Alienation of affection

[Lysis]

I'm pretty sure I've had less legal issues than you. Again, thanks for taking my post literally, because that's probably exactly what I'd do with no hyperbole whatsoever.

 

[rangrz]

You are very welcome. It's fun to take people's posts literally even when you know they ment they otherwise.

why so serious?

 

[Libby]

Umm.. If two people enter into a legally binding contract (marriage) then shouldn't whoever broke the contract be liable for any damages and not the person they broke it on? How can someone be liable for a breach of contract that they never signed?

 

[P A]

My comment was in regards to them stating that this action is impeding on human rights. Which it is not, hence my description.

Yes, but this does not constitute an effective reply to someone (me) who maintains that issues pertaining to the human body as such (and the safe, personal use of said body) are matters of human rights, social convention, and not much else. The fact that the state does in fact happen to impinge - wrongly, I'd argue - upon this ethically privileged sphere on a regular basis offers no useful comment the matter one way or the other. The point (my point, and, I think, rangrz's as well) was a should, not a does, is, or do. If a state officially sanctioned slavery and judicially integrated legal claims to human ownership, in what manner do you suggest that slavery would cease to be human rights issue?

Their argument of being able to do what you want with your body and not being prosecuted for consensual sex is not how statutes work. You CAN and will be prosecuted for things you do with your body.

Well, yeah. The point of contention is whether or not this is a desirable or acceptable state of affairs.

The details I put were examples, not debate.

Openly disagreeing with someone and presenting counterexamples to support your point is, almost by definition, engaging that person in debate.

With regard to what YOU said, if the state was an interested party to the case then they would be prosecuting or providing counsel. Allowing people the opportunity to present their grievances in court is entirely different than being a party to it or having an interest in it.

You can't be serious here. The judicial system provides the sole forum and power-structure upon and within which these kangaroo proceedings are officially predicated, carried out, and socially legitimated. Millions of dollars flow in and out of the United States court system every year. The state is, at least within in the scope of this discussion, the ultimate enabler of sham justice. There is such a thing as an interested mediator.

You should probably just argue directly with people's opinions rather than arguing for someone else. Its a lot easier to follow that way, given that you can take what either of us were saying out of context, and did.

@P.A. That is essentially where I was going with it too.

Oh, I'm sorry, come again?

 

[P A]

Oh yeah, and here's your context:

There should be no legal penalty for the fact that two consenting adults had sexual relations in private. It's pushing the limits of human rights. (That is, no matter what, under all circumstances, I have full authority and command over my own body and sexual functions so long as it is not forced upon another.) This sort of law creates a situation where people lose that, where The State can tell them what otherwise consenting adult they may or may not have sex with, under penalty of Law. That is frighting.

You could technically argue this for a lot of things if that's how you perceive human rights. Human rights are about equality and freedom but do not protect you in doing whatever you want with your body. Even if it is a "victimless crime"(prostitution,drug use, etc..) you can still be prosecuted. And it isn't "the state" that is pursuing you. The state is not the Petitioner in this action. It is a civil lawsuit. There is much debate about this bc some people believe you should only be able to prosecute for theft of tangible items (money,cars..) but when you have children and the father/husband is being stolen some believe that should be less enforceable. In regards to the lawsuit itself, you have to prove the third party knew the spouse was married, therefore intentionally meddled in a union (essentially a contract) between to parties. I suppose your belief in this lawsuit comes down to your perception of marriage and adultery.

[So, yes, it does depend upon how you perceive human rights. This, I suppose, is the 'fact' of the matter to which you referred earlier.]

 

[*samsonite*]

PA~I never said anything about you taking rangrz statement out of context. I'm referring to mine. You can quote every statement I make all day long. It doesn't change the fact that I'm making statements involving factual information where you are STILL arguing an opinion.

"Openly disagreeing with someone and presenting counterexamples to support your point is, almost by definition, engaging that person in debate."

I wasn't "disagreeing" with anything other than what human rights actually entail, as opposed to what people "feel" it should. Which again is black and white. Never argued whether it was right or wrong to sue bc I really don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with me or not. I'm not here to sway anyone's opinion. Read the OP. The only OPINION I stated was that I would "sue the little homewrecker". I'm obviously interested in other opinions or I wouldn't have started the thread and never once told anyone they are wrong in how they feel. Keep quoting me and reading into what I say, effectively clogging the thread with reposted info. Why don't you simply state your opinion as asked and if someone is disagrees, spend your day reposting everything THEY say.

Personally (now here comes an opinion PA), I don't have an opinion as to whether it is right or wrong. I know that I would never do it if I had hopes of reconciliation. If those hopes were dashed over a conspiracy between my husband and mistress to run away and abandon his family, I'd fuck em both up in court. <---That's called an answer to the thread question, PA.

 

[rangrz]

You were were referencing the plaintiff's interview. Which part was metaphorical?

