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

[punkbass2000]

Adultry is an cultural problem,that consist of people reasoning that they are not making a major big deal.How do u solve a cultural problem with a sound practical solution that doesnt require law punishing when punishment doesnt always reform the particular individual behavior.Anyone got an answer for the solution with out the oppressiveness of institution of the courts to intervene in such matters?

You don't need a solution when there is no problem.

 

[newfangle]

The problem with this whole issue is that it presupposes something like marriage is contractable in the first place.

Maybe it is, but considering it is traditionally a religious thing, I find it rather preposterous to make adultery illegal (or keeping it so).

 

[CartesianFart]

You don't need a solution when there is no problem.

I disagree,my fellow canadian neighbor.Have u ever seen a typical nuclear family of the working class being in financial ruins in law courts and other finances.The economy works in amerca is like this,a family with a moderate income of having 2 paycheck is quite a struggle,especially when their trying to save future tuition cost for the investment of thier child.Adultry is bulldozer of that type of family foundation and that particular thing is a piece of perversity.

 

[punkbass2000]

You don't need a solution when there is no problem.

I disagree,my fellow canadian neighbor.Have u ever seen a typical nuclear family of the working class being in financial ruins in law courts and other finances.The economy works in amerca is like this,a family with a moderate income of having 2 paycheck is quite a struggle,especially when their trying to save future tuition cost for the investment of thier child.Adultry is bulldozer of that type of family foundation and that particular thing is a piece of perversity.

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.

 

[CartesianFart]

i am not suggesting a law or a particular 'nanny caretaking',i am suggesting the influences of the electronic and print media glamorizing and exploiting the indifference of adultry.When i talk about problems of morality,[even though i am an moral relativist,but that doesnt mean that pragamatism is not a bad idea]i am talking about culture.And the way to do it is to censor any thing that the media does that influence any more future generation of indiffernces of the responsiblility of respecting thy neighbor's wife or husband.

 

[punkbass2000]

i am not suggesting a law or a particular 'nanny caretaking',i am suggesting the influences of the electronic and print media glamorizing and exploiting the indifference of adultry.When i talk about problems of morality,[even though i am an moral relativist,but that doesnt mean that pragamatism is not a bad idea]i am talking about culture.And the way to do it is to censor any thing that the media does that influence any more future generation of indiffernces of the responsiblility of respecting thy neighbor's wife or husband.

Then, perhaps, your ultimate position is to outright abolish the media as it currently manifests itself?

 

[CartesianFart]

It doesnt solve the problem but hopefully it will bring it down,an idea becomes a theory and after the theory ,if it favors it,then we can deduce that this was the correct way in solving or alleviating it.

 

[punkbass2000]

Indeed, but that is problematic. You can't very well dismantle the media. Kinda flies in the face of "freedom of the press", now, doesn't it?

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

It should be a crime, but punished in civil court instead of criminal court. Hence if this adultry is a reason the marriage ends the other party should get a larger share of the split. If someone knowingly sleeps with your spouse you should be able to collect damages from them.

 

[CartesianFart]

now now,havent u seen the oddity of america press[NBc,abc,cbs,cnn,etc etc]
of the recent administration?a little different since 911,that is because of the fact that producer are being more lenient by pressure of the white house

 

[CartesianFart]

and editors of newspapers and so on and so on

 

[punkbass2000]

now now,havent u seen the oddity of america press[NBc,abc,cbs,cnn,etc etc]
of the recent administration?a little different since 911,that is because of the fact that producer are being more lenient by pressure of the white house

Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Homie]

Regardless, it's an invasion into people's privacy

I have already debunked this 2 times

 

[CartesianFart]

of course the elite of the neocon,surley like the fact that american people being divided up into bickering on another so they cant realize that they are being aquiences to their own oppression.

 

[CartesianFart]

They prey on the disorderly household,the blacks and white atagonism and so on and so on.Even workers dont care that People in Delphi is being on strike cause they are abstracted by video games,movies,rap videos,and so on and so on.

 

[Archbob]

Marriage is indeed a contractual obligation. You have Marriage documents and you have many witnesses that are there.

And the minister does say "if anyone should have reason why these two should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace". Since you didn't say "No, I don't want to get married because I plan the sleep around", you entered into a binding agreement.


I think most people would vote no because they want to have extra-maritial sex relationships, otherwise, we wouldn't even have a problem.

 

[ironduck]

I think most people would vote no because they want to have extra-maritial sex relationships, otherwise, we wouldn't even have a problem.

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.

 

[Rik Meleet]

No, masterbation is a personal thing, adultery involves atleast 3 people, so it is not a personal thing. And it definately causes harm, even if you can "get over it". You can "get over" your car being stolen, it is still a bad thing.

It's a personal thing because it is a personal choice to have sex with someone who is not your spouse. Some people won't do it, some people will do it.
And you are completely wrong with the word "definately". It is "definately" causing harm to you if you were one of the three people in teh situation you describe. I know of couples who enhance their love-life by inviting other people into their love-life, so to say. All participants are in there voluntarily and perfectly enjoying themselves. Can you explain to me where the "definately caused harm" is in there ?

I was just making the point that people saying it is their personal business is not really an argument at all, because you can say that about anything:
Police officer - Is that a gun and some drugs in your coat?
Perpetrator - That is my personal business!

You are comparing the concept of (privacy and) personal matters in 2 incomparable way. The drugs + gun in a pocket way is an example where there is an illegal act (posession of drugs) and the argument "personal matter" as a way to hide the fact that there is an illegal act.
In the adultery way it is used as the reason why it isn't illegal (and should never be). Hiding a crime is not the same as arguing that it can't be a crime.

I demonstrated how the notion of this being personal business and thus something you cannot make a law against is not true. I did this by showing that different cultures in different times in history have had this as a law. So obviously, wheter it is personal or not is only what you (or anyone) think it is, so it can't be made as an argument.

You tried to used false reasoning to sweep "personal matter" off the discussion table. It is of no importance that something was allowed -or not allowed- long ago in a galaxy far far away. And the fact that it was -not- allowed there and then is certainly not a justification to do away with "personal matters".

Regardless, it's an invasion into people's privacy

I have already debunked this 2 times

You think you have. You cannot. At least not with the arguments and reasoning you are using.
I cannot speak for Punkbass. For myself: The state has no business in this. Never.

@ CartesianFart -> Why do you keep bringing the media in ? The media doesn't decide whether something should be illegal or not.

 

[Mark1031]

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.

 

[Yom]

Not really. As long as I can convince most of the population that my position is the right one, it would be imposing society's morality on everyone, not just mine. I've no problem with that at all, and it's certainly not the least bit fascist...talk about a silly comparison.

Who cares what the majority of society thinks. So long as it involves the prohibition of any activity that does not infringe on another's rights, you're limiting their freedom unreasonably.

Oh, and this "legislating morality" phrase just drives me nuts. EVERY law dictating behavior could be read as that. You can't walk down the street naked...hey, legislating morality!

Okay, then you're infringing on people's rights instead.