Adultery and the Law

Holy shit, you've assigned quotes to me I never made, reworded my statements, took aspects of them totally out of context, and went so far as to quote me as making statements you yourself had made.

What's up with that? Is fraudulence an acceptable element of your high moral standards?

 

I think ANYONE under the right circumstances is liable to "cheat" on their spouse, even holier than thous, who have never been married. A death penalty/ prison term will not change diddly squat. Again, who someone goes to bed with is in no way government's fucking business.

Just because YOU may consider it a crime doesn't mean it is. I think people who want to dictate morals should be arrested because they would probably want cameras in people's bedrooms (the only true way to prove adultery) and they don't give a damn about other people's privacy. I think people who hold everyone else up to higher morals better worry about themselves first before judging others.

 

Yeah, you got that one perfectly right. As always.

I don't know what happened. Wrote my comment in Word (because blackouts occur alot lately) and when I copy/pasted the entire thing in here, it had completely fucked up [qu.ote] placements in some areas and some named wrongly (like my quotes looking like yours). Tried to fix it in the 30 minutes I had, but failed because the deleted [qu.ote] things would always reappear for some reason. Maybe the_jazz, Martian or Baraka_Guru know what happened there?

EDIT: In regards to the rewording of your statements Joniemack (just understood your point), I had to summarize your quotes so that you'd know what I was referring to, because I was over the 15,000 character limit.

 

Fair enough. Without getting into the fact that your responses to the out of context statements reflected the new, out of context meaning.

And you forgot one.

I believe this is your view, not mine.

I think I'm done with this topic.

 

Nevermind that I summarized them at the very end when I copy/pasted my comment in here and saw I was over the limit.

I skipped it.

Really.

---
---
---

Bye.

 

I have been slightly ignoring this thread. Has anyone yet shown evidence that adultery causes people to become violent yet?

 

No, just as an excuse to kill a spouse they hated before they knew of the affair.

 

Well, most of the 'conservatives' and religious folks I know like to blame others for their own bad behavior. But point the finger at something they like doing, and point out it's just as bad, and the handwaving begins. This is nothing new.

 

Alistair, mixedmedia, adultery on the part of the other partner is a well recognized legal defense to what would otherwise be first degree murder.

In addition, FYI, Adultery is actually still a crime in about a dozen states (good read):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm
I'd also like to point out another point: Whereas most people would say adultery is wrong, and that divorce is the proper venue for redress, consider this--The cheating spouse can be the same party that files for divorce, and even in light of one spouse's cheating, that cheating spouse can still be entitled to half of the "innocent" spouse's assets.

Finally, divorcees are also at a significantly greater risk of bankruptcy than married spouses. I think we can agree that infidelity is a "cause" for divorce, and bankruptcy is certainly socially undesirable.

 

Really? Name a case.

So is sodomy or any position other than the missionary, so should that require a prison term and a visit to death row, because of backward outdated laws?

All the more reason for a prenup.

And so that should make adultery illegal and a capital offense? I don't see any reasoning in that what so ever.

 

Pan...who said anything about a capital offense? Reasoning? Please, relax, I am posting reasoned responses. Don't get all hyperbole on me.

And yes, Really. Any first year law student can tell you adultery is a defense:

Give this a quick read.

http://books.google.com/books?id=B3...wCQ#v=onepage&q=manslaughter adultery&f=false

 

Seeing as how Remixer and you seem to have similar views and I seem to recall him saying something about adultery should get the death penalty.

Taken from the PSU sex scandal thread that inspired this thread.

As seen in the above quotes from Remixer, the Death penalty was mentioned in the PSU sex scandal thread that inspired this thread and again by him on the very first page of this thread, so please do not tell me I am exaggerating what has been said. Plus what exactly is the reasoning someone would accept the death penalty (capital punishment) for adultery? (and yes, I know it was not you, however, I have not seen you say that Remixer's hardcore view is not representative of yours, nor have I seen you endorse his view either.)

I understand some have used it men and women, but I think it is a bullshit reason and to use some nutcase's excuse for murder as a reason to "outlaw" and put cameras in bedrooms (and yes, there would have to be cameras otherwise how would you have definitive proof, if you are going to throw someone in jail and/or want capital punishment you better have the action on film anything else even an admission from the other participant (provided he/she wasn't married and not liable for charges) would be nothing more than hearsay, a he said/she said ordeal. As for using it as an excuse to murder your spouse, it's BS as I stated above that opens a whole can of worms to where IF my wife was ultra rich and I killed her for the money I'm sure I could find someone to say they were having an affair with her, whether they were or not, a nice chunk of money after the trial would get anyone to say anything, then you would have to prove they were lying about the affair and that I was in on the conspiracy. If I wanted to play it real sharp, I could hire someone to seduce her and catch them in the act then kill her. It's just bullshit, I can see abuse as a defense but not adultery, I personally do not see it as legitimate.

So is adultery a legitimate reason to beat the living Hell out of your spouse or do a Lorena Bobbitt?

 

While that may be true in some States, it isn't true in all States and is certainly not the case here in the UK.

I think I would prefer it stated as "The cheating spouse can file for divorce, and is entitled to their fair share of the assets amassed by the couple over the course of their marriage".

A 50/50 split is often not the outcome. It all depends on what each partner needs, going forward. A judge has to rule on the fairness of the split.

