# It just occurred to me....



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

I have been reading some stories on wayward section on SI. They talk of not being able to control the things they do...addictive actions. 

Until this period of time they were the best husbands/wives. How their thought processes get all screwed up and how some can be still the best spouse but still be void of sexual morality and screwing the spouse and POSOM/W.

Not controlling their impulse, behavior, etc. Their totally Fd up thought process and complete void of sexual morality. The destroy, hurt and scar those they CLAIM they LOVE(BS) for years or decades over SEX.

THEY ARE SEX OFFENDERS!!!!!

I just realized this! I supervise rapist and pedophiles for the State of Texas. The behavior and thought processes of the wayward spouses is spot on with sex offenders. 

Now I understand why to me I view adulterous spouses as just half a rung below rapists, with the emotional trauma forced on the betrayed 

Especially if the adulterous spouse has sex with their spouse after having sex with their fvckbuddy, To me exposing your spouse to diseases or fluids of another after the fact is the same as raping your spouse with the other person's genitals they are just unaware it occurred.

Adultry can lead to suicide, killing (murder is killing of the INNOCENT, AFFAIR PARTNERS ARE NOT INNOCENT) loss of careers, destruction of homes and families lives. But yet they do not even enforce the laws that may be on the books.

ADULTRY SHOULD BE CRIMINAL IN EVERY STATE! 

In Okla. It's a felony. Punishable by fine of $500 and/or 5 yrs prison. Good luck finding a DA that will prosecute.

FYI...If you are ever called for jury duty for case where spouse killed or assaulted their spouse or the POSOM/W YOU CAN REFUSE TO CONVICT EVEN THOUGH THE STATE PROVES THEY KILLED THEM. ITS CALLED JURY NULLIFICATION.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

I'm not in favor of adultery, but I think this is way over the line.
Yes, if the adulterer infects the betrayed spouse with an STD, he or she should be prosecuted for that.
But killing the adulterer is disproportionate to the offense.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Hurt.

Punishment.

Revenge.

Victim chair.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

technovelist said:


> I'm not in favor of adultery, but I think this is way over the line.
> Yes, if the adulterer infects the betrayed spouse with an STD, he or she should be prosecuted for that.
> But killing the adulterer is disproportionate to the offense.


Agreed although it should be a civil tort and the cheater should lose n terms of money, custody, marital property, etc...


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Don't think they should be thrown into prison either...but the BS should not loose 50% of kids or income. WS should loose house equity and not get alimony or custodial parent. Child time should lean toward BS, not the adulterer

However if a BS looses it and kills POSOM/W I believe the WS should suffer any repercussions to be given as their actions and the emotional trauma is what led to the death/harm of their AP. 

Kinda like if you and buddy rob a store and clerk kills buddy, the accomplice is charged with the death of his buddy.


----------



## ThePheonix (Jan 3, 2013)

Divinely Favored said:


> FYI...If you are ever called for jury duty for case where spouse killed or assaulted their spouse or the POSOM/W YOU CAN REFUSE TO CONVICT EVEN THOUGH THE STATE PROVES THEY KILLED THEM. ITS CALLED JURY NULLIFICATION.


I think is should be set up where whatever sentence is past because the OM/W was killed, the sentence would be offset, in kind, for whatever was also done to their spouse. Thus, if you received six month jail time for assaulting the affair partner, it would be offset if you also assaulted your spouse to the same degree.


----------



## HarryDoyle (Jan 19, 2013)

I don't think you have thought this through. Most cases of infidelity could never be proved in court. (A court, which I'm sure you know, that is already way overbooked and the jail system that can't hold the violent, parole breaking criminals it has.) I could never have proved my wife's affair in court. She confessed when confronted with my small amount of circumstanial evidence, something she would never have done if a jail sentence was involved.

Do you really want to send some kid's mother or father to jail for this? Do you want a criminal conviction on their record so they can't keep or get a job and provide for the family or in a lot of cases pay child support? The list goes on and on. 

I was in the military for most of my adult life and adultery is punishable under the Military Justice system and for good reason, reasons that don't really apply to the civilian population. But it is rarely taken all the way to a Court Martial and like I said before, very hard to prove beyond tbe shadow of a doubt that is required for a conviction. 

This is a civil matter for civil court. I think infidelity should count a lot more than it seems to in a lot of divorce cases, but in today's society it would never work in a criminal court of law.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Divinely Favored said:


> I have been reading some stories on wayward section on SI.


I should've stopped reading right here.

Do yourself a huge favor and stay away from SI, LS, and the now-defunct DC.

After all, you supervise sex offenders for a living, right? _Do you *really* need to subject yourself to even *MORE* scumbaggery?_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

HarryDoyle said:


> I don't think you have thought this through. Most cases of infidelity could never be proved in court. (A court, which I'm sure you know, that is already way overbooked and the jail system that can't hold the violent, parole breaking criminals it has.) I could never have proved my wife's affair in court. She confessed when confronted with my small amount of circumstanial evidence, something she would never have done if a jail sentence was involved.
> 
> Do you really want to send some kid's mother or father to jail for this? Do you want a criminal conviction on their record so they can't keep or get a job and provide for the family or in a lot of cases pay child support? The list goes on and on.


Word.



HarryDoyle said:


> I was in the military for most of my adult life and *adultery is punishable under the Military Justice system and for good reason, reasons that don't really apply to the civilian population.* But it is rarely taken all the way to a Court Martial and like I said before, very hard to prove beyond tbe shadow of a doubt that is required for a conviction.


Hmm... interesting. Care to expand upon this?

Loss of morale, perhaps (in the case of one service member inappropriately involved w/ another service member or the spouse of another service member)?

Loss of public confidence (in the case of a service member inappropriately involved w/ a civilian)?



HarryDoyle said:


> *This is a civil matter for civil court.* I think infidelity should count a lot more than it seems to in a lot of divorce cases, but in today's society it would never work in a criminal court of law.


Agreed.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Infidelity is the emotional rape of families.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

HarryDoyle said:


> I don't think you have thought this through. Most cases of infidelity could never be proved in court. (A court, which I'm sure you know, that is already way overbooked and the jail system that can't hold the violent, parole breaking criminals it has.) I could never have proved my wife's affair in court. She confessed when confronted with my small amount of circumstanial evidence, something she would never have done if a jail sentence was involved.
> 
> Do you really want to send some kid's mother or father to jail for this? Do you want a criminal conviction on their record so they can't keep or get a job and provide for the family or in a lot of cases pay child support? The list goes on and on.
> 
> ...


Just to play devils advocate for a moment but most criminals are convicted based on circumstantial evidence and in civil cases the burden of proof is even less unless you mention the word adultery then suddenly no amount of proof is enough.

The courts and legal community don't want to deal with it and even if you had a written confession, pictures and videos we have the ever encompassing no fault silliness. The court system is overworked and overburdened by its own rhetoric. I've had more pretrial conferences than I can count, I've had 8 or 9 supposed final hearing now only to still be "happily married" after over 2.5 years of divorce action. 

