quick moral question: Should Adultery Be Illegal?

[Calin Leafshade]

There is a conversation flying around the intertubes at the moment about the legality of adultery and whether or not there should be some judicial punishment for it (if proven).

Proponents argue that adultery is a destructive act and negatively affects other people and thus there should be a law in order to protect people against it's effects. They ask why *shouldn't* it be illegal.

Others argue that what one does in one's own bed is irrelevant to the state but the proponents counter that a destructive act committed in secret is still a destructive act.

I am unsure where I stand and would like other, more worldly, people's opinions so I can put this idea to rest in my head.

My conscious tells me that matters of love shouldn't be submitted to judicial conditions but my logical brain tells me that whether or not it is related to love is irrelevant to its effects.

Thoughts?

EDIT: (To clarify, 'adultery' here means sleeping with someone else's spouse or someone who is not your spouse. Sex between two unmarried and unattached people is, as far as i can see, morally neutral)

[Anian]

1. well if you're gonna do that, then why not make lying illegal? Or if you're gonna punish for adultery, why not punish the other (noncheating) spouse for not making a right choice when marrying? Would anybody marry anymore?
2. people still drive drunk, even though it's against the law and they'd be doing it even if it was legal (not really thinking about results of their actions)
3. your definition isn't that precise, marriage might be official but cheating of other attachments (girlfriends etc.) can be emotinally damaging as well. On that note, is only "sex" adultery, what about spending time with another person just talking or kissing, why should sex be the line that cannot be crossed? Maybe there'll be degrees of adultery, like in murder...and what should be the punishment for adultery? Money, community work?
4. what about this scenario: a marriage that's not exactly working out, finding someone who you think is a better match (by pure chance), adultery which is followed by divorce...in other words - what if you marry the person you had an adultery with?
5. as you said, "love" is kind of hard to define
6. I'm sorry, but many people are jerks, on the other hand, there are far more important issues that trouble society than adultery

[Calin Leafshade]

1. well if you're gonna do that, then why not make lying illegal? Or if you're gonna punish for adultery, why not punish the other (noncheating) spouse for not making a right choice
when marrying? Would anybody marry anymore?

Non-sequitur. Why should the legality of lying be related to the legality of lying adultery (EDIT stupid typo is stupid)? Incidentally lying *is* illegal under certain cirumstances, including getting sex. Ever heard of rape by deception?

2. people still drive drunk, even though it's against the law and they'd be doing it even if it was legal (not really thinking about results of their actions)

So driving drunk should be legal? Since the law does no good.

3. your definition isn't that precise, marriage might be official but cheating of other attachments (girlfriends etc.) can be emotinally damaging as well. On that note, is only "sex" adultery, what about spending time with another person just talking or kissing, why should sex be the line that cannot be crossed? Maybe there'll be degrees of adultery, like in murder...and what should be the punishment for adultery? Money, community work?

A good question. Although lack of definition is not a good reason to not make it illegal. It would just need a more rigid legal definition which is done all the time by lawmakers. As for the punishment, I have no idea.

4. what about this scenario: a marriage that's not exactly working out, finding someone who you think is a better match (by pure chance), adultery which is followed by divorce...in other words - what if you marry the person you had an adultery with?

Well if adultery were illegal then you would be expected to terminate the first marriage before pursuing a second one just like alot of other contracts.

5. as you said, "love" is kind of hard to define

Irrelevant. "Matters of love" was just a figure of speech here. "Matters of marriage" would have been a better expression.

6. I'm sorry, but many people are jerks, on the other hand, there are far more important issues that trouble society than adultery

True but again irrelevant. Just because their are more important issues doesn't change the status of this one issue.

[Atelier]

I am unsure where I stand and would like other, more worldly, people's opinions so I can put this idea to rest in my head.

I know you wanted to start a moral debate, but, first I must address the religion involved in this question (which is inevitable)... after all, the common definition of marriage is holy matrimony, which is different to marriage outside a church (only bound legally not spiritually).

You could then go as far as asking: what would be the difference in each case? Both are unions under a contract. Both are breaking a contract. So the punishment that applies to adultery in a non-religious union must also be identical to the punishment for religious union, regardless what the Church has to say about it.

If you were to punish everybody buying Cornetto's, you wouldn't punish the person who buys the strawberry worse than the one who buys the mint... you simply punish all people buying Cornetto's, they committed the same crime!

If people commit adultery, hopefully it's their own problem and will rest on their conscience. We don't need prison sentences to tell people they did wrong (well, in 90% of cases it seems). Even if they have no qualms about it, the government should be in no position to actually punish people. It's for the parties involved to work out between them, by going on Jeremy Kyle or something.

Also, when you hear about cases such as Wayne Rooney or Ashley Cole or 'celebrities' like that, it makes me mad how there's no blame placed on the female involved (probably because the media are too grateful to the woman selling their story). They are in my opinion equally responsible, and if any law should be passed, they must also be accountable.

