Should adultery be illegal?

havana

But if i am on longer committed to my husband prior to divorcing him i have broken the contract have i not? Maybe i'm taking a very simplistic line on this but if you argue breaking a contract is wrong then surely it doesn't matter how that contract was broken. You break it you pay. Personally i think the payback for all is already enough without adding this to it.

matrim

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.

But what you say in the ceremony has little to do with the actual contract. The contract will be the signing of the marriage certificate so that will define what you are signing up for. e.g. if you have a ceremony but don't sign the marriage cert, you're not married in the eyes of the state.

I'm not familiar with whats in a marriage cert so cannot say what's in it.

As an aside if you are taking what you say in the ceremony, do you think that means that all those women who got married 30 or 40 years ago and agreed to obey their husbands would be breaking the law if they don't do what he says?

havana

You can put your own spin on your vows these days so I'll be sure to leave out all parts that may land me in the slammer:-)

Moriarty

If ever there was an example of why religion and the state should be kept entirely seperate, this would be it.

Seriously, keep your social repression to your self-subscribing little band of christian taliban and leave the rest of society out of it.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

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.

Right, if you consider it wrong, why would you want it to happen to anyone?

turgon wrote: »

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

It's the way that most states in the modern world are governed. If you have any better idea let me know. I can tell you now that if the State imposed enough minority moral rulings, there would be quite a lot of discontent.

turgon wrote: »

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?

Gay marriage isn't on topic here. Keep to adultery.

turgon wrote: »

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.

You say that they should keep their opinions to themselves. Therefore they shouldn't speak about what they hold important. I'd rule if that's the case for me it should be the case for you and your liberal views too. The idea is if you come to Ireland, you live by the moral code the Irish have decided upon.

If I arrive in Saudi Arabia, I will live by Sharia law. I will not speak against Islam, or against the House of Saud while I am there. I follow their moral norms. Likewise I will uphold their ruling about speaking to women one on one, or holding hands with any woman when I am there. Nor will I drink alcohol. Why? Due to the fact that this is the way that Saudi life is.

turgon wrote: »

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

No it really isn't. It's allowing their ideas to be discussed, and to be considered in the legislature. Liberals do this too. It's part of how government works. Acts are put forward, adn they are upheld or smacked down by representatives of the people. I would suggest thinking more carefully about who you want to vote for if you want more conservative legislation to be turned down. As such conservatives are only putting forward their voice and their vote as democracy allows. It is up to the representatives of the people to rule on these issues.

turgon wrote: »

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.

You've basically said that conservatives shouldn't put forward legislation in parliament for the very purpose to be discussed in the same way that liberals do. I'm starting to see that you prefer inequality in discussion.

turgon wrote: »

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.

It's not pretence. This is how politics is meant to work.

turgon wrote: »

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.

Keep on the topic of adultery please. Gay marriage has been discussed in AH several times, and on the LGBT forum.

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, if you consider it wrong, why would you want it to happen to anyone?

Because I wouldnt force my opinion on anyone else.

You not getting me at all. Legislating on moral issues is imposing majority rule on the minority.

Why cant you keep your morals to your own life?

dlofnep

I think there should be something in laws in terms of wealth if someone cheats - Woman cheats on man, she gets no money from him. Man cheats on woman, he gets no money from her.

In terms of jail?? Absolutely not.

lucky-colm

i voted yes

cos it opens up a larger field for us single lads;)

philologos

turgon wrote: »

Because I wouldnt force my opinion on anyone else.

You not getting me at all. Legislating on moral issues is imposing majority rule on the minority.

Why cant you keep your morals to your own life?

It's ridiculous. People should have a say in how their countries are run, people should have a means of discussing and reasoning these ideas out. This happens through the legislature in Ireland.

I personally want to stand up for the weak and hold wrongdoers to account. This is one of these issues. I think it's a disgrace that people can get away with this.

The difference between you and me is this:
You subscribe to relative morality which is really the product of liberalism.
I subscribe to absolute morality, which is really the product of conservatism, and belief in a higher power.

Relative morality always fails though. At one stage you will wish to condemn an action absolutely, such as genocide. Then you will have gone from the stage of doing what you are doing now, to doing what I advocate, to have a free discussion and to speak out against wrongdoers which is really the only ethically responsible thing to do.

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.

When I got married, I can't remember ever signing a contract that bound me to be (sexually or otherwise) faithful. I did make a seperate (non legally binding) agreement with my wife to be faithful.

I think this question mixes up the marraige vows that one might make in a church ceremony with the actual civil legal ramifications of marraige itself.

turgon

dlofnep wrote: »

I think there should be something in laws in terms of wealth if someone cheats - Woman cheats on man, she gets no money from him. Man cheats on woman, he gets no money from her.

