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)
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
Quote from: anian on Tue 01/03/2011 17:21:50
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 01/03/2011 17:00:55
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quick answer: "no"
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)
Quote from: Khris on Tue 01/03/2011 18:13:59
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.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 01/03/2011 18:30:35
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.
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 ;)
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 01/03/2011 18:47:05
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?
QuoteHusbands 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.
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 01/03/2011 18:54:17
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 01/03/2011 17:54:57
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?
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 01/03/2011 17:36:05
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?
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 01/03/2011 19:19:13
Quote
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.
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 01/03/2011 20:47:39
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.
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."
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 01/03/2011 20:47:39
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.
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 01/03/2011 21:34:46
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.
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.
I think the simple answer is that marriage involves a legal contract between two individuals. If one individual is committing adultery, he/she is breaking the contract. Breaking contracts is illegal.
Khris, I agree with pretty much everything you say. Especially that people shouldn't get married in the first place if they intend to cheat. And yes, in some many cases it would be difficult to judge whether a crime had been committed, but in every kind of crime such ambiguities frequently appear. That's what courtrooms are for.
Theft isn't always as clear-cut as walking into a bank holding a gun. What if someone gives you an item, you say thanks, and walk off with it, and then they turn around and say you stole it?
I think this should've been kept on simple anwsers since people disagree on personal opinions, aparently there are laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery but are very diverse.
So my stand is
- should adultery be ilegal - no
- should people do it - no, as it not only usually points to troubles within relationships and this a unhealthy valve for them, but almost always people get hurt
- if it should was ilegal, I'd suggest a punishment like a punch in the head, giving them some curable but painful STD or similar
Quote from: anian on Tue 01/03/2011 23:53:24
- if it should was ilegal, I'd suggest a punishment like a punch in the head
I'd love to see the judge hand out this sentence
Who are the Morality Police?
Moral laws dictated by Organized Religion are both ludicrous and horrific.
Excuse me while I scream into a pillow.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Wed 02/03/2011 00:22:18
Who are the Morality Police?
Moral laws dictated by Organized Religion are both ludicrous and horrific.
Excuse me while I scream into a pillow.
At least two of those sentences could be the title for an experimental adventure game.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 01/03/2011 22:06:02
Lots of crimes only cause emotional harm. Some rape cases involve no 'physical' harm at all.
Every kind of rape involves forcing someone to do actions against their will and violates the privacy of that person's body.
Quote
Trespass is a largely emotional crime too providing no theft/damage takes place.
Trespass is a crime because of the violation of someone's property without their consent.
None of these is a crime because of (or can be measured by) the victim's emotions. Instead they harm privacy and freedom of the victim.
This topic reminded me that it's been a while since I committed a thoughtcrime.
I'm getting right on that.
*thinks really hard*
Heh.
The result of adultery is hurt feelings. No physical items are lost, no physical harm is done. In and of itself, it's just a douchy move.
If that is made illegal, they should also make dumping someone illegal, name calling, interrupting someone in a conversation, ignoring someone, etc.
It's a stupid thing to even argue about.
Besides, when your partner cheats on you, there's a positive side - at least now you know he/she isn't worth your time. Learning moment. Get over it and move on.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 01/03/2011 17:00:55
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).
Then it's not a quick
moral question, now is it?
The main reason why it shouldn't be illegal is the exact same reason why prohibition didn't work out.
Organized crime is going to set up adultery syndicates?
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 02/03/2011 15:00:31
Organized crime is going to set up adultery syndicates?
They already do :P
The point is that (1) outlawing it doesn't significantly reduce how often it happens; (2) enforcing it requires a big breach of privacy; and (3) a law doesn't work in practice unless the consensus of the populace actually agrees with it.
Quote from: Khris on Tue 01/03/2011 18:13:59
Although conservative people would like you to think otherwise, the only difference between a happy married couple and a happy couple is on paper.
Not legally so. You can have as many unmarried partners as you like (as you are able? ;)) but you cannot marry more than one person at a time, and to do so is an offence.
Married couples often receive benefits of other kinds in many countries such as tax breaks. One of the peculiar ones in the UK is that your car insurance premiums can go down when you marry! (This isn't a legal requirement of course and I have no idea what the rationale behind it is!)
QuotePlus, 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.
Completely agree with this, prevention being infinitely better than "cure".
QuoteTo 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.
Personally I married at 25 and do not regret not waiting longer at all. Different for different people I suspect. Having said that, if I had married at 18 I honestly dread thinking about who I would have married. ;D
In any event I agree with those who have said that this is really a breach of contract, which is not a crime but a civil offence, and therefore any "punishment" that might be given should be on this basis, and not a criminal one.
Having become involved in some religious debates here (and elsewhere) I think that at least some of you will know where I stand on this matter, from a religious viewpoint.
However, this isn't a matter of religious morality as it is whether the act of adultery should be punishable by the government as a criminal act.
I've read the opinions here, and I think that I'm pretty much in agreement that adultery is, from a secular view, nothing more than a breach of contract. I myself am unmarried, but one of my married roommates and I have actually had discussions regarding the secular meaning of marriage. Personally outside of any religious context I view marriage as nothing more than a piece of paper (the contractual agreement) and government benefits such as tax breaks and such. My roommate disagrees.
