Why?

In the U.S., if you get legally married you and your spouse get tax benefits that single people do not.

I don't think it's a crime worthy of imprisonment, but fines and the revocation of such benefits might be acceptable.

The roots of the cultural concept of 'adultery' are biological (determination of parentage) - Marx and Engels have covered this well.

Absolutely not.

In the U.S., if you get legally married you and your spouse get tax benefits that single people do not. I don't think it's a crime worthy of imprisonment, but fines and the revocation of such benefits might be acceptable.I can tell you're not married. There is a whole lot more to the institution of marriage than sexual intercourse. Many people--and probably most parents--would argue that raising children together is a far more important part of marriage than sleeping together.

That one component of the marriage vows as they are customarily stated in the U.S., "forsaking all others," is probably the one most broken. The "for better or for worse" part is the most important. "For worse" includes the transgressions of the other party, including "adultery," a term so arcane that your use of it is a sign that you're probably not even an American, much less a married American. We call it "infidelity" in polite company and use far more colorful language among friends.

Lots of marriages survive infidelity.

So don't go prattling on about an institution you're clearly not familiar with in a country you're clearly not familiar with. I've lived here since I was born 63 years ago and I've been married for almost half that time so I know what I'm talking about.

If you're concerned about the inequities in the U.S. tax laws, there simply is no way to make our current confiscatory level of taxation fair to anyone. The income tax is unconstitutional anyway, and all government officials who enforce it should be imprisoned.

Not to mention that for a good many years the tax benefits worked the other way and only turned around about ten or fifteen years ago. The fact that you've never heard of the infamous "marriage penalty" is yet another signal that you're an outsider to both the U.S. and marriage.

Not sure whether the poll is supposed to be asking "IS adultery a crime?" or "SHOULD it be a crime?" but it doesn't really matter. My response in both cases is "No."

Adultery is a private matter to be sorted out among the parties involved. The government has no business butting its nose into such matters.

Absolutely not.

In relation to the OP and my comment: Why not?

Not sure whether the poll is supposed to be asking "IS adultery a crime?" or "SHOULD it be a crime?" but it doesn't really matter. My response in both cases is "No."

Adultery is a private matter to be sorted out among the parties involved. The government has no business butting its nose into such matters.

Didn't mean to be equivocal there.

Just wondered if people think it is a crime with with people should be "charged" and expect accountability and why.

No.

Only if it affects me negatively...lol.

it's one of those, "religious rules that got turned into a law" crime.

It is not crime but shame. If one commits adultery it is better for him/her get out of that marriage and pursue instead of remaining there willingly or unwillingly.

It is not crime but shame. If one commits adultery it is better for him/her get out of that marriage and pursue instead of remaining there willingly or unwillingly.

What if its a person who sleeps around on a regular basis but wishes to remain married to one person only?

Would you consider that to be a crime?

Would it make a difference if the person was a man or a woman?

If you knew of such a person, what would your opinion be of him/her?

What if its a person who sleeps around on a regular basis but wishes to remain married to one person only?

Would you consider that to be a crime?

outsourcing sex is a violation of commitment and trust in marriage.

Would it make a difference if the person was a man or a woman?

No.

If you knew of such a person, what would your opinion be of him/her?

Not of high regard.

What kind of crime?

Felony? Misdemeanor? Infraction?

Do we need to hire sex police?

What kind of crime?

Felony? Misdemeanor? Infraction?

Do we need to hire sex police?

What do you think?

Adultery is a private matter to be sorted out among the parties involved. The government has no business butting its nose into such matters.

One could say the same thing about a lot of other things that we already have laws against.

I'm sure that there are some studies which show that childeren who have two parents do better in school, etc. Passing such a law may be good for the childeren.

A crime? No. I see no reason why it should be a criminal offence. It is of course a very valid reason to break up a marraige though and as such should weigh heavily in divorce cases(I'm not aware if it already does or not).

The reason I asked this question is because an Indian army captain told me that military personnel in India in adulterous relationships are prosecuted/discharged. Is this common in other countries?

One could say the same thing about a lot of other things that we already have laws against.

Terrific argument.

The reason I asked this question is because an Indian army captain told me that military personnel in India in adulterous relationships are prosecuted/discharged. Is this common in other countries?

It would be called something like "Conduct unbecoming an officer of the xyz military." And, yes, it's a factor in the US military as well ...mostly, but not limited to, officers.

But still, Sam, it's not a "crime", it's just not a good thing to do. I.e, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. But not a "crime".

But, Sam, that same thing can happen in private companies as well ....conduct unbecoming an officer of the company, etc ...setting poor examples, etc. But just so you know, that wouldn't be listed as the cause of firing ...because that would be discrimination or something, and the company could be sued for ten gazillion dollars.

I'm curious, however, if that was your original point or question, why didn't you just ask it that way instead of the way you did?

Baron Max

James R.:

What is your stance on the legality of all marriages, then? Surely, if the government has no right to make a violation of the contract illegal, it doesn't have the right to establish it either? Or to give tax benefits and the like?

Terrific argument.

I wasn't making an argument, just responding to a point made elsewhere. To someone else.

What is your stance on the legality of all marriages, then? Surely, if the government has no right to make a violation of the contract illegal, it doesn't have the right to establish it either? Or to give tax benefits and the like?

The government doesn't force people into marriage, so it is wrong to say the government "establishes" marriages. If you view marriage as a "contract" between consenting parties, then the government is not a party to that contract, and it makes perfect sense that an uninterested party should not be able to sue for breach of a contract between others.

