Bill would forbid divorcing parents in Massachusetts from having sex in home

[Not2BSubjugated]

The law is designed to prevent parents from bringing new relationships into the marital home and having sex with their new partner with the still married spouse present.

Just the idea that a law like this might be necessary is an indication of just how perverted we have become.

If you need to know WHY, there is almost no hope for you. If you cannot understand how bringing a date into the marital home and having sex in the guest room might harm the already volatile divorce no one could explain it to you.

Perverted?

Eh, I'd have to say it's case-by-case. Say I found out my long time spouse had been having an extra-marital affair for years while I paid off our entire mortgage, and that's what spurred the divorce proceedings. Not only would I be down to bang barflies right there in the home, I'd do it right there in the marital bed. . . while the bitch was -in- it! Hell, if I could get her to keep still long enough, I'd lay the barfly down right on top of her, then roll said barfly out of the way and make sure wifey caught the money shot.

I'd send the kid(s) to spend the night elsewhere first, tho. I agree to the point that involving the kids just creates unnecessary psychological issues, as does trying to process anything that you don't have the emotional maturity to make sense of. I don't agree with the government butting in in -any- capacity, but my morals do agree that fucking up your kids to get at your spouse or to get a nut off is pretty awful.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Bill would forbid divorcing parents in Massachusetts from having sex in home - News Local Massachusetts - Boston.com

Really? And you guys are the ones that want Government out of our lives....?

i've read crazy, but that is probably top 10 crazy political bills i've seen. right up there with that dem who always tries to get a mandatory draft passed each year...

i don't understand how any republican, who traditionally is against government intrusion etc....could support this.

absolutely asinine.

Are you talking about the same Republican party who wants legal control over women's reproduction?

THAT Repub party?

They're the most intrusive since the Dark Ages. The more laws, the better.

You're saying the Republicans are the most intrusive party since the Dark Ages because they tend to want control over 1 aspect of medicine.

Democrats, however, tend to be in favor of the ACA, which gives the government defacto control over -all- aspects of the medical industry via Uncle Sam dictating which services are and are not to be offered, what they should cost, which services you can, cannot, and MUST pay for, and who -has- to be given low-cost coverage.

So you're telling me that wanting to control 1 aspect of the medical industry is more intrusive than wanting to take over the entire thing?

How's that Koolaid tasting, these days?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But it's okay for married couples to carry on with affairs as they please?

Yes.

Or it should be.

WHY do people think they have the right to dictate behavior to consenting adults?

MYOB.

are you OK with incest relationships or polygamous marriages?

Oh gawd, here we go again.
How old are you?

For the thousandth time, if it does not harm underage children, I don't really care what consenting adults are doing. I don't care if they're male or female or some of both.

That said, incest, even by adults, is based on the parent having power over the child and polygamy means that only one couple's children are legit. Additionally, there has been at least one morm sect that forced underage girls into "marriage" with adult men.

Unlike you Duck Dynasty fans and devout catholics, I believe children should be protected from predators.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Of course there is. A husband/wife brings a third party into the home and screws them on the sofa where the kids are watching TV. The spouse calls the police and says "Come and make an arrest". There you go, law enforced.

Man comes home and finds wife in bed with boyfriend shoots them both. Since the wife is breaking the law when she was shot, all charges against the shooting husband are dropped. Law enforced.

is that what you did??

Why does my sex life interest you?

Why does the sex life of divorcing couples interest you?

Moreover, why do you feel like your opinions on right or wrong should dictate the actions of consenting adults?

 

[percysunshine]

Massachusetts?

Blue state Repubs? Yeah...chuckle

 

[R.D.]

Yes.

Or it should be.

WHY do people think they have the right to dictate behavior to consenting adults?

MYOB.

are you OK with incest relationships or polygamous marriages?

Oh gawd, here we go again.
How old are you?

For the thousandth time, if it does not harm underage children, I don't really care what consenting adults are doing. I don't care if they're male or female or some of both.

That said, incest, even by adults, is based on the parent having power over the child and polygamy means that only one couple's children are legit. Additionally, there has been at least one morm sect that forced underage girls into "marriage" with adult men.

Unlike you Duck Dynasty fans and devout catholics, I believe children should be protected from predators.

So? Is this a yes or a no?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yes.

Or it should be.

WHY do people think they have the right to dictate behavior to consenting adults?

MYOB.

are you OK with incest relationships or polygamous marriages?

Oh gawd, here we go again.
How old are you?

For the thousandth time, if it does not harm underage children, I don't really care what consenting adults are doing. I don't care if they're male or female or some of both.

That said, incest, even by adults, is based on the parent having power over the child and polygamy means that only one couple's children are legit. Additionally, there has been at least one morm sect that forced underage girls into "marriage" with adult men.

Unlike you Duck Dynasty fans and devout catholics, I believe children should be protected from predators.

So you -are- a hypocrite, then?

Adults can't be trusted to say "no" to their parents sexual advances? Holy shit, if my mom wanted to fuck me, I wouldn't be able to say no loudly or quickly enough. I'm sorry, I get that a lot of rape victims are afraid to say anything in their defense, either during or afterward, but I don't agree that we should restrict all of society in order to account for a few individuals' errant lack of survival instinct.

Sometimes, when people with social anxiety are ordering fast food, the lady at the register asks them if they'd like fries with that, and even though they don't, they feel pressured to be agreeable and their social awkwardness drives them to order fries that they didn't want. We should ban fast food cashiers from offering fries. Too much pressure on the weak-of-will.

Also, simply because there have been cases of polygamists doing perverted shit to underagers, that doesn't mean that we should outlaw polygamy.

