Should adultery be illegal?

Post Reply New Topic

Viasgrunt.
Your commercial/economic/legalese definition of fraud was interesting but the general sense of the word was what I intended. A fraud occurs when someone misrepresents themselves or their actions in order to obtain a benefit or end that they are not entitled to. (a lie is what they use to make the misrepresentations.) There are 1 or 2 persons who get defrauded in adultery. The spouse and possibly the other person in the adulterous relationship if they involve themselves without knowing that the person with whom they fornicate is in fact married.

As to an oft ignored advantage of making adultery illegal, the 3rd party required for a married person to commit adultery should be subject to legal sanction. When someone is married, all others should be required to not insert themselves into the married relationship of the couple. I would have no problem with making such 3rd parties highly vulnerable to assessment of damages in favor of the defrauded partner of the marriage. Woe be unto the interloper who tries to insert himself into my marriage,

The most damaged victims of divorce are usually the children if there are any, although the concept of fraud probably does not apply to them because usually there have been no explicit representations made to them.

If the marriage is doomed, then do the divorce, but do not engage in adultery first.

This may be an appropriate place to insert a position that I feel is desirable to consider with respect to marriage. I would suggest that the reestablishment of the concept of the marriage contract may be a good idea. Such contracts would have to be allowed to supersede the existing set of inter-spousal obligations and privileges promulgated by the state, but then at least fundamentalists could have their marriages on the terms they prefer, and people who want "open" or "swinger" marriages could have it their way too. And Hindus could even have their traditional marriages, dowry and all. Who gets what in a divorce could be covered, and rights and responsibilities of partners based on gender could be included for those who want them. I suppose the state would need to have a basic number of areas that the contract would have to address just to avoid a lot of stuff landing in court but I think it would be workable. Plural marriage could even be something that might be allowed, however there are some serious interests of the state that would need to be addressed in such contracts.

I would go so far as to say that if such contracts were required and reviewed by the parties to it, prior to marriage, that it might have a beneficial effect of lowering the divorce rate. However we would have to keep the lawyers at bay a bit on the legalese. A contract that cannot be understood is a worthless piece of crap.

This whole marriage contract thing has intrigued me from back about 50 years ago, when it was proposed in the early stages of the modern women's movement. It was proposed back then that spouses make contracts of co-habitation and not get married so that they could at least argue that their contract was not superseded by the states concept of marriage.

The underlying concepts here that I would like to see supported are:
What expectations are we to have about marriage? Whatever they are they should be clear not murky.
It is not unreasonable to expect people to be held to honest dealings in marriage and in the rest of their lives.

I disagree. I actually think that the promise to be faithful in religious marriage ceremonies is too often taken for granted. The promise is often made but not kept as often as we'd like. If it were otherwise, you'd have to explain else why it is that so many marriage that begin with religious vows end in divorces. I think more people would take it seriously if they took their own religion seriously.

Even if religion played absolutely no part in it, you do still have the advantages of preserving family lines and maintaining a stable society and culture. Granted we no longer have the same concerns the ancients did in the absence of birth control, but fidelity and honesty go a long way towards maintaining feelings of security within the family unit. Unless men can somehow learn to turn off that typical hostile instinct towards raising someone else's bastards (sorry, it has to be said), there will never be blanket approval for sexual misdeeds. Promising a person a lifetime of devotion solves the problem of the fear of being alone for (hopefully) most of one's life. I don't mean to be insensitive, but unless they both die in a freak accident, someone is going to die first, and the least we can offer each other is the assuredness that at least one of us doesn't have to be alone. I don't personally think that is too much to ask.

But people can be truly irreverent of others and stupid. And selfish. We only want to keep our vows for as long as it is convenient to do so. If I'm being honest, I have to admit my marriage doesn't always benefit ME. But I promised I would care for my wife for as long as I physically am allowed to, even when it hurts emotionally to do so. Even if I never loved her as another child of God, I'd still love her as a human being and would be no less devoted--if not for spiritual reasons, then because it is the right way to treat a person.

Whatever the formalisms of marriage ceremonies love is not something we control. It controls us and is sometimes as variable as the weather and very frequently evanescent. When it disappears and is replaced by strong negative emotions each human must search individually for personal solutions and the general commands of religious dogma or legalisms only distort and destroy the fine intelligence and compassion and simple good sense that must be applied uniquely to each situation to heal the wounds and permit the involved people to continue live their lives satisfactorily.

I do not denigrate any human with the disgusting term of "bastard" since any child entering the world under whatever circumstance deserves all the love and respect given any other child and I find rejection of an innocent creature because of its origin rather than its nature as about close to an absolute crime as nature provides. My family line is the human species and I have only the faintest idea of where and who my family predecessors were nor do I care. If I could count within my family a tyrannosaurus rex or small rat that lived on dinosaur eggs or a neanderthal or the highly skilled cromagnon that did the wonderfully skilled cave drawings I would not be proud because pride derives from personal accomplishment and not as a gift of nature but I would be delighted.

