Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Outlaw Infidelity? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/47730-outlaw-infidelity.html)

Outlaw Infidelity?

I might should have entitled this thread "Deep Thoughts, by DY156" It doesn't have anything at all to do with the presidential race.

I was thinking about the gay marriage issue, and the interaction between the government and our private lives, and the legislating of morality. Cheating on your wife is something I think is wrong, and probably most people do too. It certainly causes great trauma for those cheated upon. (Not to mention those that cheat) It is probably more harmful than single people using prostitutes or commiting sodomy, both of which are or have been crimes. It requires a culpable mental state and an action carrying that out. In a sense, there is legal punishment for it, when it results in a divorce and is used to determine fault in some states or as grounds for divorce, but wouldn't it be intellectually honest to make it a crime?

I don't think it should be a legal crime, but wanted to bring this up. A case could be made for it that is stronger than I at first thought. Does anyone think it ever might become a crime under a "law and order" legislature somewhere in America? Am I completely nuts? Could it ever pass in a legislature full of men, some of whom might be guilty of it? Would any legislator be able to oppose it and get re-elected?

I'm curious what some of you think. I wonder if the responses will be more directly in line with whether you're happily married, than with usual left or right political leanings. I'm very happily married by the way, but don't want the government butting into one's personal life.

Personally, I think marital infidelity should be a civil crime. You should be able to sue your wife/husband for damages if they cheat.

If your marriage is over, end it. Don't f*ck around and screw it up even worse!

There are already laws like this.

Some of the most extreme ones are called "Sharia".

No thanks.

The Daily Show nailed this one on the head the other week:
(text taken from here)

Quote:

Transcript from show, Monday, February 23rd. It took a while to get around to it, but Daily Show humor keeps exceptionally well ;)

Jon Stewart: For more on the gay marriage controversy, we turn to Daily Show senior moral authority, Steven Colbert. Steven, thanks for joining us, we appreciate you being here. Steven, obviously you're something of an expert on relationships. Having by your own count, been involved in over 300 of them by your, I believe, your 21st birthday.

Steven Colbert: And, 10 more on my 21st birthday, John. It was, it was quite a night.

JS: Steven, why has same sex marriage created such a furor?

SC: John, there's a simple fact here: marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. An often violated, easily broken, eminently disposable contract. Between a man and a woman. The minute we let gays and female gays...

JS: That's uh, that's lesbians.

SC: Them. The minute we let them get married, you're breaking down the last societal barrier between our world and their world.

JS: But, I think that's the point. I think the point is that when you break down those barriers, that's a metaphor for something positive.

SC: Look, Jon, he only reason my wife and I got married in the first place was because it was something gays couldn't do. Our wedding was conceived entirely as a giant homosexual taunt. But now, now the vows I made to my wife seem as shallow and empty as the vows I made to my three previous wives.

JS: But I'm not still seeing, and again, I haven't studied it like you have. But how do two people who have nothing to do with you, how does their personal decision impact your commitment.

SC: Well Jon, here's a for instancestance. [sic] My wife and I have been through a bit of a rough patch lately. Over the last few months, I've forgotten our anniversary, her birthday, on several occasions, her name. Now, I ask you Jon, is this because of some magic pattern of emotional neglect just dropped down from the sky to ruin my marriage? Isn't it the simpler answer that hundreds of gays were granted judicial permission to seek equal contributory benefits? Connect the dots, man.

JS: But Steven, ...

SC: Oh, and I banged her personal trainer.

JS: [shocked pause]

SC: I'm telling you, it's getting bad.

JS: Well then, I guess, you know, you feel so strongly, you would probably support the constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.

SC: Absolutely, Jon. I know a constitutional amendment is a drastic step. But there's a societal trend out there I disagree with, so, what other choice is there? We have to defend the institution of marriage.

JS: Well, to defend the institution then, would you also support a constitutional amendment against adultery? Because that's really...

SC: Whoa. Whoa. Listen, comrade. Get your jack-booted thugs out of my bedroom. Or rather, one of several undisclosed bedrooms. And, one time behind the lat machine. That was awesome. She's really fit.

JS: Alright, Steven. Steven Colbert, we'll be right back...

We don't get Comedy Central on our cable anymore here in the backwoods. I miss Crank Yankers. Oh well, I thought I had an original thought.

Perhaps not 'orginal', but certainly a worthwhile thought and worth further discussion. I recall seeing a list somewhere of which leaders of the US government had been divorced; it was a whole lot of them, and many consider themselves to be 'moral authorities'.

Awesome. Thanks, Redlemon. Did you type that out yourself or is there some site out there with Daily Show transcripts?

Someone out there blogged it, and there was a link to it in one of the RSS feeds that I follow. There's a link right above it.

But, back to the discussion.

Oh, I'm blind. Yeah, back to the discussion.

Although cheating on your spouse is wrong, I personally don't think it should be illegal (although I believe it is in some states). It is a personal issue that should be of no business to the govt. There is already enough legislation dealing with "morality"

This is the single reason why the argument that legalizing gay marriage would result in the demise of the institution of marriage is ridiculous -- there is nothing the homosexual community could do to further degrade marriage that has not already been done by some straight person. A marriage should be defined ONLY by the people in it, not by the government.

I've always seen this act of indiscretion as being just as bad as breaking a law because I got used to seeing it as a commandment when I was younger. With the decline of faith in society I think the sanctity of marriage is severely troubled. Sadly, I don't think that legislature could be passed, and I really don't think it should be in some ways. Passing this sort of moral legislature would set a precident for other moral legislature, which I probably would not appreciate.

If the government wants to have a say about marriage they should start by getting rid of all those politicians who have affairs behind their wives' backs.

Also, I think they should get rid of those sodomy laws because the government has no business regulating what kind of sexual acts go on between two consenting adults.

What do you think the support level would be for a constitutional amendment outlawing infidelity?

Someone should conduct a poll and compare the results to the poll on the antigay marriage amendment. Then we'd see how full of shit america truly is when it comes to the "sanctity of marriage".

My roommate's response was something like, "the government couldn't effectively and fairly prosecute adultery, since only those who are known well enough by the police would ever get arrested. That's why gay marriage should be illlegal and adultery legal."

Yeah, it's a shit argument. I just wanted to share for shits and giggles, as the man from that crappy trilogy says.