They want to be less burdened start charging people for the courts time. You would see a great many more deals done quickly than dragging everyone into court to debate toasters and nonesense. 

Now should adultery be a criminal charge no. Should I be able to bring it up in a civil case yes I should.


----------



## HarryDoyle (Jan 19, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's an article that explains it pretty good using a very high profile case involving General David Petraeus. 

The David Petraeus*affair: Why the U.S. military outlaws adultery 


.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Infidelity is the emotional rape of families.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly why I see cheaters as being morally no better than sex offenders and I would not convict a BS who assaults, maims or kills an AP or WS.


----------



## Woodchuck (Nov 1, 2012)

I think the BS should be able to sue the AP for damages, I also think the BS should be able to sue the WS outside the confines of a divorce court....Divorce laws are set up by formula, so they can shove as many cases through as possible, without regard to justice....You should be able to get justice in a civil court outside the divorce process...


----------



## CTPlay (Apr 26, 2015)

I have a simple consequence in mind.

Anyone guilty of adultery loses their right to legally marry.

Easy.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Truthseeker1 said:


> Agreed although it should be a civil tort and the cheater should lose n terms of money, custody, marital property, etc...


This. :iagree:
Although I would have a difficult time serving on a jury deliberating the case of a BS *assaulting* a WS or OM/W. I'd never convict.


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

Remember that AM affair site that got hacked?

Lots of official that make our laws are on that site.....officials that enforce our laws are on that site.....

We won't see infidelity illegal any time soon!


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Regulating relationships.......hmmmm, no, adultery though painful is a part of life the same as other negative events in life, such as illness, accidents, etc.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

the guy said:


> Remember that AM affair site that got hacked?
> 
> Lots of official that make our laws are on that site.....officials that enforce our laws are on that site.....
> 
> We won't see infidelity illegal any time soon!


They won't enforce the law, many states still adultery laws on the books but you will never find a da who would try and procecute.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

CTPlay said:


> I have a simple consequence in mind.
> 
> Anyone guilty of adultery loses their right to legally marry.
> 
> Easy.


I like it!


----------



## carmen ohio (Sep 24, 2012)

A society that spends billions of dollars a year, building court houses, hiring lawyers, paying judges and empanelling juries, to protect large businesses and multinational corporations against contractual breaches, but that doesn't give a rat's *ss that families are routinely torn apart by violations of the marriage contract, has it priorities seriously screwed up.

But don't take my word for it, just read TAM/CWI.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

Most USA courts/lawmakers have copped out in one very important violation in marriage when it comes to divorce. The one specific area that they cop-out in is that the most courts will not take into consideration a spouse betraying the other spouse and children. In the case of infidelity the family is torn apart and there is not much else that can rip the heart out of a family than adultery. Yet the USA courts cop out and will not take into consideration one of the worst violations against a family. However, the courts do have the authority to tell you who is going to get custody your children and the dispersions of your assets. *To me that is authority without responsibility.*

I have had several lawyers tell me that you do not even bring up infidelity because the judge does not want to hear it. What? The judge, the person that is going to have authority over your children and assets, does not even want to hear about one of the greatest infractions in a marriage?

*I am sure that the courts have some excuse but they should ether do a thorough job or butt out of child custody when they will not take into consideration one of the greatest violations in marriage and actions against the children.*

I can understand people that either will not get married according to state procedures or get a lot of pre-nup, post-nup documents. In divorce, *the cop-out state sets it up so that you cannot have a legal marriage unless they say so then will run away from one of the biggest reasons for divorce, then fail to even allow the violation of betrayal.*



> B*y Divinely Favored*
> Not controlling their impulse, behavior, etc. Their totally Fd up thought process and complete void of sexual morality. The destroy, hurt and scar those they CLAIM they LOVE(BS) for years or decades over SEX.
> 
> THEY ARE SEX OFFENDERS!!!


!!

You are so right DV but the lawmakers/courts cop-out on the betraying sex offenders in marriage. However, they sure do not cop-out with their ability to dictate who gets custody of your children and how your assets are going to be divided.


----------



## nightmare01 (Oct 3, 2014)

As others have said. Law might be passed to please the populace, but they'll never be enforced because too many lawyers, judges, and politicians are cheaters themselves.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

I also think BHs should be able to disestablish paternity at a later date and the WW who committed paternity fraud - should do jail time. If you are [email protected]#$%^& two guys at the same time - you know there is a chance your H is not the father - that should be a felony.


----------



## nightmare01 (Oct 3, 2014)

Truthseeker1 said:


> I also think BHs should be able to disestablish paternity at a later date and the WW who committed paternity fraud - should do jail time. If you are [email protected]#$%^& two guys at the same time - you know there is a chance your H is not the father - that should be a felony.


I agree, and will go a bit further.

Although it reeks of possible government conspiracies and abuse - I think ALL children should get their DNA on file - and the father checked for paternity. Whoever the father is, is financially required to provide for that child.

IMO too much emphasis is put on the woman to be on the pill or whatever, prevention of pregnancy is more a female obligation because they are more stuck with the consequences. But if the DNA of the child matches the DNA of a man on file, then he's responsible - which sort of evens the playing field. So if a guy doesn't want to be a father, then no matter what the woman says (who could be lying) he is responsible for preventing the pregnancy via a condom or whatever.


----------



## carmen ohio (Sep 24, 2012)

nightmare01 said:


> As others have said. Law might be passed to please the populace, but they'll never be enforced because too many lawyers, judges, and politicians are cheaters themselves.


While I understand your cynicism and share it up to a point, I don't agree that this is the reason the justice system is loathe to enforce marriage contracts.

Rather, two forces are at work. The first is that government as fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities because more and more of its resources are dedicated to transfer payments (e.g., welfare, social security, public worker pensions) and debt service. As a result, government is forced to adopt solutions that minimize administrative expenses. What better way to do this in the context of divorce than to implement _"no fault."_

The other is the adoption of feminism as the guiding principle on which all relationships are judged. Feminism requires that the role of the man in relationships be downgraded, even undermined, and that that of the woman be elevated -- all under the guise of creating _"equality"_ between the sexes. What better way to do this than to declare that, hence forth, when a marriage is dissolved, everything will be split 50/50, including the former marriage partners' future incomes. Since husbands are usually the larger income contributors, this guarantees that, on average, wives will benefit disproportionately in divorce. In most cases, she gets half of everything he has saved plus child support plus alimony. Want proof that the system is all about enforcing women's _"rights"_ at the expense of men? It is estimated that there are about 50,000 men in prison for failing to make child support payments. I dare you to find even one case of this happening to a woman. The system is designed to make men support their families financially, even after the family is destroyed, under the threat of incarceration.

If divorce were truly _"no fault,"_ after dividing the marital property and establishing the co-parenting rights and obligations, each party would be required to support him or herself and to contribute equally to the raising of any children. But this will never happen as long as feminism holds sway, as it would make it much more difficult for most women to divorce their husbands, especially women with young children.

Sadly, the current system has had disasterous consequences for families, as men have begun to reject marriage all together. Fewer and fewer people marry and more and more children are born out of wedlock. In the end, no one truly benefits from the current system, other than radicals who wish to destroy western civilization and replace it with some utopian system.


