Should adultery be illegal?

philologos · 04-05-2009 10:30AM

getz: Is prohibiting adultery merely a religious norm or is it a norm that would be encouraged by some non-believers too? Jumping the gun to blame religion is rather easy, but think a second as to whether it is accurate.

getz · 04-05-2009 10:33AM

marriage is a religious concept, without [marriage] there would be no adultery

mdebets · 04-05-2009 10:33AM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's the only part that physically manifests itself in public. We can't examine the thoughts inside ones head.

Impossible to detect, no pain incurred on the other.

...

On coveting. As I say, it is immoral to covet and lust, however we can only deal with it's physical manifestations if we are going to be able to rule against it effectively.

You can't detect thoughts, but you can detect the acting based on these thoughts.

you don't love your wife anymore, you stop giving her presents, you don't talk to her anymore, yo tell her you don't love her anymore.
You broke your contract - off to jail with you.

You are in a pub with your friends. A hot woman comes in and you say to your friends 'I'd like to do her'.
You lusted after another woman.
You broke your contract - off to jail with you.

philologos · 04-05-2009 10:43AM

mdebets wrote: »

you don't love your wife anymore, you stop giving her presents, you don't talk to her anymore, yo tell her you don't love her anymore.
You broke your contract - off to jail with you.

There could be numerous explanations for this. Is love based on presents anyhow?

As for telling people you don't love them anymore, there is no guarantee that you are telling the truth, it is possible that you could be lying. We have no assurance that the person genuinely doesn't love another. People can be dispensible with the terms "I hate you" amongst others. It's not a solid enough case.

mdebets wrote: »

You are in a pub with your friends. A hot woman comes in and you say to your friends 'I'd like to do her'.
You lusted after another woman.
You broke your contract - off to jail with you.

Likewise, one can say things, but not actually have acted upon them. It is impossible to know the truth in these circumstances. I think it is effective to draw the line at the act of physically cheating on your wife or husband as this is the only one we can truly assess. I also don't support restricting free speech.

getz wrote:

marriage is a religious concept, without [marriage] there would be no adultery

Too simplistic. Many atheists and agnostics get married, and one can get a civil (non-religious) marriage. I'd argue that adultery is a problem that all in society can be concerned with, not just believers.

getz · 04-05-2009 10:55AM

Jakkass wrote: »

There could be numerous explanations for this. Is love based on presents anyhow?

As for telling people you don't love them anymore, there is no guarantee that you are telling the truth, it is possible that you could be lying. We have no assurance that the person genuinely doesn't love another. People can be dispensible with the terms "I hate you" amongst others. It's not a solid enough case.

Likewise, one can say things, but not actually have acted upon them. It is impossible to know the truth in these circumstances. I think it is effective to draw the line at the act of physically cheating on your wife or husband as this is the only one we can truly assess. I also don't support restricting free speech.

Too simplistic. Many atheists and agnostics get married, and one can get a civil (non-religious) marriage. I'd argue that adultery is a problem that all in society can be concerned with, not just believers.

civil-partnership marriage also covers gay marriage ,would you also wish [as a catholic] to also recognize gay adultery in a civil marriage as against the law ?

philologos · 04-05-2009 11:11AM

getz wrote: »

civil-partnership marriage also covers gay marriage ,would you also wish [as a catholic Christian] to also recognize gay adultery in a civil marriage as against the law ?

Civil Marriage is not the same as a Civil Partnership in any legislation in any country. Even in the UK, Civil Partnership is not the same as Civil Marriage.

However, if gay marriage became legal in Ireland, then yes I think the penalty for adultery should apply to gay couples. Although I believe that marriage should be a heterosexual union, I do understand that pain can be incurred between couples of different sexual orientations. Why do you think I wouldn't advocate the penalty of adultery for married gay couples if gay marriage legislation got in?

If the majority in society decide that gay marriage legislation should go ahead in Ireland by referendum, then I see no reason why any adultery legislation should it exist wouldn't be enforced in those situations too.

Coriolanus · 06-05-2009 02:58PM

I, as an atheist, am going to say yes on this one, because it'd be the final nail in the coffin for the institution. It's about time we stripped the ceremony of any romantic connotations it has left to avoid the last few souls swearing an oath they have no intention of keeping just so they can dress up in pretty white or a top hat.

CathyMoran · 06-05-2009 08:09PM

Nevore wrote: »

I, as an atheist, am going to say yes on this one, because it'd be the final nail in the coffin for the institution. It's about time we stripped the ceremony of any romantic connotations it has left to avoid the last few souls swearing an oath they have no intention of keeping just so they can dress up in pretty white or a top hat.

I would disagree about marriage being nothing, ours was very small (15 people), and a family meal and was about the two of us celebrating officially being family, we meant and mean our vows. I would disagree with making adultery illegal though, the idea of the state entering the bedroom or worse the mind is abhorent to me. Yes, it is terrible but it is between the affected parties, not the state.

