Gay marriage law 'could mean the end of adultery being grounds for divorce'

Dec 18, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.dailymail.co.uk

Lawyers claim an unfaithful husband could use the courts to block his wife from divorcing them for adultery because same-sex couples are to be treated differently.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of348
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Oh for cryin' out loud. Just change the word "adultery" to read "sexual relations with a third party (or something like that)" in law, and the situation goes away, for both gay and straight. Have they no common sense at all?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

RalphB wrote:
Oh for cryin' out loud. Just change the word "adultery" to read "sexual relations with a third party (or something like that)" in law, and the situation goes away, for both gay and straight. Have they no common sense at all?
Whoever was to blame for the no such thing as same sex adultery provision should be publicly pilloried. They still do that over there don't they? What an incredibly dumb idea.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 18, 2012
 
If he would keep humpin' his wife 24/7; she won't need to wander to another man

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 18, 2012
 
Huh?? They still have to declare grounds for a divorce in the UK?? Why? That seems kind of nuts, doesn't it? I realize it goes back to the good old days of really sticking it to the "guilty" party in the settlement, but seriously--why?
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RalphB wrote:
Oh for cryin' out loud. Just change the word "adultery" to read "sexual relations with a third party (or something like that)" in law, and the situation goes away, for both gay and straight. Have they no common sense at all?
"Have they no common sense at all?"
Yet to homosexuals, anal sex makes perfect sense.
SLIF

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 18, 2012
 
It's another lawyer arguement.
david traversa

San Francisco, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 18, 2012
 
Can't they latch on to something more intelligent than this tripe?! Obviously not..

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"Have they no common sense at all?"
Yet to homosexuals, anal sex makes perfect sense.
My, my, aren't you the all-knowing one. SOME, and I repeat, SOME gay men partake of anal sex. Not all. And by the way........you're more fixated with anal sex than any gay person I have ever known.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

david traversa wrote:
Can't they latch on to something more intelligent than this tripe?! Obviously not..
the point is that these discrepancies show that gay marriage was never contemplated under current systems...

and this relates to the fact that many gays marriage supporters think polygamy has this effect and that this is a proper reason to deny them marriage rights...

so the question is, if administrative burdens and legal language changes are reason to deny polygamy, why not gay marriage?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

JrEsq wrote:
"Have they no common sense at all?"
Yet to homosexuals, anal sex makes perfect sense.
Straight people love it, too. Lots and lots of you. LOTS.
hoodathunkit

Bucyrus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 18, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is that these discrepancies show that gay marriage was never contemplated under current systems...
and this relates to the fact that many gays marriage supporters think polygamy has this effect and that this is a proper reason to deny them marriage rights...
so the question is, if administrative burdens and legal language changes are reason to deny polygamy, why not gay marriage?
Since the article concerns UK law, maybe you should contact somebody in the UK and discuss it with them.
In the US, only 23 states have laws that criminalize adultry. However, the courts in all of the states grant divorces based on infidelity. Heterosexuals are permitted to divorce their partner regardless of the sex of the person their partner has an affair with so there is no discrepancy.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 18, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is that these discrepancies show that gay marriage was never contemplated under current systems...
and this relates to the fact that many gays marriage supporters think polygamy has this effect and that this is a proper reason to deny them marriage rights...
so the question is, if administrative burdens and legal language changes are reason to deny polygamy, why not gay marriage?
Because polygamists are just heterosexuals... who want MORE than what you have.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Because polygamists are just heterosexuals... who want MORE than what you have.
I only have the right to marry the opposite sex...
seems you want more than that too..

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

This is a tempest in a teapot. One legislative session or court case and the definition of adultery will be inclusive.

Polygamy is irrelevant to the conversation.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is that these discrepancies show that gay marriage was never contemplated under current systems...
and this relates to the fact that many gays marriage supporters think polygamy has this effect and that this is a proper reason to deny them marriage rights...
so the question is, if administrative burdens and legal language changes are reason to deny polygamy, why not gay marriage?
hoodathunkit

Bucyrus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have the right to marry the opposite sex...
seems you want more than that too..
If you really live in Vermont, you have the right to marry either the opposite sex or the same sex.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 18, 2012
 
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"Have they no common sense at all?"
Yet to homosexuals, anal sex makes perfect sense.
Just so you know, for every gay couple that engages in anal sex, there are at least twenty straight couples that do. And it clearly makes sense to them, too, doesn't it?

Poor you. No anal sex for you, huh, Poodle?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 18, 2012
 
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, aren't you the all-knowing one. SOME, and I repeat, SOME gay men partake of anal sex. Not all. And by the way........you're more fixated with anal sex than any gay person I have ever known.
Yep! Our "JrEsq" DOES seem more than unusually obsessed with anal sex, doesn't he?

I can't even remember the last time I engaged in it, but I'll betcha anything HE can!
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 18, 2012
 
hoodathunkit wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really live in Vermont, you have the right to marry either the opposite sex or the same sex.
not to uncle sam though, right?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 18, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>....so the question is, if administrative burdens and legal language changes are reason to deny polygamy, why not gay marriage?
Because no such legal language changes or administrative burdens exist for accommodating marriage equality for same-sex couples. There are still only two people involved and neither of them are legally superior to the other, just like in opposite-sex marriages.

Gosh, you'd think a practicing attorney would know that, wouldn't you?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
This is a tempest in a teapot. One legislative session or court case and the definition of adultery will be inclusive.

<quoted text>
same would be true of all the issues you guys make up to ban polygamy..
cpeter1313 wrote:
Polygamy is irrelevant to the conversation.
<quoted text>
does irrelevant mean deflates your argument?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of348
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••