quick moral question: Should Adultery Be Illegal?

[Khris]

The prohibition and drug criminalization argument clearly shows how utterly pointless it is to try and prohibit/penalize such behavior. A very small difference is not enough if at the same time way more people are suddenly criminalized, overcrowding the prisons even more.

Again, the most powerful argument against this: why single out marriage? what about hurt feelings in other relationships or circumstances?

And on top is sounds so incredibly prudish, when I first read about this I thought only wrinkled old virgins can seriously think this is a good idea.
In the US, every fourth teenager has an STD, and there are several times more unwanted pregnancies and abortions than in western Europe. Why? Because people are stupid enough to think if they pretend teenage sex doesn't exist or outright try to stop their kids from having it, it won't happen.
That's a perfect example how trying to stop a "bad" type of behavior increases bad consequences while failing to stop anything.

It escapes me completely how anybody could even remotely believe this proposed law would change the situation for the better.

[Babar]

This discussion isn't really relevant to me, but I just wanted to point out something that keeps coming up...

Again, the most powerful argument against this: why single out marriage? what about hurt feelings in other relationships or circumstances?

It's not really a very powerful argument, because, as mentioned before, while other relationships and circumstances may not be recognised by the government, marriage is.

If you have a specific form of existence of two (or more ) people that the state officially recognises and (in some form or the other) subsidises or derives benefit from, it is not illogical to, in some form or the other, seek to reprove or reprimand those who after entering an understanding or contract, attempt to bypass or misuse or break it without formally terminating it.

Woah...I feel like a dirty lawyer now .

You could argue about the institution of marriage, and that would be a valid and perhaps interesting debate, but currently, most countries in the world, for whatever reason, recognise it in some form or the other.

[Matti]

You could argue about the institution of marriage, and that would be a valid and perhaps interesting debate, but currently, most countries in the world, for whatever reason, recognise it in some form or the other.

Yeah, the problem is that marriage is institutionalized. Governments picking one single form of relationship, declaring it the way to go by making it something official and part of the law and handing out binding contracts to a couple in love - could there be anything dafter?

I hope that some day the idiocy of telling people how to live - by law - will have an end.

[Tuomas]

I hope it'll never end. I fear the day people start making decisions by themselves and punching and kicking each other because they want to get ahead in the line at the ice cream stand, and no-one meddles, just looks away. Seriously a good aw is the only thing keeping our moral together. If there were none, everyone would have their own idea of what's right and what's wrong, what's expected and what's frowned upon.

[Igor Hardy]

Now I'm unable to tell which posts in this thread are sarcasm and which are not.

[Matti]

You don't punch and kick people in the line at the ice cream stand because it's against the law?

[Babar]

You have lines at the ice cream stand? :o

[Anian]

You have ice cream stands?  :o

[Dualnames]

ADULTERY is not illegal. It's a moral issue. Not a legal issue. I mean, even if it was illegal, it would still be done. If you can't find a proper wife/husband, legally forbidding your wife/husband to cheat on you, is like the most ridiculous solution to the problem.

My suggestion is get a cage.

[Babar]

Mine is to get a divorce. Or some sort of open-ended agreement. Perhaps some ice cream.

[Calin Leafshade]

People who say that the law is the only reason they dont do crazy shit need to stay at least one country away from me.

I have heard the same argument for "God's law" many times.

It frightens me.

[Khris]

I hope it'll never end. I fear the day people start making decisions by themselves and punching and kicking each other because they want to get ahead in the line at the ice cream stand, and no-one meddles, just looks away. Seriously a good aw is the only thing keeping our moral together. If there were none, everyone would have their own idea of what's right and what's wrong, what's expected and what's frowned upon.

A serious case of Poe's Law here; I fear that Tuomas actually was being serious though. I don't need to point out all the different sorts of wrong it seems, judging from the reactions, if he actually was

[Tuomas]

I'm just saying there are some things disoriented people might do were it not for a law telling them not to.

[Khris]

I'd say if somebody is disoriented, they don't really care if there's a law or not. Afaik, making punishment harder and harder has never had a significant effect on crime rates.

On the other hand, a functioning society needs laws. The boundary is overstepped though if a law is more concerned with what you did wrong as opposed to what harm you did others.
It makes perfect sense that people can't get away with punching and kicking others as they choose, but handling a relationship is something that should be left to the involved, not third parties.
People who marry are aware how things might end, it's a calculated risk they're willing to take. Walking down to the ice cream stand isn't, at least not by a long shot.

It's not really a very powerful argument, because, as mentioned before, while other relationships and circumstances may not be recognised by the government, marriage is.

If you have a specific form of existence of two (or more ) people that the state officially recognises and (in some form or the other) subsidises or derives benefit from, it is not illogical to, in some form or the other, seek to reprove or reprimand those who after entering an understanding or contract, attempt to bypass or misuse or break it without formally terminating it.

Apart from the moral problems which Matti has pointed out already, the government doesn't profit from a successful marriage as opposed to people breaking up; the opposite is true actually since unmarried people pay more taxes. Plus, any other legal contract is an emotionless matter and can be judged way way better from the start; marriage relies on emotions and is thus inherently unstable, punishing somebody because they want to be happy in an unhappy marriage makes no sense at all from a social/moral point of view. Maybe they cheat instead of breaking up because they are a good, loving parent?
If the government wants to actually treat the illness, not the symptom, why not fund free marriage counseling or something like that?

