• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should adultery be a criminal offense punishable by jailtime?

Should adultery be a criminal offense punishable by jailtime?

  • Obviously! It should carry MMS and strict for 2nd++ offense..

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Yes, jailtime.

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Yah, first fine, then jail, mild jail time.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hmm.. Perhaps..

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No..

    Votes: 57 87.7%
  • Something else(explain).

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Total voters
    65
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pffft you must be gay after all every heterosexuals male's dream is a to have two have two bi-sexual chicks at once:cool:

Yeah, but you don't have to please both women at once. It's my experience that they aren't so much focused on the guy satisfying them. :cool:
 
You are assuming that the person you are interviewing for the job is under an obligation not to have resumes in at other locations and to apply with you exclusively until rejected or the application withdrawn.

Just as you are free to interview more than one person for the job, so are they free to apply at more than one place.

WTF are you talking about?
 
WTF are you talking about?

WTF are YOU talking about with 'wtf am I talking about'?

I'm talking about what you're talking about, so if you don't know what I'm talking about then you don't know what you're talking about :lol:

...so I guess idk wtf ur talkin about anymore :2wave:
 
WTF are YOU talking about with 'wtf am I talking about'?

I'm talking about what you're talking about, so if you don't know what I'm talking about then you don't know what you're talking about :lol:

...so I guess idk wtf ur talkin about anymore :2wave:

You should go walk your dog now.
 
My own divorce papers beg to differ.

"Divorce" is the name of a specific type of a civil lawsuit to terminate the marriage where I had to claim a damage and seek remedy.

Perhaps it is a form of lawsuit, but it is a lawsuit to decide if one can do the bolded section. It's purpose is not to recover damages, per se, but that can be an aspect of a divorce. Divorce is to terminate teh amrriage, which is an obligation to the other party.


Terminating the marriage = breach of marriage license.


Breach = Failure to live up to obligations

Marriage = living together as one for life

License = Permission to do something.


The state granted permission to remain together as man and wife for life. The divorce allows you to not live up to that obligation. The cause of divorce is an excuse for the breach of license. It can JUSTIFY that breach of license.

That there is justification for a failure to live up to an obligation does not mean that it is not a failure to live up to the obligation.
 
Where did you get the idea that marriage is a monogamous contract? People have open relationships. People who are unable to perform sexually may allow their spouse to seek sex elsewhere as well.

Variations to the standard contract exist. :2wave:
 
Perhaps it is a form of lawsuit, but it is a lawsuit to decide if one can do the bolded section. It's purpose is not to recover damages, per se, but that can be an aspect of a divorce. Divorce is to terminate teh amrriage, which is an obligation to the other party.


Terminating the marriage = breach of marriage license.


Breach = Failure to live up to obligations

Marriage = living together as one for life

License = Permission to do something.


The state granted permission to remain together as man and wife for life. The divorce allows you to not live up to that obligation. The cause of divorce is an excuse for the breach of license. It can JUSTIFY that breach of license.

That there is justification for a failure to live up to an obligation does not mean that it is not a failure to live up to the obligation.

My point was that divorce itself is not a breach of the license.

"Divorce" is not grounds for divorce, which is what you are arguing.

There are specific actions which breach the license, but divorce itself is not one such breach.

How does anything in your post counter this?
 
Last edited:
My point was that divorce itself is not a breach of the license.

There are specific actions which breach the license, but divorce itself is not one such breach.

How does anything in your post counter this?

The obligation is to remain married "till death do you part". Your point is erroneous because the obligation still exists, even in the presence of adultery. It is not until the termination of the marriage occurs that the obligation itself is not lived up to.

The obligation to remain married for life is terminated by divorce, thus the license is breached because it is at this point, and at this point ONLY that the obligation is not lived up to.

The obligation is not: "till death or infidelity do you part". Thus, the only way to fial to live up to the obligation is to not remain together until death, i.e. divorce.

Therefore, the only way breach to breach the license is by failing to live up to the license, i.e. to not remain married till death, and that can only be done through divorce.
 
The obligation is to remain married "till death do you part". Your point is erroneous because the obligation still exists, even in the presence of adultery. It is not until the termination of the marriage occurs that the obligation itself is not lived up to.

The obligation to remain married for life is terminated by divorce, thus the license is breached because it is at this point, and at this point ONLY that the obligation is not lived up to.

The obligation is not: "till death or infidelity do you part". Thus, the only way to fial to live up to the obligation is to not remain together until death, i.e. divorce.

