Should adultery be illegal?

philologos

This is a question which I have wondered for a while. I personally have concluded yes on this one.

I see no reason why a marriage as a legal contract should not incur a penalty on the ones who violate it, preferrably a lengthy enough jail sentence. In cases of adultery people seem to see it as an acceptable part of society. I'd like to know why people think it is acceptable though if it can cause so much pain and if it can cause serious damage to families. Surely violating a contract as great as this is worthy of such a penalty.

Also for anyone who has a bit of a clue about legal history in Ireland, was adultery ever illegal here, if so when and for how long?

I've left a poll up, I suspect that it will go a certain way, but just out of curiosity just in case I am surprised it may be worth looking at.

ParkRunner

A jail sentence in my opinion is going way overboard. I agree with you that adultery can cause a lot of hurt and pain but half the country would have to be put in jail to do this properly.

From my limited knowledge of Sharia Law, adultery is generally punishable by death by stoning, which in my opinion is also a disproportionate punishment.

I personally don't see the attraction with going down the road of marriage because if you genuinely really love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them, why do you need a legally binding contract? People grow apart over time, it is only natural.

The divorce procedure, although horrible in itself, is the best way to deal with adultery in a developed western democratic country in my opinion

philologos

EF wrote: »

A jail sentence in my opinion is going way overboard. I agree with you that adultery can cause a lot of hurt and pain but half the country would have to be put in jail to do this properly.

Yes, adultery causes the breaking up of an entire family. Pain for all involved. There should be a deterrent for people to be honest about their relationship, and if they can't keep it going to decide what to do next instead of people going off behind peoples backs and violating the agreement that they had made originally.

EF wrote: »

From my limited knowledge of Sharia Law, adultery is generally punishable by death by stoning, which in my opinion is also a disproportionate punishment.

I think it's best if you have a limited knowledge of it not to get too involved in speaking about it until you do. I disagree with stoning to death, it's incompatible with my belief system. However, elements of Sharia do offer room for thought in Western societies such as Sharia finance and banking (of which London is becoming one of the major centres in the world for, along with Doha, in Qatar). There are things from Sharia Law that could be very much to the benefit of Western society rather than it's detriment.

Basically: We shouldn't be assuming "Oh those Muslims are backward", rather we should be thinking and saying, what positives can Muslims contribute to our society?

I don't agree with you though. If we want to stop the pain and the hurt that is inflicted, surely there should be some form of deterrent?

EF wrote: »

I personally don't see the attraction with going down the road of marriage because if you genuinely really love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them, why do you need a legally binding contract? People grow apart over time, it is only natural.

Is it natural? I take it you do not believe in the "death do us part" notion of marriage? What do you think of married couples who have been together for a life time, are they really just staying in it for the sake of it?

EF wrote: »

The divorce procedure, although horrible in itself, is the best way to deal with adultery in a developed western democratic country in my opinion

If the divorce procedure is horrible, surely as thinking people we should be trying to find ways to improve how we deal with adultery in a Western society. I think the notion that Western society is somehow the pinaccle of civilisation is wrong, grossly wrong. We need to find new ways to be able to constantly improve it, and to constantly progress. I think criminalising adultery would be a progressive move for society (albeit in the conservative / Christian democratic sense of progressive, most liberals would freak at this).

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I see no reason why a marriage as a legal contract should not incur a penalty on the ones who violate it, preferrably a lengthy enough jail sentence. In cases of adultery people seem to see it as an acceptable part of society. I'd like to know why people think it is acceptable though if it can cause so much pain and if it can cause serious damage to families. Surely violating a contract as great as this is worthy of such a penalty.
.

I suspect that if adultery was made illegal, people would simply stop getting married, or would demand a marriage contract without the penalty (marriage lite)

But if we are to enforce the marriage contract in law for adultery, why not for other aspects of it. When I got married, I fully expected my wife to have my dinner on the table when I got home from work every night, and it just hasn't worked out like that. Does anyone know the number of a good solicitor?