What the government does is regulate the ways in which marriages are recognised by the government itself - for example, as you said, tax implications. Clearly, there is little argument these days over the government's right to levy taxes on its citizens or to give tax breaks to encourage certain activities.

The government has made laws regarding what forms of marriage are considered legal, since that impacts the relationship of the parties to the government and to other citizens. Moreover, the government has made laws regarding divorce. The divorce laws exist mostly to prevent extremist religious views being imposed on people who may suffer as a result of being unable to go against such ideas. Reasonable divorce laws have been introduced to prevent people becoming trapped against their will in an unhappy marriage.

Currently, western societies tend to have "no fault" divorce laws, which allow one partner to unilaterally seek to terminate a marriage for any reason, without having to show "fault" or blame in the other partner. One possible reason for a divorce may be infidelity by the other partner, but the law has rightly decided that investigating personal infidelity is no business of the government. It is private matter between the individuals involved.

Should adultery be a crime?

No

sam, are you drunk? This is a stupid thread.
Just wondered if people think it is a crime with with people should be "charged" and expect accountability and why.
I'm preserving that sentence for posterity, just in case you decide to edit it later. How unusually unintelligible of you. You need to have strong words with the people at quality control - the standard of your many paid stand-ins is seriously deteriorating.

sam, are you drunk?


ha ha ha ha.:eek:

God save the queen.

I think it shouldn't be a crime, but if a divorce results, the adulter should get squat, or at least should get much less. If they won't honor their commitment, why should they benefit from it?

Why?

Adultery should be encouraged, as people are going to cheat no matter what, we should factor it into all marriages and develop formal ways to cheat.

Such as routine STD testing of all potential mistresses or misters. Routine backround checks. All the precautions, and we should encourage open relationships and polyamorous lifestyle for those who cannot handle monogamy.

It would be called something like "Conduct unbecoming an officer of the xyz military." And, yes, it's a factor in the US military as well ...mostly, but not limited to, officers.

But still, Sam, it's not a "crime", it's just not a good thing to do. I.e, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. But not a "crime".

But, Sam, that same thing can happen in private companies as well ....conduct unbecoming an officer of the company, etc ...setting poor examples, etc. But just so you know, that wouldn't be listed as the cause of firing ...because that would be discrimination or something, and the company could be sued for ten gazillion dollars.

I'm curious, however, if that was your original point or question, why didn't you just ask it that way instead of the way you did?

Baron Max


Seems curious to me that military personnel should have less freedom than civilians; aren't they defending the principles we represent?

I think it shouldn't be a crime, but if a divorce results, the adulter should get squat, or at least should get much less. If they won't honor their commitment, why should they benefit from it?

Commitment is about sex?:confused:

sam, are you drunk? This is a stupid thread.

I'm preserving that sentence for posterity, just in case you decide to edit it later. How unusually unintelligible of you. You need to have strong words with the people at quality control - the standard of your many paid stand-ins is seriously deteriorating.

I'm interested in how people think, whats wrong with that?:p

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62581-2004Sep4.html

What do you think?

Can't you ever answer a fucking question?

Seems curious to me that military personnel should have less freedom than civilians;

That's because a.) you don't know shit about the military or b.) you actually think civilians have freedom or c.) both of the above!

...aren't they defending the principles we represent?

Sam, for a supposedly intelligent, well-educated individual, you sure can post some really stupid questions and statements! How much are your controllers paying you for making these posts at sciforums????

Baron Max

Can't you ever answer a fucking question?

Sam's whole purpose here is to stir up controversy and intense arguments ....and keep them going when they start!! ...no matter how ridiculous it gets.

I'm convinced that she's/he's a paid propagandist ...probably paid by some radical Islamic group because of the many anti-American and anti-Israeli crap she/he posts! If you pay attention to her/his posts, you'll see.

Baron Max

Sam, for a supposedly intelligent, well-educated individual, you sure can post some really stupid questions and statements! How much are your controllers paying you for making these posts at sciforums????

Baron Max
?

LMAO!

Do you assume she's a 'commie' Baron? Possibly KGB trying to get you to divulge national secrets?

:rolleyes:

I'm interested in how people think, whats wrong with that?

No, Sam ....you do everything in your power to get people into heated arguments ...and stirring up the trouble when it begins. You like to see people fight and argue and sling vile accusations.

Baron Max

Sam's whole purpose here is to stir up controversy and intense arguments ....and keep them going when they start!! ...no matter how ridiculous it gets.

I'm convinced that she's/he's a paid propagandist ...probably paid by some radical Islamic group because of the many anti-American and anti-Israeli crap she/he posts! If you pay attention to her/his posts, you'll see.

Baron Max

You're paranoid Baron lol.

Seriously.. really paranoid.

Do you assume she's a 'commie' Baron? Possibly KGB trying to get you to divulge national secrets?

No, not commie .....radical Islamic group(s). And no, it's not about secrets, it's about stirring up the shit around the world and fomenting disagreement and hatred.

Baron Max

No, Sam ....you do everything in your power to get people into heated arguments ...and stirring up the trouble when it begins. You like to see people fight and argue and sling vile accusations.

Baron Max

So far, YOU are the only one who has flung anything Baron.

She merely asked a question and commented on your answer. And all of a sudden you start getting all 'uppity' and start aaccusing her of being a "paid propagandist". Do you have actual proof of this Baron?

As a man who always goes against the argument to spice things up, YOU are the last person to talk about her debating techniques. YOU always attempt to get people riled up. And YOU simply don't like it when it's done right back at you.

Now either you have proof of sam being a "paid propagandist", or you are making a spurious and false claim about her. Which is it?