While I can't fully speak for Lysis, and despite the little bit of trolling I engaged in directed at Lysis, she's actually pretty cool and I am going to derive her metaphor as follows to make it clearer for you:

D/Dx

Dx= "alimony" here was being used not as a legal term of art, but as a metaphorical term for monies resulting from the separation of the woman from her husband and the monies awarded in the lawsuit, since they also resulted from the same prime cause, can been seen as a METAPHORICAL form of "alimony" despite not being TECHNICALLY "alimony" as that is after all what a metaphor is.

Notice how I used a metaphor too! Derive..D/Dx..despite not actually doing calc, see how metaphors work now?

Rangrz- Inresponse to this: "I.E. if they claim the party in the marriage told them such was the case, how can they be held liable for it?" That very well could be the case. And there lies the challenge for the petitioner. To win the case you would have to have hard evidence. I'm sure if it were easy to prove we would hear about it more.

Given the fairly low standard of evidence in civil cases, and the dubious nature of allegations made by couples divorcing, I am not confident that this really all that fair, or that it is anything more then a show trial based on (dated, religiously based) moral values.

As P.A. says, I am stating an issue of should and not is. I hold that The State has no place in the bedroom, not even in the form of providing a adjudication over disputes arising therein, except in the case of Criminal offenses of sexual assault or similar offenses.

The State is not acting fully disinterested in this case as you claim. The whole marriage contract itself and its terms and conditions are defined by The State, which is not generally the case in other contracts between private parties. That is, I do not need the endorsement of The State to sign to a lease agreement, but I do need it to get married. As such, I see The State having it's own vested interest in this matter and not being truly independent.

It is, in my view a human rights issue. Freedom of association, including whom I have sex with are to me human rights issues. The State should not be adjudicating and enforcing claims against me based on the courts determination of if my (otherwise consensual) sexual escapades where improper or not.

 

[Libby]

Achtung! Achtung!
Your body belongs to the state!!

 

[*samsonite*]

Thanks for the English lesson, rangrz. However, I wasn't speaking metaphorically when I asked "which part"? If I needed to know what a metaphor is, I would've asked that specifically. But thanks for adding to the nonsense of quoting another person's conversation and reading into it.

In response to what YOU said, the monies awarded are not a "result of the same prime cause". Alimony and the Alienation action are aimed at two different parties, for two different reasons, under two very different requirements of evidential support to back the motion.

 

[Lysis]

Points for ranger. lol That is where I was going.

OP, maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but the long, drawn out process of suing someone for something like this is incredibly sick. Sure, I get mad and I would be pissed at both of them, but as time went on, the anger would subside. And, I can assure you that a majority of the time, the husband is LYING to the mistress. I've had several married men make a move on me, and 0 of them ever said "I just want a fling." They always told me that their marriage is over and they were leaving their wives. Therefore, the anger should be towards the husband not the mistress.

I've been cheated on and the guy cheated on me with my friend. I wanted to kill both of them, and maybe this is different, because my friend damn well knew what was going on, but if I were married to the guy, I couldn't imagine dragging it on for years. It took me a while to get over it, but I got to say being over it was far more satisfying than dragging it on for revenge several years later.

I think I'd rather just collect my alimony and move on.

 

[rangrz]

You're very welcome for the English lesson, yet you still seem to have missed the issue with how that statement was formulated.

I think the thread would of worked better in CE&P if you wanted a strictly legal discussion btw.

 

[*samsonite*]

Shouldn`t you be more pissed at the other person that cheated? Not the "home wrecker"? THEY are the one that really betrayed their partner. The person they cheated WITH isn`t important. What IS important is your partner violated your trust, your vows, and your feelings.
My 2 pennies.

I agree that you should be "more pissed" at the spouse. But that doesn't mean (opinion coming..) that I wouldn't hold the knowing third party accountable or be pissed at them. In the situation stated, the spouse and mistress would have to be conspiring to leave you, without your knowledge, so I would have a feeling of betrayal toward both. I really would give a shit less if there werent kids involved. I'm confident in myself and would wish him good riddance. But if we had children I would probably seek the highest allowable retribution for what it does to the children. I believe a broken home has such a profound effect on children and their childhood as a whole, and since I have children my opinion is what it is.

 

[P A]

It doesn't change the fact that I'm making statements involving factual information where you are STILL arguing an opinion.

Your dogged insistence on distinguishing between fact and opinion is completely beside the point here, but I take the hint that you're simply not interested in the broader implications of the posted thread topic. Sheesh.

Keep quoting me and reading into what I say, effectively clogging the thread with reposted info. Why don't you simply state your opinion as asked and if someone is disagrees, spend your day reposting everything THEY say.

Jesus H. Christ. This is a discussion board. If people raise concerns that are directly relevant the thread topic, don't get your panties in a twist when they highlight a differing perspective than your own and attempt to argue a point, regardless of whether you choose to wear your opinion on your sleeve or not. Also, as a moderator, I don't consider a single post providing the context for my commentary to be a certifiable 'clog' in a two-page thread, going on three-. But hey, what do I know?