I do believe that marriage is more meaningful than that, but only in a religious context (as someone said, "holy matrimony").
So that being said, when it comes to the matter of secular law, I think that the highest punishment (if any) for such an offense should be monetary (up to and including repossession of property or docking of pay where necessary). Of course, as mentioned, this is largely already handled by divorce proceedings, so I'm not sure to what degree an additional law might even be necessary.
If people want punishment for cheating just go on that Cheaters TV show. I think that's about as much revenge as anyone is going to get (if they actually want it).
Legal punishment in case of adultery is already in practice. It does however require the parties to write a prenuptial agreement. Marriage mostly defines both parties as a single legal entity in matters of finances - such as taking a loan, buying property etc. It's core foundation lies in financial security for the wives, "securing her future" in marrying. The legal binding works of course within the marriage itself, but the main function lies between the spouses and society itself. One could argue whether the need to treat two individuals as one legal part has any function in our contemporary society, but this is me speaking from a secular western society. But then again, I can only comment on the law as it functions within my own confines.
I'd say, let people take a vow in front of God, Allah, Vishnu or the complete absence of deities with temporal power, and let each and everyone be themselves, alone, at the hands of justice. The laws regarding sex are already FUBAR, and this will only poke an already puss-infested wound further. If they want to enforce this within our secular courts, let them write a pre-nup stating an exact punishment for adultery, and also a definition of the actions performed that constitutes said action.
Quote from: 2ma2 on Thu 03/03/2011 17:14:04
puss-infested wound
Normally, I don't point out grammatical/spelling errors because I am worse than anyone.
But I love the idea of a wound infested with kittens.
Moral issues that everyone (or a great majority) agrees are bad can be legislated, but then look at what happened in America with Prohibition. I don't think a law telling people they can't cheat would prevent a significant number from doing it, they would just be more clever about it (just as they were with Speakeasies during Prohibition).
That said, I'm not sure you could make a strong case for suing a person for cheating barring a prenup, and even then it's usually just for the retention of pre-marriage goods and wealth. This is on par with suing someone for telling a secret or a lie or committing any kind of deception that hurts FEELINGS.
I don't think FEELINGS should be legislated.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 03/03/2011 18:10:31
Quote from: 2ma2 on Thu 03/03/2011 17:14:04
puss-infested wound
Normally, I don't point out grammatical/spelling errors because I am worse than anyone.
But I love the idea of a wound infested with kittens.
Isn't puss right? How else would you spell it?
It should be "pus".
I'm glad you placed kittens in that wound..
Quote from: ProgZmax on Thu 03/03/2011 18:13:27
I don't think FEELINGS should be legislated.
I don't either, but this kind of thing can destroy families, and even in the less extreme case the children grow up thinking that's how mummys and daddy's behave; the cycle never ends. In certain circumstances, when there are enough people who can't make a responsible decision, the legislators should be allowed to step in. I think this is one of those circumstances.
It's the same thinking behind prohibition and the criminalization of drugs. And I know such laws don't stop everybody (as Prohibition proved, and as millions of drug users prove every day), and some people use drugs very responsibly, but a lot of people don't and those people cause a lot of harm, just as a lot of people commit adultery irresponsibly, which can end in more than just a dame's hurt feelings. I feel that having such legislation in place would make a difference, however small. That has to count for something.
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.
This discussion isn't really relevant to me, but I just wanted to point out something that keeps coming up...
Quote from: Khris on Fri 04/03/2011 05:18:58
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 ;D) 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 :D.
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.
Quote from: Babar on Fri 04/03/2011 06:22:12
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.
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.
Now I'm unable to tell which posts in this thread are sarcasm and which are not. :(
You don't punch and kick people in the line at the ice cream stand because it's against the law?
You have lines at the ice cream stand? :o
You have ice cream stands? :o
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.
Mine is to get a divorce. Or some sort of open-ended agreement. Perhaps some ice cream.
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.
Quote from: Tuomas on Fri 04/03/2011 15:22:49
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 :)
I'm just saying there are some things disoriented people might do were it not for a law telling them not to.
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.
Quote from: Babar on Fri 04/03/2011 06:22:12
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 ;D) 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.)
Quote from: Dualnames on Fri 04/03/2011 16:38:33
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.
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 04/03/2011 18:57:13
Quote from: Dualnames on Fri 04/03/2011 16:38:33
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 04/03/2011 17:15:05People 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 :P) 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
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.
No, it shouldn't be illegal. For (some) reasons already said.
Tuomas:
There is a word for adultery in Finnish: Aviorikos (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviorikos). Although it's rarely used, probably because of the word "crime" in there.
I just found out that adultery IS illegal by private law in my country (germany), though its not prosecuted anymore.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 05/03/2011 11:12:08
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.
Eternal damnation is a strong selling-point, if you're into that.. :=
Yeah, yeah, but I think you get what I was saying. ::)
Somehow I didn't see this though:
QuoteWhat's worse? Racism or sexism?
To this, let me say, that both are equally funny. 8)
I only discriminate against individuals, and then only after they have proven themselves incompetent tools. :D
Asl charlie sheen, he makes the laws on such things according to him...