Sunday, April 30, 2006

so, i've dug up a few bizarre things having to do with adultery.

first off, i can understand that married people looking on a dating website geared toward serious relationships is undesirable.

but, turning married users in for federal wire fraud??? that's disturbing, but that's exactly what true.com threatens to do. yes, being married is against the user agreement. yes, i'm cool with them terminating your account on the dating site if they find out that you're married--that's their prerogative, and that serves the purpose of taking would-be adulterers out of the website's mate pool. i'm not even bothered by them doing a background check, if they tell you in advance, before signing up with the site, that they're doing a background check. but--turning you in for federal wire fraud as well as dinging you from the site? that's just overkill.

secondly...i know this court decision is about 2 1/2 years old, but i just found out about it yesterday thanks to a posting on fark. in new hampshire, it's not adultery if you're cheating on your spouse with a member of the same sex.

let that sink in for a second.

the rationale? it's based on webster's dictionary definitions--from 1961. (which was not when the court decision was handed down, or *even* when the law was written, for all you originalists out there.) adultery means sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse means coitus, coitus means a guy sticking his penis in a woman's vagina. q.e.d., homosexual acts can't be adultery.

i'm not a believer in adultery statutes in the first place. i'm really not a believer in sex statutes in the first place, except for MPC-style statutory rape statutes and anti-bestiality statutes, since there is an issue of impossibility of consent there. (i think anything else, be it adultery, multiple spouses, incest, or anything else, is fair game and should be dealt with on a personal scene and not a government scene, since it's sexual behaviour between adults.) still, i don't have a problem with adultery being used to disqualify a spouse from no-fault divorce--adultery as something that can be proven to protect the wronged spouse's rights in a civil matter. and, saying that a spouse cheating on the other with a member of the same sex is not adultery undeservedly hurts the wronged spouse's position in the specific divorce proceedings--as well as its obvious consequence of delegitimizing homosexuality and homosexual sex in the eyes of the law.

No comments: