From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 03:41:20 BST
Hey Johnny,
JOHNNY
> Yes, I'm sure that's the proper way to understand it. But it seems to me
> that though virtue is an intellectual concept, it is also just plain
virtue.
> And living a lfe of virtue doesn't require intellectual awareness, or
any
> evolution of social level virtue, I don't think. I don't see what makes
it
> the fourth level.
RICK
Take this up with Sam... he's the man for this question.
> >RICK
...An yes, I was
> >suggesting that it was 'like' adultery, or arguably a 'kind' of adultery.
> >That's right... I was toying with 'expanding' or 'evolving' the
definition
> >of adultery. I'm sorry if creativity bums you out.
JOHNNY
> Oh, I'm sorry. But it's not like we're discussing philosophy or art or
> politics. It is close to adultery. It could lead to adultery. How's
that?
RICK
Okay, if it makes you feel better (though I think you're putting way too
much emphasis on semantics).
JOHNNY
> Adultery is the flip side of marriage law. A marriage license is a
> license issued by the state for a man and a woman to have intercourse, to
> have children together. If you don't have a license, it is illegal. So I
> don't see any room for creativity there.
RICK
Umm, Johnny.... You don't need a marriage license to have intercourse, have
children or even to get married (marriage licenses are 'advisory', not
mandatory). Moreover, I think there's room for creativity everywhere.
JOHNNY
> Sodomy is sodomy, it isn't a sexual relation. His words were carefully
> chosen. In fact, his actions were carefully chosen. (A hack like Kennedy
> would probably get her pregnant and have to drown her or something.)
That
> dichotomy would make me happy, sure. (But, you know, legally, it doesn't
> even have to be cheating. Hillary could set up a three-way, they both
could
> make love to Monica, but it would still be adultery if he puts it in, not
> adultery if he doesn't. Two women can't commit adultery. Or two men.
> Adultery is related to sexual reproduction. The
> Marriage-Adultery-Fornication pattern is a social patterns that regulates
> biology.
RICK
If Hillary set-up the 3-way, Bill and Monica could do whatever they wanted
to and it's not adultery (legally speaking). The legal doctrines of
'condonation' (subsequent approval of a spouse's sexual acts with another)
and 'connivance' (which is like entrapment, ie. wife hires a hooker for
husband to 'test' his fidelity) defeat claims to divorce based on adultery.
As for whether 2 women can commit adultery, legally, you really couldn't be
more wrong. Every state has its own definition of what adultery is. Most
states, for the purposes of divorce actions, define it broadly in such a way
that includes any purposeful, sexual contact with the genitals or anus of a
3rd party (don't worry, you can sue your wife for adultery if she carries on
a lesbian affair). Moreover, adultery (in all states) can be proven by
circumstantial evidence of 'mutual affection' and 'opportunity' with a small
degree of corroboration (ie. you hire a private detective to follow your
wife around; he learns from her coworkers that she has the hots for your
archenemy 'Johnny Immoral'; he follows her to his house everyday at lunch
at which time she goes in and then comes out an hour later; in her
appointment book he finds a lunch appointment with "J.I." and it is circled
in a big heart... that usually would be enough to sustain a jury's finding
of adultery). So ultimately, nobody is really checking to see what touched
what.
JOHNNY
> How would you feel about a law, instead of that Brownback anti-cloning
bill,
> that didn't mention cloning, but simply said that all babies must be the
> natural product of one man and one woman? None of us can be geneticly
> modified. I'd like to say that the man and woman must be married also,
but
> that would make it more complicated, so I'll leave that out.
RICK
I think my past representations to you should make it pretty obvious that I
would be against every element your law.
JOHNNY
> MoQ is kind of wishy-washy about biotechnology. It would seem to suggest
> that evolution is great, so lets apply our intellect to evolving the human
> species faster and better. But at the same time, the patterns of
biological
> level are supposed to be stable, while the evolution takes place in the
> level of ideas. I don't know...
RICK
Personally, I wouldn't think of it as applying technology to evolve the
species faster as I would think of it applying the technology to make
people's lives better. Moreover, I don't think that these technological
advances are necessarily contrary to the stability of the biological level
(potentially? maybe, but hey, everything in the universe is 'potentially'
dangerous... so that's not much help).
JOHNNY
> >Why
> >belittle the unhappiness that comes from being socially bound by contract
> >to
> >a mate you don't find attractive?
>
> Possibly because there could be a child, or one coming?
RICK
I agree that the existence or imminent existence of a child is a very
important factor to consider, but I don't think it should be ultimately
determinative. Often parents who stay together for this reason alone wind
up creating a home environment that is far worse for the child than it would
be growing up in the custody of only one of the parents (or with a natural
parent and a step-parent.
JOHNNY
If someone is attractive to you when you first marry,
> they'll still be attractive. Even if they get heavier.
RICK
Well, this seems a bit glib for my tastes, but if you really believe it then
you've got nothing to worry about :-). Nobody will get divorced due to
fatness if getting heavier doesn't make people seem less attractive.
JOHNNY
> Yes, I agree. No one should marry someone they aren't attracted to.
RICK
Now you just have to agree to what I actually said, which was that
sometimes, people shouldn't STAY MARRIED to someone they aren't attracted
to.
>
> INTERMISSION
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 03:40:29 BST