----------



## Woodchuck (Nov 1, 2012)

aine said:


> Regulating relationships.......hmmmm, no, adultery though painful is a part of life the same as other negative events in life, such as illness, accidents, etc.


Marriage is a regulation of relationships, just without justice for BS's.....


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Divinely Favored said:


> I have been reading some stories on wayward section on SI. They talk of not being able to control the things they do...addictive actions.
> 
> Until this period of time they were the best husbands/wives. How their thought processes get all screwed up and how some can be still the best spouse but still be void of sexual morality and screwing the spouse and POSOM/W.
> 
> ...


Yup, I understood a lot more about my ex's cheating behaviour after reading about sex offending. It was a scary realization.

Although making adultery a crime, however deeply any betrayed person might feel the similarities run, is a logistical nightmare.

It would be nice to just be able to have automatic pre-nups that in the case of adultery, the cheater is not entitled to the usual division of property. And that immoral behaviour be taken into account when determining suitability for parenting.

Not long ago my ex told me the principal recently said our youngest was misbehaving in school and lying about it. When I witnessed the lecture my ex delivered to our child about the importance of honesty and not lying, it was all I could do not to interrupt with "you ******* hypocrite!"


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

carmen ohio said:


> While I understand your cynicism and share it up to a point, I don't agree that this is the reason the justice system is loathe to enforce marriage contracts.
> 
> Rather, two forces are at work. The first is that government as fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities because more and more of its resources are dedicated to transfer payments (e.g., welfare, social security, public worker pensions) and debt service. As a result, government is forced to adopt solutions that minimize administrative expenses. What better way to do this in the context of divorce than to implement _"no fault."_
> 
> ...


The one thing government can do well is spend money, saving administrative costs hardly factors into the no fault scheme in my opinion. The bulk of states adopted no fault back in the early 70's and the divorce rate was much lower than today. One could argue that the "cost cutting measure" of no fault is a failure based on the increases volume and overload on a broken system.

The "easy" no fault system has created a big business for lawyers, lord knows that Cadillac my lawyer drives that I have basically paid looks nice. We have a 50/50 myth that rarely works out 50/50. Child support and child custody shouldn't even be part of divorce as its a separate legal action really. You don't need to be married to get child support or custody rights yet our system uses them as baraining chips in asset division. It's a ridiculous system.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> By Carmen in Ohio
> *Sadly, the current system has had disastrous consequences for families*, as men have begun to reject marriage all together. Fewer and fewer people marry and more and more children are born out of wedlock. In the end, no one truly benefits from the current system, other than radicals who wish to destroy western civilization and replace it with some utopian system.


Because the system is not going to substantially change, what choice do we have except but to encourage men and women to NOT marry involving the state. There has to be a better way than getting a state marriage license so that in the event of a divorce the state will have total authority over the custody of your children, the dispersion of your assets, and your future incomes. The state's total authority will not take into consideration some very important issues in divorce because 
“…government has fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities…”
That is the state’s excuse but that does nothing to cure the 
“…Disastrous consequences for families…” that the state is partly responsible for. *The state's excuse results in parents suffering for years or decades!*

*Men and women, if you decide to get a state sanction marriage then do not cry when they force their decision on you about the custody of your children, your assets, and your future income.*




> In divorce, the cop-out state sets it up so that you cannot have a legal marriage unless they say so then will run away from one of the biggest reasons for divorce, then fail to even allow the violation of betrayal to be considered.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> Because the system is not going to substantially change, what choice do we have except but to encourage men and women to NOT marry involving the state. There has to be a better way than getting a state marriage license so that in the event of a divorce the state will have total authority over the custody of your children, the dispersion of your assets, and your future incomes. The state's total authority will not take into consideration some very important issues in divorce because
> “…government has fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities…”
> That is the state’s excuse but that does nothing to cure the
> “…Disastrous consequences for families…” that the state is partly responsible for. *The state's excuse results in parents suffering for years or decades!*
> ...


I don't think there is any way to avoid the state's intervention in marriage, other than by emigrating to another country that doesn't do that as much. If people stop getting marriage licenses, then the state will simply declare people to be married without those licenses. We can already see this happening in some places, e.g., Canada.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Divinely Favored said:
> 
> 
> > I have been reading some stories on wayward section on SI. They talk of not being able to control the things they do...addictive actions.
> ...



I would have told her you have a lot of room to talk about not lying and being honest. OHHH!!! YOU MEAN DO AS I SAY....NOT AS I DO!!


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

Here below is a reprinted post from another forum that chose a government free marriage:


> So far we have powers of attorney and necessary wills. We're considering a "cohabitation agreement" and agreed upon private arbitration to solidify more concerning our assets. But honestly, we don't want the government or legality governing too much. Since we were both married before and experienced the civil system, we want things rather simple. If all we had to do was suffer someone "walking out" on us... we'd be thankful that it was over so easily.
> 
> 1.	Me and my darling love chose a government free marriage. Both of us have experienced "civil marriage" and the divorce courts. Neither of us want to ever open ourselves up to have to endure that insanity again. So, government free marriage felt right for us.
> 
> ...


I would only add one thing. That would be that a legal document be drawn up prior to the Quaker marriage that spelled out the custody provisions. If you have to use the legal system then use it to your advantage and you and your partner draw up the legal documents rather than pay the attorneys thousands and then let the state dictate the custody of your children. Remember that the state refuses to take into consideration import factors such as betrayal/infidelity.

The above may not be the perfect set up for couples but surly it is better than the disastrous state marriage and divorce set up we now have. *With the state setup, in divorce, you have to pay thousands of dollars and then the state will dictate your custody of children, assets, and future income without consideration for adultery, alcoholism and drug use, sexual perversion without a state conviction record.*

I know that the above does not cover all issues in all situations so if you have some suggestions then lets here it!


----------



## carmen ohio (Sep 24, 2012)

Mr Blunt said:


> Because the system is not going to substantially change, what choice do we have except but to encourage men and women to NOT marry involving the state. There has to be a better way than getting a state marriage license so that in the event of a divorce the state will have total authority over the custody of your children, the dispersion of your assets, and your future incomes. The state's total authority will not take into consideration some very important issues in divorce because
> “…government has fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities…”
> That is the state’s excuse but that does nothing to cure the
> “…Disastrous consequences for families…” that the state is partly responsible for. *The state's excuse results in parents suffering for years or decades!*
> ...




There is no such things as a marriage that doesn't involve the government. One is either married or one isn't and the law as interpreted and enforced by the courts determines this.

The law varies somewhat from state to state as to how non-marital relationships are governed (e.g., so-called "common law marriage") and someone who is in a relationship but not married should have a basic understanding of these, especially if children are involved. Again, the principle is that the government decides who gets what when the relationship ends.

This is not surprising or even a bad thing, as ours is _"a country of laws, and not of men."_ The problem is that leftists, anti-religionists and feminists have pretty much won the day on social issues. As long as this continues, you are correct that nothing will substantially change.

