Should adultery be illegal?

[mental_traveller]

i think people will just stop marrying and just cohabit to avoid breaching the marriage contract - which by the way has eroded to nothing in america. Just because you say "i do" does not guarantee faithfulness.

 

making adultry illegal will make more than half of the citizens a criminal... so why do that?

 

Because it's fraud, exposes people to serious risk of harm from STDs, and causes huge emotional pain and suffering to innocent people?

 

I guess your logic would say, if 50% of the country goes round lynching and enslaving black people, it's ok because why make half the citizens into criminals?

[mental_traveller]

Well let's see. We could invent a 'groinometer' that would be implanted into each married couple as part of the ceremony. The couple's 'groinometers' would be tuned so that if they are having sex together, nothing happens, however if they have sex without the matching groinometer, an alert would go off at CIA headquarters who could then dispatch a morality squad to the location (of course the groinometers include GPS) and haul the offenders out for a public stoning in the square.

 

Sound good to you?

 

(Dear lord please don't let the Religious Right include some sort of lunatic tech wizard who'll put this scheme into place)

 

Ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Making a harmful action into a criminal offence does not imply any presumption of guilt, nor does it justify imposing restrictions on people before there's clear evidence of the crime being committed.

 

I proposed that adultery should be considered a crime. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop inventing straw man arguments, that's one of the most basic logical fallacies.

[mental_traveller]

People already break the law in small ways (speeding on the freeway, not reporting income on their taxes, etc) - seems to me that committing adultery would just be added to the list. They'll take the risk, hedging their bet that they won't get caught. I think punishment would have to be quite severe to deter most adulterers.

 

In instances where a child is the result of the adultery - what happens to that child? Does the fact that the birth resulted from a crime brand them somehow? I would think the same stigma might apply as applies to children who are the result of rape or incest.

 

I agree this one sensible a reason not to criminalise it. However, speeding limits exist, tax laws exist, despite being widely disobeyed and hard to enforce. They do have *some* deterrent effect, and they serve to punish those people who break them recklessly (e.g. doing 100mph through a city centre; evading large amounts of tax for years etc). Adultery laws would be the same - punishment would fit the severity of the crime. Most cases would be ignored or punished lightly, but the serious ones that caused major harm could be punished in accordance with the suffering inflicted.

 

As for the children of adultery, clearly it's not their responsibility so I don't see why they would be stigmatised. Children of rape/incest victims aren't stigmatised.

[mental_traveller]

 

What? It's a punishable criminal offense to knowingly transmit HIV to anyone, whether you're married or not. To call the transmission of HIV a "mere fact" is pretty asinine, amerikajin. It's HIV. It kills you and destroys your quality of life.

 

I agree. But doing it accidentally should be a crime, if it's wilful neglegence and lies - such as adultery. Let's say a guy patronises 200 crack whores per year, gets HIV and passes it on to his faithful wife. He didn't know he had HIV, but he was clearly negligent with his and therefore her sexual health, and in gross breach of his marriage vows. Shouldn't this be treated as a serious crime, given that it basically gives a death sentence to an innocent person?

[mental_traveller]

There's a fine line, it's so hard to determine what the law has a business in and what it doesn't.

 

I think that probably many people who would want to see adultery as a criminal offense have some personal experience with it and are looking for revenge.

 

My concern would be the mingling of church and state. Not all religions view adultery the same way. We are supposed to allow everyone the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose. We do not define that as only major religions. All these folks getting together, forming cults and creating their own moral code are free to do so until they break the law. When they commit murder, we step in and stop them. But how many Mormans are marrying 14 year olds and saying it's their religion? I want them buried under the jail and only allowed out so they can be assraped in front of their whole cell block for abusing those little girls. But that's my PERSONAL feelings about it.

 

I really don't know, I don't have an answer. I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think I can come up with a convincing argument to support my opinion. I just have a random opinion.

 

Adultery is grounds for divorce. I think that's enough. I would just feel that getting the government involved in that part of our personal lives is just too far. I also think that at some point adults must be responsible to whatever God they answer to for their behavior. We can't FORCE everyone to be good people, because who is going to define what's good? I don't know of a single human being with the moral capacity to set forth a moral code for the world, and I include myself in that. It's been tried several times throughout history, this govt enforcing of a moral code set forth by a person or group of people, and it's always led to war. I just think it's a slippery slope.

 

Fair points. However, marriage is a contract. THe government "interferes" in people's lives when any other contract is breached, e.g. business contracts, employment contracts etc. It takes them pretty seriously. Why is sexual/marital behaviour given a free pass? It is much more harmful to be cheated on than for a company to stiff you out of $100 in duff goods.

