Difference between secular morality and religious morality

[Estro Felino]

Firstly, that's Italy. Secondly, can you cite this law?


Can you prove this?

Article 143 Civil code.
Meaning that the dissatisfied spouse can ask for divorce.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Article 134 Civil code.
Meaning that the dissatisfied spouse can ask for divorce.

That doesn't really pull up much in a search. Can you provide the exact wording?

 

[rational experiences]

In medical church it said only the father virgin can assist his biological children. No homosexual man was allowed to be a healer.

Yet knowing all babies are born innocent supported homosexual man in the community.

The church said only sacrificed cell body human were allowed access to
Healing resonations...in oiled herbal body as patients. Of churches three daily rutual cleansing of cell body rituals.

Men in homosexual sex had accepted their conditions the exact reasoned review.

Legal out a limitation of sexual intercourse. Once the age was 21 years adult sex agreed.

Changed to 18 year old legal.

As humans had intellectually matured.

The only reason.

Therefore out of age sex acts legally were always known and judged criminal terms.

 

[Estro Felino]

That doesn't really pull up much in a search. Can you provide the exact wording?

Art. 143 codice civile - Diritti e doveri reciproci dei coniugi.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Art. 143 codice civile - Diritti e doveri reciproci dei coniugi.

That's the Civil Code that was enacted under Fascist rule, and was replaced with the Constitution of Italy in 1947. Not quite applicable to the modern age, I would think? Regardless that Article outlines meeting the needs of your spouse, whatever those might be. It does not explicitly state that there must be a sexual nature to the relationship, as you seemed to suggest in Post #49.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's the Civil Code that was enacted under Fascist rule, and was replaced with the Constitution of Italy in 1947. Not quite applicable to the modern age, I would think? Regardless that Article outlines meeting the needs of your spouse, whatever those might be. It does not explicitly state that there must be a sexual nature to the relationship, as you seemed to suggest in Post #49.

It's still our civil code.
The Supreme Court called Court of Cassation ruled that sex is within the matrimonial duties.
Unless they have agreed it would be a sexless marriage. But if they haven't, sex is a duty.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The Supreme Court called Court of Cassation ruled that sex is within the matrimonial duties.
Unless they have agreed it would be a sexless marriage. But if they haven't, sex is a duty.

Meaning what?

 

[Alien826]

More of what I'm driving toward (and to cut right to it) is that sex isn't the only thing in a relationship. And in polyamorous relationships, the goal isn't necessarily "Everyone gets equal sex". Maybe one person in the relationship is asexual, and prefers intimacy in spending time together reading. Maybe one person likes sex every now and again, and another is hypersexual. A relationship, even a polyamorous one, is built on trust and providing for one another (and more, I'm just simplifying). Maybe it's an open monogamous relationship, and the only standing rule is "don't bring people back home."

My response was not intended to be taken too seriously. The suggestion was that it was impossible to have equal amounts of sex between three partners and I decided to consider it as practical problem, really to point out exactly what you are saying.

Adultery, or "cheating" isn't so much sleeping with other people. It's breaking your partner's (or partners') trust and boundaries.

OK, but once you get beyond that narrow definition you come up against all kinds of different problems, like are thos ein committed realtionships entitled to set boundaries on other participants' behavior? Elvis Presley's song Suspicious Minds sets it out well. But in general I agree.

 

[Alien826]

What the heck has happened to the site. half the things don't work.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

OK, but once you get beyond that narrow definition you come up against all kinds of different problems, like are thos ein committed realtionships entitled to set boundaries on other participants' behavior?

I couldn't say for the behaviors of other people (do you mean stuff like they have to wear protection, or that they're not allowed to say certain things or feel certain ways?) but another problem is that there isn't really a narrow definition. It all boils down to broken trust and boundaries: for some couples, masturbation might be cheating, or even remarking on the beauty of someone of the opposite (or same) sex.

 

[Estro Felino]

Meaning what?