My guess is that these things will not change as long as the Baby Boom generation and their children are in charge. After that, who knows, especially if Islam continues to displace Christianity in the western world.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Mr Blunt said:


> Here below is a reprinted post from another forum that chose a government free marriage:
> 
> 
> I would only add one thing. That would be that a legal document be drawn up prior to the Quaker marriage that spelled out the custody provisions. If you have to use the legal system then use it to your advantage and you and your partner draw up the legal documents rather than pay the attorneys thousands and then let the state dictate the custody of your children. Remember that the state refuses to take into consideration import factors such as betrayal/infidelity.
> ...


Your story reminds me of my best friend marriage. The separated 14 or 15 years ago now. They had a short marriage, when they separated the agreed on the asset division, child custody etc. The state and courts didn't like the agreement and wanted a much different child support structure. 

Both agreed the state forcing it's "policy" was not in the best interests of the child and they withdrew the divorce petition. They have stayed "married" and never wavered off there original agreement. They live completely separate lives, see each other once a year to do the taxes or if there son needed something. 

The boy turned 18 a few months ago so they have talked about finally making an attempt again to get divorced.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> *By Carmen in Ohio*
> The law varies somewhat from state to state as to how non-marital relationships are governed (e.g., so-called "common law marriage") and someone who is in a relationship but not married should have a basic understanding of these, especially if children are involved. Again, the principle is that *the government decides who gets what when the relationship ends.
> *


*Carmen, are you saying that the man’s statement below, that did a government free BF/GF union, is wrong?* If you do not marry with a traditional government marriage, how can your GF/BF legally get at your private bank account, property that is only in one name, nor get part of your income?  Now I know that in the case of child custody that the government will dictate but what about all the rest of what the man below said? In addition, with the government free BF/gf UNION, the attorney fees will be a LOT less if not zero when dealing with assets, right?





> If she leaves me, she might take the television and the X-Box, my music, the computer, etc. But she can't touch my bank account. Nor can I touch hers. She can't touch my income. Nor can I touch hers. She can't take property like my car or anything registered in my name. If she leaves me, I don't have to try to raise several thousand dollars to fight for my life again.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of civil district court judges do not want the responsibility nor the civil duties of trying an offender of infidelity, even though the legal standard of determination for such in any civil setting is merely "preponderance of the evidence" and certainly not the criminal court standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt!"

IMHO, their divorce court dockets are becoming so damned full that they absolutely don't want anymore responsibility assigned to them than what they already have and quite frankly, they are looking for ways to diminish what responsibility that they already have!

Let's just say that one might color those particular individuals in as judicially "lazy bastards," who don't want to do the tasks that was originally assigned to them both by statute and by the public!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rookie4 (Nov 26, 2012)

Divinely Favored said:


> I have been reading some stories on wayward section on SI. They talk of not being able to control the things they do...addictive actions.
> 
> Until this period of time they were the best husbands/wives. How their thought processes get all screwed up and how some can be still the best spouse but still be void of sexual morality and screwing the spouse and POSOM/W.
> 
> ...


I think you are probably right. Perhaps we can get burning at the stake re-introduced for cheaters.


----------



## huebnem (May 8, 2013)

This is why I kinda like the military...if you cheat and are a service member you can easily lose your career. 

Now, the person has to prove that you did in fact cheat...but I like the fact that they still value the family bond.


----------



## BrokenLady (Jan 19, 2015)

Can I ask if this is ever implemented? Quote - "This is why I kinda like the military...if you cheat and are a service member you can easily lose your career. " ?

I've only known a few military men, a couple in Europe, USA marine etc. When they tell their stories, as a woman it honestly puts me off ever getting involved with a military man. It's all partying on leave & pulling women & seeing prostitutes around the globe! Maybe it's just the people I've known. Partying hard & womanizing seemed pretty institutionalized. 
I have no doubt there must be loyal military men, many of them. Maybe it's the young training phase they're talking about.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> Because the system is not going to substantially change, what choice do we have except but to encourage men and women to NOT marry involving the state. There has to be a better way than getting a state marriage license so that in the event of a divorce the state will have total authority over the custody of your children, the dispersion of your assets, and your future incomes. The state's total authority will not take into consideration some very important issues in divorce because
> “…government has fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities…”
> That is the state’s excuse but that does nothing to cure the
> “…Disastrous consequences for families…” that the state is partly responsible for. *The state's excuse results in parents suffering for years or decades!*
> ...


Most states have common law marriage , if you are together x years = married in the eyes of the state. So most your post is not relevant.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Mr Blunt View Post
> Because the system is not going to substantially change, what choice do we have except but to encourage men and women to NOT marry involving the state. There has to be a better way than getting a state marriage license so that in the event of a divorce the state will have total authority over the custody of your children, the dispersion of your assets, and your future incomes. The state's total authority will not take into consideration some very important issues in divorce because
> “…government has fewer and fewer resources to engage in society building activities…”
> ...



*The Myth*
There is a common misperception that if you live together for a certain length of time (seven years is what many people believe), you are common-law married. T*his is not true anywhere in the United States.*
Common Law Marriage Fact Sheet ? Unmarried Equality


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> *By Divinely Favored*
> ADULTRY SHOULD BE CRIMINAL IN EVERY STATE!


*Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states*, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and *South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.]*


*In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense*.[31] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States is unclear following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults.[156] However, occasional prosecutions do occur.[157]

Seven US states (Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah) allow the possibility of the tort action of alienation of affections (brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage).[36] In a highly publicized case i*n 2010, a woman in North Carolina won a $9 million suit against her husband's mistress*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery


----------



## cdbaker (Nov 5, 2010)

In my state I believe adultery is punishable by up to one year in jail. (County Jail, probably) I know in a lot of states you can also sue the affair partner for loss of the relationship or something similar. I know I've read about cases where (usually women of course) sue the women their husband's cheated with and won like 50% of the difference in income that she and her husband had together before their divorce as a result of the affair. So I think they had to first prove that the affair occurred with this affair partner, and second show evidence that the divorce occurred/is occurring because of the affair. Then I think the women got alimony/child support equal to about half of hubby's income, and the judge awarded her another lump sum equal to about ~25% of hubby's income paid for ten years, by the affair partner. (So if hubby maid $100,000/yr, in ten years that's $1,000,000, so 25% was $250,000 judgement)

Totally going off of memory though.


----------



## November (Nov 28, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> I should've stopped reading right here.
> 
> Do yourself a huge favor and stay away from SI, LS, and the now-defunct DC.
> 
> After all, you supervise sex offenders for a living, right? _Do you *really* need to subject yourself to even *MORE* scumbaggery?_


Gus,

What is SI, LS and the now defunct DC?


----------



## EI (Jun 12, 2012)

_*This is why TAM has few remaining WS's, or FWS's, who actually post here, any longer. I'm quoting Rookie, not because he actually believes this, but because he's poking fun at the absurdity of this line of thinking.*_ 




Rookie4 said:


> I think you are probably right. Perhaps we can get burning at the stake re-introduced for cheaters.



