a Fundamental Right to Sexual Privacy and Personal Autonomy. Neither of which exist.

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

You mean it was harmful to radicals who wanted to destroy the family. I guess you could be right about that, as radical feminists, like sexual deviants exist to destroy the family and promote immorality.

Emotional rhetoric? Is that all you have?

BTW: No-Fault Divorce is absurdly anti-family.

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

Family scholars debate whether no-fault regimes have influenced rates of divorce at all. However, a recent analysis has suggested that "for most of the 32 states that implemented no-fault divorce during the divorce boom (1965-1974)our resultssupport the interpretation that no-fault laws resulted in a substantial number of divorces that would not have occurred otherwise."
-- Sean E. Brotherson and Jeffrey B. Teichert, "Value of the Law in Shaping Social Perspectives on Marriage", 3 U. of Utah Jnl. L. & Fam. Stud. 23, at 47, citing Joseph Lee Rodgers, et al., "Did No-Fault Divorce Legislation Matter? Definitely Yes and Sometimes No," 61 J. Marriage & Fam. 803, 804 (1999).

"One researcher estimated the impact of no-fault divorce legislation may have accelerated state divorce rates upward by twenty to twenty-five percent."
-- Sean E. Brotherson and Jeffrey B. Teichert, "Value of the Law in Shaping Social Perspectives on Marriage", 3 U. of Utah Jnl. L. & Fam. Stud. 23, at 47, citing Thomas B. Marvell, "Divorce Rates and the Fault Requirement", 23 L. & Soc'y Rev. 543, 544 (1989).

Several States to this day do not have Real No-Fault Divorce as most people think of it, as each requires a seperation period (sometimes lengthy) before a divorce can be granted.

In any case there is no rash of "oppression of women" and abuse in those states.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/6191B9DC-00BF-42CA-A5ADA95C2AEC5196#0CAC0AF8-7003-433C-8182E88A667577F2

The states are: Arkansas, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.

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