NCclimber 0 #26 October 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe paramour didn't wrong the hubby - the WIFE wronged the hubby. Of course the W wronged the H. But if the paramour knew she was married, then he wronged the H, too. Thus my allusion to the term "home wrecker" - it's in our common parlance for a reason. But he didn't make an oath of fidelity to the other man. He owes the other man nothing. (otoh, he did owe his own wife, but that's aside from this litigation) Claiming "he didn't make an oath of fidelity to the other man. He owes the other man nothing." doesn't quite wash. He knew he has participating in act of the woman breaking her oath. He was an accomplice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 October 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe paramour didn't wrong the hubby - the WIFE wronged the hubby. Of course the W wronged the H. But if the paramour knew she was married, then he wronged the H, too. Thus my allusion to the term "home wrecker" - it's in our common parlance for a reason. But he didn't make an oath of fidelity to the other man. He owes the other man nothing. (otoh, he did owe his own wife, but that's aside from this litigation) Claiming "he didn't make an oath of fidelity to the other man. He owes the other man nothing." doesn't quite wash. He knew he has participating in act of the woman breaking her oath. He was an accomplice. Hey, we agree on something! In a civilized society, we all owe each other a basic duty to not do each other deliberate harm. When a paramour has an affair with a married person, is the paramour not doing harm to that person's marriage - and consequently, to that person's spouse? I'd say that in most cases, most people would say "Yes". That being the case, the paramour violated his basic social duty to not do the husband deliberate harm. I'd say that even holds true if the married person is the one who "pursued" (seduced, whatever) the paramour. What did our parents teach us? What do we teach our children? That when presented with a chance to do wrong or harm to another, even if the reward is great, and even if there's a good chance to get away with it, the moral person says "no". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 October 26, 2007 Implicit in your belief is that the third person knows he is doing harm. (I'm going to use names just to eliminate the fuzziness - try to ignore them otherwise ) If Bill is in a dead marriage with Hillary, is Monica really a bad person for having an affair with him? Hillary doesn't care or not enough to contribute to the marriage, so why can't Bill and Monica make their own happiness? Like I said, Monica didn't enter a social contract with Hillary. And she loves Bill. End result - you can blame Bill who did break his contract. And perhaps you can blame Hillary who neglected her contract. But I don't think Monica needs to wait until a divorce is finalized or not socially feasible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