My wife died recently and I miss her but I am fully cognizant the we are each essentially and intrinsically alone throughout our lives and the living creatures with whom we share the Earth are temporary gifts to be prized for their presence when they exist and their memory when they cease to do so for that is the nature of being alive and I could ask no more. To imagine and expect more verges on psychosis.

Any look around at the world, historically and currently, reveals a stable society is no more than a myth that as so far been very far from attainable. Human society today is a frightful intermix of tragedy and farce.

This might be of interest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124211.htm

Adultery is:

Not fraud. It can be completely overt.

Does not, by definition require a family. Nor children. Again, you'd need special case law for varieties of infidelity.

Like I said, it can occur in a couple, in a casual relationship. Family life isnt a defining factor in what adultery is.


Thats perfectly muddy of you.

Even though I despise people who commit adultery, making it illegal infringes on people's freedoms. It's like making sex before marriage illegal

Making murder illegal impinges on freedoms. And drunk driving, and fraud, and walking into your house and leaving with your laptop.

ALL laws impinge on freedoms.

Drawing lines - when is it okay to do what to whom - in a principled way is very hard.

Defining "victimless crime" is harder.

lol I dunno what your point is, that line is so easy to draw. You have the right to be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights or needs. Smoking weed in your own house is a victimless crime. Speech doesn't physically harm other people, so we have the freedom of speech. Drunk driving harms other people as well as fraud and B&E. B&E interferes with the right to owning property, so there you go. What's so hard about defining victimless crime?

As for adultery being illegal, that's just stupid. The government shouldn't be accountable for private matters unless you got HIV from it. That's when it becomes an issue of safety to the public. That being said, some people are smart enough to choose the right partners and not habitually be tied up with known cheaters. So it's a personal responsibility and not a social one.

"You have the right to be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights or needs."

Right - easy to draw? Take just one trivial example.

George and Sam have to share the same office. That is given.

George's work requires him to test tuning forks against one another.

Sam's work involves making detailed calculations which require intense concentration. The slightest sound makes him lose track. To ensure that he has peace, he comes in early and hides George's tuning forks.

How easy is it to set up a code that will let George and Sam share the office without either impacting the other's wants and needs?

FACT OF LIFE - like it or not - two people living in the same house or town or country WILL interfere with one another. Just by existing. Where do you set the cutoffs? Chiefs and legislatures and department chairmen have been working on that for long millennia.

So now we have advocacy for legislation on the use of tuning forks?

Exactly. And that's a really sh***y example. Sam hiding George's tuning forks is infringing on his right to own property. Don't forget that the government is one big organization. They can't exactly micromanage and legislate every little situation that isn't so cut and dried.

You're taking my quote too literally. If I was being real literal, I could say controversial speech impede on someone else's emotional well-being and therefore freedom of speech shouldn't be a right. But as long as controversial speech isn't being forced on you, then yes it doesn't impede on your rights. As long as that person isn't standing on your front lawn shouting what he's saying like a broken record, then it's not infringing on your freedom.

Sam could first let George know what's up and then file a complaint to the boss if he doesn't listen. It's the responsibility of the corporation, not the government. How do you propose the government to legislate this? Or are you all hypothetical and philosophical about it and have no idea how it's supposed to be practically implemented?

Ok I am getting a bit jaded on this one.

For those who can't keep terms straight, The definition of adultery I am working with is that it requires that at least 2 of the 3 parties involed to be married and the 3rd party is not married to either one of them. otherwise it is just fornication or a plural marriage and the topic here is Adultery. The spouse who is not committing adultery is the harmed party. His/her life and marriage is greatly harmed by the adulterous spouse and interloper. Possibly there are two harmed spouses if the two involved in the adultery are each married to a spouse.

Ok so there is harm, potentially devastating harm.

All the complaints about too much work for the government could be solved by bringing back the "crime of passion" laws of about 100 years ago (I understand it is maybe even less than 100 years ago in France) The agrieved spouse was held innocent if upon catching the cheating spouse and interloper in the act the agrieved spouse killed one or both.

Oh so you get all upset about such summary capital punishment? Ok then pay the cost of government meeting out some other punishment! The whole idea of criminal law is for the government to provide protection for the citizens when either they cannot provide it for themselves or providing it for themselves might not meet preferred standards of ordliness and justice.

Oh, so you don't think someone is harmed by adultery by their spouse? Well what do you think harm is if it is not getting a law abiding citizen so psychologically disturbed that they will kill someone? Maybe you don't care about who comes into your life and messes it up and messes up your family life but I advise you not to try it in the region where I live. Social attitudes are a bit different here. Your relatives may have to wait 7 years for your body to be missing long enough to have you declared legally dead so they can get their share of your estate.

Ok so now lets get down to something less drastic than mayhem. Lets say that the penalty for adultery is that the adulterous spouse gets from a divorce only what their-non adulterous spouse is willing to let them have, and lets say that the interloper has to pay damages to the aggrieved spouse equal to half the community property of the married couple he messed with. Would this stop adultery? Not completely, but it would tend to suppress it. And there would be one other thing that a lot of you are forgetting! There would be a measure of justice for the aggrieved spouse and even the children if any.