 

We're not talking about criminalising casual relationship infidelities. We're restricting it to the case where two people make a solemn lifelong vow to each other, usually involving bringing kids into the equation. If you don't want to take the rap, you're still free to not get married and not promise fidelity.

 

Also adultery is not a religious issue at all, it's one of i) keeping to an agreed contract ii) not defrauding/misleading people iii) not endangering people's health and in some cases iv) avoiding causing unnecessary suffering to children.

[mental_traveller]

As one who works in politics, I can say with some conviction, you can't legislate morality.

 

So laws against murder, rape, violent assault, theft etc basically have no effect?

[mental_traveller]

I have a real serious issue with allowing the governemnt so much control over peoples personal lives. What consenting adults do doesn't need to be controlled by the government, IMO.

 

Who consents to being cheated on? We're not going after swingers and people with open marriages here.

 

Isn't the whole point of the law to control people's personal lives, on those occasions when they are causing harm to innocent people? We WANT the government to control people's personal lives when it involves murder, rape, child abuse, theft, fraud etc.

[mental_traveller]

OK, seriously, I wouldn't want my husband to be faithful to me BECAUSE the law says so; I'd like it to be HIS voluntarily decision to not cheat. In case of murder or rape - yes, if someone is thinking about killing or raping me and the law stops him - I'd be grateful for the existence of the legal system. But in case of infidelity, if he wants to cheat - I actually want him to cheat and hopefully I will find out and dump him. I don't need him to pay the government for cheating on ME.

 

Would you want him to cheat on you with dozens of potentially HIV positive women, and get away scot free once you were infected?

 

Also he wouldn't pay the government, he would pay you for whatever harm he caused.

[mental_traveller]

As one of the best people I know asked me recently, 'what does it say about humanity that you have to make laws against killing people'.

 

It's a shame that people don't just have a natural aversion to doing harm to each other.

 

It shows that some people are immoral, and that legislating morality is necessary to deter, prevent, and seek proportional justice for criminal behaviour that harms innocent people.

 

And people *do* have a natural aversion to murder. Whereas they seem to have a natural proclivity to cheating on each other. All the more reason to bring in some deterrence, prevention, and justice for those who ruin lives by thinking only of themselves and their genitals.

[mental_traveller]

Hahahah!

 

Also, what is adultery? sex? So kisses and petting wouldn't be punished?

 

Why do you need a law to staright these things out? Isn't that humiliating? Like your spouse MUST cheat on you so let's get the law to prevent him from it!

 

What is assault? Bumping into someone at a bus queue? A mild shove? A full-on haymaker smack on the kisser? Ah we can't define it exactly, so bumps and shoves wouldn't be punished. Clearly the law against assault should be repealed immediately!

 

Why do we need a law against wife-battering? Isn't that humiliating? Like your husband MUST batter you so let's get a law to prevent him from doing it!

[SoleMate]

Would you want him to cheat on you with dozens of potentially HIV positive women, and get away scot free once you were infected?

 

Also he wouldn't pay the government, he would pay you for whatever harm he caused.

It seems there is a fundamental confusion here.

 

If adultery (or HIV transmission, etc.) is a CRIMINAL offense, it is prosecuted by the state and any fines levied would be paid to the state. The victim would get restitution only as a secondary outcome, as a result of possible court order or victim support program.

 

If adultery (or HIV transmission, etc.) is the subject of a CIVIL lawsuit, it is prosecuted by the private party who claims harm, and any money awarded would be paid to the claimant. Current law in the US certainly allows for civil lawsuits over the demonstrable harm caused by adultery.

[SoleMate]

"Punishing Adultery in Virginia: A Cheating Husband's Guilty Plea Is A Reminder Of the Continued Relevance of Adultery Statutes"

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html

[Love Hurts]

There are not enough prisions available. Who would be around to keep our nation running productively.

 

Adultery has a fine of it's own an imprisionment of it's own. Here and after.

[ronnieromance]

First off, I think there are enough stupid reasons to be thrown in jail.

 

Second, it opens up a serious grey area. Like what is adultery. We've seent threads here where people consider a lap dance cheating. If I'm webdate or myspace will that be considered cheating? Where is the line drawn?

 

I just think there are more important issues to be worked out.

 

 

-R-

[Guest]

So laws against murder, rape, violent assault, theft etc basically have no effect?

 

It's silly to compare adultery with violent crimes or theft. People have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, and other people have the right to choose how they react. If you cheat on someone you love, they can't have you thrown in jail for it. Is that what you would want? State enforced monogamy????