Another important point is that if a contract is breached, the victim needs the power of the law to make things right. If a relationship contract is breached, all the law could do is bully; adults can simply be expected to be able to solve stuff on their own. (This isn't about material stuff, that's what divorce laws are for; I'm talking about how it's supposed to help the cheated overcome the pain if the spouse has to pay money or go to jail or whatever. It's bullying, no matter how you look at it. Bullying doesn't solve problems, it's at best a temporary way to treat symptoms.)

[Snarky]

ADULTERY is not illegal. It's a moral issue.

As I pointed out upthread, adultery is illegal in many countries in the world, and in a number of US states.

All societies regulate sex and sanction those who break the prevailing norms. In cultures with codified laws, adultery is typically forbidden by law. That was historically the case in Europe as well (although royalty and aristocracy were more or less exempt as long as they stuck to certain rules of propriety). I've already outlined the particular social and economic developments that have made modern western society an exception to the general pattern. (Though infidelity is still considered a "sin" - so to speak - by most people.)

Not to get all moral relativist, but cries about the "moral police" miss the fact that we're constantly enforcing our morality and mores through the law. There's no inherent distinction between crimes and "bad behavior that we disapprove of"; it's just a matter of which violations of community norms are considered serious enough for the state to punish.

I think a prohibition against adultery would not be very effective, would have a number of negative consequences, isn't the sort of thing the government should get involved in, and that most people in our parts of the world feel the same way and would oppose it. But if we viewed it as a serious enough matter and thought a law against it would help, there's no reason in principle why it couldn't be illegal.

[Dualnames]

ADULTERY is not illegal. It's a moral issue.

As I pointed out upthread, adultery is illegal in many countries in the world, and in a number of US states.

Wow. Well, I didn't know that. But seriously? I mean, it's wrong morally and if there's a legal prohibition, then it's quite absurd.

[mkennedy]

The only punishment there should be for adultery is divorce. If a person has proof their spouse is cheating then the cheating partner should not receive anything from the divorce other than what they had when they originally entered the marriage. In case of adultery then any prenuptial agreement that benefits the cheating partner would be rendered void by the infidelity. Basically if you cheat on your wife when she was loyal she can take up to 50% of any fortunes made during the marriage. If she cheated on you when you remained loyal than you don't owe her a cent. If both parties are unfaithful then it is up to the judge or jury to rule fairly in the matter. Physical, sexual, or mental abuse is much worse than adultery however and if a person abuses their spouse and the spouse  cheats on them then the abused should still be awarded at least 50% of the assets even if the abuser did not cheat on the abused.  The abuser should also be sent to prison.  Sending people to jail or prison however just for cheating is out of the question as the prisons are already overflowing.  If there are children however they must still be supported and custody should be given to the best parent, abusers would be ineligible to gain custody.

[2ma2]

What constitutes as adultery differ from culture to culture. Legislations needs to define these matters as well. Is it penetration? Does oral count? How about laughing at a party to someone's AWFUL joke. That wasn't funny! You're flirting with him, you whore! May police have a strong suspicion of felony and confiscate the sheets?

Speaking of misogyny, let me mess with your heads:

What's worse? Racism or sexism?

Is it better to mistreat a smaller part of the worlds population, or 50% of it?

Because most people frown at the mere thought of racism, but we keep f**king up the lay-days at industrial levels.

[monkey0506]

People who say that the law is the only reason they dont do crazy shit need to stay at least one country away from me.

The entire purpose of a law is simply so that there can be a punishment affixed if someone breaks the law. For example, from a moral standpoint most people would accept that murder is wrong, because you are robbing someone else of their right to live. What though if the government had no regulation on the matter, if there were absolutely no punishment (entirely excluding any religious or other context from this hypothetical example), then who would be afraid to murder? It might not be thought highly of, but there would be no formal repercussion to fear.

Crimes of passion, in the heat of the moment, when adrenaline is pumping and people are not thinking at their clearest, are not uncommon. Is it impossible to conceive though that despite the fact that this already takes place, that perhaps laws, or rather the opposing punishment associated therewith, could in fact serve as a deterrent in the vital moment?

I'm not trying to say that adultery is comparable to murder, but the concept does apply to an extent.

The adherence of the people to any given law is primarily dictated by two factors: what the opposing punishment is, and how strictly the law is enforced. The reason Prohibition was a failure is that the steps taken against it were not sufficient to deter the behaviour. I'm not against responsible consumption of alcohol, but I do personally think that a stricter policy against the abuse of alcohol would be in the public interest.

Today in the United States, and many other countries as I understand, marijuana use is illegal and/or restricted, yet it is readily available to just about anyone who should choose to look for it. That's not because there isn't a law against it, not because the law doesn't have a punishment set for breaking it, nor is it because the law is not enforced at all. The "problem" (if you see it as such ) arises from the aforementioned factors, that between the actual punishment and the enforcement of the law, that the law itself is not enough to deter the behaviour.

The same principle here would apply to adultery, anywhere where a law were passed with regard to it. The law would only be relevant insofar as the punishment is adequate and the enforcement is sufficient to make people actually stop and think about what they are doing, and frankly when it comes to sex, that could require setting the bar rather high. Because of this, I don't think that a law could realistically be effectively passed that would produce significant results without the punishment being absolutely absurd. Considering the relatively light punishment associated with more serious (more impacting) crimes, I don't see this as being a realistic scenario.

Slightly less seriously, @Matti/Babar/anian:

You have ice cream? :o

[Moresco]

It should be illegal to cheat on me! =D  Other than that, I have no concerns.

Isn't it illegal to cheat on your husband in South Dakota? I'm pretty sure there is an honest-to-god law on the books there, but it hasn't been enforced in a hundred years or something.  It only applies to wives cheating, and not husbands.  Pretty sexist...I like it!  I could be wrong though, it's not like I read through law to kill time.