I think this is the situation now. If the judge hears one of the partners cheated he will be less sympathetics when sorting out money and custody.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's ridiculous. People should have a say in how their countries are run

You not advocating that people have a say in how the country is run. You are advocating that people have a say in other peoples moral values. Now that is ridiculous.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally want to stand up for the weak and hold wrongdoers to account.

Because what other people do is your buisness?

And are you calling people cheated on weak?

And by the way having multiple partners is acceptable in some societies. Western society is not superior to any other society.

Basically all neo-cons are the same, they have a set of moral values they want everyone to adhere to.

And all libertarians are the same. They have a set of moral values they don't want everyone to adhere to.

keane2097

Jakkass wrote: »

Relative morality always fails though. At one stage you will wish to condemn an action absolutely, such as genocide. Then you will have gone from the stage of doing what you are doing now, to doing what I advocate, to have a free discussion and to speak out against wrongdoers which is really the only ethically responsible thing to do.

Your absolute morals come from an Abrahamic religion I assume?

This is fairly ironic since Abraham twice let his own wife pretend to be his sister and be married to different men in order to carve out a more favourable place for himself in society.

Which one of the two would have been put in jail in that instance? Abraham's wife had to follow her "marriage contract" and obey her husband, who ordered her to engage in polygamy and adultery.

I assume it's the woman's fault and she's the one who gets banged up under this new legislation?

dlofnep

Jakkass wrote: »

It's ridiculous. People should have a say in how their countries are run, people should have a means of discussing and reasoning these ideas out. This happens through the legislature in Ireland.

I personally want to stand up for the weak and hold wrongdoers to account. This is one of these issues. I think it's a disgrace that people can get away with this.

The difference between you and me is this:
You subscribe to relative morality which is really the product of liberalism.
I subscribe to absolute morality, which is really the product of conservatism, and belief in a higher power.

Relative morality always fails though. At one stage you will wish to condemn an action absolutely, such as genocide. Then you will have gone from the stage of doing what you are doing now, to doing what I advocate, to have a free discussion and to speak out against wrongdoers which is really the only ethically responsible thing to do.

Get off the high horse.. What if two people fell out of love with each other - or two people were swingers? Should they go to prison? What if a couple is seperated but legally married?

You can't put people in prison for it! Christ, the prisons are over-crowded as it is. I'll leave all the drug-dealing scum and murderers in prison - and let marriage guidance or divorce settle adultery.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

You not advocating that people have a say in how the country is run. You are advocating that people have a say in other peoples moral values. Now that is ridiculous.

Yes I am. I'm saying that conservatives should have a level playing field to advocate what they consider it appropriate for the country to rule on. People should have a say in the legal codes of this country. I think that is entirely reasonable, and not only reasonable but the right of every citizen living here, and even the duty of the citizen in many cases.

turgon wrote: »

Because what other people do is your buisness?

Actually, if I'm ever married it could well be my business if my spouse commits adultery. Secondly, if I know a friend or a family member in this situation it could well become my business. Not a good argument at all. Just because you aren't directly involved in something doesn't mean that you cannot express concern.

turgon wrote: »

And are you calling people cheated on weak?

In some cases it can be very emotionally crippling. Again, this isn't really dealing with the substance of the post though.

turgon wrote: »

And by the way having multiple partners is acceptable in some societies. Western society is not superior to any other society.

Right, but we live in the West, and people here advocate our values. If anyone arrives in our country they should be expected to respect Western values, just as I will respect Islamic values in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and so on. Likewise with all differing states in the world, for example I will respect Jewish values in Israel if I am on a bus where the men are separated from the women due to Orthodox Jewish practice, I will sit on the correct side of the bus. It's the way the world works.

turgon wrote: »

Basically all neo-cons are the same, they have a set of moral values they want everyone to adhere to.

So? What exactly is wrong with this. Every society has done this from their mere beginnings until now. Look at Kant's moral theory sometime concerning the fact that you really cannot advocate something unless you wish for it to be a universal value in society. If you PM me I'll even cite that work for you if necessary.

keane2097

dlofnep wrote: »

Get off the high horse.. What if two people fell out of love with each other - or two people were swingers? Should they go to prison? What if a couple is seperated but legally married?

You can't put people in prison for it! Christ, the prisons are over-crowded as it is. I'll leave all the drug-dealing scum and murderers in prison - and let marriage guidance or divorce settle adultery.

People with spouses in a coma with irreparable brain damage? Do you turn off the life support and "murder" your spouse or do you commit "adultery" and go to jail?

philologos

keane2097 wrote: »

Your absolute morals come from an Abrahamic religion I assume?