 

What a person you've cheated on CAN do is walk out of your life because you've hurt them emotionally and they don't trust you any more. Losing the trust and companionship of a good person who you love has to be a lot more painful than getting hit with a fine for breaking the law.

 

Wishing you could use the criminal law to chain someone to you is just really sad, and if you really do feel that way then you should get some counseling. If I had a spouse or lover who had such a controlling and punitive outlook on life, I know I'd be looking for an escape route from them.

[lonepearl]

There are ways around it you know. And why not.

 

In business fraud is punishable by law.

In any given agreement between two parties, any breaches are punishable too.

 

Then why in a relationship of the human love kind is it ok to be treated like s***?

 

Seeking some legality around adultry is not necessary a cry to make monogamy compulsary or enforce people to be together when they naturally want to be apart. It is about rights, about justice, about respect for prior contract. Love is not only a commitment but a contract too.

 

If you are not e.g. interested in business with the other company you let them know, you negotiate new terms and/or sort out together a way to resolve the CONFLICT first, then if there is no way possible, try and nullify the contract in the best way possible for both parties involved. Therein if one party is not happy, they can pursue for losses etc. further if need be.

 

Why not the same in a relationship? Business and relationship of any other kind is no different in the principals of integrity. As a systems thinker who sees an organisation as a breathing living being, I believe that the laws that apply to an organisation are transposable (with tweaks ofcourse) to living community structures... such as a love relationship and/or marriage as well.

 

If a woman is grieved and betrayed in a way that she is emotionally crippled she has every right to take this further legally. This necessarily does not mean having adultry made illegal but ensuring there are enough laws to protect the interest of the victim in the whole scenario and councelling shouldn't be the only consoling factor.

 

Yes it is easy to say move on and heal. However, it should not be condemned if I e.g. chose to want to fight for my rights and make the other party understand that it is not as easy as they think to jsut duck in and out of relationships. Adultry is not even about two organisations splitting, its about you having a contract with one organisation and doing underhanded deals on the side with another on things you had promised to the first organisation. those things become front page headlines you know!! and yet with a relationship, we say ..oh dont be a sour loser, if hes/shes walked out on you and cheated .. just leave and pull your life together and concentrate on the healing.

 

Good on those who decide to just move on and heal. and Good on those people too who decide they want to go out with a fight and make a dent in the lives of those who have victimised them! equal rights IS about that!

 

Perhaps talking to a local community law organisation that gives free advice to citizens would be good. all those visits to docs and councellors and all those damn pills to keep you sane all account for something more than just "move on and forget and heal"

[lindya]

Lol. It would be depressing to spend your life wondering whether a partner was only refraining from murdering you because he/she was afraid of getting into trouble with the law. I know it hurts a lot to be murdered, but can anyone seriously envisage being able to demand a loved one not murder you "or I'll call the police..."?

 

This is a silly argument IMO.

 

I came back to lurk, found this and found it so ridiculous that I just had break my "no more posting on Loveshack" rule.

 

The severity of murder as an offence is that it breaches another human being's fundamental right to life. What fundamental right are you suggesting is breached by a partner's infidelity? The right to happiness and security? Too vague. The right to property? God help us. The right to family life? Maybe, but you'd have to argue exactly how infidelity rendered family life with the cheater impossible...and in a legalistic environment where objective and well-evidenced arguments are favoured over emotional, moralising ones, that might not be as easy or obvious as you think.

 

If infidelity is painful, imagine how much more painful it would be to sit in a courtroom and listen to your ex lover's lawyer detail why they were unfaithful to you. Courts are battle grounds, not therapeutic environments, and if A sues B for infidelity then B's lawyer's over-riding aim is going to involve discrediting A as a witness, a lover and a person. Bear in mind that you can't sue for the emotional pain caused by a vicious legal battle.

 

People have become obsessed with the notion of serving writs. Spill hot coffee over yourself? Make someone pay. Lover unfaithful to you? Sue him/her. Do whatever it takes to ensure a continuing flow of professional litigants and lawyers who care more about winning cases and making money than they do about jurisprudence and human beings' emotional wellbeing. Unethical lawyers and flawed legal systems are hugely despised by society, but they don't emerge from thin air. They're spawned by human greed, the desire for revenge, misguided beliefs that courts are better equipped to offer "closure" than good therapists are...

 

Through arguing that this very personal aspect of our lives should be subject to the scrutiny of the legal system, you're just demonstrating how society continually pressurises the law into becoming the ass that it so often is.

[SoleMate]

In fact, as of 2003, adultery was illegal in over 20 US states. The laws are rarely enforced.

 

The following article talks about a man who pled guilty to adultery in Virginia - and paid a $250 fine.

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html