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

[Archbob]

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.

You see it that way, I disagree. I'm glad we have to option to take spouses t divorce court because of adultry. Otherwise, one spouse could just sleep around and cheat on the other without fear of any penalty.

 

[Homie]

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.



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.

What is your utopia? That people screw around, families get broken up, nobody cares about anybody but themselves - even though they have a spouse and kids. And to those who get cheated: "GET OVER IT, LOSER!" Yippi, welcome to the great new world!

 

[ironduck]

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

I still don't get the joke.. she's lesbian, so she enjoys making love to a woman. That should be blindingly obvious.

 

[ironduck]

What is your utopia? That people screw around, families get broken up, nobody cares about anybody but themselves - even though they have a spouse and kids. And to those who get cheated: "GET OVER IT, LOSER!" Yippi, welcome to the great new world!

What the heck are you talking about?

If you and your spouse can't make things work do you think all the amount of legislation and penalties in the world will change that?

Human relations are completely independent of whatever law you throw out there. It's called love.

 

[Homie]

I still don't get the joke.. she's lesbian, so she enjoys making love to a woman. That should be blindingly obvious.

She's a lesbian? Do you know this because she told you, or think she is because the post she made? If she is a lesbian, then of course the joke is not funny, but I'm pretty sure she is married with children and not a lesbian.

 

[Homie]

What the heck are you talking about?

If you and your spouse can't make things work do you think all the amount of legislation and penalties in the world will change that?

Human relations are completely independent of whatever law you throw out there. It's called love.

Cheating on someone behind their back doesn't sound like love to me, is that your idea of a spouse? And "not being able to work things out" is completely different, marital problems is not the topic, adultery is.

 

[ironduck]

Cheating on someone behind their back doesn't sound like love to me, is that your idea of a spouse? And "not being able to work things out" is completely different, marital problems is not the topic, adultery is.

What the heck are you talking about (again)? Adultery is a marital problem for the vast majority of people!

And, once again, my point is that if people are cheating on each other they have a problem in their relationship that cannot be solved with any amount of law. They need to figure that out themselves, and either decide to work it out or get a divorce. If they get a divorce, that's it. No need to drag the courts into all kinds of demands of financial compensation for emotional distress because the spouse didn't act the expected way.

 

[Archbob]

What the heck are you talking about (again)? Adultery is a marital problem for the vast majority of people!

And, once again, my point is that if people are cheating on each other they have a problem in their relationship that cannot be solved with any amount of law. They need to figure that out themselves, and either decide to work it out or get a divorce. If they get a divorce, that's it. No need to drag the courts into all kinds of demands of financial compensation for emotional distress because the spouse didn't act the expected way.

No, it is a legal matter when you get a divorce because your spouse did sign a binding contract. THe only real way to enforce that contract and collect the compensation that is rightfully yours is in divorce court because usually the other party won't just say "here's the money I owe you for cheating".

 

[ironduck]

No, it is a legal matter when you get a divorce because your spouse did sign a binding contract. THe only real way to enforce that contract and collect the compensation that is rightfully yours is in divorce court because usually the other party won't just say "here's the money I owe you for cheating".

Fortunately it's not the law where I live.

 

[Homie]

What the heck are you talking about (again)? Adultery is a marital problem for the vast majority of people!

You are squirming. Marital problems is a broader term that encompass much more than adultery. You purposefully used that term because "stabbing your spouse in the back by cheating on them" sounds bad and puts the blame on one party, but you try to make it out to be a joint "marital problem". When clearly only one part is guilty in adultery, the one who cheated.

And this: "the spouse didn't act the expected way" is yet another attempt to gloss over the obvious meaning: adultery, cheating bastards who only follow their lust. Why do you attempt to gloss over it? A guilt trip perhaps?

 

[ironduck]

You are squirming.

Not at all, I simply disagree with you and find your arguments ridiculous.

Marital problems is a broader term that encompass much more than adultery. You purposefully used that term because "stabbing your spouse in the back by cheating on them" sounds bad and puts the blame on one party, but you try to make it out to be a joint "marital problem". When clearly only one part is guilty in adultery, the one who cheated.

I really couldn't care less who is to blame, at no point have I stated otherwise. The point is that when two people have a relationship then it's their thing to sort out, not the government. No amount of legislation will change that. You can disagree all you want, but so be it.

And this: "the spouse didn't act the expected way" is yet another attempt to gloss over the obvious meaning: adultery, cheating bastards who only follow their lust. Why do you attempt to gloss over it? A guilt trip perhaps?