Coriolanus · 07-05-2009 02:21AM

Hrm, I'm not saying the sacrement means nothing, I should have explained that better.

To be more precise I find it distasteful due to religious associations and I feel that as long as there's a white wedding = romance connection it'll work to the detrimement of society by saving a limping, archaic church from drowning in a see of burgeoning irrelevancy.

I'm all for civil unions, vows between two people intending to stay together forever etc, what I'm against is the overt and/or unconcious pressure on couples to get married in a church etc.

For a couple who go to mass etc, it makes perfect sense I just see too many couples who haven't stepped inside a church since the last time they were forced to go to Christmas mass, going ahead with a church wedding.

OR something, psh.

Joycey · 11-05-2009 09:53PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a question which I have wondered for a while. I personally have concluded yes on this one.

I see no reason why a marriage as a legal contract should not incur a penalty on the ones who violate it, preferrably a lengthy enough jail sentence. In cases of adultery people seem to see it as an acceptable part of society. I'd like to know why people think it is acceptable though if it can cause so much pain and if it can cause serious damage to families. Surely violating a contract as great as this is worthy of such a penalty.

Also for anyone who has a bit of a clue about legal history in Ireland, was adultery ever illegal here, if so when and for how long?

I've left a poll up, I suspect that it will go a certain way, but just out of curiosity just in case I am surprised it may be worth looking at.

Your assuming the spouse has no knowledge. Whats wrong with having an open marriage? All youd do if you were to make adultery illegal would be to impose your own narrowminded interpretation of what marriage should be on others...

RiverWilde · 08-07-2009 12:01PM

Adultery should have a social sanction attached to it. As it stands if a woman decides to cheat ... in general ... she usually gets the house and custody of the children ... is free to move her lover into the former marital home and the poor eejit whom she has screwed over gets to pay her maintenance. This I think is wrong.

If a couple starts out on the 'traditional' til death do us part - save only for you route - if either party for whatever reason breaks that contract there should be consequences.

I would favour re-introducing the roman legal basis of marriage ... where there were two levels of marriage ... one where divorce was possible and one where divorce was not. The former granted greater privileges to those within that union ... tax law ... inheritance etc.

Essentially that is what marriage is ... a contract between two individuals and the state. The state granting greater benefits to them and in return they provide children and a stable family life for said children.

As things stand marriages break up because a party to the contract feels a bit horny and decides that dave or mary is more fun in the sack than their contractual partner. In these situations I feel that they should receive absolutely nothing from the contract. They should be left in the position they were before they entered into the marriage contract. The party to the contract who did not breach the deal should gain everything.

As regards what is to be regarded as a breach of contract should be agreed upon before the agreement is signed.

However, should an individual seek to end the contract prior to any misbehaviour on their part I think a more equitable solution could be found.

Riv

getz · 08-07-2009 12:22PM

i still believe adultery is a religious crime,not a crime,religious people are still trying to impose their morals on the rest of society,if things were left to the churches we would be throwing rocks and burning people to death ,because they did not live up to OUR morals ,hasent anyone learned from the 2000 years of religious persecution ?

philologos · 08-07-2009 12:26PM

I think RiverWilde has a good point. Perhaps a contract or an agreement should be drawn up by those being married themselves on their own terms but still legally binding. This would allow for freedom for various different types of marriage structure to form dependant on how each individual wants to be married?

Joey the lips · 08-07-2009 03:02PM

Very interesting! Never thought of it but have to say on a contract basis i would say yes!

Just wondered can a man claim "Force Majour" as a defence for failure to live up to the contract! After all if megan fox put her t....hands on the table I would brake any contract

Very interesting slant!

RiverWilde · 08-07-2009 03:44PM

getz wrote: »

i still believe adultery is a religious crime,not a crime,religious people are still trying to impose their morals on the rest of society,if things were left to the churches we would be throwing rocks and burning people to death ,because they did not live up to OUR morals ,hasent anyone learned from the 2000 years of religious persecution ?

Morality has little to do with it as far as I'm concerned. If you choose to bring morality into it that to my mind is for the people concerned. Whether the agreement is between the individuals the state and god is entirely for the parties involved to decide.

The essential part is that there should be a sanction for those who do not live up to their side of the bargain. Otherwise it's just a pointless exercise. An excuse to have a bloody big expensive party. Both sides should know the consequences of their actions down the line.

If a couple want to have an open relationship/traditional relationship etc that is entirely for them to decide. However, to my mind it should be discussed prior to any marriage agreement and should the parties decide to change the relationship down the line it should be agreed in advance of any party breaching that agreement.

As it stands the traditional model is too inflexible - the courts are more concerned with the welfare of the children (where that applies) and unfortunately in cases where the wife has strayed through no fault of the husband she invariably gets the sweeter deal when the contract is made void.

