Should adultery be illegal?

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.

dreamlogic

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.

Eventually you may find that this would lead to quickie divorces, further undermining the institution of marriage...
Interesting debate though

Capt'n Midnight

It's a marriage contract. Adultery would be breach of contract. :pac:

Not sure how long ago but compensation for rape victims was based on their "marriagablity" as if they lost value in the market :eek:

All babies should have DNA tests, to determine treatable genetic disorders, paternity testing should be done at the same time. Cheats should be caught, and children should not be put at risk either thinking they may have genetic risks when they don't or worse have unsuspected risks.

From a financial point of view may be set a limit on genetic testing , if you don't screen your kids within X time then you can't return it.

dvpower

According to Wikipedia, Adultery is already illegal in some US States including Michigan (Life Sentence) and Maryland ($10 fine).

havana

Jakkass wrote: »

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..

So what if i no longer am committed to my husband. I no longer love him but i do not cheat on him. Have i now broken the contract cos i promised to love him till death do up part? Do you really want to legislate where peoples feelings apd concerned. If you argue that infidelity should be illegal and punishable by prison then so should marraige breakup for any reason as the contract has been broken, no?

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

I wouldnt agree. I would see the ideal role of the police and justice system to uphold the rights of the citizens against others, both foreign and domestic, and the state itself (yes I robbed that line off of another boardsie!)

So assume the state is to be moral supervisor. Obviously it must adopt a set of morals. Whos morals does it adopt? My pro-choice pro-gay marriage pro-prostitution pro-cannabis legalization opinions? Or that of my religious grandmother?

As I have said, in my opinion the state should try to accommodate diverse morals.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Yes, it was quite awful!

philologos

havana wrote: »

So what if i no longer am committed to my husband. I no longer love him but i do not cheat on him. Have i now broken the contract cos i promised to love him till death do up part? Do you really want to legislate where peoples feelings apd concerned. If you argue that infidelity should be illegal and punishable by prison then so should marraige breakup for any reason as the contract has been broken, no?

You agreed to be bound together as one until death. I'm not sure of the exact wording of that segment of the ceremony, so I don't think I should get into that until I research it a bit more.

I want to legislate when one has carried out a serious wrong to another. That's what I think it is right to do. Adultery is a serious wrong. It's a lot more personal than a thief thieving from you.

Marriage breakup through divorce is a legitimate process.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

I wouldnt agree. I would see the ideal role of the police and justice system to uphold the rights of the citizens against others, both foreign and domestic, and the state itself (yes I robbed that line off of another boardsie!)

Of course you wouldn't agree. However, I must ask you, do you consider adultery a right? If so, I don't think we are anywhere near on a similar page. Adultery is an act of wrongdoing to another. Therefore should we condone acts of wrongdoing against others in our society. I personally would say no.

turgon wrote: »

So assume the state is to be moral supervisor. Obviously it must adopt a set of morals. Whos morals does it adopt? My pro-choice pro-gay marriage pro-prostitution pro-cannabis legalization opinions? Or that of my religious grandmother?

The moral majority I would assume. In this case the moral majority seems to be the ones who think that the adulterer should be defended above the one who is suffering.

The only way we can deal with differing values would to take a Venn Diagram type approach. What is in the middle of all of these differing views. What is the general view of the population. Seems reasonable to me anyway.

turgon wrote: »

As I have said, in my opinion the state should try to accommodate diverse morals.

That's a first, in another thread you advocated that conservatives shouldn't advocate their own moral views. You said that conservatives speaking about their views is effectively forcing their moral views on others. I then proceeded to remind you that if you silenced conservatives you would be guilty of this yourself.

So what's changed? Just curious? Or by diverse morals do you mean morals that fall outside the Venn Diagram approach I discussed earlier.

I'm actually rather open to discussing diverse morals if they are reasonable. For example, elements of Sharia law could be positive in Irish society, but elements of it clearly are not.

Conservativism would advocate a reasonable thought process, weighing the positives and the negatives and after much thought (not being rash about it) conclude if this would be positive or negative for the society at large. It's a discussion we need to discuss together.

havana

Jakkass wrote: »

You agreed to be bound together as one until death. I'm not sure of the exact wording of that segment of the ceremony, so I don't think I should get into that until I research it a bit more.

I want to legislate when one has carried out a serious wrong to another. That's what I think it is right to do. Adultery is a serious wrong. It's a lot more personal than a thief thieving from you.

Marriage breakup through divorce is a legitimate process.

So its ok to break a contract for one reason but not one that goes against your morals. What if my (imaginary) husband thinks the fact i no longer love him is a serious wrong against him? Who determines what is a serious wrong?

philologos

havana wrote: »

So its ok to break a contract for one reason but not one that goes against your morals. What if my (imaginary) husband thinks the fact i no longer love him is a serious wrong against him? Who determines what is a serious wrong?

I didn't say that. When you are married you promise that you will be bound to your wife and your husband until a point when you:
a) Divorce
or
b) Die

Now if you have extra-marital sex without concluding your marriage. You are effectively breaking the terms of your agreement.

As for who determines what a serious wrong is. Marriage is held as the highest union that can be attained in society. On a secular scale I would assume that society decides what is a gross wrong. On a religious scale I would believe that God has given us the gift to assess and discern what is right and wrong and that He through the prophets and Jesus revealed this to us. I personally hold to the latter, but for this argument I will hold to the former as it's the only practical way to reason with non-believers.

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't agree. However, I must ask you, do you consider adultery a right?

No, I consider it highly wrong. I consider cheating on a partner in a normal unmarried relationship very wrong. But its an issue between those two people. If I heard my friend had cheated I would talk to him and petition him/her to tell the OH, or to try and sort it out. I would not punish him in anyway. Its not my buisness.

Jakkass wrote: »

The moral majority I would assume.

What if the majority want Travellers deported to achil island? The majority is not the ideal way to run any state.

Jakkass wrote: »

What is the general view of the population. Seems reasonable to me anyway.

So the general population think gays getting married is wrong. However it makes no difference to anyone, whether or not they are married they will still be having sex, making public displays of emotion etc. Yet, even though this concerns nobody, because the majority want it it should be enforced?

Jakkass wrote: »

That's a first, in another thread you advocated that conservatives shouldn't advocate their own moral views.

No. I said that conservative should apply their morals to their own lives, but in situations where they are not effected they should not force other people to take their morals. This "forcing" of morals is usually done through the apparatus of the government.

Jakkass wrote: »

You said that conservatives speaking about their views is effectively forcing their moral views on others.

No. I said the conservative legislating to ban certain things, like consensual prostitution, is forcing their moral opinion on others.

Jakkass wrote: »

Conservativism would advocate a reasonable thought process, weighing the positives and the negatives and after much thought (not being rash about it) conclude if this would be positive or negative for the society at large. It's a discussion we need to discuss together.

I fully agree - it is a discussion we need to have and through talking to people like you I have learned about other peoples opinions of things and how they disagree with me. And I respect that.

But "society at large" is where we disagree. In fact, this whole idea of society is really what I disagree with. It is all too convenient to lump people together and pretend they all feel or need the same things.

Why say illegalize gay marriage? Because the majority are against it? Can you see how unfair that is. It is just a less evil version of one state invading another. Effectively the bigger crowd, the majority, is forcing the minority to stand for what they believe in. Even though, in many cases, what the minority does is of no buisness to the majority.