bas·tard (b s t rd)n.
adj.
|
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:32 PM PST by chance33_98
Because they made a vow. I understand that it's not fashionable to keep ones word these days but you can't expect to have a stable soceity if anyone can just break a sacred vow without a penalty. If a couple enters into mariage with agreement that either one of them can leave when they find someone they like better, than there wouldn't be a problem, but I suspect that the jilted spouse wouldn't have agreed to such a condition to begin with.
I guess it would be ok with you if a wife denied her husband sex for months or years,and then used this law to rob him of everything he had worked years to obtain,merely because he found a woman who WOULD provide him with sex? Could it be you are that one person in a billion who hasn't run across that favorite game of American women,"Using sex as a weapon"?
BTW,one example of this is a guy I know who told me a couple of months ago,"I'm 49 years old now and haven't had sex in ten years. As long as my wife plays her silly games,I don't give a damn if I never have sex again. If she thinks her stuff is all that special,let her keep it to herself! One thing you can count on is that my days of begging for it are over with. If I have to "pay" everytime I have sex,I'll pay a hooker,not my wife!"
Huh? I thought it was that combination that MADE people jump from bridges,not the lack of it. You know,the old "My dog done died and left me-Oh woe is me!" stuff.
But it's the principle that counts. If ANY man and mistress are gonna disrupt some kid's life, then they should pay.
The same should be for a cheatin' wife and her lover (mister?) The guy should get custody of the kids and both of the cheaters should have to pay.
The alienation of affection laws in NC have ZERO to do with finances. Nothing. And did the cheating spouse have no part in the affair? Why is the "infiltrator" the only one subject to penalty? Seems that divorce proceedings and awards would handle the situation just fine.
Can't ya just feel the love and the Christian charity? It's practically ozzing from your post. I especially liked the part where you want to call the innocent children "bastards". Nice touch.
That's certainly true,and a work of fiction at that. None the less,this doesn't keep the terminally superstitious and paranoid from using it as a club to beat other people over the head with.
There is a country song that makes fun of just what you're talking about, though.
Too bad. There's nothing in the title that'd mean it necessarily had to do with "conjugal rights."
The operative word is SHOULD. These laws SHOULD smack the hands of BOTH OF those who condemn woman and kids to poverty. The justification should be financial, emotional, and parental deprivation.
And any time I hear "its for the children" I know the one arguing has a weak case and is driven by emotion and symbolisim over substance.
Then I guess you have no objection if I call you and others like you "arrogant superstitious ingnorant fools"?
I'm not as sure that is the "proper" term for a child born under those conditions,but I AM positive "asshole" is the proper term for anyone who would refer to a innocent child as a "bastard".
What if it was the wife that was cheating? You are making assumptions that it is always the husband that is the cheater. You know as well as I that is not the case. You will note that in ALL of my posts I have always referred to a spouse and all of my posts have been gender neutral.
And again, what if there are no kids? What if the jilted spouse is financially stable on their own accord? The situation doesnt always fit into the picture you are trying to paint.
| bas·tard (bstrd) n.
adj.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.