Riv

darcy.jonny · 08-07-2009 03:51PM

ban adultry ??? where the bloody fun in that !!!!

ban marrage is what should be done , whats wrong with adultry .......... how many species in the animal kingdom select a mate and spend the rest of there lives together ??? very very few only a few stupid ones like ourselves

RiverWilde · 08-07-2009 03:56PM

What's wrong with adultery? Oh okay :rolleyes: - it's fun to lie and cheat and wreck the life of your agreed life partner? Sorry can't agree there.

Riv

philologos · 08-07-2009 04:03PM

The idea of marital contracts to be drawn up between partners helps to balance both a requirement for fidelity in their respective marriages on their own terms, and freedom as well.

I wonder do any countries do this already?

RiverWilde · 08-07-2009 04:33PM

Well in the States they have a more established tradition of pre-marriage agreements and in some states if you get caught cheating on your wife/husband the aggrieved spouse can literally take you to the cleaners.

Here in Ireland though we have a wishy washy no fault system - that is biased in favour of the wife (usually).

That said marriage is better than the current system (civil partnership Bill aside) where individuals have absolutely no hold over the other.

The key thing here for me anyway is personal responsibility and integrity. Most people have those qualities and for those who don't the law should be there to protect those injured by those who do not. Currently the law does not.

Riv

ChocolateSauce · 08-07-2009 05:59PM

Adultery, illegal? Sounds to me like unacceptable state control of a private matter. As it stands adultery is grounds for a divorce so it's not like it doesn't carry legal consequences; apart from being state tyranny, it's also wholly unnecessary.

RiverWilde · 08-07-2009 09:53PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Adultery, illegal? Sounds to me like unacceptable state control of a private matter. As it stands adultery is grounds for a divorce so it's not like it doesn't carry legal consequences; apart from being state tyranny, it's also wholly unnecessary.

Yes it does carry legal consequences and yes locking someone up because of it doesn't really solve anything. However, during divorce proceedings it should count very heavily against the adulterer. Especially when it comes to divvying up property etc.

Riv

ChocolateSauce · 08-07-2009 11:17PM

RiverWilde wrote: »

Especially when it comes to divvying up property etc.

Riv

Why? What exactly does sex have to do with property?

2Scoops · 08-07-2009 11:31PM

The 'legal contract' of marriage is the government's way of providing incentive for marriage. Introduce a law that makes adultery illegal and watch the number of marriages plummet. Giving the government this type of power to control your private relationships is absurd.

philologos · 08-07-2009 11:53PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why? What exactly does sex have to do with property?

It isn't just "sex" to commit adultery. It is betrayal, and it causes grief and harm to many who find that their marriages have been breached. Trust is lost.

I think some fair and adequate form of redress should be provided to people who are hurt through this.

2Scoops · 09-07-2009 12:00AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I think some fair and adequate form of redress should be provided to people who are hurt through this.

But only the married ones?

philologos · 09-07-2009 12:12AM

2Scoops wrote: »

But only the married ones?

It's obvious that if marriage is intended to be the legal recognition of a relationship that legal protection should follow from this recognition. Makes sense to me.

Obviously I think it is wrong for someone to cheat in a relationship either.

2Scoops · 09-07-2009 12:19AM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's obvious that if marriage is intended to be the legal recognition of a relationship that legal protection should follow from this recognition. Makes sense to me.

Obviously I think it is wrong for someone to cheat in a relationship either.

But not open to legal punishment? So the actual 'betrayal, grief and harm' caused is not the crime?

philologos · 09-07-2009 12:24AM

2Scoops wrote: »

But not open to legal punishment? So the actual 'betrayal, grief and harm' caused is not the crime?

I believe it should be open for the other partner to get redress or to be served justice for a violation of contract. If you read the thread from the beginning to this point there is difficulty about how exactly that should happen.

2Scoops · 09-07-2009 12:34AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe it should be open for the other partner to get redress or to be served justice for a violation of contract.

If they're not married, there is no contract.

RiverWilde · 09-07-2009 01:37AM

2Scoops wrote: »

The 'legal contract' of marriage is the government's way of providing incentive for marriage. Introduce a law that makes adultery illegal and watch the number of marriages plummet. Giving the government this type of power to control your private relationships is absurd.

The only reason the govt has introduced the civil registration bill is exactly because the number of marriages has plummetted.

It isn't about giving the govt. the power to control private relationships, it's about protecting individuals within a relationship when their partner decides to screw half the neighbourhood and/or impregnates someone else or in the case of a woman - gets impregnated by someone else and/or brings home something nasty in the form of an std etc etc.

At this point the partner to the relationship who has kept good to the agreement - should be able to get redress in the courts if the wayward partner male or female has totally abandoned their responsibilites.

If the adulterous behaviour etc has been the trigger to end the relationship that fact should be taken into account when the marriage is being dissolved.

Riv

Should adultery be illegal?

Comments