quick moral question: Should Adultery Be Illegal?

[Guybrush Nosehair]

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.

[Stupot]

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?

[Anian]

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

[Calin Leafshade]

   - 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

[LimpingFish]

Who are the Morality Police?

Moral laws dictated by Organized Religion are both ludicrous and horrific.

Excuse me while I scream into a pillow.

[Ali]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

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.

[voh]

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.

[Radiant]

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.

[Snarky]

Organized crime is going to set up adultery syndicates?

[Radiant]

Organized crime is going to set up adultery syndicates?

They already do

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.

[Intense Degree]

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!)

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.

Completely agree with this, prevention being infinitely better than "cure".

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.

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.

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.

[monkey0506]

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.

[moshboy]

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).

[2ma2]

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[Phemar]

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?

[2ma2]

It should be "pus".

I'm glad you placed kittens in that wound..

[Stupot]

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.