This is EXACTLY the same argument a lot of really ignorant right wingers apply to homosexuals. Every time there's a recorded case of same-sex molestation, it's "That's why you don't let gays be teachers!" As though the fact that one homosexual did something fucked up means that everyone who is attracted to the same sex has no problem victimizing children. Since I typically find myself on the same side of the argument as you -only- when it applies to gay rights, I know that you understand how errant this line of reasoning is.

Equally errant is the idea that, because there have been individuals who are both polygamists -and- sexual deviants, polygamists are therefore high-risk child molesters. Even if they were, would forcing them to marry only one person stop them from fucking kids?

Holy God damn what a dumb fucking thing to say.

Lastly, only one couple's children are legit? Depends on the definition of legitimate, doesn't it? There's no legal designation for bastards. As a bastard, I can say this with full confidence.

Therefore, the only legitimacy you can be referring to is social legitimacy, as dictated by our culture. The same culture that continues to dictate that homosexual marriage isn't legitimate. I find it odd that you have no problem defying the cultural opinion that gay marriage is illegitimate, but in response to the cultural opinion that some CHILDREN are illegitimate because the union from which they came wasn't an exclusive one, you believe that type of union has to be outlawed.

Which is it? Is the will of consenting adults and their right to love who they wish more important than cultural opinion, or should popular values dictate what sorts of love are okay? IT can't be both.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just like rape, incest is not about sex. Its about power.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Just like rape, incest is not about sex. Its about power.

What the fuck are you talking about? When incest is forced, it's rape. Rape should never be legal.

When its consensual, there is no victim, and your opinion on the motives means dick.

If I can find a gay couple that's only having sex because one participant is pressuring the other into it, will you agree that we should outlaw all gay marriage?

 

[R.D.]

Just like rape, incest is not about sex. Its about power.

Why do you keep telling yourself that?

 

[Noomi]

If you are getting divorced, why would you want to be intimate?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If you are getting divorced, why would you want to be intimate?

Maybe orgasms are my comfort food. Why is it your business?

 

[Barb]

Two things...

1) It is pretty sad that there would even be a need for a law like this. I mean bringing over some barfly to have sex with during a divorce period..AND THE CHILDREN ARE HOME???...who does that?
2) It is of no business to the government whatsoever. Zip, none nada.

New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
Three's a Crowd - Affairs, Divorced, Feuds, Donna Hanover, Judith Giuliani, Rudolph Giuliani : People.com

What Hanover objects to, apparently, is the possibility of such scenes playing out in her own home. Over the past six months Nathan has been a regular guest at events held in the function rooms and grounds of Gracie Mansion, even acting as hostess at a buffet dinner the mayor held this March for his staff and friends.

If Hanover has her way, those visits will end. The mayor, argues her lawyer Helene Brezinsky, "has flaunted his mistress" in the home he shares with his wife and children.

 

[Traditionalist]

This bill, while well-intended, has no chance of passing, obviously.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This bill, while well-intended, has no chance of passing, obviously.

Damn, I guess even well-intended is a relative value.

Personally, I never view the desire to force one's morals on other people via government edict well-intended.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Traditionalist]

This bill, while well-intended, has no chance of passing, obviously.

Damn, I guess even well-intended is a relative value.

Personally, I never view the desire to force one's morals on other people via government edict well-intended.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

The left has forced their morals on others via government time and time again. Roe v Wade, the repeal of DOMA and DADT, just to name a few notable examples. Why must conservatives sit by and consent to this?

 

[Barb]

This bill, while well-intended, has no chance of passing, obviously.

Damn, I guess even well-intended is a relative value.

Personally, I never view the desire to force one's morals on other people via government edict well-intended.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

The left has forced their morals on others via government time and time again. Roe v Wade, the repeal of DOMA and DADT, just to name a few notable examples. Why must conservatives sit by and consent to this?

Excuse me, but when were you, or anyone, handcuffed and dragged off to submit to abortion, same gender sex, or marriage to someone of the same gender? The inability to force people to live by YOUR views is not religious discrimination.

 

[Politico]

i would like to know his reasoning.....every time i see a story like this they seem to never have the WHY.....but i agree it is none of his business....

Me too...it is called "lazy journalism".
The Why is almost always the most important element in a story - and the one almost always left out by our grand media.

And the people who start the threads.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This bill, while well-intended, has no chance of passing, obviously.

Damn, I guess even well-intended is a relative value.

Personally, I never view the desire to force one's morals on other people via government edict well-intended.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

The left has forced their morals on others via government time and time again. Roe v Wade, the repeal of DOMA and DADT, just to name a few notable examples. Why must conservatives sit by and consent to this?

Seriously, I can't even begin to describe my disappointment with you right wingers when you post shit like this.

With all the ways the left FORCES OTHER PEOPLE TO ACT according to their morals (Welfare, Social Security, Obamacare, countless EPA over-regulations) you manage to fire off a post about it without a single solid example.

Everything you described is an example of the left shedding the morality of the right in favor of freedoms they feel they should have.

Women being allowed to have abortions doesn't force -you- to do -shit-, to the contrary, the previous situation forced -women- to act according to -your- morals.

Gay marriage being legal doesn't force -you- to do -shit-, to the contrary, the previous situation forced -homosexuals- to act according to -your- morals.

Gays in the military being allowed to be open about their sexuality doesn't force -you- to do -shit-, to the contrary, the previous situation forced -homosexuals- to act according to -your- morals.

Everything you mentioned is shit the right should stand by and accept because they sure as fuck don't like it when the moral force is applied in the opposite direction. Repubs either need to be the party of small govt and individual freedom or quit describing yourselves as such.

Edit: Sorry, the previous ending was needlessly malicious.

It just saddens me that the only available political home for a wayward libertarian is a party we have to share with hypocritical dogmatists.

 

[strollingbones]

is adultery not illegal in mass already?