Ignoramus29270 wrote: I cannot say that cheating is never justified.

Why don't you tell us, then, when cheating IS justified?

In article <1wW%b.11411$yZ1.3347@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. wrote: Ignoramus29270 wrote: I cannot say that cheating is never justified. Why don't you tell us, then, when cheating IS justified?

If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it is
justified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate situation.

i

On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712
<ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote:
If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it isjustified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate situation.

We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's okay.
I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is understandable, but
it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can do.

You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic.

Michael
Whatever it takes.

In article <koe140t7rtll447baor0pdgqkcot0e3695@4ax.com>, Michael A Ball wrote: On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712<ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote:If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it isjustified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate situation. We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's okay. I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is understandable, but it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can do. You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic.

Well, to me, you could define "wrong" as "you would prefer that it did
not happen". Then, possibly, you can think of some situation where you
would prefer sleeping around to be permitted.

i

Ignoramus1712 wrote: In article <koe140t7rtll447baor0pdgqkcot0e3695@4ax.com>, Michael A Ball wrote: On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712 <ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote: If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it is justified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate situation. We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's okay. I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is understandable, but it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can do. You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic. Well, to me, you could define "wrong" as "you would prefer that it did not happen". Then, possibly, you can think of some situation where you would prefer sleeping around to be permitted.

Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway.
Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will be
comatose for the rest of their entire life until death...

Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not want
to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc...

The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a
relationship with someone else?

Lori Mc

LoriMc wrote:
Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway. Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will be comatose for the rest of their entire life until death... Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not want to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc... The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a relationship with someone else?

Actually, except for the 'young' part, this exact scenario was presented
here in the not-so-recent past. The wife was the one who posted and,
IIRC, she and her husband were in their 50s or 60's. Another aspect
was that they were seperated at the time that her husband became
comatose but I might be wrong on that.

Tracey

Tracey wrote: LoriMc wrote: Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway. Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will be comatose for the rest of their entire life until death... Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not want to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc... The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a relationship with someone else? Actually, except for the 'young' part, this exact scenario was presented here in the not-so-recent past. The wife was the one who posted and, IIRC, she and her husband were in their 50s or 60's. Another aspect was that they were seperated at the time that her husband became comatose but I might be wrong on that.

I almost omitted the word "young". This could happen at any age or time in
a marriage.

Lori Mc

"LoriMc" <LoriMc11@THE_SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1041s4pqbgq7k96@corp.supernews.com... Ignoramus1712 wrote: In article <koe140t7rtll447baor0pdgqkcot0e3695@4ax.com>, Michael A Ball wrote: On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712 <ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote:> If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it is> justified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate situation. We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's okay. I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is understandable, but it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can do. You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic. Well, to me, you could define "wrong" as "you would prefer that it did not happen". Then, possibly, you can think of some situation where you would prefer sleeping around to be permitted. Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway. Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will
be comatose for the rest of their entire life until death... Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not
want to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc... The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a relationship with someone else?
They may be legally married, but that is a legal technicality. The marriage
itself has ceased to exist - the comatose spouse is no longer able to
maintain a relationship - in fact, has left the relationship involuntarily,
much the same as if he or she had died. Morally, then I don't think of that
as cheating in the usual sense, because there really is no marital
relationship to cheat against - just the legal technicality.

LoriMc wrote: Ignoramus1712 wrote: In article <koe140t7rtll447baor0pdgqkcot0e3695@4ax.com>, Michael A Ball wrote: On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712 <ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote:> If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it is> justified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate situation. We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's okay. I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is understandable, but it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can do. You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic. Well, to me, you could define "wrong" as "you would prefer that it did not happen". Then, possibly, you can think of some situation where you would prefer sleeping around to be permitted. Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway. Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will be comatose for the rest of their entire life until death... Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not want to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc... The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a relationship with someone else? Lori Mc

I think so. They should split up (separate or divorce). I don't think
"because of insurance reasons" can cut it - at least not for the long term.
Realistically, if something like this has happened, and the spouse is going to
be comatose for the rest of their live, the marriage is dead, and should be
legally terminated, so the other person can at least have a life - otherwise
they BOTH go down the tubes, and I'm sure the comatose spouse would not have
wished that on their spouse - not at all.

Actually, this strikes a bit close to home, as we knew a friend who had a
friend who had an automobile accident, and ended up this way. The mom and
kids eventually moved on... It was distressingly sad to hear about this.
Really depressing stuff.

Bill in Co. wrote: LoriMc wrote: Ignoramus1712 wrote: In article <koe140t7rtll447baor0pdgqkcot0e3695@4ax.com>, Michael A Ball wrote:> On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712> <ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote:>>> If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it is>> justified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate>> situation.>> We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's> okay. I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is> understandable, but it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can> do.>> You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic. Well, to me, you could define "wrong" as "you would prefer that it did not happen". Then, possibly, you can think of some situation where you would prefer sleeping around to be permitted. Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway. Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will be comatose for the rest of their entire life until death... Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not want to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc... The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a relationship with someone else? Lori Mc I think so. They should split up (separate or divorce). I don't think "because of insurance reasons" can cut it -

Obviosly you have never seen what happens to an uninsured person in a
situation such as this.