This is obviously the best solution for all.  It's quicker, far less expensive, and certainly more satisfying for BS's than merely walking away with their head held high, and their moral high ground intact. 

I mean, really, children shouldn't have to suffer their entire lives having a former adulterer as a parent, should they? Any truly remorseful FWS should enthusiastically be willing to martyr their cheating selves. It is for the betterment of mankind, after all. Because everyone, on TAM, knows that every BS, in the history of the world, is a Gol Dang Saint, and likewise, every WS is as low down as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

P.S. Yes, Rookie, I know you were being sarcastic, and I'm responding in kind! 

P.S.S. My BS, actually is a Gol Dang Saint, now, and his FWS is the luckiest, most blessed, most happily married, and most loyal woman on the planet! During the early stages of our R, we both worked on our failures in our pre-A marriage, we both desired to make amends to one another, and I worked willingly and enthusiastically to help him heal from my betrayal and to earn his trust back. To be honest, it's 3 1/2 years later, and we both still do these things. It just doesn't feel like "work," anymore. It feels like being happily married.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> By EI
> This is why TAM has few remaining WS's, or FWS's, who actually post here, any longer.


*I have noticed that also!*




> BY EI
> Because everyone, on TAM, knows that every BS, in the history of the world, is a Gol Dang Saint, and likewise, every WS is as low down as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.


*Everyone that I know that has had a successful R for years thinks that the above thinking is ridiculous.*

Any BS or WS that has the attitude as described above is not to be taken serious because it shows such shallowness. Another statement that I have seen on TAM that is so shallow is “Once a cheater always cheater”. That statement is saying that a WS cannot be forgiven, cannot rebuild, and cannot become a good person. I do not think that most people on TAM believe that but there are a few.

However, there are WSs that dig themselves such a hole with their continued self-destructive actions that they pay such high consequences that they lose the strength to rebuild their lives. I have read on TAM about WS’s that have had multiple affairs, with multiple partners, over many years, that I think that they will never be able to rebuild to any degree IMO.

As for WSs, there are HUGE differences in those that post on TAM. There are those WSs that are so twisted and refuse to do the hard work that they will lose almost everything in the end and then there are those that face the issues, do what has to be done to rebuild, and are great encouragement to both WSs and BSs. 
EI and B1 and Mr. and Mrs. John Adams are some of those that give a lot of hope to all! 

It takes BOTH the WS and BS working at doing the right things for a long time. Yes, it takes the both because rarely is the WS actions the only thing that has damaged the marriage and it takes both changing for the both to R. If the marriage is so terrible then one should get a divorce first before getting involved with another.* A divorce is such a better way to handle a spouse that is terrible than to have an affair; an affair is one of the worst ways to handle a spouse that is terrible because EVERYONE in the family loses including the WS.*








> By EI
> I mean, really, children shouldn't have to suffer their entire lives having a former adulterer as a parent, should they?



*BY BLUNT*
*The children of a former adulterer can love and respect their former adulterer parent.* I am not telling you that from some book I read or someone’s theory; I have seen it with my own eyes for many years! To get this love and respect back the WS has to mean business and prove for years that they are changed and believe that they are forgiven. . When I say forgiven I am talking about the WS knowing that they are forgiven by God. Hopefully, the WS will be forgiven by all but that may not always be the case. In my actual experience, not everyone’s experience, I have seen that the WS believing that they have been forgiven by God is the starting point for them to get back the love and respect from their children and others.


----------



## jim123 (Sep 29, 2012)

EI said:


> _*This is why TAM has few remaining WS's, or FWS's, who actually post here, any longer. I'm quoting Rookie, not because he actually believes this, but because he's poking fun at the absurdity of this line of thinking.*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


EI,

Great to hear from you again. I trust B1 is well. 

You guys are still the greatest story ever to be told on TAM.


----------



## Rookie4 (Nov 26, 2012)

There are those of us who have consistently tried to help FWS's get fair treatment, but it almost always is a losing battle. Most posters are either BS's who cannot understand and won't even try to see that the more you know, the better off you are, or they are Geeks who use the drama for sick entertainment. Far too many FWS's , who came here for help , have been hounded away. Very Sad..


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

As a WS, I too can attest that the "climate" here for us WSs that want help and to get better is...less than "welcoming". When I first came aboard I was met with vitriol and called many names up to and including being a liar, not remorseful enough, etc....

Guess what? 10 months later and we're still together, doing fine, making love, having a marriage. I doubt the naysayers will concede that there are those of us who truly do want to seek help and get better for the sake of their spouse and their marriage.


----------



## LonelyinLove (Jul 11, 2013)

Divinely Favored said:


> Exactly why I see cheaters as being morally no better than sex offenders and I would not convict a BS who assaults, maims or kills an AP or WS.


Well then, thank God you are no judge or jury because last I checked, "thou shall not murder" was right up there with the "not commit adultery" one. 

One sin does not absolve another.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

On the margin, most people on this site are too hard on WS and AP. If they ever had ANY insight into the chaotic mind they possess they would be MUCH more sympathetic. Having an AFFAIR IS NOT FUN, its TRAUMATIC and can lead to SUICIDE by the WS/AP as they blow not just their marriage but their LIFE up. I think the last stage of healing for a BS is understanding this. I've seen BS turn from couch potato into olympians so it appears to me there are BENEFITS to being cheated on. I won't even mention the big financial settlements a lot of BS get on the back of their WS guilt and angst over exposure. So no, CHEATING is totally wrong, but its because there is something wrong with the cheater. Its no different than if your spouse is an alcoholic. Yes, de-teather and leave them, thats fine, but know they are hurting themselves FAR MORE than they are hurting you! DUDE


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Rookie4 said:


> There are those of us who have consistently tried to help FWS's get fair treatment, but it almost always is a losing battle. Most posters are either BS's who cannot understand and won't even try to see that the more you know, the better off you are, or they are Geeks who use the drama for sick entertainment. Far too many FWS's , who came here for help , have been hounded away. Very Sad..


And how many BS will admit on here they had Wayward thoughts at times during their marriage, just never acted on them.(NOT MANY)It takes STRENGTH and COURAGE to remain faithful. Damn I HATE IT!! ha Booking my next Vegas trip now!! DUDE


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

In NC if adultery is proven it impacts equitable distribution - sometimes to a very large degree. There is a good PI business here for just such a reason. Also the offended spouse can sue the AP for "alienation of affection" and receive damages. 

I'm all for this.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

And what about the AP who gets DUMPED as the WS stay with their BS? How does that feel? Bad enough they were playing second fiddle in the shadows but upon discovery they get dropped like a hot potato for first chair. That can't be good for their self-esteem. What about the BS that immediately upon discovery commits a revenge affair to double whammy the WS/BS? Lets talk about their consequences a little and see how many more rocks we should throw...DUDE


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

EnjoliWoman said:


> In NC if adultery is proven it impacts equitable distribution - sometimes to a very large degree. There is a good PI business here for just such a reason. Also the offended spouse can sue the AP for "alienation of affection" and receive damages.
> 
> I'm all for this.


