Adultery and the Law

No matter how you look at adultery, divorce, and the law, it is always a painful situation to some degree.

 

You said one, so here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neumann-110617_vancouver_canucks_riot&sportCat=nhl

Just Google sports riots. People beating the shit out of each other all over the world over jackassed sports of every kind. And politics? Really? How far up your butt does your head have to be to think people don't do violence to each other over politics? You will easily find out that religion "causes" people to employ themselves in illegal activity also. ( think abortion clinic bombing, for one )

Jealousy doesn't require anyone actually cheating, by the way.

 

I'd be fine treating adultery as a broken contract in a civil case. I really don't want the government legislating morality.

 

I think we both know what we mean. The point isn't really whether or not adultery is a contributing factor to society's ills; it's about where we draw the line of personal responsibility. If you say adultery causes battery and causes it in a way that ought to be criminal then you absolve the batterer of some responsibility. The implication is that the batterer so affected that they're less in control of their own actions and therefore are less accountable for their actions.

I disagree. The line must be drawn around the individual in a way that makes them responsible for their own actions. There are other examples where legal activities 'increase the probability' of a crime occurring. Legal activities that ought not be made illegal solely on that account. While the examples given thus far might not be the best, surely you don't believe adultery is unique in it's ability to 'cause' crime?

 

I've never understood the conservative mindset that harbors a rabid repugnance for government interference in all things market-based and in one's personal earnings yet takes an overly liberal stance when it comes to allowing the government access and influence over the private lives of "others".

I suppose they (the fearful and paranoid types) need the "illusion" of safety and the false security obtained by believing that the government is in support of all their rigid moral ideals and obsessively rule bound lifestyles. They want to rest assured knowing that someone is babysitting the rest of us, as they have zero trust in anyone but themselves.

Would they be willing to pay more in taxes for this extensive babysitting service? Hell no.

 

keep in mind that this zaniness is not universal amongst christians. it's the evangelical movement that was tapped by the republicans during the 1990s that is responsible for this particularly incoherent amalgamation of beliefs about the cosmos and secular law. that it got mapped into what the republican party appears to stand for (it largely stands for getting into power, really) is the price they paid for the ralph reed-led organizational work of that period. which was impressive. it's responsible for that odd gap which separates ideological incoherence from machine politics on the right...they use evangelical churches as grass-roots mobilization hubs. thanks, xtian coalition.

on the op: i don't support legislation on adultery. that doesn't mean it isn't a sucky thing to do to another person. it's just not more than that.

 

I was trying to keep religious morality out my comment but of course, it's quite obviously at the root of most of it, though not all, as the base fear and paranoia that "everything will fall to shit unless society conforms to my way of doing things" is not confined to the religious, as Remixer has pointed out.

 

Remember the old saying about making guns illegal? Then only criminals would have guns.

Same here. Won't stop it. If someone thinks they can hide it from a spouse, I'm sure they will think they can hide it from the government.

BTW how is proof obtained in order to file charges?

 

Good question!

Suspicious wife goes to local PD with lipstick tainted collar in tow.
Jealous co-worker shows management "suggestive" emails he hacked from the "suspect's" work computer.
Law enforcement conducts stings and raids of sleazy motels and known hotspots of adulterous activity.
Anti-adultery checkpoints are set up for random vaginal and semen DNA testing.
Neighborhood watch groups keep an eye out for changes in patterns and behaviors.(Mr. Johnson got home a 1/2 late from work twice this week)
Around the clock surveillance monitors all middle-age married couples and other at-risk groups .
Government maintains database of all questionable purchases (flowers, jewelry, Victoria's Secret push up bras) to be used as supporting evidence at trial.

 

I don't see the need for a legal deterrent to something that is not illegal behavior.
Well, maybe it still is in some states but not enforced. Kind of like the spitting on the sidewalk laws.
Are we really talking about putting people in prison for adultery? Seriously?
We already have the most crowded prison system in Western society. How are we expected to accommodate such an idea?

