BAP Enthusiast said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

OP started this thread, but can't reconcile the tough questions...

---

I rarely post on weekends because I actually have a family and like spending time with them. I am often very busy with family time and other household errands, fixes, etc.

It's rather funny, the posters with no family continue posting as normal on the weekend while those of us wanting these things don't post much of anything.

---

It's beyond strange that you took the time to respond, but didn't address the subject at hand, and instead tried to insult a presumed "lack of family".

When you come off your high horse, and weird set of presumptions and projections, I'm genuinely interested in where you personally stand on the questions I asked regarding legally defining adultery and legal enforcement.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I actually want to jump back into the original thoughts expressed in the OP of this thread...

***Let's start by making it clear that pretty much EVERYONE agrees that adultery is morally wrong***

Now let's get into this...

Quote:

---

I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation and it should be the only valid reason for divorce.

---

This whole mentality exposes a clear lack of consideration for what this would actually mean, and what the potential ripple effect may be.

Let's start with how you'd want our government to define adultery:

• Does flirting count?
• Does holding hands count?
• Does kissing count?
• Tongue? No tongue?
• Does sexting count?
• Does dry humping count?
• Does manual stimulation count?
• Mutual masturbation?
• Does oral sex count?
• Does anal sex count?
• Does penetration have to be involved?
• What about sex toys?
• Just the tip?
• Or does it have to be full penal/vaginal penetration?
• What about scissoring?
• Sword fighting?

I literally want you to respond to those. I need to know where we should draw the line.

---

We had adultery laws in the past very recently, I would base adultery on how they defined it then. Adultery was generally defined as sex and/or living together with someone else. I'd be okay with that definition. I consider oral sex and sodomy to be sex.

Quote:

---

I think we'd all agree that you can actually 'cheat' on your spouse purely emotionally. How will we include that in our definition and set of laws?

---

Too hard to define, therefore it cannot be enforced. This is why no fault divorce should also be eliminated entirely.

Quote:

---

Let's move on to questioning how this would be tracked, and enforced by our government...

In what ways are you comfortable with the Government/Justice System gathering information to enforce this new law you propose?

• Gov't actively monitoring our homes, phones, email, workplaces, etc.?
• Rely only on formal accusations from spouses?
• Rely on accusations from 3rd parties? (witnesses, friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc)
• Heck, if we're going to rely on 3rd parties, are we going to put $10k bounties on this stuff, too??

How will we PROVE these accusations in court?

---

Why would the government have to track anything? We don't require this level of standard for any other crime, why would we do this here?

Quote:

---

• Force the accused to be given "rape kit" type tests? (this would mean they'd have to be caught and arrested basically in-the-act)

The more I think about it, depending on how we define "adultery" for the purposes of our 'new law', it almost seems like there would have to actually be pornographic video evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that one consenting adult had sex with another consenting adult absent a pregnancy.

Let's think about this, too. Do you really want our criminal court system bogged down with literally millions of accusations of adultery clogging up the system? And clogging up the prison system? This would increase the number of jury trials by hundreds of thousands per year of lawyers arguing whether or not people actually slept together, or maybe the just flirted through text. Blah blah blah.

---

If millions of people are committing adultery then we need adultery laws more than ever because marriage itself has lost all meaning.

As for prisons, minimum security only. With regards to everything else, I am okay with that.

Quote:

---

Adultery is obviously wrong, but adding that burden to our criminal justice system is just crazy talk.

---

I am okay with this.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I also think that you should not be allowed to marry at all unless you get a religious marriage. This would ensure all marriages are religious in nature and eliminate those who just want to get married for tax purposes.

---

Semantics. You're hung up on the word marriage. Why do you give one single thought to what someone else calls their relationship. It has no impact on you. Religions don't have a monopoly on two people deciding to combine their lives. The way you're wording this, it seems like as long as those getting married subscribe to SOME form of religion, you're ok with it. But, if they don't subscribe to any at all, you're not. That's insanely strange given that most religions treat every religion outside their own basically the same as non-religious people. They're ALL going to hell, right?

Also, News Flash. The idea that non-religious people are getting married "for tax purposes" is just ignorant. My wife and I are not religious, and taxes were not even the faintest of fleeting thoughts that factored into our decision to get married. I'd wager that's the same for the VAAAAST majority of non-religious married people.

---

Marriage is a religious institution, it always has been. I don't understand and will never understand why non-religious people get married. It's a meaningless term to you that is nothing but a government document.