Wonderful - another personal attack. This is the second time in this thread. I guess when you two have no more intellectual ammunition that is the level you fall to.

Good riddance! I'm unsubscribing from this crap.

 

[Archbob]

You keep on saying its both the parties having a problem, when its probably not. Its just one party being irresponsible and not upholding their end of the bargain. The other party could be a loving spouse when that one party is just following his/her lust and screwing everything in sight.

 

[WillJ]

Adultery should be handled like any other breach of contract: It should be a valid reason to go to civil court, but it shouldn't be criminal.

 

[Pyrite]

"What is your utopia? That people screw around, families get broken up, nobody cares about anybody but themselves - even though they have a spouse and kids. And to those who get cheated: "GET OVER IT, LOSER!" Yippi, welcome to the great new world!"

What is your vision? To those who get cheated: " Use our legal system to get revenge for your bruised ego!"

Please. If someone gets cheated on, and wants to use the legal system to punish the cheater, it just shows exactly why they should be cheated on. A domineering personality, and some strange sense of ultimate entitlement and ownership. Ridiculous. Back to the graveyards with that.

 

[Archbob]

"What is your utopia? That people screw around, families get broken up, nobody cares about anybody but themselves - even though they have a spouse and kids. And to those who get cheated: "GET OVER IT, LOSER!" Yippi, welcome to the great new world!"

What is your vision? To those who get cheated: " Use our legal system to get revenge for your bruised ego!"

Please. If someone gets cheated on, and wants to use the legal system to punish the cheater, it just shows exactly why they should be cheated on. A domineering personality, and some strange sense of ultimate entitlement and ownership. Ridiculous. Back to the graveyards with that.

Have you not been following the debate. You signed a binding contract. If you don't want to be bound to the other person for life, then don't sign the binding contract, don't say "I do" in front of hundreds of people and don't get married. While I'm not going to argue morals with you. Legally you can and many people do it.

If you think marriage is only about EGO, then you obviously don't have the slightest clue about what it really is and you haven't seen what adultry does to a healthy family.

By you logic, if I sign a contract with a business to sell only to them and then cheat on my CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION and sell to their competitor, then they shouldn't be able to sue me for damages.

You signed a binding contract and now you don't want to abide by it. Just like any other case where you sign a contract and break it, there are penalties. By taking them to court, you are simply punishing their wrongdoing, which is the right thing to do. When you and your spouse take the vow and sign the marriage papers, you do indeed sign a contract that says specifically you are bound to that one person from this day forward until death or until you are divorced. When you cheat on your partner and they take you to court, they have every right to do so because you broke the contractual agreement.

If you don't want to be held liable, DON'T SIGN THE DAMN PAPER.

 

[Pyrite]

And if you think that intrapersonal relationships based on emotions are about contracts and legality then you have absolutely no grasp of the situation whatsoever.

You want to punish for the breaking of a contract that lasts forever, but that exists beside changing conditions. The very notion of such a contract is ridiculous.

And marriage is not based on ego, but the urge to punish is.

 

[White Elk]

I'm surprised it's still legal to force ones morality on others. Adultery should have been taken off the books long ago.

However, If a couple should vow monagamy in a legal marriage contract, and then one should fail in that commitment; then and only then should there be legal consequence. But it should be quite legal for a married couple to engage in intimate relationships outside of marriage if that is how they choose to live their life. Personally I'm for monagamy myself. But I'll not try and force my morality on someone else. And it ticks me off that my government continues to push somebody elses morality on me.

 

[Mirc]

Iilllleeggaall!!!!

 

[slip79]

She's a lesbian? Do you know this because she told you, or think she is because the post she made? If she is a lesbian, then of course the joke is not funny, but I'm pretty sure she is married with children and not a lesbian.

From what I remember she is a lesbian, has been married (may still be) and does have kids.
Why don't you just ask her??

 

[mdwh]

Any issues regarding adultery are surely already covered by divorce courts. Adultery is generally considered grounds for divorce already.

As others have said, saying it's a contract isn't enough to make something a criminal offence, as contracts are civil issues and not criminal ones.

There is no purpose for making this a criminal offence. Any damages, such as issues relating to their wealth or earnings, are settled by the divorce courts. These people aren't people who are a danger to society; they don't need to be locked up, or otherwised punished.

There are other issues to consider:

- Some places require people to wait a time before you can get a divorce. What happens if people have separated, and wish to persue new relationships, before they are divorced?

- Some people choose to be non-monogamous (eg, "open marriages", or polyamory). If adultery is defined as anything between a married and non-married partner, then people could be considered criminals even if no one involved has any problem with what's happening.