Brunei: Adultery, Homosexuality - Stone to Death

Note the mentioned of the agreed original contract. Adultery would imply there is no consent from one of the party.

However if a couple decide on mutual agreement to go into sex-swapping or orgies with others [terminate the that specific term of the original marital contract], that would be their discretion. I have no problem with that.

I gave examples. I have experienced them.

I think the laws against honor type killings and jealous rage killing are fine.

If you are married and cheat there are still financial consequences. It is treated like a contract, though less and less.

[/quote]
Sure, but I don’t see a reason to punish adultery like a crime.

I don’t want the state to do that. I don’t want the woman I love to not fuck around because the state will hurt her. That doesn’t help me, at all, in the slightest. That just means fear of third parties keeps her from doing what she wants. Rather than self-care, love for me, etc.

The state is welcome to protect my body and property from strangers, but if I need to state to regulate the behavior of someone I love, I am the problem. Because I should not be in a relationship with them. The other person is likely also messed up, but I need to take responsibility for the choice I made
and I will be better off with someone else if I actually need the state to be a whip to keep them loving and respectful of me.

Prismatic,

Where reality is concerned I tend not to think in such binary or absolute terms, as you seem to. I think that empirical evidence is very important and tells us a great deal about the nature of reality. But I don’t rule out the possibility that things can exist beyond the scope of what empirical methods of examination are able to find. For me, reality is both empirical and experiential, I’m not trying to prove anything. I am just a person in a Universe that is absolutely massive. How can I possibly hope to be to making absolute claims about what is universally real and what is not?

This is not right from my perspective. How can I prove that your arguement is wrong if you believe that it is perfect? Do you not see the problem?

The point of criminalizing adultery is not to force someone you love to be with you, but to keep someone you love, who no longer loves you (as much) or never loved you in the first place from disrespecting you, taking advantage of you, using you, claiming they love you and only you, and than doing something completely different behind your back.
We’re talking about criminalizing adultery here, not divorce, if they’re no longer devoted to you, they should get a divorce, or if they were never devoted to you, they shouldn’t’ve married you in the first place.
They need to be held accountable for the vows they voluntarily took.

I’m going to put this very succinctly and I hope everyone on this board understands the full magnitude of this:

Nobody fucking owns anybody

A vow of ownership is evil, even a vow of mutual ownership.

Now you know.

I suppose we have to dispense with the economy too, since it’s almost entirely dependent on contracts, on limited, mutual, temporary ‘ownership’, if that’s what you want to call it.
To me it’s just being honest and upfront with the person you profess to love.

Who is talking about enforced chattel slavery?
A marital agreement is not about anyone owning another, it is just another contract that is subjected to the universal Principles of the Laws of Contract.

To reiterate, marriage, where adultery is forbidden, isn’t about forcing your partner to be with you.
After all your partner is still free to divorce you.
It’s about preventing yourself from cheating on them, so they can be reassured the love and devotion you profess is genuine.
It’s a vow to do your best to make things work, and not cheat.
You can have them, or not, but you’re agreeing you can’t have them, and someone else.

As for the person your partner has committed adultery with, if they’re not married themselves, perhaps nothing should happen to them legally, since it’s not their contract.
The onus would fall squarely on the married person, not on the unmarried, which would be a sort of libertarian innovation to how adultery was traditionally treated.

So, it would be OK if they did it openly, in this justification. IOW if they took the risks of natural causes. But generlly it is the spouse who reports the crime, so I generally would have to know. And frankly I don’t feel any benefit from say, one of her friends reporting her to the police. Tell me, and let natural emotional social consquences follow.

I think that’s too simple. Though certainly these may be better options. and I think it is up to me, not the state to decide how she should have handled it. I don’t need them coming in, when I am capable of dealing with it, the way I want to. I wouldn’t want the state coming in regarding friendships. My friend is back talking me and other shit, so the state gets involved. I realize there is a legal aspect to the marriage, it is an official contract, which actually I think is wrong. I had to get married because of international aspects of our situation. Or, let’s say, it made sense for practical reasons and the idea certainly fit our feelings for each other. But otherwise I would not have done it. I don’t see it as the state’s business and I also see them as not competent to deal with my relationships or to be my whip.

To me, accountalbe to me, and to children if they are involved and to the other guy also. In the sense that she or I - if I cheated - might be fucking over someone else, the other woman, let’s say, also.