 

Couldn't financial/claim losses to the adulterous party be argued by stating that the innocent party agreed to a marriage in good faith and with expectations of fidelity, which then enabled them to pool their resources and allocate specific duties and responsibilities for each?

Say two professionals (i.e. they have income) marry. The woman in the relationship agrees to quit her job, become pregnant, rear a child, and become a housewive in order to take care of the child. All the while staying entirely loyal and faithful to her husband, and expecting him to do the same as otherwise she would not agree to any of it.

During and right after the pregnancy (a period of 12-18 months), the husband finds his wife not very open to having sex, or at all. He becomes increasingly sexually frustrated and then, one day, gives in to the temptation to sleep with that coworker/neighbor/secretary/friend that has always been flirtatious with him.

She finds out, is entirely devastated and divorces him.

Would this not constitute a legitimate financial argument for an increased asset distribution in favor of the wife and to the disadvantage of the husband? This should be a separate argument from the default asset split and the likely alimony/living allowance that would have resulted from divorce anyway.

EDIT: Also, thanks for not responding to my comment, Alistair. You and Joniemack make it wonderfully enjoyable to be part of a discussion.

 

I gave it a quick read and it seems to state that in a limited number of cases murder charges can be reduced to manslaughter in cases that involve adultery.
Never when there is premeditation.
That doesn't exactly constitute a leniency toward murders related to adultery.
I think I'm also pretty safe in arguing that adultery is not the only causative agent in cases of murder -->manslaughter when the crime involves 'passion' or a lack of premeditation.
--- merged: Dec 19, 2011 11:56 AM ---

 

Kirstang, You say adultery harms society through it's harm to the individuals involved.
What do you consider its greatest impact on society?
Financial?
Moral?
Other?

What, if anything, distinguishes adultery from alcoholism or drug addiction which causes more harm to more families more frequently. I'm sure you've seen the impact of this problem as well in your job.

All three can be used as grounds for a divorce but adultery is the one used most infrequently.

I'm not sure if you as well, are advocating for the criminalization of adultery or merely greater financial compensation to the other party as part of a divorce settlement, but if you are, should we make criminals of spouses who drink or do drugs in a manner that's harmful to their marriages and families? Has a husband broken his marriage contract if can't hold down a job, if he's verbally abusive to his wife and children, if he refuses to stop drinking/drugging or seek treatment?

1 out of 5 families have an alcoholic member. Alcohol is the #1 factor in domestic violence.

If the basis for a criminalization argument is an extreme level of harm caused to society, I would consider drug and alcohol abuse to be far more harmful in real terms.

If society is not going out of its way to deter or punish a problem causing it measurable and proven harm, what makes you think they'll intervene in a problem that isn't causing enough disruption to even show up on the radar?

The arguments posed here for punishing adultery have been unable to rise from moralistic judgement to evident reality in terms of harm done to anyone other than the individual parties involved.

 

While I dont condone adultery clubs or cheater's dating site ( http://www.ashleymadison.com/ ) I do like how the company is exposing the hypocrisy of the family values crowd:

I guess you can find a club for everyone these days.

Interestingly, a recent blog entry is all about cheating and divorce statistics.
http://blog.ashleymadison.com/ashleymadison-com-findings/cheating-and-divorce-statistics/

Frankly, as outrageous as an adulterers club may be, I dont find it any more over the top than the notion of treating adultery as a criminal (felony) offense.

 

I'm not sure what you wanted me to comment on regarding your earlier post. You stated your points. I disagree. I have no real comment at this time, but if there's a particular aspect?
--- merged: Dec 19, 2011 8:28 PM ---

Absolutely, it would. That's how it works (at least, it does here). As it happens, the decisions made have little to do with his adultery, and everything to do with her earning power, need for somewhere to live and the need to raise a child.The split is based on need.

There is no "default" divorce settlement that I am aware of. There certainly wasn't in my experience. Splits get very complex very fast and involve all kinds of budgeting and asset valuation (assessing the value of pensions isn't straight forward, believe me!).

 

I pointed out to you in my last long post that you neglected to comment on the externalities issue. You don't need buy into the "harm to society" aspect of adultery to make a statement on the social benefit vs. liability of it.

I didn't mean "default" as in a default preset on how asset distribution takes place. Instead, I meant the asset distribution process in itself - which would happen in a divorce anyway - where earning power, present income, pension value, initial assets, current assets, length of marriage, and the like are considered in order to ascertain a fair distribution of assets.

My point was that in case of a relatively peaceful divorce (both partners have communicated extensively, attempted to reconcile their differences a multitude of times, and finally agreed that divorce is in their best interest), this process of asset distribution would have taken place anyway; but that a case of adultery (especially if it's the reason for the divorce) should constitute a legitimate argument for the already-agreed-upon fair distribution of assets to be changed in favor of the innocent party and to the disadvantage of the guilty party (based on the good faith/expectations of fidelity line of argumentation in my previous post).

I'm also not saying that it has to apply automatically, but that such a legal avenue should exist, if preferred by the adultery-affected party.

 

Understood.

Regarding the social benefit vs liability, I do think it's a fair point. It would apply to a number of other things too (Jonie's unanswered point about alcohol, for example), but it's a fair point.