This is fairly ironic since Abraham twice let his own wife pretend to be his sister and be married to different men in order to carve out a more favourable place for himself in society.

Which one of the two would have been put in jail in that instance? Abraham's wife had to follow her "marriage contract" and obey her husband, who ordered her to engage in polygamy and adultery.

I assume it's the woman's fault and she's the one who gets banged up under this new legislation?

If you want to discuss Christianity or Judeo-Christian values go to the Christianity forum and post a new thread. There is no need to invoke religion for the time being. There are perfectly sound secular arguments to oppose adultery.

keane2097

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want to discuss Christianity or Judeo-Christian values go to the Christianity forum and post a new thread. There is no need to invoke religion for the time being. There are perfectly sound secular arguments to oppose adultery.

You're not a moderator so lay off the back seat carry on.

This is a perfectly valid argument.

You wish adultery to be prohibited by legislation as it goes against what you have described as your "absolute morals" which so claim to have taken from your "belief in a higher power".

The entire argument boils down to whether or not your morals are suitable for use by everyone.

If the father of the religion from which you take your absolute morals treated marriage in such a flippant manner, then how exactly do you then come along and justify your moral stance against adultery.

The father of the system that you base your morals on had no qualms about ignoring the evil of adultery, so clearly your moral view of it doesn't come from him.

Where then does it come from? Is it still absolute? Could it be that your moral point of view is as baseless as anybody else's?

You are contending, by invoking absolute morals, that you are privy to a system that is superior to any individual's relative morals.

I think my last post has proved that your source for absolute morals is contentious at best.

By the way, fobbing off any difficult argument is no way to win a debate.

philologos

I won't be discussing Christianity here anyway. I'm thinking on a broader scale than mere Christianity here, but rather if there is a non-religious case for criminalising adultery. This isn't about "the Christian Taleban", etc. It was to discuss on a light enough scale, although it has got progressively more serious and entrenched as per usual, about the case for doing this. There clearly isn't considering that only 23% support it. That's perfectly fine with me, I personally oppose it and believe it to be a serious offence that should be a criminal one. That's my mere belief on it.

Your last post could be dealt with rather extensively by a mere look at the book of Genesis, however, this isn't really the place for it.

I fail to see the point why you would agree to be with someone for the rest of your life and to agree that that person is the one for you, and then to have sex with other individuals. Why bother getting married at all if all you are going to do is betray the agreement you originally got into.

dumbyearbook

Don't agree with this idea at all what about privacy!!?? We're free to choose to do as we wish even if this upsets people be that your husband or child, bear in mind there is no real legal recourse for being upset/emotionally hurt for any contract. Marriage is special in that there is separation or divorce available to the disappointed party

There is alot of breach of 'Marriage contract' here, Marriage is simply known as a 'special contract' not an actual contract e.g. the courts can enforce a contract where a party fails to preform i.e. specific performance - this could never be ordered by a court for marriage.

'Consideration' is always required for a valid contract to exist generally this is money or to forgo an opportunity otherwise available to a party OP might say having sex with a third party possibly could be such an act of forbearance, however its not realistic to envisage this as a 'breach of marriage contract' or to think of it as valid consideration not to do such a thing. Certain cases allow giving up something to be consideration but within marriage there are special circumstances that apply, there is privacy for one, the courts wont go near certain things between couples.

The act of Marriage as consideration has been illegal since the Family Law act 1981 so its not really 'a contract' at all as an agreement without consideration is'nt a contract.

dreamlogic

Jakkass wrote: »

turgon wrote: »

No, I consider it highly wrong.

Right, if you consider it wrong, why would you want it to happen to anyone?

In fairness I don't think you can use this as an argument. No-one 'wants' infidelity to happen.
And whether people think it is right or wrong in itself is a matter for personal conscience or debate about morals.
The issue is whether or not imposing a penalty would act as a deterent. And then there's the broader question of whether such a law once in place would actually be good for our society.

Even if by some miricle everyone were to agree that adultery should be a crime it would be a nightmare to legislate for as regards providing evidence etc. In the end it would be bad for society in my opinion and lead to far more trouble than it is worth.

Kold

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

I can't get past this sentence without blowing a tiny gasket in my head each time.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

If Marriage is a contract, then as such there should be negotiable terms. Pre-nups should definitely be legitamised in Ireland and made a standard part of the 'marriage'. Couples should be able to decide the terms under which they wed and decide what conditions they wish to impose upon each other.

Breach of contract is a civil matter so these criminal charges people are talking baout introducing are silly.

philologos

Kold wrote: »

I can't get past this sentence without blowing a tiny gasket in my head each time.

