Ashley Madison (cheating / affair website) hacked

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

There's no standard contract of marriage.

So, then you don't agree with what peter12 is saying?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I highly, highly doubt that 11% of Calgarians are Ashley Madison members. That figure has to be totally bogus.

How so? It's a statistic. Unless you think the accounts are fake.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Likely the accounts are fake... seems like a huge percentage. I would doubt that even 1% of Calgarians are on that site legitimately.

[Makarov]

For the record, the legal significance of marriage is not contractual. It comes from legislation.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How so? It's a statistic. Unless you think the accounts are fake.

Well I have heard that there are tons of MILFs in my area looking to ...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How so? It's a statistic. Unless you think the accounts are fake.

It's not a statistic. It's a number Ashley Madison pulled out of their ass not a number that was taken from a study of data.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I was being a little facetious in the first post.

I'm not sure if it's a religious thing, or an actual legal thing. A state issued marriage is a contract between two people, so if you knowingly and willingly break it (i.e.: cheat) it could be a crime. It does make sense when you think about it.

You should end the contract first, aka divorce, and then go on your merry way screwing around.

breaking a contract is not a crime.

[FlamesAddiction]

And whatever the number is, it is probably a sausagefest..

Using the internet to cheat will eventually get most people busted. There is just too much of a trail and eventually most people will slip up by not wiping their trail clean.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, it's not. The fastest growing population with HIV/AIDS is heterosexual women who catch the disease from cheating spouses.

source?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cappy

source?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I highly, highly doubt that 11% of Calgarians are Ashley Madison members. That figure has to be totally bogus.

According to the 2011 Canadian Census (https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&GK=CMA&GC=825), there were 582,605 people in Calgary who were married or living with a common-law partner.

If the 165,000 number was in any way accurate, that would mean that nearly 1 in 3 married Calgarians was a member of Ashley Madison.


Even if you think 1 in 3 married Calgarians is looking for a little something on the side, from what I've seen, most find it either at work or with a "family friend".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Makarov

For the record, the legal significance of marriage is not contractual. It comes from legislation.

The evolving view in legal theory is that marriage is effectively a contract. The English common law, for instance, affirmed marriage as a contract with certain duties attached to it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

John Locke, a significant force in our legal discussions regarding marriage, also affirmed it as essentially a contract.

ec. 78. Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho' it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.

All the legislation does is affirm the type of contract that is legally possible.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by peter12

The evolving view in legal theory is that marriage is effectively a contract. The English common law, for instance, affirmed marriage as a contract with certain duties attached to it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

John Locke, a significant force in our legal discussions regarding marriage, also affirmed it as essentially a contract.



All the legislation does is affirm the type of contract that is legally possible.

The evolution of a law does not determine its present application or status. While marriage is still defined as a contract it is not considered such in courts. there is no damages for breach, there is no frustatration of contract etc. Contractual rules do not apply, only those codified.

How do you explain the creeping rules that exist under common law relationships. This is what, an implied contract?

You cannot breach a marriage contract. There is no such thing in Canada as a faulty party in a divorce. Unlike TV, you do not get more or less money in a divorce if one of the parties was to cheat.

Honestly, stop using legal arguments to fight a moral battle, please.

[peter12]

The evolution of a law does not determine its present application or status. While marriage is still defined as a contract it is not considered such in courts. there is no damages for breach, there is no frustatration of contract etc. Contractual rules do not apply, only those codified.

How do you explain the creeping rules that exist under common law relationships. This is what, an implied contract?

Yes, it does. This is why we have courts. This is why we have lawyers.

You cannot breach a marriage contract. There is no such thing in Canada as a faulty party in a divorce. Unlike TV, you do not get more or less money in a divorce if one of the parties was to cheat.

Yes, you can. Adultery is grounds for divorce.
http://divorce-canada.ca/legal-groun...orce-in-canada

Honestly, stop using legal arguments to fight a moral battle, please.

The law is for settling moral disputes.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, it does. This is why we have courts. This is why we have lawyers.



Yes, you can. Adultery is grounds for divorce.
http://divorce-canada.ca/legal-groun...orce-in-canada



The law is for settling moral disputes.

Technically anything is grounds for divorce. And as pointed out in your link, at fault divorce usually takes longer and costs more than no fault. But at the end of the day likely doesn't change much.

[Muta]

peter12 - Cheating on your wife is not a crime in most places, though. You don't go to jail for doing that. If so, that would be a dysfunctional and illogical use of the justice system.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Technically anything is grounds for divorce. And as pointed out in your link, at fault divorce usually takes longer and costs more than no fault. But at the end of the day likely doesn't change much.

So it's just a more subjective view of a contract whereby if one of the individuals can opt out at any time they want.

peter12 - Cheating on your wife is not a crime in most places, though. You don't go to jail for doing that. If so, that would be a dysfunctional and illogical use of the justice system.

Where did this come from? You know the courts don't just deal with criminal matters, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

Nothing in that report backs up your original statement.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, it does. This is why we have courts. This is why we have lawyers.



Yes, you can. Adultery is grounds for divorce.
http://divorce-canada.ca/legal-groun...orce-in-canada



The law is for settling moral disputes.

It does, until the law is codified in legislation and regulations which takes precedent over common law rules. If there is no legislation, the common law carries the day. But the common law changes and some laws and legal principles are vastly different today than they were centuries before.

It is grounds for a divorce, but does not imply fault on either party. As i said, divorce in Canada implies no fault. You're argument claims it does (i.e. breach of contract)

The law is to settle issues of legality and illegality. Some laws are based on morality but the vast majority are not. Where is the morality in the law that says marijuana is illegal, or drinking at the age of 18 is legal, or that meat in restaurants must be cooked past 60 degrees celsius, or that going over 30 in a school zone is speeding. These are legal determinations rooted in a abstract and distant moral background.

Is drinking at 17 morally wrong? is doing cocaine at 45 morally wrong? who knows! but they are illegal. Try arguing morality when defending the above in court.

Is cheating morally wrong (this is a loaded question as morality and moral notions are subjective)? yeah! is it illegal? nope. Does it sway the distribution of assets in a divorce? nope.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nothing in that report backs up your original statement.

The bar graph does. MSM are the traditional risk group for HIV/AIDS. Heterosexual women, as a combined group, have now overtaken IDUs as a risk category.

Biologically speaking, women are far more susceptible and vulnerable to viral transmission.

This article below emphasizes that only half of hetero women with HIV present significant risk factors, and you could infer that those women got it through an unfaithful partner.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/748530