And if you don't want to suffer the severity of the the penalty for adultery, then if you are married and want to screw around, get a divorce! First!

As for such laws limiting your rights, well when you get married it is reasonable for you to give up certain rights and to take on certain other responsibilities. But then again I guess if you think everybody should do just whatever they feel like at the moment, that the word responsibility is not in your dictionary.

When the adulterous spouse can go to a divorce court and take half of what the aggrieved spouse has worked for and take at least half the custody of the children, that is not justice.

When the interloper can go around from one marriage to the next, and mess it up so that he has more conquests to puff up his depraved ego, that is not justice. (I worked with a guy once who did exactly that. He went running out the back door half naked when the husband unexpectedly arrived home at the front. A load of double-ought buckshot would have improved the world, had it only been applied to him that day (that or a gelding knife).

By this time I suppose you are thinking that you are communicating with a barbarian. Not so. But at the same time I have no problem with some nation states setting the penalty for adultery as stoning! What I do have as problem with is the very unbalanced way in which it is applied to minorities or oppressed groups such as women and possibly members of minority religions. Adultery is an act done by 2 and both should be punished. Likewise, calling rape as adultery so as to only punish one party is wrong as well and the act of an uncivilized culture.

A major problem in such discussions [see the Stinking Clammyweed Abortion Roundtable] is that people will not look logically at realities.

Of course adultery causes harm to more than just the consenting adults. Of course it interferes with what we legitimately consider rights. Same for theft, murder, unwelcome tickling, dissing your opponent in debate, and smoking in the office.

The [admittedly in this state of mankind] necessary and usually thankless task of legislation is simply to determine who will ger harmed how much without the Mounties stepping in.

It would be absurd to say these things can all be solved by sweet reason. Would it were true, but a few centuries of human history or even my son's lifetime provers sweet reasdon does not cut it.

The manager needs to do something about the hapless officemates. Give Sam his own cubicle, tell him to disregard the tuningforks, fire them both and give both jobs to Richard - whatever.

But SOMEONE is going to get hurt. That is what laws are for. That is what compromise means.

I don't think there should be a law on it, if our governments kept making laws like this we would eventually lose our freedom. It's not up to the government to 'nanny' us, it is our own responsibility.

By the way, that doesn't mean I agree with adultery!

If the government does not make laws the gang lord will.

Dilemma. Pick your Purgatory.

This is a discussion about extending the law. "Fraud," has a very clear definition at law, and should not be used in some vague or messy connotation that is not consistent with it's legal definition. If you want to express a different sentiment, then choose words appropriate to the sentiment that you intend to convey.



You haven't demonstrated fraud, yet. There might be a misrepresentation, but you cannot simply assume that misrepresentation exists. The parties might be aware of the circumstances or even to have countenanced the circumstances. The aulterer might not have made any overt, misrepresentative statement. Fraud is not made out by an implication or a failure to disclose a relevant circumstance. Fraud can only be based on an express statement.

Now, the third party may well have a sound basis to claim that their consent to intercourse was vitiated by a failure to disclose the pre-existing marriage--but that is a matter of assault, not of fraud.



This was, indeed, the practice when adultery was one of the few acceptable grounds for divorce, and the 3d party would be joined as a party to the action. There was abundant mischief that has led almost every jurisdiction to do away with this eminently silly practice.

How can you demonstrate actual knowledge? An accused cannot be convicted of an offence absent the mens rea to commit the offence (or are you proposing to create a strict liability offence?). Similarly, a tortfeasor cannot be held liable for a tortious actions absent intention to commit the tort, or negligence.

If I am having sex with a person, do I have a positive duty to require him to produce a search of the the marriage registry in every province and territory to demonstrate that he has never been married? Does that duty extend to the 51 jurisdictions of the United States as well, just in case? Ought I properly to require a search of every jurisdiction, globally?



At what point does sex with a partner other than one's spouse become legitimated? It's all well and good to suggest that people who are still married ought not to have sex with others, but its practical application is woefully silly.



Such agreements already exist. People are perfectly free to arrange their lives however they like, and to document those arrangements in as much or as little detail as they choose. The problem, of course, is that people who enter marriages in their starry-eyed twenties have no idea what their circumstances will be in their more mature fourties. How many couples have foregone pre-nuptial agreements because, "that will never happen to us?" How many marriages entered into in good faith are broken apart because spouses comes to the realization that their sexual orientation is not heterosexual? How many spouses seek to void their pre-nuptial agreements on the basis of inequality of bargaining power, or circumstances not contemplated at the time it was entered into?



A failure to engage a lawyer at the start of a relationship, is likely to require the engagement of two lawyers at the end of it. Do not be so blithe to dismiss the value that precision of language has--especially when it comes to defining future rights.



Your last statement is certainly true. But I do not see that there is a proper place for the law to intrude itself into the private life of individuals beyond those protections required to safeguard children and to arbitrate disputes between irreconcilable spouses.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that, as every Christian text acknowledges, God used a man's wife to produce his son. This seems to fit the definition of adultery and if it's good enough for God, that should find approval for anybody else. Please be assured I am not to attempting to insult anybody or get emotional, merely pointing out a fact.