All I'll say to you is Christianity has a different view on the death penalty than Judaism or Islam. Infact many people would point out to you exactly how clear it is on the Christianity forum.

A Primal Nut

I believe the idea of marriage as a legal contract in the first place is a bit rediculous, other than for tax reasons, there is no reason for the courts to intervene, that includes divorce, financial settlements, etc. marriage is a way for two people to show they love each other, all the other stuff is crap. I don't really see the point of getting married unless its important to the girl to maker her happy.

Secondly, what happens if both sides are committing adultery, but only the party who committed adultery last are convicted, even though they clearly had good reasons for doing so. Or maybe there are other circumstances where the party had good reasons to do so.

Lastly, I don't know anyone who's partner cheated on them who believes the law should intervene.

Yes adultery causes pain but it is emotional pain and nothing to do with the criminal courts, which are there to deal with physical pain or loss. If the courts start dealing with emotional pain, where does it end. If someone calls someone ugly, maybe they should go to jail too. Its rediculous.

A Primal Nut

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?

Where does it end though? Putting people in jail for all emotional pain inflicted? Insulting someone? Refusing to make the tea for one of your guests? Refusing to speak to a work colleague? There are hundreds of daily situations where emotional pain is inflicted - the idea that the courts should get involved is retarded and 90% of people would end up in prison.

The point of putting people in prison is to stop them committing more crimes - violent people, murderers, stealers, etc. Putting adulterers in prison isn't necessary to stop them committing that crime - divorce is enough. How can they commit adultery again - its impossible? Unless they re-marry, I guess. But then, stopping them from re-marrying would be enough. But thats stupid for a host of other reasons.

A Primal Nut

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.

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.



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.

Criminal convictions everytime someone lies. Ok, so that means everybody in prison.

philologos

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Criminal convictions everytime someone lies. Ok, so that means everybody in prison.

You know as well as I do that adultery is more than lying. As I say it's the violation of the highest form of union between a man and a woman in this land, it should really be upheld as such surely?

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

So? What exactly is wrong with this.

Are you for real? What is wrong about forcing other people to accept your morals and opinion like absolute loyalty? Because did it ever occur to you that your morals arent "right" or "wrong", they are simply your opinion.

Where possible people should be allowed to determine their own moral values. This is not what you want. You want to force your opinion on everyone else by abusing the power of the state.

ParkRunner

Thankfully laws influenced by Rome have been gradually reversed over recent decades: contraception, divorce, homosexuality come to mind.

To make adultery a criminal conviction would be a step backwards in my opinion. Laws influenced by religious morality might be important to some but society as a whole is progressive, increasingly liberal and should be left free to live their lives without the church and the State constantly intruding into their private lives.

Marriage comes with an inherent risk that your partner could stray over the course of the "contract", you couldn't possibly legislate for it in the real world.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

Are you for real? What is wrong about forcing other people to accept your morals and opinion like absolute loyalty? Because did it ever occur to you that your morals arent "right" or "wrong", they are simply your opinion.

Where possible people should be allowed to determine their own moral values. This is not what you want. You want to force your opinion on everyone else by abusing the power of the state.

Yes, I am very much for real. I don't see why I or anyone else shouldn't have an input in progressing Western society to be better than it already is. It has occurred to me that I could be mistaken, but then you would be discussing ethics not morality. I advocate my view, others are free to advocate their view, and that's the way that ideas are generally shared. Your view basically amounts to, have your own views and shut up so we can pass laws to advocate liberalism (You're doing the same thing yourself there). However if you believe that this could be very much to the benefit of society what is the point in that?

Why where possible? Why not just let people determine their own moral values on everything? You shouldn't be forcing your morals for anything on anyone if you are holding to this position. I don't really like the term "forcing" for a number of reasons:

1) If a bill ever passes in Dáil based on suggestions from people in the general public, it will happen because most of the representatives there voted for it.

2) If a referendum ever passes, it will because most of the general public voted for it, not because you are forcing anything upon anyone.

3) If we didn't advocate our ideas, others would be advocating their ethics or morals in the public sphere. Why should we be forced to tolerate legalising cannabis for example? Isn't this not forcing people to accept things which they find to be wrong? People always will have their own opinion, and it's only fair that they should be honest about them when it comes to the voting booth too.

It really isn't the abuse of state any more than liberals passing laws which are very likely to be dangerous to society such as the example I used in this case, legalising cannabis. We should be aiming for a better society, not one which is worse.

EF: You say that we can't legislate for adultery, but you are forgetting that they already do in the Philippines, India (5 years), Korea, Taiwan and states of the USA. Or are these not in the real world?