[Calin Leafshade]

The law in England (and most western countries AFAIK) recognises marriage the same regardless of whether it was a church or civil marriage and so I think we can consider the issue to be a solely secular one. Most religions consider adultery to be 'illegal' so it's a moot point really.

Also I should make it clear that I still lean towards it *not* being illegal but I want a rational basis to believe so.

Incidentally I would punish all those who chose a strawberry cornetto over a mint one.

[Snarky]

There are such things as open marriages, where the marriage partner gives consent to adulterous relationships. I think this shows that the issue isn't the act in itself, but how the party being cheated on feels about it.

While I am sure that adultery in most cases is a destructive and hurtful act, it does not actually cause direct harm to anyone (unless the cheater contracts an STD, or spends all the couple's money on his/her lover, or something like that). It's really an example of a breach of emotional trust and intimacy, and a step in - and symptom of - a broken or failing relationship. As such, I don't think it should be any more illegal than all the other ways couples can make each other miserable after they've fallen out of love.

While we do prosecute extreme cases of making people feel bad without causing them any other direct harm (harassment, emotional abuse, etc.), and repeated adultery could in principle rise to that level of cruelty, I think existing at-fault divorce laws provide sufficient relief.

The general assumption must be that adults, when free of coercion or of being terrorized, are able to handle their own emotions and relationships, and take the appropriate measures themselves when wronged. You can't enforce "be good, be nice" as a law. Otherwise we would have to criminalize people not just for being bad husbands and wives, but for being unreliable friends, annoying roommates, unpleasant coworkers, obnoxious internet posters, and so on. And since none of us are perfect all the time, the only law-abiding citizens would be hermits.

[Khris]

This argument almost certainly broke out in American/conservative/Christian society; if anybody in western europe publicly suggested outlawing adultery they'd get laughed at uncontrollably I'm sure.

There can only be a religious or a secular basis for why it should be illegal. I'll ignore the religious one, obviously and concentrate on showing there's no secular basis.

Although conservative people would like you to think otherwise, the only difference between a happy married couple and a happy couple is on paper. So cheating on your spouse is as objectionable as cheating on your boy/girlfriend from a social or moral viewpoint.
Plus, moving to unhappy couples, an existing marriage is in no way a guarantee for the members being happy, so e.g. cheating on somebody you love because you were drunk is way harder for the cheated than cheating on the spouse you barely even talk to anymore.

Consequently, the only punishment that makes sense from a secular, social, moral viewpoint, is the one for somebody who cheated on a person they are otherwise happily together with.

Hurting somebody emotionally is what should be punished, if we chose to even remotely entertain this idea seriously.
Since there are countless ways to hurt somebody emotionally, it's absurd to start outlawing every single one, so why start with adultery in a happy marriage?

Also, punishing people for being assholes is something society takes care of, we don't need law enforcement for that usually. Of course I'm glad that people can't publicly deny the holocaust or denigrate races or similar things and indeed face criminal charges if they do, but that's a completely different thing.

In short, we'd have to outlaw mobbing, verbal abuse, sarcastic commentary by pundits, pranks, political satire and countless other things, too. And there are very good reasons we don't.

Plus, to tackle this from a completely different angle, outlawing adultery is like putting band-aids on gashing wounds. It's useless, short-sighted and won't solve the original problem in any way, not even temporary.

[Tuomas]

The word adultery makes it sound awful and illegal. There's no matching word to it in Finnish, just sex outside of marriage, which sounds to me like something completely normal. If it were forbidden though, I'd be less happier. Although some illegality might make it a bit more exciting, kinky in a way... Like smoking joints.

Seriously though, I couldn't be even bothered to read through your hypothetic questions since I don't consider marriage important or at all relevant for that matter... so should something happen outside of it would be just plain normal behavior.

[WHAM]

Quick answer: "no"

[Snarky]

Of course, this is not a hypothetical question. Adultery is illegal many places, including a number of US states. (In Michigan, it carries a life sentence! :o)

Although conservative people would like you to think otherwise, the only difference between a happy married couple and a happy couple is on paper. So cheating on your spouse is as objectionable as cheating on your boy/girlfriend from a social or moral viewpoint.

There is one fairly important difference: married people have signed a contract, and adultery breaks that contract. I don't see any issue with treating it as just that, a breach of contract, and I think that's the point of view divorce laws take.

Historically, when men held property and provided for their wives and children, and before birth control was available, there were good grounds for adultery to be criminal, namely: bastards. Wives had to worry about being abandoned and left destitute for their husband's mistress, and for their children to have to split the inheritance with their half-siblings (depending on inheritance laws--I'm not quite sure in exactly which circumstances illegitimate children stood to inherit). Husbands had the perhaps even greater worry that their wives might cuckold them into raising another man's child as their own (and speaking in terms of evolutionary psychology: that their own genes would thereby die out). The lack of a certain way to establish paternal parentage is clearly the reason why penalties for female infidelity have been so severe throughout history and across so many cultures.