No, not commie .....radical Islamic group(s). And no, it's not about secrets, it's about stirring up the shit around the world and fomenting disagreement and hatred.

Baron Max

This is a forum Baron. She is hardly travelling the world "stirring up shit" by posting on here.

YOU are the only one who's getting angry at her questions. Why is that? Do they make you uncomfortable? If so, don't answer them or answer her posts. And you seem to seek her out to argue against her. Now the way I see it, YOU are equally at fault for any "shit stirring" that might be going on, wouldn't you say? You seem to do that, follow people around and comment on their profession and attempt to accuse them or belittle them that way. I've noticed that about you lately. It is cheap and frankly childish and baseless.

Now, either you have proof that she is a "paid propagandist" or you don't and you're just attempting to attack her personally because you simply have no reply to her comments and questions. Either way, makes you weak and small Baron and also childish as hell.

James R.:

The government doesn't force people into marriage, so it is wrong to say the government "establishes" marriages. If you view marriage as a "contract" between consenting parties, then the government is not a party to that contract, and it makes perfect sense that an uninterested party should not be able to sue for breach of a contract between others.

A government gives people licenses when married. Without such license, they are not married legally - although one can say they are married "in heart". Similarly, with this license they gain none of the tax benefits and other things associated with marriage. To say that this does not establish marriage, then, is rather silly, no?

And one of the chief principles of a government is the enforcer of contractual validity as arbitrator of grievances. Accordingly, enforcing contracts is certainly within its purview. But yes, perhaps legal action is not warranted -unless- someone calls for it. Yet what if they do? Certainly the government should be able to do as it sees fit?

What the government does is regulate the ways in which marriages are recognised by the government itself - for example, as you said, tax implications. Clearly, there is little argument these days over the government's right to levy taxes on its citizens or to give tax breaks to encourage certain activities.

Actually, there is a tremendous amount of debate on that. But yes, it is a atleast a common practice.

Currently, western societies tend to have "no fault" divorce laws, which allow one partner to unilaterally seek to terminate a marriage for any reason, without having to show "fault" or blame in the other partner. One possible reason for a divorce may be infidelity by the other partner, but the law has rightly decided that investigating personal infidelity is no business of the government. It is private matter between the individuals involved.

Why should someone not be able to sue the other for such harm inflicted? It is a violation of the contract of marriage, in as much as monogamous marriage implies fidelity.

Commitment is about sex?:confused:

Commitment in marraige(at least in part) is about remaining faithful, if someone violates that why should they get anything? If someone doesn't want to be with only one person then fine but people shouldn't enter into a marraige and start cheating because of that.

Seems curious to me that military personnel should have less freedom than civilians; aren't they defending the principles we represent?

Sam, Sam, Sam. Why must you stoop to Baron's level?
Surely you are too smart to even consider this an argument?

yeah listen to Roman. he's so smart.

"oh sam sam sam, is it a girl is it a man?"

Can't you ever answer a fucking question?

Was that a fucking question?:bugeye:

Commitment in marraige(at least in part) is about remaining faithful, if someone violates that why should they get anything? If someone doesn't want to be with only one person then fine but people shouldn't enter into a marraige and start cheating because of that.

Adultery is violation and cheating?

Sam, Sam, Sam. Why must you stoop to Baron's level?
Surely you are too smart to even consider this an argument?

Sexual fidelity is unimportant to you?:D

That's because a.) you don't know shit about the military or b.) you actually think civilians have freedom or c.) both of the above!



Sam, for a supposedly intelligent, well-educated individual, you sure can post some really stupid questions and statements! How much are your controllers paying you for making these posts at sciforums????

Baron Max

So its alright for military personnel to be singled out for prosecution for adultery?

What does their sex life have to do with how they perform as soldiers?

This is a forum Baron. She is hardly travelling the world "stirring up shit" by posting on here.

YOU are the only one who's getting angry at her questions. Why is that? Do they make you uncomfortable? If so, don't answer them or answer her posts. And you seem to seek her out to argue against her. Now the way I see it, YOU are equally at fault for any "shit stirring" that might be going on, wouldn't you say? You seem to do that, follow people around and comment on their profession and attempt to accuse them or belittle them that way. I've noticed that about you lately. It is cheap and frankly childish and baseless.

Now, either you have proof that she is a "paid propagandist" or you don't and you're just attempting to attack her personally because you simply have no reply to her comments and questions. Either way, makes you weak and small Baron and also childish as hell.
'

'sokay, he says what he thinks and I have no problems with it. Its only the way he thinks that is really strange!:confused:

Adultery is violation and cheating?

marriage is living together ?

So its alright for military personnel to be singled out for prosecution for adultery?

What does their sex life have to do with how they perform as soldiers?

they have guns, all around.

they have guns, all around.

And fear of prosecution makes them good little soldiers?:confused:

atleast they don't need to watch their backs.

No. It has nothing to do with a "law". No one gets hurt. And I think it's none of states business.

With all the debate over same-sex marriage I've seen in my life, rarely has adultery been drudged up as a complementary issue. Even by the people who claim it's their duty to "protect" marriage. It's as if they didn't actually care about protecting marriage; it merely sounds nice and wins them support. Does anyone else find this inconsistency laughable?

Oh, and I voted no in the poll.

With all the debate over same-sex marriage I've seen in my life, rarely has adultery been drudged up as a complementary issue. Even by the people who claim it's their duty to "protect" marriage. It's as if they didn't actually care about protecting marriage; it merely sounds nice and wins them support. Does anyone else find this inconsistency laughable?

Oh, and I voted no in the poll.

