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

[Yom]

Should it be illegal for a wife to refuse to have sex a certain number of times a week/month with her husband. How about refusing certain sex acts. Should there be exceptions if she's ill with the flu. What if she's faking should we have the Board of medical examiners to verify her illness. How many times a week can she ***** at her husband. Perhaps we should have a government Board determine whether the *****ing is appropriate or unfair. Same for the husband. How many drinks a week can he have? How many hours can he play civilization? How much time does he need to spend helping his children with homework? How many hugs a week are morally appropriate? Should this all be laid out in the marriage contract? Should violations be litigated in the courts? Are you people human beings or contract lawyers (some of which may actually be human beings as well)?

By the way I've been married for 15 years and never once considered adultery. I think it is morally wrong but there are many things I think are morally wrong that should not be the subject of government intervention. Human relationships are quite complex things, you cannot legislate love, desire etc. Well you can but it will not be effective and just create more work for lawyers and more damage to families in these situations.

If both parties agree to all of these ridiculous stipulations, then the only proper course of action is to uphold the contract.

 

[bhsup]

@Yom: I guess my only possible reply is to say that you'd better be out there voting every time on every issue and candidate. I guarantee you I am and will continue to do so.

Well, I don't mean you and I personally as we live in different countries, but you get what I mean.

 

[Mark1031]

If both parties agree to all of these ridiculous stipulations, then the only proper course of action is to uphold the contract.

Sorry but I have to ask have you ever been in love? The notion that these kinds of issues are a) silly-they are not or b) could be part of a contract seems a rather sterile view of human relations.

 

[Yom]

@Yom: I guess my only possible reply is to say that you'd better be out there voting every time on every issue and candidate. I guarantee you I am and will continue to do so.

Well, I don't mean you and I personally as we live in different countries, but you get what I mean.

Actually, I live in the United States too.

Sorry but I have to ask have you ever been in love? The notion that these kinds of issues are a) silly-they are not or b) could be part of a contract seems a rather sterile view of human relations.

I'm not saying that the issues are silly. The idea of contractualizing all of those issues is silly. If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I recognize that even monogamy need not be part of a marriage contract. My responses are with the assumption that they are part of a contract. If it's an extra-contractual issue, then it has no business being decided by the government.

 

[zjl56]

Regardless, it's an invasion into people's privacy. If your going to argue this you may as well argue for a complete nanny-state. Does this indirectly harm the economy? Debateable at best. It certainly funds enough lawyers, judges, etc. You'll need to give some more concrete proofs for this argument, I think.

It isn't invading peoples privacy. If someone can't uphold their duties as a spouse then they shoudn't get marrier in the first place. Marriage is a contract and it is illegal to break it already.

 

[Mise]

It isn't invading peoples privacy. If someone can't uphold their duties as a spouse then they shoudn't get marrier in the first place. Marriage is a contract and it is illegal to break it already.

Ok, then I'll just continue to have sex outside of marriage.

Happy?

 

[Tiresias]

Governments should avoid legislating on criminalising morality

 

[puglover]

Adultery is definitely morally wrong. As are all forms of promise-breaking. But the problem is that a government as large as ours wouldn't be able to enforce a law against it. Who wants millions of government dollars spent on finding out if some guy is cheating on his wife?

 

[Archbob]

Absolutely not.

The reason is that most things people do are not a matter for the legal system to deal with.

If people's marriage isn't working and they can't get it to work, that's their problem. Get a divorce.

If you want to legalize against infidelity - where do you draw the line? At intercourse? At sex without intercourse? At touching and kissing? At heavy flirting? At light flirting? At thinking about another person?

There are far more important issues for the legal system to deal with. Crime, for instance.

See, I have nothing against divorce. If they want to get divorced first and then sleep around afterwards, thats fine with me. Its the sleepig around while your still married that I'm opposed to. I'd probably draw the line at intercourse.

 

[Homie]

Adultery is definitely morally wrong. As are all forms of promise-breaking. But the problem is that a government as large as ours wouldn't be able to enforce a law against it. Who wants millions of government dollars spent on finding out if some guy is cheating on his wife?