Quote:

---

Possibly an unpopular take here but, I'd be ok with removing all tax benefits (whatever they may be) for being married. I'd remove them for having children, too. I doubt removing those benefits would have a statistically significant impact on the number of people getting married, or the number of people having children.

---

I bet it would massively reduce non-religious marriages. Of course I don't agree with doing this though because I believe in significant incentives for families, specially those with biological kids.

Quote:

---

WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS WE SHOULD OUTLAW AND ASSIGN PRISON TIME BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOESN'T SPEAK FAVORABLY ABOUT THEM...

• Let's make lying illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.

• Let's also make getting drunk illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.

• Let's also make "Not Honoring Your Father and Mother" illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.

• Let's make using the lord's name in vain illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.

Do you see how this works? I bet you've lied a few times in your life. I bet you've been drunk, too. Ever use the lord's name in vain?

Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean our government needs to get involved.


Don't you think god can handle this stuff? If he can't/isn't, he's just not as great as you think he is.

---

Except that there is a victim with the crime of adultery where significant harm often comes to the victim. The others are often victimless scenarios that only serve to harm the individual. Yes lying, cursing, and making your parents angry do affect others, but these can be solved within families. You're trying for a gotcha situation here to declare we are picking and choosing. I am not using the Bible as justification here, which is why I specifically stated religious marriages and not Christian marriages as virtually every religion declares adultery to be wrong while they disagree on many other issues.

EDIT: Thanks for taking the time to give thoughtful responses, btw.

I found some common ground...

Quote:

---

Marriage is a religious institution, it always has been. I don't understand and will never understand why non-religious people get married. It's a meaningless term to you that is nothing but a government document.

---

Maybe we can somewhat agree on part of this. I don't understand why the government is involved in marriage at all. For me, marriage is between the two individuals, and (if applicable) their god/religion/etc. Not sure why our government needs to document it, or regulate it, or be involved in any way.

I have a hard time understanding why you can't understand why non-religious people get married. If you listed out all the reasons you chose to marry your spouse, I can only assume that many of those reasons have nothing to do with religion, and have a lot to do with who you are, what you enjoy about each other, compatibility, sexual stuff, what you think you can accomplish together versus apart, etc.

You're correct to point out that marriage is historically a religious arrangement/ceremony/etc. For us, the ceremony itself was just a formality based on tradition. It was as simple as that. We got together with all our closest friends and family, got all fancy, made public promises to each other, and threw the most expensive 'party' we'll ever throw, because that's just what people do when they get married.

I am physically attracted to my wife. I am intellectually attracted to my wife. I am emotionally attracted to my wife. I enjoy sex with my wife. I enjoy spending time with my wife. I enjoy working as a team with my wife. I enjoy problem solving with my wife. I enjoy helping other people with my wife. I have compatibility in all of these ways with her, that I didn't have with any other potential mates. Together, our "team" is a bigger and better thing than the sum of our individual parts. We love each other, and saw immense value in combining our lives rather than the alternative.

THAT is why us non-religious people got married.

The idea that you are trying to impress that the *only* reason to get married is because your religion said so is either absolute insanity, or you actually shared a lot of the same reasons we did, you just added religious reasons to that list, but for the purposes of this debate, you just leave all the other non-religious reasons out.

I'm not saying nobody has ever gotten married for tax purposes, but when I even try to fathom that concept, all I can come up with would be uber wealthy people, or people trying to exploit a loophole in some immigration policy. The non-religious 'normal' people you see out in public at the grocery store, and the water park, and restaurants, and football games, etc. put zero thought into taxation when they decided to get married. None of us could tell you how our tax liabilities changed when we got married if our lives depended on it. No freaking clue. Because it wasn't a factor.

It is threads like this one that keep F16's reputation as the craziest forum on TexAgs alive and well.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

It is threads like this one that keep F16's reputation as the craziest forum on TexAgs alive and well.

---

"How dare you say that! You are so wrong!"--The General Board

The GB is dead

This guy wouldn't have had to kill his ex-wife if she wasn't able to divorce him.
I think he'd have been on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chicago-woman-killed-ex-husband-183620561.html

Then again he wouldn't have been able to get married to begin with since he's not Christian.

I'm digging the militant Christian threads of late. The board needs some shaking up and radical ideologies percolating.

Don't cheat on your spouse?

Anyone involved in an alternate electors plot should at the very least be in prison.