I hear you, brother.

No, human history shows us that you cannot legislate morality or social mores they must be fostered.

No, human history shows us that you cannot legislate morality or social mores they must be fostered.

What do you mean fostered?

That those values must be taught, reinforced, shown what they are worth. For instance if a child grows up in an abusive houshold telling them that thier parents and themselves are bound by law to be true to thier partner doesn't really work.

What if you foster the rules with force?

Then you get a society of supernazis, genetically perfect in every way.

Iran has the death penalty for heroin use. Today they have the fastest growing amount of heroin addicts in the world

Iran has the death penalty for heroin use. Today they have the fastest growing amount of heroin addicts in the world


Do they still (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070401182_pf.html) have the death penalty?

Iran has the death penalty for heroin use. Today they have the fastest growing amount of heroin addicts in the world

Is that in absolute terms or weighted with respect to previous heroin users?

For instance, if you have no heroin users now, and two later, you've just increased the number of heroin users by roughly infinity percent.

If you've got 100,000 heroin users, and gain another 1,000, you've only increased the number of users by 1%.

Yaaaaaay, fun with statistics!!

I believe it was in absolute terms I heard a number of over 2 million.

Do they still (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070401182_pf.html) have the death penalty?

Well if they don't and are trying to tackle the problem with other means that is great (shows someone can think outside of the mullah box).

Adultery is violation and cheating?

It's certainly cheating, and in terms of marraige vows of course it violates them, unless you think being faithful is not part of marraige?

Why do you people feel that the government should be involved in everything? Can you not run your own life?

It's certainly cheating, and in terms of marraige vows of course it violates them, unless you think being faithful is not part of marraige?

I'm talking about crime, not personal morality.:rolleyes:

speaking of crime, does that kitty have a body attached to it?

I'm talking about crime, not personal morality.:rolleyes:

As was already said, why in the world should it be a crime?

I think it shouldn't be a crime, but if a divorce results, the adulter should get squat, or at least should get much less. If they won't honor their commitment, why should they benefit from it?

Why should someone not be able to sue the other for such harm inflicted? It is a violation of the contract of marriage, in as much as monogamous marriage implies fidelity.

Commitment in marraige(at least in part) is about remaining faithful, if someone violates that why should they get anything? If someone doesn't want to be with only one person then fine but people shouldn't enter into a marraige and start cheating because of that.

So, we have three people who want to return to the bad old days. Get with the times, people! You're living in the 21st century.

In the past, divorce laws were much stricter than they are today. A person could only divorce their husband or wife if they had "grounds", which they needed to be able to prove in a court of law.

I bet you all think that sounds just fine and dandy. One partner should need to be able to show wrongdoing of some kind by the other, and if they can show that then the evil partner should get nothing of any settlement; the good partner gets the house, the kids etc. If, on the other hand, they can't show any wrongdoing, then there's no reason to grant a divorce. They have no reason to divorce their fine, upstanding partner, so the government shouldn't let it happen. After all, they entered into a "contract" of marriage for life, freely and with full knowledge that it was supposed to be a lifelong commitment. Punish those people who would want to go back on their words!

Is that what you think?

Now, take a reality check. Go away and look at the practical outcomes that occurred when such policies were law.

Since you probably won't bother, let me give you a hint or two. A woman might have a philandering husband who was continually being unfaithful to her outside the marriage. But she couldn't prove it. She suspected, and there were small pieces of evidence - lipstick on the collar, that sort of thing - but she had nothing that would convince a judge or jury. So, what could she do? Nothing. She was stuck in a loveless marriage, with no avenue of escape.

Think this was uncommon? Go away and do some research. Ask people who are a little older than you.

In the 21st century, we have no fault divorce so that people don't need to lead lives of quiet desperation. People who make a mistake in entering a marriage are no longer punished their whole lives for it.

I can only assume that the three of you are too ignorant to understand the implications of what you're saying.

So, we have three people who want to return to the bad old days.

James, I think you read the statements of those three people erroneously. I don't think that's what they said at all.

Get with the times, people! You're living in the 21st century.

Which you seem to take as NOT being responsible for our own actions. Or our own promises. Or for contracts that we sign. Is that the way you see the 21st century, James? Is that the way you WANT it to be?

Baron Max

James R.:

Contracts are contracts. Marriage is explicitly affirmed as a life long commitment. Accordingly, the only legitimate grounds for divorce ought to be a breaking of said contract.

One can remedy the ill you concocted by allowing civil law, as opposed to criminal law, standards to hold true. That is, allowing circumstantial evidence, the threshold of doubt being lowered, et cetera.

So, we have three people who want to return to the bad old days. Get with the times, people! You're living in the 21st century.

In the past, divorce laws were much stricter than they are today. A person could only divorce their husband or wife if they had "grounds", which they needed to be able to prove in a court of law.

If someone wants to divorce their spouse, they may do so after living apart from them for a year or more, citing that the marriage simply won't work.

However, if a someone wants to divorce their spouse on the grounds of adultery, they must prove so in a court of law.

I think we should gather up people who think that adultery is a crime and stone them to death.

So, we have three people who want to return to the bad old days. Get with the times, people! You're living in the 21st century.