In this age of greater gender equality, where wives are not so absolutely dependent on their husbands--at least in the western world--the rationale for criminalizing adultery has to a large extent melted away.

[Phemar]

Quick answer: "no"

Precisely. The question itself is so ridiculous that I laughed out loud when I saw the topic. I don't even know why anyone would even consider such a thing.

[Stupot]

The thing is I'm pretty sure that in most cases where a person has sex with someone other than his or here spouse, they do so behind the spouse's back.  Why? Because they know the spouse will be hurt and angry, because when you marry someone, you're committing yourself to that person and that person only.

I'm all for open marriages, but it MUST be seriously discussed, preferably before they marry.

If a married couple are liberal enough that they sleep around with other people, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's illegal because they're unlikely to prosecute each other.

But if one party feels the need to press charges against the other for committing adultery, then the chances are they were hurt by the act and feel that their contract of marriage has been broken.  So for that reason I think adultery should be illegal to protect those who would be hurt, but if a couple are mature and sensible enough to discuss the prospect of sleeping with other people, then the law should turn a blind eye.

I must confess, as a single young man, I quite like the idea of having a steamy affair with a married woman.  But I hate the idea of destroying someone's marriage.. especially if there are kids involved... best to stay away.  And it's nasty messes like that which a law would serve to prevent.

If and when I get married,  wouldn't dream of sleeping with another woman, unless we come to some kind of agreed arrangement that permits a bit of key-swapping from time to time  

[Khris]

There is one fairly important difference: married people have signed a contract, and adultery breaks that contract. I don't see any issue with treating it as just that, a breach of contract, and I think that's the point of view divorce laws take.

Are you talking about the marriage certificate or prenups?
Does the certificate mention it is forbidden to cheat on each other? (I wouldn't know, I don't think so though.)
Also, aren't divorce laws concerned with distributing assets and debts as opposed to punishing the adulterer?

Husbands had the perhaps even greater worry that their wives might cuckold them into raising another man's child as their own (and speaking in terms of evolutionary psychology: that their own genes would thereby die out). The lack of a certain way to establish paternal parentage is clearly the reason why penalties for female infidelity have been so severe throughout history and across so many cultures.

I understand the point, however: penalties against fooling a husband into paying for children who aren't his own makes perfect sense, but this is only indirectly related to adultery, isn't it?

My point is that while I completely agree with everything you've said, I don't see why any of it justifies the punishment of adulterers, not even hundreds of years ago.
It's still like outlawing knives to prevent people from stabbing each other, i.e. not called for in any way.

[Atelier]

I think adultery should be illegal to protect those who would be hurt

I understand this, morally, but Khris hits this one on the head. If we made this illegal, "mobbing, verbal abuse, sarcastic commentary by pundits, pranks, political satire and countless other things" should be outlawed too. It would be a playground situation brought to the real world, where you have to stay inside doing lines (or in this case, doing time) because you got with your mate's girl behind the bike sheds.

And it's nasty messes like that which a law would serve to prevent.

I can't really imagine the scenario. In the heat of the moment the man breaks away and says "wait, we shouldn't go any further... it's illegal!" As opposed to "woah woah back up I'm married!" To be honest, I'm skeptical with any law making an overwhelming difference to frequency of x crime.

[Anian]

The law in England (and most western countries AFAIK) recognises marriage the same regardless of whether it was a church or civil marriage and so I think we can consider the issue to be a solely secular one. Most religions consider adultery to be 'illegal' so it's a moot point really.

Not to get Kuran laws involved, but just if you look at Christians, again I can call "why not make lying illegal" then as well, not in certain circumstances, but always. I'm certain that you have to lie at some point while having an affair, right?

So driving drunk should be legal? Since the law does no good.

That's not what I meant, I think Atelier said it better, as in it wouldn't really stop adultery that much. Drugs are illegal, people still manage to buy and use them.

Adultery is not as important issue as poverty, murder etc. Prison systems are overcrowded and police is too stretched as is, why have adultery patrols as well.

You can ask for a divorce, and take money/property from the spouse that cheated, you can sue for damage caused by emotional pain etc., why add adultery illegal as well. And as you said, most religions and societies don't look kindly to adultery, there's a social stigma and taboo about it, isn't that enough?

[Stupot]

And it's nasty messes like that which a law would serve to prevent.

I can't really imagine the scenario. In the heat of the moment the man breaks away and says "wait, we shouldn't go any further... it's illegal!" As opposed to "woah woah back up I'm married!" To be honest, I'm skeptical with any law making an overwhelming difference to frequency of x crime.

