Re: In your opinion, is this adultery?

[Joelle]

>Because the bible was originally written (both old & new testament) in
>ancient Hebrew and Aramai

Okay you are an idiot and should not be encouraged - but the New testament was
written in Greek, not Herbrew and no scriptures were written in Aramaic.

Joelle

[Bill in Co.]

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> >" wrote about a case in
> New Hampshire where the state Supreme Court ruled that a same-sex affair
> doesn't count as adultery.
>
> The relevant bit was snipped out of the summary, however:
>
>> Looking at a dictionary and old case law, the court determined that
>> the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges
>> point to a Websters dictionary definition that mentions intercourse
>> and an 1878 case that refers to adultery as "intercourse from which
>> spurious issue may arise."
>> <http://www.seacoastonline.com/cgi-bin/printstory/printstory.cgi>
>
> The problem we face here is that the court system heavily depends on
> following "precedent", which basically amounts to "We're too stupid to
> make any sense of this, so let's just see what was decided last time
> this came up and do that again."
>
> In essence, the legal system tells judges to cheat on their homework
> instead of understanding the issues and coming to a sensible conclusion.
>
> The ruling in the 1878 case is clearly idiotic, because it means that
> a woman who has had a hysterectomy cannot commit adultery. No
> intercourse with such a woman can give rise to "spurious issue", and
> therefore -- by this definition -- no sexual activity on her part can
> possibly be adultery.
>
> So let's see: 125 years ago, many states had anti-misgenation laws,
> women were legally barred from voting, and minorities were barred from
> voting by dirty tricks that were also perfectly legal. Naturally any
> conclusion reached by rich white men who lived in that alien culture
> should be applied to our culture without taking five minutes to think
> about whether those conclusions were right in the first place.
>
> But instead of recognising the stupidity of applying the 1878 decision
> to our society, the court did what courts usually do. They pretended
> that the past decisions are right, because otherwise we've based our
> legal system on something fallible, and we can't let anyone believe
> THAT, can we?
>
> *
>
> If you want to get worked up over something, don't worry about
> this or that stupid ruling from a court. Instead, read:
>
> _An Introduction To Legal Reasoning_,
> by Edward H. Levi
>
> and then you'll get to see that the entire legal system is basically a
> bunch of post-hoc rationalisations dressed up to look as if there were
> some important guiding principles that inform judges' decisions. There
> are no such guiding principles; a kindergarden class could make better-
> informed decisions than courts do.
>
>
> The history of the "inherently dangerous" rule, laid out in all its
> glory, would be funny if it wasn't so horrible. Basically, the question
> is "Can you sue somebody if you were injured doing something that is
> inherently dangerous?" The judges in the first case rule about what
> sort of activity is in fact "inherently dangerous". This ruling gets
> cited as precedent by other courts, and so on, until eventually a court
> citing a long chain of precedents comes to the exact opposite conclusion
> of the first court, which precedent they cite in support of their
> position.
>
> As a result, just about any activity at all could be ruled as inherently
> dangerous, or not, depending on the whim of the judge. He can cite
> precedent to support his opinion, no matter what it is. Judges in the
> past made essentially random decisions, and the conclusions of past
> courts -- no matter how stupid -- can always be cited in support of
> whatever it is the judge feels like ruling today.
>
> Just reading the history of "inherently dangerous" makes perfectly clear
> the wisdom of Biblical advice to settle disputes before you get to
> court.

Damn, just when I was starting to get my faith restored in the legal system!!
LOL.

[jacob]

There is simply no justification for this ruling. It is quite clearly
seen that this is adultery. What happens if she brings home AIDS or
some other STD?

I kind of think that if it were the other way around and the man had
transmitted an STD especially AIDS, it would be adultery!

I don't know what we pay these people for!

From the bible's stand point, Pornea, the Greek word for fornication
includes adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and fornication.

If a person is married and has sex outside of marriage he has
committed adultery! If he has sex with an animal. I don't know what
they will call it but i won't stay married to them! Its Adultery!
(but as long as i win whatever is coming to me, I dont care what they
call it.)

Our world is clearly gone mad. Even from a secular stand point these
stupid definitions leave the legal system wide open for greater
controversy.

As for the gay bishop? He he can argue all he wants but he didn't even
get a "holy union" as they call it. At least he could have tried to
made it LOOK legitimate! He's just another fornicator. I wonder if
another bishop can have sex outside of marriage like him. He could
have at least gone to Maine or Germany somewhere to make it LOOK
legitimate. But that is not their aim. and why are we even arguing
this. These are the last days and the world is going completely mad.
there is no justification behind all this but one source.

I'm gay and I believe that people CAN change if they want to. There is
enough evidence to support this. Although the APA, due to POLITICAL
pressure because of the gay rights movement, has removed homosexuality
out of the book of mental disorders, it still says that a person CAN
CHANGE IF THEY WANT TO. I'm such a person and i know many more. There
are thousands of us. For soem it is harder than it is for others.
For me it is an easy transistion, give or take a few. There is no
excuse for this assault on society and the family!

Politician don't care about the truth. they only care about their pay
checks!
_________________

If you know a person who really wants to change, send him to
www.peoplecanchange.com, www.gaytostraight.com, or www.narth.com.
Narth, a lead research institute and online forums found at the PCC
website can help you find other resources if you like. there are
dozens of books also.

[whisper]

Did you truly "change" or are you living a lie. .to "conform" to society?

If you say you are gay..then you are gay.. you may be living a non gay life
style though.. that doesn't make you less attracted to the same sex.. does
it?

Kass
"jacob" > wrote in message
om...
> There is simply no justification for this ruling. It is quite clearly
> seen that this is adultery. What happens if she brings home AIDS or
> some other STD?
>
> I kind of think that if it were the other way around and the man had
> transmitted an STD especially AIDS, it would be adultery!
>
> I don't know what we pay these people for!
>
> From the bible's stand point, Pornea, the Greek word for fornication
> includes adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and fornication.
>
> If a person is married and has sex outside of marriage he has
> committed adultery! If he has sex with an animal. I don't know what
> they will call it but i won't stay married to them! Its Adultery!
> (but as long as i win whatever is coming to me, I dont care what they
> call it.)
>
> Our world is clearly gone mad. Even from a secular stand point these
> stupid definitions leave the legal system wide open for greater
> controversy.
>
> As for the gay bishop? He he can argue all he wants but he didn't even
> get a "holy union" as they call it. At least he could have tried to
> made it LOOK legitimate! He's just another fornicator. I wonder if
> another bishop can have sex outside of marriage like him. He could
> have at least gone to Maine or Germany somewhere to make it LOOK
> legitimate. But that is not their aim. and why are we even arguing
> this. These are the last days and the world is going completely mad.
> there is no justification behind all this but one source.
>
> I'm gay and I believe that people CAN change if they want to. There is
> enough evidence to support this. Although the APA, due to POLITICAL
> pressure because of the gay rights movement, has removed homosexuality
> out of the book of mental disorders, it still says that a person CAN
> CHANGE IF THEY WANT TO. I'm such a person and i know many more. There
> are thousands of us. For soem it is harder than it is for others.
> For me it is an easy transistion, give or take a few. There is no
> excuse for this assault on society and the family!
>
> Politician don't care about the truth. they only care about their pay
> checks!
> _________________
>
> If you know a person who really wants to change, send him to
> www.peoplecanchange.com, www.gaytostraight.com, or www.narth.com.
> Narth, a lead research institute and online forums found at the PCC
> website can help you find other resources if you like. there are
> dozens of books also.