While not codified in the other states, in practice this happens anyway as BS can hold MASSIVE leverage over the WS if handled correctly. 

DUDE


----------



## mrtickle (Jan 29, 2013)

This thread scares me. 

Am amazed that some of these views are out there


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hell hath no fury like a WO(MAN) scorned!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUDE


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Dude007 said:


> On the margin, most people on this site are too hard on WS and AP. If they ever had ANY insight into the chaotic mind they possess they would be MUCH more sympathetic. Having an AFFAIR IS NOT FUN, its TRAUMATIC and can lead to SUICIDE by the WS/AP as they blow not just their marriage but their LIFE up. I think the last stage of healing for a BS is understanding this. I've seen BS turn from couch potato into olympians so it appears to me there are BENEFITS to being cheated on. I won't even mention the big financial settlements a lot of BS get on the back of their WS guilt and angst over exposure. So no, CHEATING is totally wrong, but its because there is something wrong with the cheater. Its no different than if your spouse is an alcoholic. Yes, de-teather and leave them, thats fine, but know they are hurting themselves FAR MORE than they are hurting you! DUDE


If cheating is so horrible for the cheater, there's an easy solution.
Don't do it.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

They don't know that going into it obviously. Ever tried elicit drugs?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## November (Nov 28, 2013)

LonelyinLove said:


> Well then, thank God you are no judge or jury because last I checked, "thou shall not murder" was right up there with the "not commit adultery" one.
> 
> One sin does not absolve another.


HUGE difference.. not even close.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Dude007 said:


> And what about the AP who gets DUMPED as the WS stay with their BS? How does that feel? Bad enough they were playing second fiddle in the shadows but upon discovery they get dropped like a hot potato for first chair. That can't be good for their self-esteem. What about the BS that immediately upon discovery commits a revenge affair to double whammy the WS/BS? Lets talk about their consequences a little and see how many more rocks we should throw...DUDE


Know what you mean dude!

Just like the poor home invader/rapist/murderer that breaks into a home only to have his diseased guts blown through his spine by a 12 gauge.

Poor guy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

And no one will ever talk about the dude that gets dumped by his ww for her AP and he ends up marrying the woman of his dreams two years later. Upon reflection, he realizes the affair was the best thing that ever happened to him. How can this be???!!! It's because he took the time to understand himself and grow and got the ultimate payback. Resentment, hurt, anger, sadness gone in an instance.(healed and better than ever) "but I'm on TAM cuz I'm pissed!!!" Don't be, you too can get the ultimate payback
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

At the very least - I think it's utterly insane that a person can cheat on their spouse, then get spousal support from the BS. I mean that's just sadistic. You stab me in the back, decimate my life, take me away from my children half the time (if you're lucky), cause severe emotional and often psychical distress and trauma, lie, deceive, put me at risk for and potentially infect me with STD's, and now I get to pay you for it? WOW. What a twisted world.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Healer said:


> At the very least - I think it's utterly insane that a person can cheat on their spouse, then get spousal support from the BS. I mean that's just sadistic. You stab me in the back, decimate my life, take me away from my children half the time (if you're lucky), cause severe emotional and often psychical distress and trauma, lie, deceive, put me at risk for and potentially infect me with STD's, and now I get to pay you for it? WOW. What a twisted world.


And does ANYONE not know this risk going into a marriage? Infidelity hits like 40-50% of marriages at some point. Seems like a HIGH risk to me, but again people believe in fairy tales, Santa Clause, the BS political system(My VOTE COUNTS via Diebold), so the USA is full of gullible/blind/Naive people. Didn't everyone learn in business school what the absolute WORST business structure is?(Hint: its similar to marriage) Yep, Partnership!!!! DING DING DING!!! Most attorneys will disuade your from entering a partnership for the very reason marriages are so damn risky. If anyone here thinks B Obama is really running the free world while playing golf six times as week they are a complete dumba$$...DUDE


----------



## Rookie4 (Nov 26, 2012)

The idea is that all BS's are completely innocent, and all WS's are evil , sociopathic, geniuses, or stupid, deluded and in some sort of "fog". Sometimes both at the same time. This begs the question, why did you marry such a person? If your spouse is all of that, you must remember that YOU married him/her, so what does that say about your judgement?
We have had several WS's come to TAM, who admitted their responsibility, were looking for help, and were willing to do all that they could to atone, but it is never good enough for the mob.


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

Rookie4 said:


> The idea is that all BS's are completely innocent, and all WS's are evil , sociopathic, geniuses, or stupid, deluded and in some sort of "fog". Sometimes both at the same time. This begs the question, why did you marry such a person? If your spouse is all of that, you must remember that YOU married him/her, so what does that say about your judgement?
> We have had several WS's come to TAM, who admitted their responsibility, were looking for help, and were willing to do all that they could to atone, but it is never good enough for the mob.


Lol. I forgot about you...carry on, please. You're amusing.



Rookie4 said:


> If your spouse is all of that, you must remember that YOU married him/her, so what does that say about your judgement?


If this is a serious question, it has to be one of the dumbest I've ever read on the internet. Congratulations - that's no small feat.


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

Dude007 said:


> And does ANYONE not know this risk going into a marriage? Infidelity hits like 40-50% of marriages at some point. Seems like a HIGH risk to me, but again people believe in fairy tales, Santa Clause, the BS political system(My VOTE COUNTS via Diebold), so the USA is full of gullible/blind/Naive people. Didn't everyone learn in business school what the absolute WORST business structure is?(Hint: its similar to marriage) Yep, Partnership!!!! DING DING DING!!! Most attorneys will disuade your from entering a partnership for the very reason marriages are so damn risky. If anyone here thinks B Obama is really running the free world while playing golf six times as week they are a complete dumba$$...DUDE


When you're young, you're idealistic and naive. Nobody goes into a marriage thinking it's going to end in disaster. I think humans (especially young ones) are by nature optimistic. When you're in your 20's and in love, you don't think "hmm, this woman has a 50% chance of spreading for some other dude while we're married, and destroying my life".

When you're 40, and divorced, you absolutely think that way. That's why I remain single now, save a FWB or FB situation.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Healer said:


> When you're young, you're idealistic and naive. Nobody goes into a marriage thinking it's going to end in disaster. I think humans (especially young ones) are by nature optimistic. When you're in your 20's and in love, you don't think "hmm, this woman has a 50% chance of spreading for some other dude while we're married, and destroying my life".
> 
> When you're 40, and divorced, you absolutely think that way. That's why I remain single now, save a FWB or FB situation.


So to cliche, if you knew then, what you know now??!!! I knew it was a risk on both sides when I married 20 years ago. Its just logical because it happened all the time. Hell, as a kid I watched knots landing and Dallas. DUDE


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

Dude007 said:


> So to cliche, if you knew then, what you know now??!!! I knew it was a risk on both sides when I married 20 years ago. Its just logical because it happened all the time. Hell, as a kid I watched knots landing and Dallas. DUDE


That's a paradox, because I love my children more than anything in the world. But taking them out of the equation (how can I even do that??), there's no way I would've even dated her, let alone marry her. From the first week we moved in together, I started having severe anxiety every day. I had to guzzle a bottle of wine to even leave the house. Then I ended up on Zoloft - for our entire 14 year marriage. 3 months after I ended R and left her, I quit the Zoloft. That was March 2013. I haven't taken it since. What does that tell you?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

I've been cheated on. So I know your pain.