Lori Mc

at least not for the long term. Realistically, if something like this has happened, and the spouse is going to be comatose for the rest of their live, the marriage is dead, and should be legally terminated, so the other person can at least have a life - otherwise they BOTH go down the tubes, and I'm sure the comatose spouse would not have wished that on their spouse - not at all. Actually, this strikes a bit close to home, as we knew a friend who had a friend who had an automobile accident, and ended up this way. The mom and kids eventually moved on... It was distressingly sad to hear about this. Really depressing stuff.

LoriMc wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: LoriMc wrote: Ignoramus1712 wrote:> In article <koe140t7rtll447baor0pdgqkcot0e3695@4ax.com>, Michael A> Ball wrote:>> On 28 Feb 2004 13:51:08 GMT, Ignoramus1712>> <ignoramus1712@NOSPAM.1712.invalid> wrote:>>>>> If you want an honest answer, I do not know exactly when it is>>> justified. But sometimes it might be, in a most desperate>>> situation.>>>> We've gotten away from the question of "wrong or not", but that's>> okay. I do acknowledge there are cases when cheating is>> understandable, but it's still wrong. I think that's the best I can>> do.>>>> You added an interesting degree of balance to this topic.>> Well, to me, you could define "wrong" as "you would prefer that it> did not happen". Then, possibly, you can think of some situation> where you would prefer sleeping around to be permitted. Ok, here is a scenario where it would be justified, in my mind anyway. Young couple, husband or wife take your pick, is in an accident and will be comatose for the rest of their entire life until death... Several years later the healthy spouse meets a new person but does not want to divorce the ill spouse, because of insurance reasons etc... The are still legally married, so is this considered cheating to have a relationship with someone else? Lori Mc I think so. They should split up (separate or divorce). I don't think "because of insurance reasons" can cut it - Obviously you have never seen what happens to an uninsured person in a situation such as this. Lori Mc

Well, explain what your saying to me then, Lori. Are you saying that person A
must remained married to person B (who is in a comotose state) for the rest of
their life to keep the insurance?
at least not for the long term. Realistically, if something like this has happened, and the spouse is going to be comatose for the rest of their live, the marriage is dead, and should be legally terminated, so the other person can at least have a life - otherwise they BOTH go down the tubes, and I'm sure the comatose spouse would not have wished that on their spouse - not at all. Actually, this strikes a bit close to home, as we knew a friend who had a friend who had an automobile accident, and ended up this way. The mom and kids eventually moved on... It was distressingly sad to hear about this. Really depressing stuff.

Bill in Co. wrote: LoriMc wrote: Obviously you have never seen what happens to an uninsured person in a situation such as this. Lori Mc Well, explain what your saying to me then, Lori. Are you saying that person A must remained married to person B (who is in a comotose state) for the rest of their life to keep the insurance?

The person in the coma will lose medical insurance if not married to the
healthy spouse.

I was in a situation close to this so speak from experience. When I was
married the ex was in a wreck, (caused by a drunkin driver) he was in a coma
for 2 weeks and not expected to recover. We had insurance.

In the bed next to the ex the man in a similar situation wasn't so lucky he
was uninsured and was stabilized and sent to a nursing home.

My ex stayed in the hospital and when he did come out of the coma, he was
given extensive rehabilitative therapy. Which I am convinced is the reason
he learned to walk, talk, breathe, and LIVE a productive life.

It can be heartless the way people are treated without health insurance.

Lori Mc

at least not for the long term. Realistically, if something like this has happened, and the spouse is going to be comatose for the rest of their live, the marriage is dead, and should be legally terminated, so the other person can at least have a life - otherwise they BOTH go down the tubes, and I'm sure the comatose spouse would not have wished that on their spouse - not at all. Actually, this strikes a bit close to home, as we knew a friend who had a friend who had an automobile accident, and ended up this way. The mom and kids eventually moved on... It was distressingly sad to hear about this. Really depressing stuff.

LoriMc wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: LoriMc wrote: Obviously you have never seen what happens to an uninsured person in a situation such as this. Lori Mc Well, explain what your saying to me then, Lori. Are you saying that person A must remained married to person B (who is in a comotose state) for the rest of their life to keep the insurance? The person in the coma will lose medical insurance if not married to the healthy spouse. I was in a situation close to this so speak from experience. When I was married the ex was in a wreck, (caused by a drunkin driver) he was in a coma for 2 weeks and not expected to recover. We had insurance.

OK - sorry to hear about this.
In the bed next to the ex the man in a similar situation wasn't so lucky he was uninsured and was stabilized and sent to a nursing home.

How was the nursing home paid for, if he was uninsured?
My ex stayed in the hospital and when he did come out of the coma, he was given extensive rehabilitative therapy. Which I am convinced is the reason he learned to walk, talk, breathe, and LIVE a productive life. It can be heartless the way people are treated without health insurance. Lori Mc

What happens to them if they have no insurance, and they need that kind of
critical care? Do they get dumped into some county hospital, which has to
take them for no fees, or what?
at least not for> the long term. Realistically, if something like this has happened,> and the spouse is going to be comatose for the rest of their live,> the marriage is dead, and should be legally terminated, so the other> person can at least have a life - otherwise they BOTH go down the> tubes, and I'm sure the comatose spouse would not have wished that> on their spouse - not at all.>> Actually, this strikes a bit close to home, as we knew a friend who> had a friend who had an automobile accident, and ended up this way.> The mom and kids eventually moved on... It was distressingly sad> to hear about this. Really depressing stuff.