And I'm having trouble understanding why someone's behavior during a marriage should have an impact on the distribution of assets unless said behavior had a direct impact on said assets. The idea that someone should get 'penalty benefits' because the other was an asshole sounds pretty vague and potentially subject to abuse.

Adultery is not a scourge on society, it's a reality as old as time. People have been dealing and will continue to deal with the reality that people are going to give it away outside of marriage. It kind of blows my mind that people think they should be legally protected from the phenomenon of, um, OPP. So you married an asshole. Wah. Fix it or move on. It's no one else's business.

 

The ancient Greeks would punish the adulterer by inserting a large, peeled radish in his anus.
Punishment in Ancient Greece, Recreation in modern NYC/decadent city of your choice....

 

Fully agreed.

Those people that have suffered emotional distress at the hands of emotional abuse and/or extreme psychological circumstances should stop whining so. fucking. much.

Those veteran US soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan and now suffer PTSD from seeing their colleagues and friends blown up from a landmine/rocket in front of their faces? The fuck they up to? You'd think war would toughen them up, right?

I love your stance. Nothing that doesn't directly and physically affect somebody could possibly hurt someone. Adultery is one of those things. Victims should stop being such pussies by assaulting/murdering their spouse, devolving into drug abuse and committing suicide. It's not like the adulterer had anything to do with it.

Why not let minors watch XXX movies, go to stripclubs and play at casinos? In fact, let's get rid of all that silly youth-protection nonsense. Not like it could adversely affect society. Just like adultery.

(Notice the sarcasm.)

I think it's time I leave this Thread alone before I turn into Eddie.

 

Eddie never attempted to provide a reasoned explanation for his views. You do.

I speak for myself in saying that though I may not agree with your views, I respect your right to them. Trying to understand someone with an opinion that is diametrically opposed to your own can be very frustrating. I've resorted to sarcasm many a time in the heat of the debate. But to live in a bubble with our own opinions and views leaves us emotionally and mentally cramped.

I think we all come here to engage with others. If we're not interested in learning and understanding other points of view, we shouldn't be engaging in debate.

This is how I look at it, anyway. I hope you feel the same.

 

Lot's of things can hurt people that don't wind up with those involved in prison or financially devastated.

You talk like this is a room full of people with perfect marriages and no experience with harmful spouses. Me alone, I could write a fucking book about it.

In my opinion, your idea sounds like more of a problem than a solution. How are children and exes going to be helped by putting people in jail or depriving them of assets? Sounds more like revenge to me. Emotional. Much like your post as a whole.

 

I do feel the same. However, the debate devolved into no more than "I have viewpoint A." and "Yeah, I have viewpoint B."

There's been the recurring trend by several TFP members over the course of the thread that the "harm to society" aspect of adultery is rejected in its entirety. I've given all my supporting arguments and tried to explain on why exactly adultery is harmful to society. At some point, you have stated all you could say at that particular time. KirStang chipped in based on his experience in the legal system. Since the society notion is the principal foundation of my punishment argument, I have no basis to advocate punishment without agreement by the opposing party that society is indeed harmed by acts of adultery.

I do suspect that more people accept the notion of "harm to society" than have displayed as such, but are still staunchly against the logical consequences because of their ideology. Just like some people who reject the notion completely and I see to have overtly liberal conceptions as part of their philosophy/ideology. In my mind, I see it as a reflection of the extreme pacifist and liberal mindsets who believe in complete individual sovereignty at the cost of order in/health of society (but will not admit this to be the case).

Regardless, it was recently mentioned in another Thread but conservative (which, on this forum, also includes centrist/moderate) stances have serious issues in being established here because of the vast liberal/PC majority, with a clear faction of the ultra-liberal (who also seem to belong to the epitome of sexual liberalization and would rather leave the forum than admit some of their trains of thoughts are flawed).

I am not going to waste my time on you when you're obviously not willing to read through my earlier comments in this Thread, which completely answer your questions. Also, those statements/questions were already stated by other TFP members, and apparently you didn't bother reading/comprehending those either. Great stuff.

Fucking genius insinuation right there. I wonder which clever connecting thought you derived your statement from.