Personally (now here comes an opinion PA) I don't have an opinion as to whether it is right or wrong.

The issue wasn't a personal ethical one per se. It had more to do with the sociopolitical distinction between human rights and the justice system. But whatever.

That's called an answer to the thread question, PA.

Excuse me for deviating ever-so-slightly from the question of what legal action I would take in the case of a divorce. There are people in this world who share the opinion that discussions are not to be monomaniacally confined to the original topic of interest (cf. the tangent).

 

[*samsonite*]

You're very welcome for the English lesson, yet you still seem to have missed the issue with how that statement was formulated.

I think the thread would of worked better in CE&P if you wanted a strictly legal discussion btw.

The only issue I have are those of you arguing fact with opinion. I didn't ask for legal discussion. I asked for opinions on this specific suit. You are the one arguing your opinion of the legalities while I am simply stating them. They are black and white whether you like them or not. I am only interested in public opinion of the suit itself, not government involvement as a whole, so you are wasting your time arguing it with me. Perhaps YOU are better fitted for a legal discussion forum.

 

[*samsonite*]

PA~ Again, I STILL have not argued your stance on the matter at hand, nor do I care to. Discuss divorce, prostitution, human rights, the justice system..all you want. It has no relevance to what you are quoting however, bc arguing fact with an opinion is just asinine, and a distraction from the OP.

 

[P A]

Again, I STILL have not argued your stance on the matter at hand, nor do I care to.

This is a big part of the reason why we, at Bluelight, generally prefer to quote blocks of text written by the people to whom we are responding. It helps to prevent confusing ambiguities from asserting themselves upon conversations, confines responses to single points, and demonstrates some degree of comprehension of what the other Bluelighter typed in the first place. From the post to which you just responded:

but I take the hint that you're simply not interested in the broader implications of the posted thread topic. Sheesh.

Excuse me for deviating ever-so-slightly from the question of what legal action I would take in the case of a divorce. There are people in this world who share the opinion that discussions are not to be monomaniacally confined to the original topic of interest (cf. the tangent).

 

[rangrz]

The only issue I have are those of you arguing fact with opinion. I didn't ask for legal discussion. I asked for opinions on this specific suit.

Let me see if I can get my head around this : You have a problem with people who posting their opinions about facts, because you asked for their opinions on some facts, and people are posting those opinions about those facts.

o you are wasting your time arguing it with me.

I'm sitting at my computer on a discussion forum. What in the hell else do you suppose my time here is for? Or are you implying you did not want people to hold contrary opinions to your own?

It has no relevance to what you are quoting however, bc arguing fact with an opinion is just asinine, and a distraction from the OP.

Supposing you've already posted the relevant facts, then no one has anything more to add, as all they can add is an opinion, or else, they can repeat the same facts. Further, facts need to be interpreted and understood in order to be meaningful. This meaningfulness is generally what is called an opinion about that fact.

 

[*samsonite*]

Points for ranger. lol That is where I was going.

OP, maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but the long, drawn out process of suing someone for something like this is incredibly sick. Sure, I get mad and I would be pissed at both of them, but as time went on, the anger would subside. And, I can assure you that a majority of the time, the husband is LYING to the mistress. I've had several married men make a move on me, and 0 of them ever said "I just want a fling." They always told me that their marriage is over and they were leaving their wives. Therefore, the anger should be towards the husband not the mistress.

I've been cheated on and the guy cheated on me with my friend. I wanted to kill both of them, and maybe this is different, because my friend damn well knew what was going on, but if I were married to the guy, I couldn't imagine dragging it on for years. It took me a while to get over it, but I got to say being over it was far more satisfying than dragging it on for revenge several years later.

I think I'd rather just collect my alimony and move on.

I completely agree with you here. Most married men do lie about their relationship status when approaching women in public IME. As far as seeking more than alimony, I was married to someone where fidelity was an issue. I have children with the man so my opinion is a bit jaded

 

[P A]

Supposing you've already posted the relevant facts, then no one has anything more to add, as all they can add is an opinion, or else, they can repeat the same facts. Further, facts need to be interpreted and understood in order to be meaningful. This meaningfulness is generally what is called an opinion about that fact.

I think she considers any 'opinion' other than, "I would do x, y, or z if my cheating spouse and I obtained a divorce," to be off limits. So much for a discussion.

Why is Legal closed, anyway? What a shame...

 

[*samsonite*]

This is a big part of the reason why we, at Bluelight, generally prefer to quote blocks of text written by the people to whom we are responding. It helps to prevent confusing ambiguities from asserting themselves upon conversations, confines responses to single points, and demonstrates some degree of comprehension of what the other Bluelighter typed in the first place. From the post to which you just responded:

I feel the quotes are getting excessive so I have referred to you and rangerz by name. Seeing "PA" or "Rangrz" before my sentence should be sufficient to deferentiate between the party I'm addressing, and spare fellow BLs the eyesore of exhaustive repostings of every sentence I write.