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

I suspect that if adultery was made illegal, people would simply stop getting married, or would demand a marriage contract without the penalty (marriage lite)

If they don't want to commit themselves fully to their partners should they be married at all? That is the primary question.

dvpower wrote: »

But if we are to enforce the marriage contract in law for adultery, why not for other aspects of it. When I got married, I fully expected my wife to have my dinner on the table when I got home from work every night, and it just hasn't worked out like that. Does anyone know the number of a good solicitor?

Marriage from the get go is the act of committing yourself to one partner. Not to many partners. If that were the case we should legalise polygamy too. I think most people expect marriage to equal monogamy. If not I'd argue there is a serious problem within society on the issue.

ParkRunner

Yes, adultery causes the breaking up of an entire family. Pain for all involved. There should be a deterrent for people to be honest about their relationship, and if they can't keep it going to decide what to do next instead of people going off behind peoples backs and violating the agreement that they had made originally.

I agree with you that it is the wrong thing to do, to go off behind your partner's back after you entered into a life-long contract. But from my perspective it is a matter of personal responsibility to do the right thing rather than have the State impose a jail sentence on a person for commiting adultery.

Basically: We shouldn't be assuming "Oh those Muslims are backward", rather we should be thinking and saying, what positives can Muslims contribute to our society?

I couldn't agree more. I was just giving an example of how other societies deal with the issue of adultery.

Is it natural? I take it you do not believe in the "death do us part" notion of marriage? What do you think of married couples who have been together for a life time, are they really just staying in it for the sake of it?

I think it is natural for people to grow apart yes. Friends come and go and those who are most important to you don't need a legally binding contract to stay with you for life.

If the divorce procedure is horrible, surely as thinking people we should be trying to find ways to improve how we deal with adultery in a Western society. I think the notion that Western society is somehow the pinaccle of civilisation is wrong, grossly wrong. We need to find new ways to be able to constantly improve it, and to constantly progress. I think criminalising adultery would be a progressive move for society (albeit in the conservative / Christian democratic sense of progressive, most liberals would freak at this).

Personally I dont see how criminalising adultery will stamp it out. If a person is truely unhappy in a relationship they should end the relationship before starting another one while still married. It is simply a question of personal responsibility.

BJC

Going to prison for adultery?
That's one of the most foolish things I've ever heard.
People should only ever have their freedom denied if they are a danger to society in some way. Not if they have hurt your feelings. Next thing you know they'll be putting people in prison for bad debt....oh wait....

JohnK

Hell no it shouldn't be illegal. And anyway, what would you define adultery as? Any sex outside marriage? What about swingers? Believe it or not there are some people and couples who can happily have sex outside of their marriage without destroying the marriage itself.

philologos

EF wrote: »

I agree with you that it is the wrong thing to do, to go off behind your partner's back after you entered into a life-long contract. But from my perspective it is a matter of personal responsibility to do the right thing rather than have the State impose a jail sentence on a person for commiting adultery.

There surely should be some redress from the one who has been wronged in such a situation? If not jail time what would you propose?

EF wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I was just giving an example of how other societies deal with the issue of adultery.

Fair enough, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to reconsider our own way of dealing with it.

EF wrote: »

I think it is natural for people to grow apart yes. Friends come and go and those who are most important to you don't need a legally binding contract to stay with you for life.

So you don't believe in marriage at all effectively. See this is the main issue of the argument, if you don't hold marriage highly you wouldn't care as much for defending it. I hold marriage quite highly, therefore I would defend it quite strongly.

EF wrote: »

Personally I dont see how criminalising adultery will stamp it out. If a person is truely unhappy in a relationship they should end the relationship before starting another one while still married. It is simply a question of personal responsibility.

It wouldn't stamp it out, but it would minimalise it to a considerable degree. People would think twice before wronging another in such a cruel way.

BJC wrote: »

Going to prison for adultery?
That's one of the most foolish things I've ever heard.
People should only ever have their freedom denied if they are a danger to society in some way. Not if they have hurt your feelings. Next thing you know they'll be putting people in prison for bad debt....oh wait....

Really? I think it's quite foolish to have such a permissive attitude to it.

I don't consider adultery a freedom or a right. It's a despicable act that should be punished.

philologos

JohnK wrote: »

Hell no it shouldn't be illegal. And anyway, what would you define adultery as? Any sex outside marriage? What about swingers? Believe it or not there are some people and couples who can happily have sex outside of their marriage without destroying the marriage itself.