As Baron said I think you've read the statements wrong(although I can only speak for mine).
If someone is incapable of being faithful the last thing they should be thinking of doing is getting married! It's beyond me why you wouldn't understand that. If you're disputing my statement you're trying to say people should be allowed to cheat in a marraige without consequences, if both parties agree to an open marraige then fine. However we're talking in general because mostly that isn't the case. Nobody mentions having a problem with divorce; indeed I'd expect a person to want one if they were cheated on and I wouldn't deny them that as I think it's the least they deserve, nobody should be stuck with someone like that. Care to disagree?
In the past, divorce laws were much stricter than they are today. A person could only divorce their husband or wife if they had "grounds", which they needed to be able to prove in a court of law.
People should be able to divorce whenever they want, but I'd urge them to think it through as most problems can be worked out, something people these days don't even consider.
I bet you all think that sounds just fine and dandy. One partner should need to be able to show wrongdoing of some kind by the other, and if they can show that then the evil partner should get nothing of any settlement; the good partner gets the house, the kids etc.
Wrongdoing of some kind? We're talking of adultery, not forgetting valentines day and being generally lazy or insensitive. I'd consider adultery substantial grounds for divorce and as such why should the other person get anything? How hard is it to say "I don't want to be with you anymore I think we should get a divorce" BEFORE it gets to the stage of cheating on someone?
If, on the other hand, they can't show any wrongdoing, then there's no reason to grant a divorce. They have no reason to divorce their fine, upstanding partner, so the government shouldn't let it happen. After all, they entered into a "contract" of marriage for life, freely and with full knowledge that it was supposed to be a lifelong commitment. Punish those people who would want to go back on their words!

Is that what you think?
It would seem this paragraph is now irrelevant, don't you think?
Now, take a reality check. Go away and look at the practical outcomes that occurred when such policies were law.
I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions in future, it can make you look stupid.
Since you probably won't bother, let me give you a hint or two. A woman might have a philandering husband who was continually being unfaithful to her outside the marriage. But she couldn't prove it. She suspected, and there were small pieces of evidence - lipstick on the collar, that sort of thing - but she had nothing that would convince a judge or jury. So, what could she do? Nothing. She was stuck in a loveless marriage, with no avenue of escape.

Think this was uncommon? Go away and do some research. Ask people who are a little older than you.
See above.
In the 21st century, we have no fault divorce so that people don't need to lead lives of quiet desperation. People who make a mistake in entering a marriage are no longer punished their whole lives for it.
The person who makes the mistake should be the adulterer, hence the suggestion they shouldn't be entitled to anything, it is them that breaks the contract. Proving it may be difficult as it always is, unfortunately that's just the way it is and I feel sorry for the people who can't prove it.
I can only assume that the three of you are too ignorant to understand the implications of what you're saying.
Speak for yourself.
Your apology will be accepted.

Baron Max:

Which you seem to take as NOT being responsible for our own actions. Or our own promises. Or for contracts that we sign. Is that the way you see the 21st century, James? Is that the way you WANT it to be?

There is a general principle in law that courts do not usually enforce specific performance of contracts that require personal services.


Prince_James:

Contracts are contracts. Marriage is explicitly affirmed as a life long commitment. Accordingly, the only legitimate grounds for divorce ought to be a breaking of said contract.

Then I guess failure to "love, cherish" and possibly "obey" would be grounds for divorce under your system, as would failure to "forsake all others". People would need to get lawyers to carefully draft their marriage vows, lest they get caught in a Prince_James technicality legal trap.

Tell me, how do suppose someone would prove a failure to love, in court? And would that be enough for divorce under your proposed system?

One can remedy the ill you concocted by allowing civil law, as opposed to criminal law, standards to hold true.

It's not a concoction of mine. As I said, ask somebody older than you, who lived under the archaic system of laws you champion.

(Q):

If someone wants to divorce their spouse, they may do so after living apart from them for a year or more, citing that the marriage simply won't work.

However, if a someone wants to divorce their spouse on the grounds of adultery, they must prove so in a court of law.

Where do you live? Don't they have no-fault divorce laws? It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)


Anti-flag:

As Baron said I think you've read the statements wrong(although I can only speak for mine).

Well, maybe I've exagerated your position just a little. What you undoubtedly said was that you think if one partner has been adulterous, then they ought to get nothing in a divorce settlement. In other words, the house, the dog, the kids, the car, the joint bank account and so on all goes to the non-adulterous partner.

That's a heavy penalty for what might be one moral slip.

If someone is incapable of being faithful the last thing they should be thinking of doing is getting married! It's beyond me why you wouldn't understand that.

It's beyond me that you can't imagine that people will always have moments of weakness. Few people are perfect exemplars of monogamy.

If you're disputing my statement you're trying to say people should be allowed to cheat in a marraige without consequences, if both parties agree to an open marraige then fine. However we're talking in general because mostly that isn't the case.

My original point was that the government should not be sticking its nose into sorting through who slept with whom. And surely you don't think that just because the government isn't involved, or a law isn't being broken, cheating in marriage is therefore "without consequences"?

Nobody mentions having a problem with divorce; indeed I'd expect a person to want one if they were cheated on and I wouldn't deny them that as I think it's the least they deserve, nobody should be stuck with someone like that. Care to disagree?

I totally agree. But I also think that if a divorce occurs, the adulterer should not be punished by forfeiture of join property of the marriage. That's a totally disproportionate outcome.

People should be able to divorce whenever they want, but I'd urge them to think it through as most problems can be worked out, something people these days don't even consider.

I agree.

I'd consider adultery substantial grounds for divorce and as such why should the other person get anything?

Because the other person has put their time and effort and resources into the joint assets of the marriage, and should not be denied their fair share because of your religious prudishness regarding sex.

How hard is it to say "I don't want to be with you anymore I think we should get a divorce" BEFORE it gets to the stage of cheating on someone?

Very hard, in some cases. Cheating doesn't even have to mean that a person doesn't want to be with their partner anymore. If it did, then every cheating husband would leave his wife. You must be aware that many do not.