It is not the same as rape. 

You are right to call out the health aspects that lots of people who have affairs like to sweep under the rug with the statement that "telling my spouse would just hurt them."

But it is not the same as rape. 

Having an affair is not a violent crime. From a guy that's been devastated by being cheated on, I don't think it's a crime in the legal sense at all.

I do not expect the law to provide a moral compass or justice. 

And I would not compare an affair to a rape simply out of compassion and respect from those that have actually _been_ raped.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Healer said:


> That's a paradox, because I love my children more than anything in the world. But taking them out of the equation (how can I even do that??), there's no way I would've even dated her, let alone marry her. From the first week we moved in together, I started having severe anxiety every day. I had to guzzle a bottle of wine to even leave the house. Then I ended up on Zoloft - for our entire 14 year marriage. 3 months after I ended R and left her, I quit the Zoloft. That was March 2013. I haven't taken it since. What does that tell you?


That she was the source of your anxiety. You shouldn't have taken the medication and you would have left LONG AGO!!!! DUDE


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Dude007 said:


> They don't know that going into it obviously. Ever tried elicit drugs?


No, but I do support whirled peas.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Rookie4 said:


> The idea is that all BS's are completely innocent, and all WS's are evil , sociopathic, geniuses, or stupid, deluded and in some sort of "fog". Sometimes both at the same time. This begs the question, why did you marry such a person? If your spouse is all of that, you must remember that YOU married him/her, so what does that say about your judgement?
> We have had several WS's come to TAM, who admitted their responsibility, were looking for help, and were willing to do all that they could to atone, but it is never good enough for the mob.


This is slightly off topic, but "evil stupid geniuses" would be a pretty good name for a rock band.


----------



## Rookie4 (Nov 26, 2012)

Healer said:


> That's a paradox, because I love my children more than anything in the world. But taking them out of the equation (how can I even do that??), there's no way I would've even dated her, let alone marry her. From the first week we moved in together, I started having severe anxiety every day. I had to guzzle a bottle of wine to even leave the house. Then I ended up on Zoloft - for our entire 14 year marriage. 3 months after I ended R and left her, I quit the Zoloft. That was March 2013. I haven't taken it since. What does that tell you?


OK, let me get this straight. 1. You wouldn't have even dated her. 2. You had anxiety attacks the FIRST WEEK you live together? 3. You became an alcoholic. 4. You abused drugs for your entire marriage. YET YOU STILL MARRIED HER???? AND YOU CALL ME DUMB? Dude, you have cornered the market on that .


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Murder is the killing of the innocent.....abortion is murder......not killing an AP/WS. That is just plain ol killing.

If you waited the sin would be taking vengence....which is the Lord's.

If caught in the act I would have to say justifiable homicide due to the emotional stress of the situation.

But biblically it is NOT murder. The state may claim that.


----------



## dignityhonorpride (Jan 2, 2014)

Divinely Favored said:


> Murder is the killing of the innocent.....abortion is murder......not killing an AP/WS. That is just plain ol killing.
> 
> If you waited the sin would be taking vengence....which is the Lord's.
> 
> ...


Wow. This is incredibly disturbing. I can't believe people actually think like this. My husband cheated on me. Many times. I never lifted a hand to him. To do so would be to utterly dishonor and degrade myself, not to mention it would be completely contrary to my character. Violence is never, ever, ever the answer. Ever.


----------



## carmen ohio (Sep 24, 2012)

MR BLUNT said:


> *Re: It just occurred to me....*
> Quote:
> *By Carmen in Ohio*
> The law varies somewhat from state to state as to how non-marital relationships are governed (e.g., so-called "common law marriage") and someone who is in a relationship but not married should have a basic understanding of these, especially if children are involved. Again, the principle is that *the government decides who gets what when the relationship ends.
> ...


I'm not a matrimonial attorney and therefore have no expertise but, when I was in law school I clerked for one and learned a bit about common law marriage. At that time (the 1980s), in the State of Ohio and some others, if two people lived together as a married couple then they would be treated as such in the event that their relationship ended. In other words, the courts would determine child custody, child support, separation of property and alimony just as if they were married in the usual fashion.

At a minimum, if you have children with someone you expose yourself to loss of parental privileges and child support payments. Also, if there is any dispute as to the ownership of finances (e.g., joint bank accounts) and property, the court will decide this as well.

So, once again, the point is that if you have a children with someone and the relationship ends, the courts have the final say over who gets what.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

dignityhonorpride said:


> Wow. This is incredibly disturbing. I can't believe people actually think like this. My husband cheated on me. Many times. I never lifted a hand to him. To do so would be to utterly dishonor and degrade myself, not to mention it would be completely contrary to my character. Violence is never, ever, ever the answer. Ever.


Violence is very often, not only the best answer but the only one.

You apparently have utterly no concept of the world you live in.

Absolutely everything is maintained by force or threat of force.

I saved six lives at one stroke by being incredibly violent. Without that one, violent action, six lives would not exist today.

Make sure not to be silly in your thoughts. You may wish for a non violent world, me too, but that doesn't negate reality.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

dignityhonorpride said:


> Wow. This is incredibly disturbing. I can't believe people actually think like this. My husband cheated on me. Many times. I never lifted a hand to him. To do so would be to utterly dishonor and degrade myself, not to mention it would be completely contrary to my character. Violence is never, ever, ever the answer. Ever.


If this is only in response to infidelity then I will partially disagree.

Sometimes violence is a good answer.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dignityhonorpride (Jan 2, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Violence is very often, not only the best answer but the only one.
> 
> You apparently have utterly no concept of the world you live in.
> 
> ...


You think it's acceptable to kill someone for cheating on you?


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Violence is very often, not only the best answer but the only one.
> 
> You apparently have utterly no concept of the world you live in.
> 
> ...


Hmm...You know CH, you and I seem to have had some similar "life experiences" and we both have no problems "stepping up to the plate" so to speak, but I'm not entirely sure about violence being the best or only option(s). I mean, you already know the story about the neighbor, so you know I'll throw it down if need be, but I will try every option before I go all "Wrath of God" on somebody.

Maybe all the material I'm reading on Buddhism is grounding me more though. LOL!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MountainRunner said:


> Hmm...You know CH, you and I seem to have had some similar "life experiences" and we both have no problems "stepping up to the plate" so to speak, but I'm not entirely sure about violence being the best or only option(s). I mean, you already know the story about the neighbor, so you know I'll throw it down if need be, but I will try every option before I go all "Wrath of God" on somebody.
> 
> Maybe all the material I'm reading on Buddhism is grounding me more though. LOL!


There was a man strangling my little sister to death. The only way to stop him was to stop him.

She grew up to have five children. 

On a larger scale, no civilization ever survived without use and threat of force.