Well the common definition of adultery is extra-marital sex, in the sense that you are having sex with a married man or woman without being the other spouse in question.

This is the act I personally find abhorrent.

dvpower

JohnK wrote: »

Hell no it shouldn't be illegal. And anyway, what would you define adultery as? Any sex outside marriage? What about swingers? Believe it or not there are some people and couples who can happily have sex outside of their marriage without destroying the marriage itself.

If people got to choose the contents of their marriage contract then maybe some sanction for adultery would be OK (but maybe not jail; the taxpayer should be protected in what would be a breach of a civil contract).

Allowing for many different marriage contracts would allow people to choose the type of marriage that suits their needs. Churches, of course, would only support and facilitate those contracts that were compatible with their views.

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

There surely should be some redress from the one who has been wronged in such a situation? If not jail time what would you propose?
.

Simply to go down the divorce procedure and the person who strayed should pay. Being realistic we don't have the room in our jails to put adulterers, where would you propose we put them?

So you don't believe in marriage at all effectively. See this is the main issue of the argument, if you don't hold marriage highly you wouldn't care as much for defending it. I hold marriage quite highly, therefore I would defend it quite strongly.

That's fair enough, there are those who do and there are those who don't believe in marriage. If a marriage is strong enough surely each partner would be open and honest with eachother when things are not going well and they can sort things out. If a person is going to stray there must be something missing in the relationship in my opinion. We don't, as a society, need to introduce criminal convictions for adulterers though.

philologos

EF wrote: »

Simply to go down the divorce procedure and the person who strayed should pay. Being realistic we don't have the room in our jails to put adulterers, where would you propose we put them?

Are finances really enough? For the wealthy that would be mere short change. There needs to be a serious punishment for a serious grievance such as this.

As for room in jail, this is straying from the point. If something is wrong, there should be a serious punishment for it even if it means that more jails will have to be open. However I don't believe this is the case given the fact that crimes in general have dropped in this country while violent crime such as rape has seen a small increase.

EF wrote: »

That's fair enough, there are those who do and there are those who don't believe in marriage. If a marriage is strong enough surely each partner would be open and honest with eachother when things are not going well and they can sort things out. If a person is going to stray there must be something missing in the relationship in my opinion. We don't, as a society, need to introduce criminal convictions for adulterers though.

Yes, and there should be a deterrent to prevent people from not being open and honest with eachother. People can create the illusion that they are being honest and open with the other but at the same time be a deceiver at heart. I think we definitely do need to introduce criminal convictions for this.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider adultery a freedom or a right. It's a despicable act that should be punished.

I take this to mean that it would be punishable by the state.

But what about a scenario where a husband cheats on his wife. He sees the error of his ways, is apologetic and his wife forgives him, they work things out and agree to try and put it behind them. Now the state jumps in, prosecutes and convicts the husband for adultery and imposes a large fine. The court case brings the whole horrible incident to the fore again, undermining the shaky marriage. The large fine adds a terrible financial burden on the couple and the marriage crumbles under the pressure. The ill thought out law against adultery has destroyed marriage, not supported it.

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

Are finances really enough? For the wealthy that would be mere short change. There needs to be a serious punishment for a serious grievance such as this.

.

Apart from punishing someone financially and forcing them to live elsewhere I don't see what other measure can be imposed before going down the imprisonment route. Maybe as part of the divorce settlement the person who strayed would be ordered to pay for counselling for their ex-partner. It is another financial penalty I know, but to deny someone their freedom because they strayed in their marriage is going too far.

As for room in jail, this is straying from the point. If something is wrong, there should be a serious punishment for it even if it means that more jails will have to be open. However I don't believe this is the case given the fact that crimes in general have dropped in this country while violent crime such as rape has seen a small increase.

The prisons are overcrowded so it is a relevant point I think. Having visited mountjoy myself I wouldn't put an animal in there, in the men's wing at least.

