Is a person in the wrong to look for other people before divorce papers are finalized and they separated?

legally married but not in the practice of actually BEING married. If your spouse dies, would it be appropriate to divorce a dead body before finding another relationship?

@Starkizzed21: No, but ostensibly that's what the vow "'til death do us part" means. That ends the contract. Other than that, divorce is what ends it.

@bijouxbroussard: In sickness or health, til death do us part are only words. The actions of a person say so much more. Divorces have a judge and more words. When a person has lost all respect for the other due to chronic drug abuse and refusal to change, the marriage has already ended because the other person has chosen drugs over their wife and children.
I just don't think the paperwork and words are what make marriage a marriage. A marriage is more than that.

@Starkizzed21: I assumed you were asking our opinions. If you don't get married, if you don't say the vows or make it a legal contract, then you can certainly define it solely by the way you feel about each other; turn and walk away---for whatever reason. That's in fact, why some people choose [b]not[/b] to marry in the first place. But [i]if[/i] you go to the trouble of making it a legal contract, the responsible thing to do, imo, is [i]undo[/i] it before moving on to someone else. I realize my feelings are a bit old-fashioned; for example, I won't date a married man. Separated is still legally married. Other women don't mind dating a man who is married with [i][b]no[/b][/i] plans to leave, so to each his/her own.

@bijouxbroussard: I asked your opinions, and I also gave mine. You define things different than I do.

@Starkizzed21: I understand, but the law is pretty specific about it. The only real question is if one sees it as okay to date someone who is legally married, and people definitely have different opinions about that.

BB,

I was curious about the terms of the marriage "contract." In Oregon, the only specific right or duty under the law is that the marriage certificate recite that "Neither you nor your spouse is the property of the other. The laws of the State of Oregon affirm your right to enter into marriage and at the same time to live within the marriage free from violence and abuse.”

So everything else is fair game as I read it.

@RandomUniverse: Ions ago, when I was married I considered myself neither his property nor his owner, but we did have an agreement that included monogamy. Obviously, it's not the same agreement every married couple has, which is why some people have "open" marriages (no, we did [b]not[/b].) A contract doesn't necessarily mean ownership, although with some employment contracts it can seem a fine line.

@bijouxbroussard: a contract requires terms which can be enforced by one of the parties in a court of law. A marriage has no such terms. Therefore, it is smoke and mirrors, not a real contract.

@RandomUniverse: It actually does depend on the state. There are still some where infidelity [i]is[/i] illegal, and the person cheating can be sued. Moreover, there are a few states where "alienation of affections" is still an actionable charge, although I think [i]that's[/i] kind of stupid. The third party made no promises to anyone.

I am only familiar with Oregon law. Can you name any state where infidelity is illegal? Or where a suit can be successfully brought for alienation of affection?

As of 2015 (unless it's changed since then), Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Utah (no big surprise there), Mississippi, Georgia, North & South Carolina, Maryland. Obviously, the aggrieved party would have to file suit, but infidelity is illegal in those states, penalties range from fines to actual time in jail.

(Smiling) Remind me to keep any affairs of the heart intrastate.

Of course, you are aware that homosexual acts were also a punishable offense in the eyes of the law recently. Just because something is objectively illegal does not make it objectively immoral.

@RandomUniverse: I get it. What I consider immoral, if you will, is when there is deception. Neither partner should be deceived. People who have "open marriages" are not cheating; non-exclusivity is part of [i]their[/i] contract.

So telling a child that Santa Claus leaves presents on Chrustmas is deceptive, and therefore immoral?

@RandomUniverse: To some people it might be. But I personally put being told about Santa Claus in an entirely different category than finding someone I've committed to in bed with another (hint: In the former situation, I wasn't upset enough to never want to see my parents again). 😉

You seem to look at love as a zero sum game. Loving another does not necessarily diminish the love available to your spouse. One relationship need not degrade another.

@RandomUniverse: I can barely manage such feelings for one person. 🙃

Let's discuss this further in the privacy of our separate bedrooms.

@RandomUniverse: LOL ! 😇

@bijouxbroussard: & RandomUniverse; 👏Bravo👏 I love me some stimulating conversation ☺️

One crosses swords with BB at one's own risk. Fools rush in ....

You realize, of course, that monogamy in marriage is a cultural more, not a universal rule in all societies. In fact, according to some researchers monogamy in marriage is the exception to the rule of extramarital affairs.

If your heart can hold more than one love, I say more power to you. It's a lovely antidote to the venom our society (US) pumps out as its largest domestic product.

@RandomUniverse: Like I said, I have trouble enough managing such feelings with one person. I am certainly capable of loving several---platonically. With romantic love I'm more exclusive, less inclined to share or want to be shared. Cultural mores or not, it's just the way I roll. 😎

And I don't condemn or judge you as immoral or lacking in scruples for your more. You did use the word immoral to describe one who broke an illusory (in Oregon) contract made at a wedding ceremony. Or, as I look at it, one who behaved in a manner which is far more prevalent than one might suspect. Or one whose mores are not consistent with yours,

To each his or her own. If it involves consenting adults, I really have no dog in the fight.