|
Grex > Agora47 > #162: New Hampshire Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 88 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 88:
| 
Nov 10 02:41 UTC 2003 |
Fraud and abuse are crimes whether in or outside a marriage, and should
be prosecuted accordingly. I think marriage contracts should be more
businesslike with provisions in the contract for separation or divorce.
Still, there is no need for "fault" apart from criminality. It doesn't matter
who violates the social contract - all that does is break the contract, it
needn't break the individuals.
|
slynne
|
|
response 19 of 88:
|
Nov 10 03:51 UTC 2003 |
resp:17 - Actually, people who get married can write up a pre-nuptual
agreement if they wish. I believe that a couple can put such things as
who gets what into such a contract.
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 88:
|
Nov 10 05:11 UTC 2003 |
Some might consider pre-nuptual agreements or any discussion of
divorce arrangements corrosive to the very foundation of marriage,
but that vast segment of the population can be dismissed as merely
sentimental.
;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 88:
|
Nov 10 05:33 UTC 2003 |
That is pretty nonsensical. With, what, 50%?, of marriages ending in
divorce, society should *require* contracts that are more comprehensive.
They could even include insurance!
|
klg
|
|
response 22 of 88:
|
Nov 10 17:16 UTC 2003 |
(Liberal: A person who cannot bear to see something not regulated by
the government?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 88:
|
Nov 10 17:41 UTC 2003 |
So - you would do away with marriage legalities? You are a better liberal
than I!
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 88:
|
Nov 10 18:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 25 of 88:
|
Nov 10 20:53 UTC 2003 |
Re #23: I could probably be persuaded to support that.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 88:
|
Nov 10 22:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 88:
|
Nov 11 02:48 UTC 2003 |
Just 'cause you're not married doesn't mean you can't have a will.
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 88:
|
Nov 11 21:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 88:
|
Nov 12 22:18 UTC 2003 |
A ridiculous position. is Springfield in NH?
|
carson
|
|
response 30 of 88:
|
Nov 13 17:46 UTC 2003 |
(you'll have to be more specific; most of the United States have a
Springfield.)
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 88:
|
Nov 13 19:21 UTC 2003 |
Re #28: If no one finds it, then you must have been oddly secretive
about drawing one up.
|
twenex
|
|
response 32 of 88:
|
Nov 13 21:35 UTC 2003 |
re 30: that was a ref to the simpsons, and the ridiculosity of life there vs
the ridiculosity of a lesbian who has extra-relationship sex being found not
guilty of adultery.
|
carson
|
|
response 33 of 88:
|
Nov 14 15:38 UTC 2003 |
(wow. an obscure Simpsons reference where the phrase "obscure Simpsons
reference" isn't redundant.) ;)
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 88:
|
Nov 18 06:16 UTC 2003 |
re #22  ... uhhhh, rcurl your interpetation falters in yuor festerhood.
sanctioning and regulating are rather different .. when you think about it.
the state sanctions marriage .. yuo wnat the gummint to *regulate* it.
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:02 UTC 2003 |
I'd just as soon see the state get out of "marriage" all together. The
state can give people a civil union of some kind that has the legal
benefits of marriage, but none of the religious connotations. If people
then want to be married "in the eyes of God" they're free to have their
church do so.
|
bru
|
|
response 36 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:13 UTC 2003 |
Massachusettes has legalized gay marriage. The Mass. Supreme court has
ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to gay people.
|
twenex
|
|
response 37 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:23 UTC 2003 |
Blimey. Is this new?
|
jp2
|
|
response 38 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:32 UTC 2003 |
I would guess they'll either legislate something or amend their state
constitution.
|
jp2
|
|
response 40 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 41 of 88:
|
Nov 18 15:59 UTC 2003 |
Thyey work fast.
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 88:
|
Nov 18 18:37 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, but it's going to be an interesting few years...a constitutional
amendment wouldn't take effect until 2006.
|