Yes, and there should be a deterrent to prevent people from not being open and honest with eachother. People can create the illusion that they are being honest and open with the other but at the same time be a deceiver at heart. I think we definitely do need to introduce criminal convictions for this

A criminal conviction for not being open and honest in a marriage? The illusion might be on the part of the partner who believes they are in a solid and secure marriage and can't face up to the fact that they are not and won't deal with it constructively.

philologos

EF wrote: »

Apart from punishing someone financially and forcing them to live elsewhere I don't see what other measure can be imposed before going down the imprisonment route. Maybe as part of the divorce settlement the person who strayed would be ordered to pay for counselling for their ex-partner. It is another financial penalty I know, but to deny someone their freedom because they strayed in their marriage is going too far.

I don't see why we shouldn't go down the imprisonment route. People seem to give deference to the offenders than the ones afflicted in this case. I've never understood the reason for this deference.

The illusion that counselling fixes all is a bit simplistic. It is clear that the offender has a problem too for failing to commit to their spouse, it is also clear that the one that the offender has committed adultery with is also responsible for not being prudent enough to know that it is wrong to have sex with anothers spouse.

The idea that money makes all better is also wrong.

EF wrote: »

The prisons are overcrowded so it is a relevant point I think. Having visited mountjoy myself I wouldn't put an animal in there, in the men's wing at least.

It's really not a worthy argument. Either something is worthy of prison or it isn't. Would you support legalising stealing if the prisons were full?

Referencing a single prison isn't an entirely accurate assessment of the entire prison system. What about the Midlands Prison, Wheatfield or other locations?

EF wrote: »

A criminal conviction for not being open and honest in a marriage? The illusion might be on the part of the partner who believes they are in a solid and secure marriage and can't face up to the fact that they are not and won't deal with it constructively.

The criminal conviction comes as a part of violating a legal contract. Just as I can be put in jail for violating a legal contract in business, or failing to fulfil my tax commitments. I consider the latter two to be far far less serious than the first.

dvpower wrote: »

But what about a scenario where a husband cheats on his wife. He sees the error of his ways, is apologetic and his wife forgives him, they work things out and agree to try and put it behind them. Now the state jumps in, prosecutes and convicts the husband for adultery and imposes a large fine. The court case brings the whole horrible incident to the fore again, undermining the shaky marriage. The large fine adds a terrible financial burden on the couple and the marriage crumbles under the pressure. The ill thought out law against adultery has destroyed marriage, not supported it.

It is up to the afflicted to press charges I think. If the charges are dropped against the spouse they can decide to put it right whatever way they deem suitable. Or at least that is what I thought.

enry

I don't know about prison.

Its not fair to start a new relationship when you already in one.

Quick Story for yea.

I was drinking with a number of guys I went to college with one of the lads who is married told us all about a relationship he was having with his secretary which had at the time recently finished. it became apparent during the course of the story that she was also married. he concluded the story by saying the sex was fcuking great.

I responded in disgust by saying that was probably because she had so much practice with her husband. to that the all my colleges mates fell about the place laughing.

As to whether or not adultery should be illegal I think you would find 50 percent of people would agree with you and the other 50 percent just think adultery is funny.

keane2097

Is there not a very obvious flaw in this argument, in that if the only thing stopping a person committing adultery is possible jail time then they should no longer be in a marraige?

keane2097

enry wrote: »

As to whether or not adultery should be illegal I think you would find 50 percent of people would agree with you and the other 50 percent just think adultery is funny.

Condescension won't get you too far around here bud...

philologos

keane2097 wrote: »

Is there not a very obvious flaw in this argument, in that if the only thing stopping a person committing adultery is possible jail time then they should no longer be in a marraige?

I think that would probably be the obvious end if this was indeed the charge. I assume not many would agree to continue their marriage if such a penalty was applied.

People who commit adultery should dissolve their marriage if they want to be with someone else, it's quite simple.

Ickle Magoo

No, it shouldn't be illegal.

There is more to adultery than one person cheating on the other. Generally speaking people who are in happy and fulfilling relationships do not have the want nor need to be with anyone else. Adultery is often the result of many years of neglecting a marriage by both parties.

Adultery is not the way to improve self image or confidence or satisfy sexual appetite when in a less than satisfactory relationship but I don't see it as the job of the state to step in and lay blame with a single party resulting in a custodial sentence or criminal record, generally both parties share responsibility when a marriage breaks down.

havana

I recently had to pull out of a contract (and was allowed to do so by the other party- with a financial penalty) - should I be jailed for this?