To have the state punish her: It’s like I am a child and the state has to look out for my welfare and take care of things I can take care of. Or it is like we cannot trust the social world to work this out. NOthing is going to fix it all, but I don’t need the people who, for example, might have been school principals - iow some bureaucrat - fixing my wife’s unfaithfulness. Or lawyers getting in there. I mean, that is like getting a dentist to fix my bike.

And the punishments would also be as much category errors.’

As the victim, if it was that simple that I was the victim, I get nothing from the punishment. I don’t think society does either. It is a mess out there now, but we need to find our way through it. Controlling the mess, pushing it further underground, making it ‘work’ with even less freedom, that’s just hiding from our fears that we will not be loved as if we an guarantee it. Or fear of not being respected. Or fear of being cuckholded. Or fear of not being good enough at sex. Or not being lovable enough.

I get laws that protect strangers from strangers and even loved ones from the violence of each other. But this…no.

We need to work this out between people, just as we do friendships. Which entails, not always having it work out. But then government involvement is at best no guarantee of this either.

Ok, let’s be honest here. How often do you find yourself saying, “my mom, my dad, my child, my cat. Etc…”. For another BEING!!

Contracts of “my being” are null and void in enlightened society.

The only thing there is to get around religious slavery “we all belong to god” in the English language is to use the word: dedicated (unceremoniously)

You do realize that a ceremony in and of itself is to celebrate the greatest evil in existence: zero sum, “I win, everyone else on earth loses, yeah me!”

Marriage is massively unethical on even more scales than those. It also as the conspicuous consumption of relationship, positively reenforces the destruction of the ecosystem.

Marriage also defends, rape, murder and torture globally

I can prove all of this: ask your specific questions

I’m ready to do this with the entire board right now.

There’s a very good reason in another thread that I stated “I already know you’re all fucked in the head” in the politics section:

Cmon let’s do this!

I’m ready

Now, before we actually get into this, I’m not mad at you, nor am I trying to change you.

I don’t expect anyone to grow but myself.

You’ll understand after all this is revealed, why I’m trying to turn all eternal forms into hyperdimensional mirrors.

I’m going to explain something that may strike you as very weird:

I like all your shit.

I don’t have to defend you.

I’m from a different dimension than all of you.

I, as a hardliner, can easily hell this entire species, and just walk away with clean hands.

But I love earth, I love things like this that you should be sent to hell for…

m.youtube.com/watch?v=H8_3DZpym-0

Because I actually really do love and give a shit about your beauty, you are protected by me.

Now, personally, I don’t like any of you.

But you have potential. I see it.

You folks misunderstand me completely if you think I’m trying to hell you

I like cell phones, I like tv and some of the movies you make.

Don’t worry about a thing, because, I like your shit.

I can have human children, but I’m basically a different species.

I don’t hold it against you.

I exist on a different dimension than the rest of you.

I like shit about conversations about nature here, trees, flowers.

I’m also well aware they have their own spirits, I talk to them. They don’t like what you’re doing to earth.

When I say that I exist on a different dimension than the rest of you, it’s quite real.

The thing is, I love the earth…

I know how to defend you from beings who think otherwise in my dimension.

This earth will never die.

I like it as home.

And I will make it my home, and yours if you so choose, to live in it beautifully again.

@Karpal

If people want an open marriage, for whatever, reasons, they can have a non-state marriage, but if they want a state marriage, it shouldn’t be open.

Than don’t sign the state marriage contract.

Than don’t sign any friendship contracts, should such things ever come into existence (I’m not saying I want them to exist, I don’t care).

My opinion is that it’s right, if that’s what couples want to do.
It will help prevent you from being cheated when you don’t want to be cheated.

Are you a child when the state enforces a business contract between you and another?

If you think you, your wife and children if you have any will be better off without state intervention, very well, don’t sign the contract, but for thousands of years, people did, and I think if the option were made available again, many people would.

We have family courts now, I don’t see what the big deal is.

I don’t understand what you mean by “MY BEING”?
If I sign a contract saying my being will work for x company or my being will reside in x apartment suite for 6 months, and I fail to live up to said contract, I will be subject to whatever penalties exist in said contract.

