Should adultery be made illegal? (Now with correct poll)

[ironduck]

I note that only one of the proponents of the desire to illegalise adultery actually wanted to specify what adultery was (the person in question wanted to draw the line at intercourse, not sex without intercourse.. very Clintonesque).

 

[Archbob]

What I meant was sex. This whole time I've been argueing that there should be penalties for sex with other people once your married. As far as being a "wuss" and a "tattletale" and "not being the best husband", those are your own fears. Thing is if you cheat, then your spouse has the right to sue you for all your worth(which probably isn't very much).

 

[ironduck]

So now it's any kind of sex? What about heavy flirting, touching and kissing?

 

[Archbob]

Now your just being nitpicky, which isn't proving any point of yours. We herein America have alot of ways that are judged by "what a reasonable person would do" which is up for interpretation. When adultry is mentioned, people generally knows what it means.

Flirting, kissing,etc is discouraged, but the line probably is drawn at sex.

Marriage is a contractual promise that you are dedicated wholly to your partner to to him/her alone.

 

[Mathilda]

Marriage is a contract and it is illegal to break it already.

I'm not familiar with the US laws. Could someone please tell me what does the law in the US say about marriage. I've just read the Finnish law and the only thing it says that is in any way applicable to this is that both partners in marriage should show mutual trust.
Does the US law specifically say that you are not allowed to have sex with anyone else?

 

[ironduck]

Not at all, I'm trying to illustrate my point from earlier; it is extremely hard to legislate such issues the way you propose. Many people would consider it a breach of the concept of marriage if the spouse has amorous relationships with other people, even if they do not include outright sex.

What you are proposing is a legislative mess.

edit - the above was for Fallen Angel Lord

 

[Mathilda]

Flirting, kissing,etc is discouraged, but the line probably is drawn at sex.

What I like about your line drawing is that it pretty much leaves lesbian sex on the side of discouraged, but not strictly outlawed

 

[Archbob]

I believe in divorce court when sueing for adultry, I think the line is drawn at sex there. Otherwise its hard to prove anything before that.

When one partner cheats on another,its really up to the other one to bring to court or to sue. The state can't make the cheated on partner bring it to court. But if they decide to, they should have to right to sue and win the case.

The system in play right now in the States is fine, about as good as anyone can make it.

 

[ironduck]

What's the point of sueing for adultery? If people want a divorce they should just get one and not let the courts get involved. The courts should only have a role if there's a major dispute in dividing the financial assets.

 

[Archbob]

Well, see , thats why the courts should get involved, because generally if one party is found to have been committed adultry, there are severe financial penalities involved for that party. Like I said, if the other spouse wants to sue in court for cash damages because of adultry, they'll probably win. Its their right to sue in court.

 

[ironduck]

There are no cash damages because of adultery!

I know Americans have an infatuation with sueing the crap out of everyone, but what you're really doing is mixing civil law with criminal law, which is a very bad idea.

 

[Homie]

What I like about your line drawing is that it pretty much leaves lesbian sex on the side of discouraged, but not strictly outlawed

Why do you like that? Do you enjoy drinking from the furry cup

 

[ironduck]

Don't you?

 

[Archbob]

There are no cash damages because of adultery!

I know Americans have an infatuation with sueing the crap out of everyone, but what you're really doing is mixing civil law with criminal law, which is a very bad idea.

There are in fact cash damages because of adultry(and I agree with them). Generally they are for things like "emotional damage".

It is a civil laws, you shouldn't go to jail because of it but your spouse does have the right to sue you for damages.

Like I said if a rich older man marries a younger women and the women cheats while married and its found, then, she is not entitled to anything from the man at divorce. Otherwise, she is entitled to some of his money. THe courts have ruled that way before.

 

[Homie]

Don't you?

. The reason I asked is because Mathilda happens to be a woman.

 

[Archbob]

Generally when people get divorced, they go to divorce court, because there are always financial implications when getting divorced in the United States.

 

[ironduck]

. The reason I asked is because Mathilda happens to be a woman.

I know that. What's your point?

 

[ironduck]

There are in fact cash damages because of adultry(and I agree with them). Generally they are for things like "emotional damage".

If by cash damage you mean financial loss - there is none. Emotional compensation is something entirely different. You are mixing up several branches of law again.

It is a civil laws, you shouldn't go to jail because of it but your spouse does have the right to sue you for damages.

What damages? Emotional distress? Sure, why not add all the other things you could sue for emotional distress about? Not being attentive enough. Not spending enough time with the spouse or children? The imagination of American lawyers is infinite.

I'm glad the law is not like that here. I'll leave it at that.

 

[ironduck]

Generally when people get divorced, they go to divorce court, because there are always financial implications when getting divorced in the United States.

Fortunately the marital legislation does not require heavy court procedures in many other countries. It's a complete waste of resources and an enormous source of aggravation for something that in most cases can be solved in simple and peaceful ways.

 

[Homie]

I know that. What's your point?

There is no serious point. It was a joke. It goes like this:
Mathilda (woman) commented on FallenAL and said she liked his definition of adultry, because that way lesbian sex wouldn't be considered crossing the line. So hinted that the reason she likes this is maybe because she is into it herself, even though she is married and has children.

People never laugh at jokes if you have to explain it to them, because the moment has past