IMHO this is a bizarre suggestion - for years people have agrued the fact that the state should stay out of the bedroom (contraception etc) and now some want to invite them back in?

skibaskin

gotta love these boards. great question

Thomas_S_Hunterson

This is a ridiculous proposition.

philologos

havana wrote: »

I recently had to pull out of a contract (and was allowed to do so by the other party- with a financial penalty) - should I be jailed for this?

Divorce would be the equivalent of this. If the other party consents to just leave it there, then that is different than feigning to still be in the contract, and blatently breaking it behind the other party's back. Surely you can see that?

havana wrote: »

IMHO this is a bizarre suggestion - for years people have agrued the fact that the state should stay out of the bedroom (contraception etc) and now some want to invite them back in?

Violating a marital contract is different to the scenario that you have just painted here. It isn't comparing like with like. Yes, I support the State standing up for the afflicted by adultery and I think it's only right that there is redress for this.

Sean K: It's all well and good saying it is ridiculous. How about giving a reason why? I find it interesting that people are so willing to defend the "rights" of the offenders to commit adultery, but yet are so unwilling to defend the one who is afflicted by this.

keane2097

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that would probably be the obvious end if this was indeed the charge. I assume not many would agree to continue their marriage if such a penalty was applied.

People who commit adultery should dissolve their marriage if they want to be with someone else, it's quite simple.

Agreed.

The problem is that a law against adultery will not do anything for a properly functioning marriage, it will only criminalise people in the unfortunate position of being in a bad marriage and prolong marriage's that should not continue anyway.

enry

New question. just say your wife was hot and then due to the passage of time she was not.

and as a result you didn't enjoy the physical aspect of the relationship as you once did. under these circumstance surely no one could condone that adultery simply to satisfy a physical need should be illegal.

Perhaps adultery should be illegal where the cheating party has emotionally cheated on their partner.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why we shouldn't go down the imprisonment route.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is up to the afflicted to press charges I think. If the charges are dropped against the spouse they can decide to put it right whatever way they deem suitable. Or at least that is what I thought.

If adultery is going to be subject to a criminal conviction, then the spouse would just be a witness in a case brought by the state. A witness can't decide to drop charges; only the state could do this. A spouse could decide not to make a complaint in the first place, but a third party (perhaps someone who felt that adultery had a serious negative effect on society in general) if they knew of the adultery, could report it and the state would be required to investigate the crime.

philologos

keane2097 wrote: »

Agreed.

The problem is that a law against adultery will not do anything for a properly functioning marriage, it will only criminalise people in the unfortunate position of being in a bad marriage and prolong marriage's that should not continue anyway.

I don't agree. Marriages can be salvaged. However, I think redress should apply even in bad marriages not necessarily to save them, but to show up as a sign to society that you should take careful consideration before you get married, and if you are married it's a commitment for life and it requires responsibility to commit yourself to monogamy.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jakkass wrote: »

Sean K: It's all well and good saying it is ridiculous. How about giving a reason why? I find it interesting that people are so willing to defend the "rights" of the offenders to commit adultery, but yet are so unwilling to defend the one who is afflicted by this.

What rights are being breached?

People don't have a 'right' to a faithful partner.
People don't have a 'right' to a happy life.
People don't have a 'right' to a stable family.

These are things we hope for.

However people do have a right to freedom of association and a right to act as they like within the law.

A marriage 'contract' is merely a status in law. It does not and should not impinge on an adults right to act within the law and cannot impinge on our human rights.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jakkass wrote: »

but to show up as a sign to society that you should take careful consideration before you get married, and if you are married it's a commitment for life and it requires responsibility to commit yourself to monogamy.

You're the one calling marriage a contract.

keane2097

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree. Marriages can be salvaged. However, I think redress should apply even in bad marriages not necessarily to save them, but to show up as a sign to society that you should take careful consideration before you get married, and if you are married it's a commitment for life and it requires responsibility to commit yourself to monogamy.

There are cases where the adulterous person is as sinned against as sinning.

Think of a situation in which a woman is being routinely beaten up by her husband, goes to a male friend for help and ends up romantically involved with that man.