Sam why haven't you voted?

(Q):

Where do you live? Don't they have no-fault divorce laws? It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)

You mean like Australia?

"Reform should retain no-fault divorce where the spouses are agreed that they want to divorce, but remove unilateralism by requiring that all divorce applications (after the usual one year’s separation) have the consent of both husband and wife"

http://www.cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/ia39/ia39.htm

Anti-flag:

Well, maybe I've exagerated your position just a little. What you undoubtedly said was that you think if one partner has been adulterous, then they ought to get nothing in a divorce settlement. In other words, the house, the dog, the kids, the car, the joint bank account and so on all goes to the non-adulterous partner.

That's a heavy penalty for what might be one moral slip.

Yes, that is what I said, not the rest of what you came out with. As for it being a heavy penalty then yes, I agree, but adultery can cause a lot of emotional distress, and it is totally unnecessary, you don't accidentally cheat on someone, even when drunk, and as I said, it is not hard to end it first if you don't feel the same anymore. If you feel the need to cheat on someone I would suggest a person was not ready for marraige, it isn't as though we don't know that it entails being true to your partner.
I don't think adultery is at all acceptable behaviour of any mature adult and as such they should be prepared to accept consequences for the damage done. Perhaps saying they should get nothing is too far, I'll admit that, but certainly it should limit greatly what they receive from a divorce settlement, it is technically a breach of contract.


It's beyond me that you can't imagine that people will always have moments of weakness. Few people are perfect exemplars of monogamy.

Again this is something I didn't say. People have weaknesses, nobody is perfect and I have never stated otherwise.
The problem is they also have responsibility, especially when in a relationship, and people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, good and bad. I'm aware most people are incapable of monogamy, but I'd suggest these people don't get married. At worst they can find other people the same and have an open marraige but both partners must be aware of this at the start.
I have no objections to that at all.

My original point was that the government should not be sticking its nose into sorting through who slept with whom. And surely you don't think that just because the government isn't involved, or a law isn't being broken, cheating in marriage is therefore "without consequences"?
In a divorce settlement, if the reason for the divorce is adultery then I think the information is relevant, if people can work through it themselves that is their choice. Simply put if you don't want people to find out about your adultery, don't do it. Also not everyone feels guilty afterwards, and what consequences do these people face?


I totally agree. But I also think that if a divorce occurs, the adulterer should not be punished by forfeiture of join property of the marriage. That's a totally disproportionate outcome.
I find the alternative to be a form of compensation for the distress caused, but that would be harder to judge. I'm aware you probably also don't find adultery morally acceptable, and I find it is something which is hard to decide on a punishment. I don't think this should be based in law because some people are forgiven, some are openly both happy with it, and there are I'm sure other reasons, but I think a case of a closed marraige is an exception and it should carry consequences. If you'd care to suggest alternatives I would be interested in hearing them.

I agree.

I believe adultery to be the only reason I'd ever give up on a marraige, if I love someone enough to marry them anything else is worth working through to keep that. I'd expect the same from my partner. This is a great flaw in people who marry young and think it will be all roses and smiles.

Because the other person has put their time and effort and resources into the joint assets of the marriage, and should not be denied their fair share because of your religious prudishness regarding sex.

Another assumption and judgement, and again incorrect. That's two, and I don't think you're apologetic about either. Having read some of your other posts and being aware you're a moderator I must say I'd expect better. Feel free to continue though, others might find it amusing. I'm non-religious, and I'm not a gun toting yokel from the american deep south either.;)
At the risk of endlessly repeating myself, people in a marraige are expected to not cheat.
Someone puts a lot of time, effort, and resources into a business, but if they breach the contract they get very little back, at best compensation or an agreeable settlement. Why should divorce be any different?
Two things people need to learn in this world are morals and responsibility.

Very hard, in some cases. Cheating doesn't even have to mean that a person doesn't want to be with their partner anymore. If it did, then every cheating husband would leave his wife. You must be aware that many do not.
This is why I'm concerned, a fling should not be an attractive prospect to anyone if they are married. For things to get to that stage something has to be seriously wrong, and I greatly encourage people to be more open about this. If you love and respect someone why go behind their back to be with someone else?
I think the fact that in the 21st century we have this attitude with a great many things that because "lots of people do it" it is acceptable and/or expectedly forgivable. To me this is a great problem in our society.

C'mon Sam you want to hang everyone else out but not yourself? :p

C'mon Sam you want to hang everyone else out but not yourself? :p

I was trying to avoid undue influence.:p

James R.:

Then I guess failure to "love, cherish" and possibly "obey" would be grounds for divorce under your system, as would failure to "forsake all others". People would need to get lawyers to carefully draft their marriage vows, lest they get caught in a Prince_James technicality legal trap.

Tell me, how do suppose someone would prove a failure to love, in court? And would that be enough for divorce under your proposed system?

Yes, I do actually agree that all said vows are part of the marriage contract. The violation of such would be grounds for divorce.

And there are many ways one can establish that someone has failed to love. Generally speaking, love comes with a certain attention to the needs and desires of the other person. The lack of such affection would be a lack of love over a consistant time.

I was trying to avoid undue influence.:p

Ok now I am satisfied ;)

(Q):

Where do you live? Don't they have no-fault divorce laws? It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)

You mean like Australia?

I went away after I had posted my comment and discovered that for myself. You learn something every day!

Frankly, I'm quite astonished by this: that a no-fault divorce won't be granted before a one-year separation period has elapsed.

