No Such Thing as Gay Adultery?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

An interesting topic for debate, with a can of worms opened by the anomalies of UK law. A woman could not use Adultery as the grounds for divorce because her husband only had sex with men.

Why there's no such thing as gay adultery in UK law

It was news to me that it was only adultery if penetrative vaginal sex was involved, so oral sex would not be considered adultery by the law.

According to the Vinaya rule, an offence of defeat does not have to be vaginal penetration.

Now that Gay marriage has become legalised, the law needs updating to protect gay couples too. Does a gay man have to have vaginal sex with a women to commit adultery? Surely any kind of penetrative sex with a man or a woman would be sufficient grounds for citing adultery as the grounds for divorce?

Please remember to guard your speech carefully on this topic. It is a public forum that is open to minors.

[Coyote]

I heard on the radio (BBC 4) today that apparently stonewall and other LGBT groups don't see a need for a change in the law, which is pretty odd. Personally, I think the law should reflect the existence of same-sex marriages and treat all equally. What's most likely to happen though, apparently, is the abolition of adultery as a cause for divorce altogether, coming instead under "unreasonable behavior".

Without being too graphic, how would one legislate for adultery between two women, for example, in the same way as is currently done for opposite-sex couples? It's a thorny issue and I can see why abolition might be the best option.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I agree, it would be hard to define adultery where two women are involved, but then it would be equally hard to define what kind of sexual activity constitutes unreasonable behaviour. The unreasonable behaviour clause is a catch-all to cover mental cruelty, etc., that has nothing to do with infidelity.

[mikenz66]

In my country adultery, ceased to become grounds for divorce a long time ago, so this may be a moot point in many parts of the world. Here, the only grounds for divorce is that you've stopped living as a couple. That seems straightforward...


Mike

[Goofaholix]

Please remember to guard your speech carefully on this topic. It is a public forum that is open to minors.

Or even better talk about Buddhism.

[Ceisiwr]

Please remember to guard your speech carefully on this topic. It is a public forum that is open to minors.

Or even better talk about Buddhism.

As this is the Ethical forum it follows that discussions here relate Dhamma to everyday life, I.e. Ethics

[Goofaholix]

As this is the Ethical forum it follows that discussions here relate Dhamma to everyday life, I.e. Ethics ;)

It looks like a legal discussion, not an ethical one.

I must admit I'm surprised that adultary is a legal issue anywhere but places like Iran, is it still a crime in the UK?

If it is still a crime then maybe that;s the problem rather than it not being up to date with marriage equality, but what does that have to do with Buddhism?

[Ceisiwr]

Goofaholix -

It looks like a legal discussion, not an ethical one.

So the two spheres are distinct, never interacting?

If it is still a crime then maybe that;s the problem rather than it not being up to date with marriage equality, but what does that have to do with Buddhism?

The ending of dukkha, both ultimate and mundane.

[Goofaholix]

So the two spheres are distinct, never interacting?

Everything interacts, that doesn't mean threads don't need to have an on topic purpose.

What is ethical in Buddhism is very different question from what is legal in the UK, though I'm sure there are overlaps.

[Ceisiwr]

Goofaholix -


My point is that what is legal should reflect what is moral and just. As lay Buddhists we have one foot in the world and one foot outside the ways of the world. Therefore a lay Buddhist, IMO, should take an interest in the politics and the laws of the land, to see if they are ethical or not.

Any law that is unjust should, IMO, be challenged. I feel that is what is being done here

[Goofaholix]

My point is that what is legal should reflect what is moral and just. As lay Buddhists we have one foot in the world and one foot outside the ways of the world. Therefore a lay Buddhist, IMO, should take an interest in the politics and the laws of the land, to see if they are ethical or not.

My point is that what is between two people and an issue of trust and commitment shouldn't necessarily be an issue for the legal system, it's at most a civil matter. I don't think we want to go back to bible based legislation.

[Ceisiwr]

My point is that what is legal should reflect what is moral and just. As lay Buddhists we have one foot in the world and one foot outside the ways of the world. Therefore a lay Buddhist, IMO, should take an interest in the politics and the laws of the land, to see if they are ethical or not.

My point is that what is between two people and an issue of trust and commitment shouldn't necessarily be an issue for the legal system, it's at most a civil matter. I don't think we want to go back to bible based legislation.

Your missing the whole point of this thread, which is about equality and justice in front of the law. The issue raised is that one group has different rights over others, which is a form of injustice.

[Goofaholix]

Your missing the whole point of this thread, which is about equality and justice in front of the law. The issue raised is that one group has different rights over others, which is a form of injustice.

No it's quite obvious that this is the point of the thread but it's not obvious why we are discussing it on a Buddhist forum. Should we be legislating that non Buddhists be required to not undertake sexual misconduct do you think? If not it's not any of our concern that some countries may have biblical based laws that haven't been updated to reflect marriage equality, surely there are proper channels to lobby for change.

[Ceisiwr]

Goofaholix -

Should we be legislating that non Buddhists be required to not undertake sexual misconduct do you think?

Do you think that sexual misconduct should be allowed?

If not it's not any of our concern that some countries may have biblical based laws that haven't been updated to reflect marriage equality, surely there are proper channels to lobby for change.

So it's not our concern that Iran executes homosexuals, based on Islamic ideology?

[samseva]

This thread was destined to go downhill.