NoIDidn't Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Polygamy is "on the books" in my home country - but I don't see the need to M more than one H at a time I am sure that your home country is only seeking to utilize one form of polygamy. And that's polygyny - the having of more than one W. You seek polyandry if you want more than one husband. For which, I bet they'd stone you. I doubt very seriously if they ever intended women to also have more than one husband. Polyandry used to be practiced in parts of Africa before the Muslims and Christians came along with their ideas of patriarchy. Sorry for the t/j folks. Back to suing the pants off of the other affair partner!!!
NoIDidn't Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Further, fornication: Since the statute contains the word "fornication", it can be interpreted to apply to non-married single unattached consensual adults BTW, I'm just trying to discern statute here. I'm not advocating one way or another. No dogs in this fight. I understand, and just was explaining it. Even the definition you just gave says "typically" about fornication between single people. And in using "typically", it is showing that their are other uses of the word that are just as valid. Fornication is considered to happen whenever a single person has sex - whether the person they are having sex with is married to someone else or not. That's why they included both in the first definition you used. When people say that the single person isn't married and without guilt, this law is basically saying that they are still guilty of something - and that's fornication. That's all I was trying to explain.
carhill Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) Yes, and two single unmarried unattached people are also guilty of fornication under that statute. Essentially, strictly applied, sex outside of the confines of marriage where the parties are married *to* each other is against that particular law, as outdated and unenforced as it is. Spitting on the sidewalk is illegal in some states too Oh, right, got it now...the fornication part is a blanket coverage. I had assumed that but thought you were interpreting it to primarily apply to affairs. Apologies. Edited March 30, 2010 by carhill
NoIDidn't Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Yes, and two single unmarried unattached people are also guilty of fornication under that statute. Essentially, strictly applied, sex outside of the confines of marriage where the parties are married *to* each other is against that particular law, as outdated and unenforced as it is. Spitting on the sidewalk is illegal in some states too Oh, right, got it now...the fornication part is a blanket coverage. I had assumed that but thought you were interpreting it to primarily apply to affairs. Apologies. LOL. Now, I understand. LOL. This definition did get me thinking about why there are no statutes that allow single people that are fornicating with other single people to sue for alienation. I figure its because in states, like mine (I don't live in NC), it was against the law to cohabitate if you weren't married. And if you don't cohabitate, you basically aren't considered to have joint assets. No joint assets, nothing to sue for. I guess. <shrugs shoulders> Most people, at least in conservative states, wonder why people would rather cohabitate without the legal cover that marriage provides. It seems, the Law provides more remedies for a broken heart/promise for marrieds, than for unmarrieds.
OWoman Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I am sure that your home country is only seeking to utilize one form of polygamy. And that's polygyny - the having of more than one W. You seek polyandry if you want more than one husband. For which, I bet they'd stone you. I doubt very seriously if they ever intended women to also have more than one husband. Polyandry used to be practiced in parts of Africa before the Muslims and Christians came along with their ideas of patriarchy. Sorry for the t/j folks. Back to suing the pants off of the other affair partner!!! Polygamy is what's legal, not polygyny. The constitution expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. It also forbids stoning
NoIDidn't Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Polygamy is what's legal, not polygyny. The constitution expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. It also forbids stoning Well, go home and get yourself another H and let me know how it goes, okay?
stillafool Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Yes I believe the BS should be able to sue the affair partner as well as the spouse. This way they can pay the BS off and ride off into the sunset knowing they did the right thing.
OWoman Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Well, go home and get yourself another H and let me know how it goes, okay? I believe I already answered that: Polygamy is "on the books" in my home country - but I don't see the need to M more than one H at a time
Recommended Posts