This can be said, and probably is said, about any law before it is made and has become commonplace.

 

[Archbob]

Ok, then I'll just continue to have sex outside of marriage.

Happy?

As long as your not married, I don't give a care how many people you have sex with. You haven't signed a contract binding you to your spouse.

 

[Pyrite]

I don't think I would want to see this enforced, in fact I'm kind of surprised this has all the support it does.

I don't care if someone cheats on their wife/husband. Things change, and the law doesn't take into account circumstances, so no, no way.

 

[SomethingWitty]

Considering half of everybody commits adultery sooner or later, including people who say they're shocking by the thought of adultery, I'd say no.

 

[Mise]

As long as your not married, I don't give a care how many people you have sex with. You haven't signed a contract binding you to your spouse.

Is there any contract I can sign which is identical to "marriage" (by your definition at least), but which allows me to sleep around without being taken to court?

 

[storealex]

Now if it wasn't legal then the lawyers they would sue

And the prisons would be full of folk who had a girl or two

And if they didn't like it then away the girls would run

And if it wasn't plenty then the girl-folk would get none

 

[ironduck]

See, I have nothing against divorce. If they want to get divorced first and then sleep around afterwards, thats fine with me. Its the sleepig around while your still married that I'm opposed to. I'd probably draw the line at intercourse.

So people can have all the sex they want as long as it's not intercourse without it being illegal the way you see it? Drawing the line there makes no sense to me.

And would you drag your spouse to court if they had sex with someone else? Wouldn't you have more important things to do? Such as figuring out whether you wanted to remain married or not? And if not, then get a divorce. I truly don't see where the whole 'illegal' concept enters your thought process.

If I was married and my wife had an affair, do you really think I would want the law to hit her? No thanks, that would be between me and my wife, not the government.

 

[ironduck]

As long as your not married, I don't give a care how many people you have sex with. You haven't signed a contract binding you to your spouse.

So you want to decide what is supposed to be in the contract as well? What if people want the contract to include things that you don't want in your contract? People may want it to be more or less restrictive than you. Should we have individual contracts for everyone?

For crying out loud. It's a relationship between two people who love each other. You cannot make a contract for that. It's called love. Not law.

 

[Homie]

If I was married and my wife had an affair, do you really think I would want the law to hit her? No thanks, that would be between me and my wife, not the government.

You wouldn't want to see her punished? She did a horrible thing to you, the whore.

For crying out loud. It's a relationship between two people who love each other. You cannot make a contract for that. It's called love. Not law.

Its not very loving to cheat on your wife though, is it

 

[Archbob]

So you want to decide what is supposed to be in the contract as well? What if people want the contract to include things that you don't want in your contract? People may want it to be more or less restrictive than you. Should we have individual contracts for everyone?

For crying out loud. It's a relationship between two people who love each other. You cannot make a contract for that. It's called love. Not law.

Have you taken a look at the documents for marriage, its pretty easily spelled out. You signed the damn contract, if you violate it, your spouse can and should drag your ass to court and sue you for severe damages.
In cases where young women marry a older man jsut for money and then go sleep with someone else, they are not entitled to inheretence in a divorce, if it is proven that adultry is committed. Thats the way those cases are ruled. So adultry, while not grounds for criminal law, does certainly warrant series civil penalties for the accused party. Now if your spouse chooses not to take you to court, thats their choice. In a sense, it already is a wrongdoing, its just not enforced nearly often enough.

When you take the vows before lots of people and a minister and you say "I do", that in itself is a binding contract because usually there are hundreds of witnesses. If you break the contract, you are therefore subject to the penalties of breach of contract.

As for your saying you wouldn't want anything to happen to your spouse if she cheated on you, we'll see what you really think we that actually happens. Its easy to sit there and say it when it hasn't happened to you.

 

[Homie]

Finally, a question: am I to assume from the way your phrased you original post that you don't think women ever commit adultery, or that you think they shouldn't be held accountable for it? Because all you mention is men.

No, that is just because of the limitations of the English language, you have to write "he or she" and "him or her" all the time. I don't bother so I just chose the male and went from there. But it does apply to both sexes.