Meaning that if you marry a person, you automatically vow to satisfy them sexually.
In Canon law, non-consummated marriages are considered null and void by the Church.
The Secular law of the state can consider the lack of sexual relations juridically relevant for the divorce.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Meaning that if you marry a person, you automatically vow to satisfy them sexually.
In the Canon marriage, non-consummated marriages are considered null and void by the Church.
The Secular law of the state can consider the lack of sexual relations juridically relevant for the divorce.

Secular Law can consider it as grounds for divorce, but there is nothing listed in either the Civil Code nor the superseding Constitution that sex is automatically required. An overview of Family Laws for Italy doesn't even include this, that you're "automatically vowing" to intercourse by getting married.

 

[Estro Felino]

Secular Law can consider it as grounds for divorce, but there is nothing listed in either the Civil Code nor the superseding Constitution that sex is automatically required. An overview of Family Laws for Italy doesn't even include this, that you're "automatically vowing" to intercourse by getting married.

I thought I had made myself clear. I guess you misunderstood me. According to the Italian Civil Law:
1) Sex is something totally based upon consent. So, if two spouses decide not to have sex and to get married, they can do it.
2) If either spouse promises the other spouse they will have a sex life after marriage, then sex becomes a requirement. But not a juridical obligation: that is, the first spouse can ask for the divorce and they will get it.
For example, if a man doesn't have sex with his wife any more, the woman can ask the civil judge for divorce and the judge will grant it and the blame for the divorce will be the husband's. Because the husband refused to perform marital duties, he had promised to perform.

Is it clear, now?

 

[pearl]

The topic of adultery. According to secular morality, it is not considered immoral because it deals with sexual relations between two consenting adults. According to religious morality, it is considered a sin.

It may not be considered immoral but some states offer legal ramifications against the third party for Alienation of affection.

Yes, You Can Sue Someone for Breaking Up a Marriage—Here's What You Need to Know

Can you sue for adultery or take legal action against someone for breaking up a marriage? Here, learn everything you need to know about alienation of affection, a civil lawsuit allowed in six states.

www.brides.com

 

[Estro Felino]

It may not be considered immoral but some states offer legal ramifications against the third party for Alienation of affection.

Yes, You Can Sue Someone for Breaking Up a Marriage—Here's What You Need to Know

Can you sue for adultery or take legal action against someone for breaking up a marriage? Here, learn everything you need to know about alienation of affection, a civil lawsuit allowed in six states.

www.brides.com

Omg...really?
Why is a third responsible for something that the spouse violated? That is, marital fidelity?

In Italy so many seductive women should be sued for stealing husbands from wives...I guess.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The topic of adultery. According to secular morality, it is not considered immoral because it deals with sexual relations between two consenting adults. According to religious morality, it is considered a sin.

Most non-religious people also consider adultery to be immoral. You don't have to have religious law to be against cheating. Your example was very poorly chosen.

 

[Estro Felino]

Most non-religious people also consider adultery to be immoral. You don't have to have religious law to be against cheating. Your example was very poorly chosen.

And I know religious people who are okay with it. Especially the women of Southern Italy.
I clearly recall my aunt saying once. "yes, my husband does me the horns*, but it's because he is a manly man and likes women".

*Italian expression. Means: he cheats on me.

 

[syo]

Difference? One has judges, and the other has priests.

PUKE

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And I know religious people who are okay with it. Especially the women of Southern Italy.
I clearly recall my aunt saying once. "yes, my husband does me the horns*, but it's because he is a manly man and likes women".

*Italian expression. Means: he cheats on me.

If you keep a dog in a cage long enough, and then open the door, the dog will stay in the cage.

 

[Estro Felino]

If you keep a dog in a cage long enough, and then open the door, the dog will stay in the cage.

It's an incredibly male chauvinistic and homophobic culture. There is a Sicilian proverb which is very vulgar, but basically means "better an infidel husband than an effeminate one".
That is, better to have a manly, sexually powerful man than a faithful, homosexual one.