I've mentioned this to you before: Stop being a smartass when you fail at it completely.

 

Remixer

You may believe that you have set out your case for harm to society, but I can't see it laid out clearly anywhere. I can see you asserting that it does cause harm, and I do see this sentence..

"Traumatized kids from an ugly divorce battle (who may then go on to lead entirely dysfunctional lives as a consequence), a spouse harming/killing the cheating spouse in a moment of complete insanity, or the cheated-on spouse "breaking" mentally by plunging themselves into an extreme bout of possibly-lethal drug/alcohol addiction does not influence society in a positive manner".

Unfortunately, to me, that reads like hyperbole. Do these things ever happen? Of course they do, and for myriad reasons. Are they a necessary consequence of adultery? No. I would suggest that these kind of outcomes arise in a small minority of cases. You say that you have no experience of any form of cheating and you seem to reject the opinions of anyone who does have experience based on the fact that they have experience. That seems odd to me.

You said that I was "in favor of adultery" earlier in the thread. I didn't respond at the time, but that is a complete misrepresentation of my position. To be clear (and I thought I had been), I think adultery is bad. It hurts us and it harms relationships.

However, that is not the point. It happens. The question is about what, if anything, should be done about it. I think you are correct that your position depends on the "harm to society" aspect, and I also think you need to explain that more clearly. To what extent does it harm society?

Extent matters because if you legislate for every aspect of human nature life becomes miserable. Even if you decide a set of rules for yourself to live by and you then live by them it is unfortunately not guaranteed that you will be happy as a result. Life is much more complex than that and there are limits on what can be controlled - and the control can itself hinder happiness.

The possible poor outcomes you raise are outcomes that arise from low self-esteem. I would agree that adultery is one of the possible contributors to low self-esteem, but there are many others as I am sure you would agree. Should they all attract prison/death sentences? If not, why this one?

The accusation that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so because of an "extreme liberal mindset" is a poor argument - arguably an ad hominem. You don't like it when people ascribe motivations to your arguments, so maybe you should avoid doing it to others?

Just make your argument. Asserting that something is self-evident to you isn't enough when it isn't self-evident to some of us.

 

You have a really deep need to be "right." I read your previous posts and, guess what, I'm not buying it. That is something that you need to learn to accept. Just because it came from your typing fingertips, doesn't mean it is some sort of universal truth that's going to blow everyone's mind and defuse all other arguments.

I think your views are strange and unrealistic. If adultery were illegal and I were married and my husband cheated on me, I wouldn't report it because I wouldn't want him to be caught up in a ridiculous legal situation for fucking around. I daresay that many, many more people would feel the same way and that your views about it are marginal and odd.

And you have an ugly, acidic way of responding to me that really sucks. I am not being a smartass and, frankly, you have no right to call me one. I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but you're just another person on a computer typing what you think. Take a fucking chill pill, dude.

 

I love how TFP always devolves in to Ad Hominem attacks. My head is not up my butt, thank you very much. Furthermore, you did not address how adultery does NOT *CAUSE* (remember, operative term here) social ills.

Since you want to call me out, here's what a simple search turned up:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/12/donna_diazs_boyfriend_accused.php
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/wife-87-shoots-husband-88-985612
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2039804...ts/t/wife-says-cheating-husband-walked-knife/
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2011/02/24/17400116.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/crime-writer-nancy-gelber_n_1154534.html
http://globalgrind.com/news/south-carolina-man-stabs-his-wife-inside-walmart-details
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10769490
http://www.theage.com.au/world/cheating-husband-guilty-of-organising-wifes-murder-20080529-2j7p.html
http://www.u.tv/News/Harper-found-guilty-of-wife-murder/d21075dd-b60b-4bbd-b937-db605e5dc9d4
http://www.theherald-nc.com/2011/12/04/20855/warrant-suggests-motive-in-killing.html
http://www.austindailyherald.com/2011/11/22/update-st-paul-man-charged-with-a-l-mans-murder/
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...d-of-killing-girlfriend-claims-he-blacked-out

Happy?