I don't think that woman should end up in jail.

You're taking far too simplistic a view of the infinitely complicated field that is human interaction...

Ickle Magoo

So, how would you police such a law? If people want to cheat then they will, a law is not going to stop them any more than it stops people taking drugs or speeding or anything else currently legislated.

How would you prove infidelity? Would people accused of such be forced to have physical exams or would it just be a case of police resources being syphoned away from murder investigations and drug traffickers and used to tail people slinking off for a bit of nooky?!

It's a bit silly really. The dynamics of a marriage constantly change as the people in the marriage do, I think a blanket law on infidelity would be so open to dispute and grey areas that it would be impossible to actually implement.

philologos

Sean_K wrote: »

What rights are being breached?

People don't have a 'right' to a faithful partner.
People don't have a 'right' to a happy life.
People don't have a 'right' to a stable family.

These are things we hope for.

However people do have a right to freedom of association and a right to act as they like within the law.

A marriage 'contract' is merely a status in law. It does not and should not impinge on an adults right to act within the law and cannot impinge on our human rights.

The contract is being violated. It's rather clear isn't it? If you promise to be committed to your wife or your husband until the point of death, you are meant to take that seriously. That isn't something frivolous, and I don't think people should start to see it as being frivolous.

dvpower: I'm not sure that that is accurate. The spouse would surely be the plaintiff, and the adulterer would be the defendant in a court of law? I thought the plantiff could stop pressing charges during the case. If not, then there should be a provision for this if such legislation did come into power (Hardly likely unfortunately).

philologos

keane2097 wrote: »

Think of a situation in which a woman is being routinely beaten up by her husband, goes to a male friend for help and ends up romantically involved with that man.

That's just plain stupid. You should seek legal counsel before getting involved in another relationship. If anything is foolish that is it.

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't think that woman should end up in jail.

I think that she should if she has committed adultery. I believe that he should be in jail for domestic abuse. Both would have violated laws. It's like that hairdresser who raped an armed robber who came into her hair salon. She is guilty of rape, he is guilty of armed robbery. Therefore both should be punished.

keane2097 wrote: »

You're taking far too simplistic a view of the infinitely complicated field that is human interaction...

I really don't think it is all that complicated.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

and if you are married it's a commitment for life and it requires responsibility to commit yourself to monogamy.

That's only in your very narrow definition of marriage. Lots of people are more than happy to have open marriages, partner swap or any number of other situations defined by peoples very different views on what is or isn't part of marriage. I don't think the state has any right to impose ultra conservative legal restrictions on what is fundamentally a private and voluntary arrangement.

keane2097

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that she should if she has committed adultery. I believe that he should be in jail for domestic abuse. Both would have violated laws.

But surely the "marriage contract" is already broken when the husband starts beating the shít out of her? Maybe she's too scared to leave him outright cos he threatens to kill her?

You really are taking an overly simplistic view of this, whether you can see it or not.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's like that hairdresser who raped an armed robber who came into her hair salon. She is guilty of rape, he is guilty of armed robbery. Therefore both should be punished.

It is absolutely nothing like that - you're really scrambling if that's the best comparison you can come up with..

philologos

enry wrote: »

New question. just say your wife was hot and then due to the passage of time she was not.

and as a result you didn't enjoy the physical aspect of the relationship as you once did. under these circumstance surely no one could condone that adultery simply to satisfy a physical need should be illegal.

Perhaps adultery should be illegal where the cheating party has emotionally cheated on their partner.

Yes, I can support adultery being illegal in this case too. Marriage isn't meant to be just about a physical relationship, but about an emotional connection between you. As such I think it would be wrong to do this.

philologos

keane2097 wrote: »

But surely the "marriage contract" is already broken when the husband starts beating the shít out of her? Maybe she's too scared to leave him outright cos he threatens to kill her?

It's not legally dissolved. As I say someone in this case should seek legal refuge instead of shacking up with someone else to have sex with. I just don't find your example good enough. Committing adultery isn't acceptable even in that circumstance.

keane2097 wrote: »

It is absolutely nothing like that - you're really scrambling if that's the best comparison you can come up with..