A general reaction so far: I am not against some people wanting to have the someone or something monitor their relationships, though as a taxpayer, I object. I don’t see why some people should get benefits I wouldn’t and then I have to support financially the monitoring of their private relationships, where no violence or other kinds of what we usually think of now as crime are involved. IOW you get tax breaks, at least in the US for getting married, but in fact you create a tax burden since their are courts and monitor marriages when trouble arises. If someone can’t trust the people in the relationship to work out the relationship and trust each other, fine. I think it’s a bad idea to to have some third party be the stick, but fine again, I that’s a bad choice, but theirs as adults to make. But that I have to pay to support this, is not OK. They should find a privat method to handle this and pay for it themselves.

I question the idea philosphically: do people really want to feel safer (and what is that safety?) from being cheated on, because an outside force scares their spouses? Instead of it being the actual feelings their loves have that gives them a feeling of safety. And then always having to wonder if without the stick of the state person would not cheat. I think that is bizarre. I would rather it was handled between us. IOW if they want external forces to maintain relationships that might not last or be what they want, then they can write contracts with private companies - sort of like insurance. I don’t know all the details of who this would work and private monitoring would preclude prison. But I can’t see why my government should get involved.

This is fair enough, but I don’t want to pay taxes for the court system that monitors this.

Given my international situation, I needed to. Of course, I am in a country that does not in any way punish adultery and I would never via my lawyer, should it come to that, use that against my wife. And it costs nothing here to dissolve a marriage. You can’t even fight the other partner’s wanting to leave.

I wouldn’t. But I think you probably understood the point I was making. We are talking about getting third parties to be a stick (as in carrot or stick) in relation to people we supposedly love. It seems to me it is a way of not facing one’s own fears and relationships as they are.

I don’t think it is preventing much these days. And divorce rates are extremely high. I think we, as a species, is in general trying to deal with these issues more and more as people without state involvement. In principle I have no objection to some couples doing this, but I don’t want to have to pay taxes to support it, nor do I want them to get tax benefits while actually creating more tax need. I also think they are trying to protect themselves from fears that they still need to face anyway, and also askign the state to be there to take revenge.

I made the distinction between loved ones and stranger enforcement. I understand why the state comes in sometimes when it has to do with children - since they cannot just leave the parent and are psychologically dependent. And I can understand why the courts would help me with a broken contract and a corporation.

They pretty much had to do it. Extramarital sex was a sin and dangerous to engage in in a church controlled society.

and they can deal with situations where children are in some way in danger or neglected. But adults should be able to fix these situations on their own.

And again, do you really want a court to be the threat that keeps your wife from cheating?

Me, I’d rather know that her faithfulness comes from our feelings for each other. I can be vastly more sure of this, since their is no external stick keeping her ‘in line’ or keeping me ‘in line’. We are choosing to be together without a threat, and choosing to be faithful without a threat.

And I want us, in general, to see if we can work these things out.

And then, I don’t want to pay to support other people’s choices related to this. They are adults, work it out.

So again, another strange post from yours truly…

I don’t think you all understand the massive damage you are doing to earth with religion: marriage and churches, and I mean: massive.

This is like the capitalism thread, where I simply made the comment that these long posts are mental masturbation because of monopolies.

So here’s the deal, all these “nuanced” discussions about marriage and homosexuality etc… they’re meaningless – but – I like the potential of this planet, so I’m working to resolve what religions are dumping on you as “karmic” debt.

I hope you can understand that and take it in.

Lol that single thread is more important than anything you’ve ever said in your entire time at this forum. Infinitely more relevant, real, full of substance, indicative of real problems and social issues.

Sorry bro bro, but I had to say it. Your neurosis has progressed a few stages in the last couple months. I’m noticing a much higher frequency of self adulation lately which is not good for your therapy. I want to try and prevent a complete regression into the basket you are quickly becoming a case for.

I’m self adulating because I know I’m right. Which is a massive accomplishment … not because I’ve accomplished my goal.

I’m the sole person on this path, and I know the rest of you are on the path of destruction.

If I die trying, (so to speak), I’ll have died with clear conscience, which is not something I can say for others.

What you folks don’t realize, is that your all fucked in the old systems. So if I lose, you’re totally fucked…

Well all just be in one old system or another…

Me, you, all of us …

Let me explain this better. All the old systems have architectures… whether you like it or not, you’re in one of them. Now here’s the deal. I have proven those systems insolvent, but still being in them the architectures will turn on themselves.

We have to evolve!

Edit add: you could be a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Sikh … the list goes on. They all have their own architectures … these architectures, using their own reason, collapse upon themselves … this means that your architecture (even if you’re good in it) will begin to attack you.

I hope that made sense.