Should adultery be a crime?

[Bells]

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.

 

[Prince_James]

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.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Commitment is about sex?

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.

 

[Roman]

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?

 

[John99]

yeah listen to Roman. he's so smart.

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

 

[S.A.M.]

Can't you ever answer a fucking question?

Was that a fucking question?:bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

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!

 

[everneo]

Adultery is violation and cheating?

marriage is living together ?

 

[everneo]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

they have guns, all around.

And fear of prosecution makes them good little soldiers?

 

[everneo]

atleast they don't need to watch their backs.

 

[mindtrick]

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

 

[Athelwulf]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Sock puppet path]

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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

What do you mean fostered?

 

[Sock puppet path]

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.