By that logic, they might as well legalise theft and leave it up to the individual to say "Woah woah, back up.  This belongs to somebody else." as opposed to "Wait, I shouldn't take this... it's illegal!'

It's all a matter of having permission from the other party.  If you take an item from someone without their permission, then there is a victim.  It's theft and it's illegal.  But if they give said item to you they have no right to call themselves a victim and no crime has been committed.

I'm proposing that adultery should be treated in a similar way.  If a person goes behind their spouse's back, the spouse is a victim and it should be considered a crime.  But there should be leeway for couples who give one another the permission to sleep with someone else.  Once that permission is given they have no right to call themselves a victim and no crime has been committed.

[Atelier]

By that logic, they might as well legalise theft and leave it up to the individual to say "Woah woah, back up.  This belongs to somebody else." as opposed to "Wait, I shouldn't take this... it's illegal!'

It's all a matter of having permission from the other party.  If you take an item from someone without their permission, then there is a victim.  It's theft and it's illegal.  But if they give said item to you they have no right to call themselves a victim and no crime has been committed.

This is a good point but here you're detailing a direct physical crime, and comparing it to adultery which causes only emotional trauma (except STDs etc). No, it's better resolved between the people involved; otherwise it would be like the Jeremy Kyle show, except Jeremy wears a wig and at the end of the show he gets to decide how many years the husband will be eating porridge. When things get direct, such as theft, the law should intervene and resolve the issue.

Also anian chats a lot of sense.

[Ali]

I think Bertrand Russell answered this question, arguing that, "neither the law nor public opinion should concern itself with the private relations of men and women, except where children are concerned."

By that logic, they might as well legalise theft and leave it up to the individual to say "Woah woah, back up.  This belongs to somebody else." as opposed to "Wait, I shouldn't take this... it's illegal!'

It's all a matter of having permission from the other party.  If you take an item from someone without their permission, then there is a victim.  It's theft and it's illegal.  But if they give said item to you they have no right to call themselves a victim and no crime has been committed.

I'm proposing that adultery should be treated in a similar way.  If a person goes behind their spouse's back, the spouse is a victim and it should be considered a crime.  But there should be leeway for couples who give one another the permission to sleep with someone else.  Once that permission is given they have no right to call themselves a victim and no crime has been committed.

Theft and adultery aren't the same kind of 'crime'. The concept of private property is central to a capitalist economy, the state has a good reason to be concerned with it. Marriage has steadily lost its economic significance since women began gaining financial independence.

You can argue that adultery is a moral crime, but if we swing back towards legislating against moral crimes we return to laws against blasphemy, heresy and free thought in general.

[Calin Leafshade]

This is a good point but here you're detailing a direct physical crime, and comparing it to adultery which causes only emotional trauma (except STDs etc).

Lots of crimes only cause emotional harm. Some rape cases involve no 'physical' harm at all.

Trespass is a largely emotional crime too providing no theft/damage takes place.

[Khris]

Stupot:
The so-called crime would be far from clear-cut, as compared to murder or theft.

If I walk out of a store with lots of stuff in my pocket I didn't pay for, that's theft. Entering a bank with a gun and pointing it at the cashier is armed robbery. Etc.

But adultery is in no way that easy to distinguish from non-adultery. Just ask ten people what they consider cheating. You'll most likely get at least three different answers. Add to that the ambiguity of whether the couple actually talked about whether their marriage is open, and the possibility of the cheated spouse just wanting revenge because they aren't as comfortable as they thought with it.
Just imagine all those trials where people argue hours about whether "the tip was in" or not.

So purely from a practical point of view, it's basically impossible to prevent judicial errors without end.

To add to what I said earlier:
Punishing unfaithful spouses doesn't solve the underlying problem. If I feel the need to cheat, I shouldn't have married in the first place. Marriage is a commitment, so if I'm no longer able to commit, I should end it.
The problem is, ending a marriage isn't exactly easy; there's bureaucracy, arguments, maybe trials, etc.
Naturally, people who want to bone someone else don't subject themselves to that. On the other hand, if we make it easier to get out of a marriage, why marry in the first place, right? It looses all meaning.
So there's an inherent dilemma due to the fact that people are just human and make a commitment they can't keep.
Again, punishing unfaithful spouses doesn't solve the underlying problem.

The ultimate goal should be to prevent cheating. This can be done by talking to kids about the serious commitment a marriage is. Instead, young people are more or less pressured into marrying, especially in the US or rural areas it seems. (Again, conservative values make everybody feel miserable. When will it end.)

To my mind, marrying someone before 28 or so is insane; people younger than that are completely unable to grasp what it means to spend one's life with somebody.

While I was writing, Ali posted; Bertrand Russell's view is exactly right. It's a slippery slope from making adultery a crime to a brutal theocracy/1984.