Is it still true that the US has laws which require "grounds" for divorce other than "irreconcilable differences"? And how much does the law vary from state to state? Do you know? For example, I am wondering whether states which tend to be more religious also have stricter requirements for divorce.

Following on from the above, I'd like to say that in my opinion the one-year period required before a divorce can be granted is at the wrong end of the process.

People can head off to Las Vegas, or wherever, and get hitched at the drop of a hat. Roll up to a registry office, sign the papers, and you're done. There's no enforced one-year trial period here. But when it comes to getting out of a marriage, bad luck. You need to wait one year. (Does this apply even for marriages where violence occurs?)

Wouldn't the system work better if people had to register their intent to marry, then wait a year to see if they really were suited to marriage?

Following on from the above, I'd like to say that in my opinion the one-year period required before a divorce can be granted is at the wrong end of the process.

People can head off to Las Vegas, or wherever, and get hitched at the drop of a hat. Roll up to a registry office, sign the papers, and you're done. There's no enforced one-year trial period here. But when it comes to getting out of a marriage, bad luck. You need to wait one year. (Does this apply even for marriages where violence occurs?)

Wouldn't the system work better if people had to register their intent to marry, then wait a year to see if they really were suited to marriage?

They used to call it an engagement.:p

Anti-flag:

I don't think adultery is at all acceptable behaviour of any mature adult and as such they should be prepared to accept consequences for the damage done. Perhaps saying they should get nothing is too far, I'll admit that, but certainly it should limit greatly what they receive from a divorce settlement, it is technically a breach of contract.

Do you think that marriage is a desirable institution to retain? I get the impression you do. But if such harsh penalties were generally applied to people, don't you think it would discourage people from marrying in the first place?

The problem is they also have responsibility, especially when in a relationship, and people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, good and bad. I'm aware most people are incapable of monogamy, but I'd suggest these people don't get married.

So, you'd reserve marriage for a few paragons of virtue, then?

I'm sure you realise that it in the past the institution of marriage has been more about cementing inter-family relations than about modern ideas of romantic love. What's your opinion of its current relevance?

Also not everyone feels guilty [about adultery] afterwards, and what consequences do these people face?

Should they face consequences, other than the usual interpersonal consequences? Should they be punished monetarily, or perhaps corporally, or by a jail sentence (returning to the original question of the thread)? How did you vote in the poll, by the way? Adultery a crime, or not?

And if there are to be criminal consequences, what is the rationale? Retribution on the part of the "victim"? Compensation? Or just plain old punishment to teach them a moral lesson?

I'm aware you probably also don't find adultery morally acceptable, and I find it is something which is hard to decide on a punishment. I don't think this should be based in law because some people are forgiven, some are openly both happy with it, and there are I'm sure other reasons, but I think a case of a closed marraige is an exception and it should carry consequences. If you'd care to suggest alternatives I would be interested in hearing them.

I don't think adultery is morally acceptable. But I'm not so sure it is a matter for the criminal justice system. It is not, in general, a matter of public concern, but a matter of private concern. As such, private individuals should deal with it as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of course.

I believe adultery to be the only reason I'd ever give up on a marraige, if I love someone enough to marry them anything else is worth working through to keep that.

What about falling out of love? What if your partner stops loving you, but is still sexually faithful? Doesn't matter? Are you saying happiness is unimportant in marriage?

This is why I'm concerned, a fling should not be an attractive prospect to anyone if they are married.

Should we have moral police, then, whose job it is to track down people having affairs and charge then with the new crime of infidelity? And would you stop at fidelity enforcement, or proceed to a more general kind of thought policing?

---

Anti-flag, I hope you're aware that I am, to some extent, playing devil's advocate here. In terms of general ethical principles, it seems to me we are probably on more or less the same page. I am simply worried about increasing the degree of public intrusion into what I consider to be private matters.

Following on from the above, I'd like to say that in my opinion the one-year period required before a divorce can be granted is at the wrong end of the process.

People can head off to Las Vegas, or wherever, and get hitched at the drop of a hat. Roll up to a registry office, sign the papers, and you're done. There's no enforced one-year trial period here. But when it comes to getting out of a marriage, bad luck. You need to wait one year. (Does this apply even for marriages where violence occurs?)

Wouldn't the system work better if people had to register their intent to marry, then wait a year to see if they really were suited to marriage?

The 'one year' term of seperation is not exactly how you might think.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) basically ensured that there was one 'no fault' ground for divorce, which basically gives the reason of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, which needs to be demonstrated by a 12 month period of separation with no prospect of reconciliation. However the filing of the application for divorce is done after the 12 months is over.

Separation basically occurs if one (or both) of the parties makes their intent to separate known to the other party and acts upon it (eg splitting bank account, bills are in separate names, moving to a second bedroom, moving out, etc). Separation can also occur under the same roof. Usually by the time one has decided to divorce and have been married for more than 2 years, the separation has usually been ongoing for quite a while. For example, an emotional withdrawal, as well as a complete loss of a sex life between the two, with one moving into the spare room or has started seeing other people, etc..

It isn't hard at all.

In a situation where violence has been an issue, a protection order can basically begin the process of separation. If a protection order has never been sought, merely going to an emergency shelter refuge to escape from the violent spouse is enough. Seeking a loan from the government (for example) for emergency housing can also be seen to be a sign. There are many ways in which a person who has been a victim of domestic violence who is scared to leave, etc, can prove separation from their spouse.

------------------------------------------------

As to the question for the thread.

No adultery should not be a crime.

I changed my mind. Adultery should be a crime.

It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)

I went away after I had posted my comment and discovered that for myself. You learn something every day!