I'm all about avoiding it, but it is often necessary to protect and safeguard civilizations and little girls.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

dignityhonorpride said:


> You think it's acceptable to kill someone for cheating on you?


I caught that right after I posted and posted again concerning infidelity but I don't think their should be too harsh a penalty for breaking a guy in half that you find screwing your wife.

I think the affair partner deserves a really good beating at least.>
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dignityhonorpride (Jan 2, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> There was a man strangling my little sister to death. The only way to stop him was to stop him.
> 
> She grew up to have five children.
> 
> ...


Okay, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about a user who thinks violence (murder) is an acceptable response to nonviolence (infidelity). 

Context.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

dignityhonorpride said:


> Okay, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about a user who thinks violence (murder) is an acceptable response to nonviolence (infidelity).
> 
> Context.


Yup. Already answered that but violence in response to a physically non violent action is often a good choice.

I nearly broke a guy in half for saying he would fvck my wife.

I scared him so bad he went pale and I got my point across without beating him.

Physical violence is often more honest, effective and clean than verbal, emotional violence.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

[QUOT*E]By Carmen*
I'm not a matrimonial attorney and therefore have no expertise but, when I was in law school I clerked for one and learned a bit about common law marriage. At that time (the 1980s), in the State of Ohio and some others, if two people lived together as a married couple then they would be treated as such in the event that their relationship ended. In other words, the courts would determine child custody, child support, separation of property and alimony just as if they were married in the usual fashion.

At a minimum, if you have children with someone you expose yourself to loss of parental privileges and child support payments. *Also, if there is any dispute as to the ownership of finances (e.g., joint bank accounts) and property, the court will decide this as well.*

So, once again, the point is that if you have a children with someone and the relationship ends, the courts have the final say over who gets what. 
[/QUOTE]

Carmen, you are an attorney, so I respect that. I would assume that you are correct and that the states would have the final say in the case of children if the relationships ends. However, you are talking about Ohio and they are a state that recognized common law marriage prior to 1991. 

The majority of (34 states) states DO NOT recognize common law marriages so I do not think in those states that the bank accounts, vehicles registered in one name, property titled to one name, etc., would be subject to the state courts in determining ownership. 

*Carmen are you saying that in those states that a common law marriage does not exist, and the couples do not engage in any type state legal marriage, that the state would dictate the assets? * 




> If You Live in a State that Does Not Recognize Common Law Marriage
> There is no way to form a common law marriage, no matter how long you live with your partner
> Common Law Marriage Fact Sheet? Unmarried Equality


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

People here are on the edge for sho!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dignityhonorpride (Jan 2, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Yup. Already answered that but violence in response to a physically non violent action is often a good choice.
> 
> I nearly broke a guy in half for saying he would fvck my wife.
> 
> ...


Gotta say, if I felt I had to threaten or enact physical violence towards anyone who hit on my husband, I'd probably just divorce him.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Again, people on this site are on the edge. Luckily subpoena power for US doesn't extend to Canadian servers. Ha!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## carmen ohio (Sep 24, 2012)

Mr Blunt said:


> [QUOT*E]By Carmen*
> I'm not a matrimonial attorney and therefore have no expertise but, when I was in law school I clerked for one and learned a bit about common law marriage. At that time (the 1980s), in the State of Ohio and some others, if two people lived together as a married couple then they would be treated as such in the event that their relationship ended. In other words, the courts would determine child custody, child support, separation of property and alimony just as if they were married in the usual fashion.
> 
> At a minimum, if you have children with someone you expose yourself to loss of parental privileges and child support payments. *Also, if there is any dispute as to the ownership of finances (e.g., joint bank accounts) and property, the court will decide this as well.*
> ...


Carmen, you are an attorney, so I respect that. I would assume that you are correct and that the states would have the final say in the case of children if the relationships ends. However, you are talking about Ohio and they are a state that recognized common law marriage prior to 1991. 

The majority of (34 states) states DO NOT recognize common law marriages so I do not think in those states that the bank accounts, vehicles registered in one name, property titled to one name, etc., would be subject to the state courts in determining ownership. 

*Carmen are you saying that in those states that a common law marriage does not exist, and the couples do not engage in any type state legal marriage, that the state would dictate the assets? * [/QUOTE]

Yes and no. My limited understanding is that most states have rejected the notion of _'palimony'_ and therefore would likely not order an unmarried person to share his or her property with or pay alimony to an ex-partner. However, courts have a habit of changing how they deal with particular fact situations (it's called _"case law"_) and so, in the end, the courts always have the final say. In that sense, the courts dictate the outcome, including who gets what assets.

So my advice would be never to assume anything when it comes to legal matters, to treat common legal knowledge (including what you read on sites like this) with a healthy dose of skepticism and to consult with an experienced attorney whenever a serious legal issue arises.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> By Blunt
> Carmen are you saying that in those states that a common law marriage does not exist, and the couples do not engage in any type state legal marriage, that the state would dictate the assets?
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Carmen.

My conclusion is that a person who lives in a state that does not recognize common law marriage and the assets are in one name, that the chances are much greater that the assets would not be shared rather than divided up.

The assets are not the most important in my quest on this topic. My cousin was married to a woman that was using drugs and visiting bars and other men but never had any criminal record. My cousin had a DWI and that is all. The state courts awarded the children to her and he had limited visitation rights. When the judge spoke the decree my cousin broke out and wept aloud in court. My cousin was not a bad father but he died a few years later of a heart attack in his early 50s. *I hate the states” divorce laws that cop out and have poor involvement in settling child custody cases!*


----------



## carmen ohio (Sep 24, 2012)

Mr Blunt said:


> Thank you Carmen.
> 
> My conclusion is that a person who lives in a state that does not recognize common law marriage and the assets are in one name, that the chances are much greater that the assets would not be shared rather than divided up.
> 
> The assets are not the most important in my quest on this topic. My cousin was married to a woman that was using drugs and visiting bars and other men but never had any criminal record. My cousin had a DWI and that is all. The state courts awarded the children to her and he had limited visitation rights. When the judge spoke the decree my cousin broke out and wept aloud in court. My cousin was not a bad father but he died a few years later of a heart attack in his early 50s. *I hate the states” divorce laws that cop out and have poor involvement in settling child custody cases!*


With great respect, Mr Blunt, the problem that I see with your conclusion is that, if the assets have been co-mingled, someone is going to have to allocate them when the parties break up and, if the parties cannot agree on the allocation, that someone is most likely to be a court.

As I said before, if this is really an important issue for someone, he should consult with a qualified attorney rather than rely on advice he receives on the internet from people like you and me.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

carmen ohio said:


> With great respect, Mr Blunt, the problem that I see with your conclusion is that, if the assets have been co-mingled, someone is going to have to allocate them when the parties break up and, if the parties cannot agree on the allocation, that someone is most likely to be a court.
> 
> As I said before, if this is really an important issue for someone, he should consult with a qualified attorney rather than rely on advice he receives on the internet from people like you and me.


But we are all way smarter and are fees are much better than some lawyer haha :grin2:


----------