I'm not really. You put the case forward that both have broken the law (if adultery was made illegal), therefore both should be punished under the law, albeit with grace and chance for rehabilitation and reemergence to society while serving time.

keane2097

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not really. You put the case forward that both have broken the law (if adultery was made illegal), therefore both should be punished under the law, albeit with grace and chance for rehabilitation and reemergence to society while serving time.

But my point is that the law would be too complicated to enact because of these exact type of situations.

You simply couldn't enforce a blanket ban because there are just so many situations in which adultery is justified, if undesirable.

Anyway, you're refusing to entertain any alternative points of view, giving them a cursory mention and saying "not good enough" so I'm going to go ahead and unsubscribe from this thread.

The poll tells its own story and, tellingingly, you seem to be the only person arguing your side of the argument.

If that doesn't tell you you've oversimplified things nothing will.

enry

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I can support adultery being illegal in this case too. Marriage isn't meant to be just about a physical relationship, but about an emotional connection between you. As such I think it would be wrong to do this.

Jakkass your not my ex-wife are you?

philologos

The law is there to protect people in the majority of situations. Your example basically comes down to this:

What if my husband was a wife beater? I go off to a male friend who well, I kinda like don't I? Surely it's okay to have sex with him because my husband is such a nasty nasty man.

It's irrelevant. The marriage should be dissolved before this should be seen as acceptable even if the husband is nasty.

I don't see that as complicated, I see both as being in the wrong.

enry: Considering I'm male no . Thanks for that though, t'was funny.

philologos

keane2097 wrote: »

You simply couldn't enforce a blanket ban because there are just so many situations in which adultery is justified, if undesirable.

I'd really argue that there aren't any. You might want to clarify some of these reasons. Are any of these situations possible with a divorce first? If so what do you think the proper way of dealing with it is?

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

The marriage should be dissolved before this should be seen as acceptable even if the husband is nasty.

I don't see that as complicated, I see both as being in the wrong.

.

A person therefore would be legally obliged to abstain from sex for 5 years or so until the marriage is formally dissolved..even if their partner was a nasty creature?

philologos

It takes 5 years for a divorce to be completed?

JohnK

Jakkass wrote: »

It takes 5 years for a divorce to be completed?

I'm open to correction but I think for divorce in Ireland you need to be separated for 4 years then presumably it'll take some time for the divorce to actually go through.

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

It takes 5 years for a divorce to be completed?

From the divorce act 1996:

PART II THE OBTAINING OF A DECREE OF DIVORCE

Grant of decree of divorce and custody etc., of children. 5. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, where, on application to it in that behalf by either of the spouses concerned, the court is satisfied that—

( a ) at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

( b ) there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses, and

( c ) such provision as the court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses and any dependent members of the family,

philologos

Interesting, I concede that for an adultery law to have any merit there would have to be a means of dissolving a marriage in the case of domestic abuse, and that there would have to be a quicker mechanism of divorce.

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, I concede that for an adultery law to have any merit there would have to be a means of dissolving a marriage in the case of domestic abuse, and that there would have to be a quicker mechanism of divorce.

Definitely, that is partially why I am not so keen on the idea of marriage. If things do not work out for the best, you won't be able to truely move on for years after. Given the importance of the family in our Constitution, I can't see an amendment to the Divorce Act being proposed any time soon.
A long term respectful relationship based on mutual trust, not a paper contract, is much more appealing to me.

turgon

Why should the state act as moral supervisor? It is a matter between two people, and there is no reason the state should get involved whatsoever.

People in this country just want the government to do everything for them. What next, kids go to the penitentiary for not eating their corn flakes?

philologos

turgon wrote: »

Why should the state act as moral supervisor? It is a matter between two people, and there is no reason the state should get involved whatsoever.

Why shouldn't it? It already steps in for quite a lot of issues. Policing is basically involved on moral supervision if you think about it. It's based on the equality of humanity and that there are certain cases which are not acceptable within the general mainstream society. I think quite a few people would see adultery as entirely unacceptable.

turgon wrote: »

People in this country just want the government to do everything for them. What next, kids go to the penitentiary for not eating their corn flakes?

This isn't comparing like with like. Infact it isn't even a good reductio ad absurdum argument at all.