Frankly, I'm quite astonished by this: that a no-fault divorce won't be granted before a one-year separation period has elapsed.

Yes, 'Oz' is a backwards place and uncivilized, and you probably often feel like Dorothy grasping Toto, locked in the witches tower and wishing you were back home, but don't worry about it, just stand up and belt it out:

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true

Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?

no-fault divorces are given immediately on mutual consent in many countries, backwards or frontwards..:p

unilateral divorces are given after confirmation that the differences could not be reconciled after a reasonable duration of time. even then the party that is affected because of the divorce for no fault of them get the compensation.

Marriage and divorce laws vary by state in the US. Nevada is a popular state both in which to marry and in which to divorce because of this.

I changed my mind. Adultery should be a crime.

OK i agree. But after the punishment the adulteress would be a full-fledged whore. Then whoredom need to be legalized by popular demand. So, better leave the matter to the hubby.

As for the male adulterer : well, 99.9 % of males, including judges, are indiscriminate f**kers.

no point in making adultery a crime anyway.

Anti-flag:
Do you think that marriage is a desirable institution to retain? I get the impression you do. But if such harsh penalties were generally applied to people, don't you think it would discourage people from marrying in the first place?
I think if the thought is in their mind that they would perhaps commit adultery then they should be discouraged from marrying. Open relationships will always be an exception.


So, you'd reserve marriage for a few paragons of virtue, then?

I'm sure you realise that it in the past the institution of marriage has been more about cementing inter-family relations than about modern ideas of romantic love. What's your opinion of its current relevance?
In a way yes, I would prefer if only the people who plan to stick by their vows would get married. I have no objections to a family being started by couples in an open relationship, whilst not an ideal stable environment it should have no bearing on the parents love for their children. There are also a considerable number of people who have families outside of a marraige, again something I don't consider a problem.


Should they face consequences, other than the usual interpersonal consequences? Should they be punished monetarily, or perhaps corporally, or by a jail sentence (returning to the original question of the thread)? How did you vote in the poll, by the way? Adultery a crime, or not?

And if there are to be criminal consequences, what is the rationale? Retribution on the part of the "victim"? Compensation? Or just plain old punishment to teach them a moral lesson?
I think that if it causes a divorce, something painful to a great degree, there should be a form of punishment; Although I prefer the term consequence, to their actions. I wouldn't consider it a crime in legal terms, it is a moral crime, and I think it is punishable for the damage it does. The only feasible way I can see this being done is in divorce settlements, I don't feel that a person who is responsible for a marraige breakup is entitled to the same as a couple with whom things just didn't work out and nobody is to blame. Outside of marraige people are free to do whatever they want, but making a commitment to somebody should be upheld, preferably outside of the law. Would compensation then be the best option?(Lord help me for encouraging the culture to sue that we already have)


I don't think adultery is morally acceptable. But I'm not so sure it is a matter for the criminal justice system. It is not, in general, a matter of public concern, but a matter of private concern. As such, private individuals should deal with it as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of course.
Unfortunately a divorce case can be relatively public, or at least in a local sense. I feel when going through that process it is relevant information and should be accounted for as it is the reason for the breakup. It is a failure to fulfil a duty to their partner, the person has chosen this course of action, both the original decision to be with this person, and the decision to cheat.


What about falling out of love? What if your partner stops loving you, but is still sexually faithful? Doesn't matter? Are you saying happiness is unimportant in marriage?
I believe if you stop loving someone there is a reason for it, that in itself may not be beyond the realms of repair, feelings don't suddenly stop one day, and it's usually due to things that have happened or changed(no matter what people say love is always conditional, the condition is that the person doesn't change from being the things you love). To me I would want to find out what has changed and why, and to at least attempt to fix it, if it doesn't work then fair enough.
Perhaps I should rephrase, adultery is the only reason I would immediately abandon a relationship.


Should we have moral police, then, whose job it is to track down people having affairs and charge then with the new crime of infidelity? And would you stop at fidelity enforcement, or proceed to a more general kind of thought policing?
Good question, morals of course being subjective as they are we would find it very difficult to enforce anything, marraige is the exception because we know it as a commitment to a person for as long as we live. Moral police; not quite, but certainly something should be in effect. This is where I lean to it being a law, but as you rightly say it isn't, and shouldn't be a government affair. All I can think of to stop it is for people to realise it wouldn't be tolerated and they would have a lot to lose from it.

Anti-flag, I hope you're aware that I am, to some extent, playing devil's advocate here. In terms of general ethical principles, it seems to me we are probably on more or less the same page. I am simply worried about increasing the degree of public intrusion into what I consider to be private matters.
I did suspect it, and have no objection to that at all, all I had a problem with was the judgemental tone to the original posts that may be misinterpreted by others as things I have said or implied when I don't feel I in any way have(although I'd hope people would read and think things through, I realise people don't always do such). If that's part of the act to ignite the debate then fair enough, and hopefully no harm is done, but I'd prefer being asked and going from there. It's been a long time since I had in any way a serious debate, and it's welcome as I'm fully aware I require the practice!
As for public intrusion, if a person says "I forgive you, I want to work through this" or something along those lines, and wishes not for a divorce, it would remain as private as they like.
When a divorce case comes to being, at least the family and friends will be aware of the cause, and perhaps a general rumour will inform others, usually this will do no harm to either parties and will be quickly forgotten, most people are aware things go wrong and don't always go to plan, and there is no shame or wrong in divorce. I don't think a case would become a great deal more public just because it involves an adulterer, especially if the general acceptance is that they sacrifice(at least some of) their marital priviledges with such an act.