Therefore, the only way breach to breach the license is by failing to live up to the license, i.e. to not remain married till death, and that can only be done through divorce.

I'm, truly, so glad to hear that someone else shares my opinion on that.
 
Grounds for divorce means: Justification for breaching the marriage license. I never argued anything remotely close to your assertion.

You just did though :doh You just did it again :lol:


Divorce itself is not a breach of the marriage license.

Look, I can give you the actual list of things that breach the marriage licince in SD:

South Dakota Codified Laws
25-4-2. Grounds for divorce. Divorces may be granted for any of the following causes:
(1) Adultery;
(2) Extreme cruelty;
(3) Willful desertion;
(4) Willful neglect;
(5) Habitual intemperance;
(6) Conviction of felony;
(7) Irreconcilable differences.

That is a complete and exahstive list of all inftractions which breach the licince. Where do you see "divorce" on that list?
 
You just did though :doh You just did it again :lol:


Divorce itself is not a breach of the marriage license.

Look, I can give you the actual list of things that breach the marriage licince in SD:



That is a complete and exahstive list of all inftractions which breach the licince. Where do you see "divorce" on that list?

Those aren't necessarily breaches. You aren't required to divorce. You have the option given those circumstances.
 

You were speaking from a sociological point of view, and under that light I agree.

But you and I are not debating the sociological perspective.

We are debating the dry technical mechanics of a state issued license.
 
You just did though :doh You just did it again :lol:


Divorce itself is not a breach of the marriage license.

Look, I can give you the actual list of things that breach the marriage licince in SD:



That is a complete and exahstive list of all inftractions which breach the licince. Where do you see "divorce" on that list?

Those are all justifications, i.e. grounds, for breaching the license.

But lets go further, using your list: Habitual intemperance

This is typically is a condition that exists prior to entering the marriage obligation. How can that possibly be a breach of license if it was extant prior to the entering into the obligation?

But let's say it developed after the obligation is entered into: Habitual intemperance is a sickness

The marriage vows include: "In sickness and in health".

Thus choosing to terminate a marriage due to a sickness of one's partner is a breach (failure to live up to the obligations) of the marriage license.
 
Yes, they are all breaches.



....and?

We're talking about divorces that do occur when they have the option.

If you're not talking about divorces that do occur when they have the option, you are off point.

And anything could really fall under "irreconcileable differences". A change in religion for example could fit under this.
 
You were speaking from a sociological point of view, and under that light I agree.

But you and I are not debating the sociological perspective.

We are debating the dry technical mechanics of a state issued license.

We're discussing the difference between justifications for the breach of marriage license vs. the actual breach of the marriage license.

I'm saying that "grounds for divorce" are simply justifications for one party to not live up to the obligations of the marriage contract.

Granted, this is becoming a semantics debate more than anything else so it would probably be best for me to simply abandon it. :mrgreen:
 
That is a complete and exahstive list of all inftractions which breach the licince. Where do you see "divorce" on that list?

Just an aside on that list it mentions "extreme cruelty". I would hope ALL cruelty, even moderate cruelty would be a reasonable justification for divorce.

I'm just sayin' :mrgreen:
 
Those are all justifications, i.e. grounds, for breaching the license.

When a license allows parties to vacate under specific circumstances, vacating under those specific circumstances is infact to comply with the license; not to breach it.

When one party commits an act which gives the other party grounds for divorce, the 'full faith and credit' of the license has been broken and the vows are no longer binding to either party.

But lets go further, using your list: Habitual intemperance

This is typically is a condition that exists prior to entering the marriage obligation. How can that possibly be a breach of license if it was extant prior to the entering into the obligation?

Without special provision, that license is a fraud.

But let's say it developed after the obligation is entered into: Habitual intemperance is a sickness

The marriage vows include: "In sickness and in health".

Thus choosing to terminate a marriage due to a sickness of one's partner is a breach (failure to live up to the obligations) of the marriage license.

The person who developed the sickness was the one to break the 'full faith and credit' claws of the license, therefore the other person is no longer under any requirement to remain married. At that point, the vow the healthy person made does not exist and is no longer binding.
 
Last edited:
We're discussing the difference between justifications for the breach of marriage license vs. the actual breach of the marriage license.

I'm saying that "grounds for divorce" are simply justifications for one party to not live up to the obligations of the marriage contract.

Granted, this is becoming a semantics debate more than anything else so it would probably be best for me to simply abandon it. :mrgreen:

When grounds for divorce are present, the obligations of the marriage contract no longer exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom