Should adultery be a crime?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
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
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.
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).
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.
As was already said, why in the world should it be a crime?
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.
James, I think you read the statements of those three people erroneously. I don't think that's what they said at all.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
It would seem this paragraph is now irrelevant, don't you think?
I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions in future, it can make you look stupid.
See above.
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.
Speak for yourself.
Your apology will be accepted.
Last edited:
Baron Max:
There is a general principle in law that courts do not usually enforce specific performance of contracts that require personal services.
Prince_James:
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?
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):
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:
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.
It's beyond me that you can't imagine that people will always have moments of weakness. Few people are perfect exemplars of monogamy.
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"?
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 agree.
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.
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.
There is a general principle in law that courts do not usually enforce specific performance of contracts that require personal services.
Prince_James:
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?
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):
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:
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.
It's beyond me that you can't imagine that people will always have moments of weakness. Few people are perfect exemplars of monogamy.
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"?
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 agree.
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.
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?