Should adultery be a crime?

[(Q)]

(Q):

Where do you live? Don't they have no-fault divorce laws? It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)

You mean like Australia?

"Reform should retain no-fault divorce where the spouses are agreed that they want to divorce, but remove unilateralism by requiring that all divorce applications (after the usual one year’s separation) have the consent of both husband and wife"

http://www.cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/ia39/ia39.htm

 

[Anti-Flag]

Anti-flag:

Well, maybe I've exagerated your position just a little. What you undoubtedly said was that you think if one partner has been adulterous, then they ought to get nothing in a divorce settlement. In other words, the house, the dog, the kids, the car, the joint bank account and so on all goes to the non-adulterous partner.

That's a heavy penalty for what might be one moral slip.

Yes, that is what I said, not the rest of what you came out with. As for it being a heavy penalty then yes, I agree, but adultery can cause a lot of emotional distress, and it is totally unnecessary, you don't accidentally cheat on someone, even when drunk, and as I said, it is not hard to end it first if you don't feel the same anymore. If you feel the need to cheat on someone I would suggest a person was not ready for marraige, it isn't as though we don't know that it entails being true to your partner.
I don't think adultery is at all acceptable behaviour of any mature adult and as such they should be prepared to accept consequences for the damage done. Perhaps saying they should get nothing is too far, I'll admit that, but certainly it should limit greatly what they receive from a divorce settlement, it is technically a breach of contract.

It's beyond me that you can't imagine that people will always have moments of weakness. Few people are perfect exemplars of monogamy.

Again this is something I didn't say. People have weaknesses, nobody is perfect and I have never stated otherwise.
The problem is they also have responsibility, especially when in a relationship, and people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, good and bad. I'm aware most people are incapable of monogamy, but I'd suggest these people don't get married. At worst they can find other people the same and have an open marraige but both partners must be aware of this at the start.
I have no objections to that at all.

My original point was that the government should not be sticking its nose into sorting through who slept with whom. And surely you don't think that just because the government isn't involved, or a law isn't being broken, cheating in marriage is therefore "without consequences"?

In a divorce settlement, if the reason for the divorce is adultery then I think the information is relevant, if people can work through it themselves that is their choice. Simply put if you don't want people to find out about your adultery, don't do it. Also not everyone feels guilty afterwards, and what consequences do these people face?

I totally agree. But I also think that if a divorce occurs, the adulterer should not be punished by forfeiture of join property of the marriage. That's a totally disproportionate outcome.

I find the alternative to be a form of compensation for the distress caused, but that would be harder to judge. I'm aware you probably also don't find adultery morally acceptable, and I find it is something which is hard to decide on a punishment. I don't think this should be based in law because some people are forgiven, some are openly both happy with it, and there are I'm sure other reasons, but I think a case of a closed marraige is an exception and it should carry consequences. If you'd care to suggest alternatives I would be interested in hearing them.

I agree.

I believe adultery to be the only reason I'd ever give up on a marraige, if I love someone enough to marry them anything else is worth working through to keep that. I'd expect the same from my partner. This is a great flaw in people who marry young and think it will be all roses and smiles.

Because the other person has put their time and effort and resources into the joint assets of the marriage, and should not be denied their fair share because of your religious prudishness regarding sex.

Another assumption and judgement, and again incorrect. That's two, and I don't think you're apologetic about either. Having read some of your other posts and being aware you're a moderator I must say I'd expect better. Feel free to continue though, others might find it amusing. I'm non-religious, and I'm not a gun toting yokel from the american deep south either.
At the risk of endlessly repeating myself, people in a marraige are expected to not cheat.
Someone puts a lot of time, effort, and resources into a business, but if they breach the contract they get very little back, at best compensation or an agreeable settlement. Why should divorce be any different?
Two things people need to learn in this world are morals and responsibility.

Very hard, in some cases. Cheating doesn't even have to mean that a person doesn't want to be with their partner anymore. If it did, then every cheating husband would leave his wife. You must be aware that many do not.

This is why I'm concerned, a fling should not be an attractive prospect to anyone if they are married. For things to get to that stage something has to be seriously wrong, and I greatly encourage people to be more open about this. If you love and respect someone why go behind their back to be with someone else?
I think the fact that in the 21st century we have this attitude with a great many things that because "lots of people do it" it is acceptable and/or expectedly forgivable. To me this is a great problem in our society.

 

[Sock puppet path]

C'mon Sam you want to hang everyone else out but not yourself?

 

[S.A.M.]

C'mon Sam you want to hang everyone else out but not yourself?

I was trying to avoid undue influence.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

Then I guess failure to "love, cherish" and possibly "obey" would be grounds for divorce under your system, as would failure to "forsake all others". People would need to get lawyers to carefully draft their marriage vows, lest they get caught in a Prince_James technicality legal trap.

Tell me, how do suppose someone would prove a failure to love, in court? And would that be enough for divorce under your proposed system?

Yes, I do actually agree that all said vows are part of the marriage contract. The violation of such would be grounds for divorce.

And there are many ways one can establish that someone has failed to love. Generally speaking, love comes with a certain attention to the needs and desires of the other person. The lack of such affection would be a lack of love over a consistant time.

 

[Sock puppet path]

I was trying to avoid undue influence.

Ok now I am satisfied

 

[James R]

(Q):

Where do you live? Don't they have no-fault divorce laws? It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)

You mean like Australia?

I went away after I had posted my comment and discovered that for myself. You learn something every day!

Frankly, I'm quite astonished by this: that a no-fault divorce won't be granted before a one-year separation period has elapsed.

Is it still true that the US has laws which require "grounds" for divorce other than "irreconcilable differences"? And how much does the law vary from state to state? Do you know? For example, I am wondering whether states which tend to be more religious also have stricter requirements for divorce.

 

[James R]

Following on from the above, I'd like to say that in my opinion the one-year period required before a divorce can be granted is at the wrong end of the process.

People can head off to Las Vegas, or wherever, and get hitched at the drop of a hat. Roll up to a registry office, sign the papers, and you're done. There's no enforced one-year trial period here. But when it comes to getting out of a marriage, bad luck. You need to wait one year. (Does this apply even for marriages where violence occurs?)

Wouldn't the system work better if people had to register their intent to marry, then wait a year to see if they really were suited to marriage?

 

[S.A.M.]

Following on from the above, I'd like to say that in my opinion the one-year period required before a divorce can be granted is at the wrong end of the process.

People can head off to Las Vegas, or wherever, and get hitched at the drop of a hat. Roll up to a registry office, sign the papers, and you're done. There's no enforced one-year trial period here. But when it comes to getting out of a marriage, bad luck. You need to wait one year. (Does this apply even for marriages where violence occurs?)

Wouldn't the system work better if people had to register their intent to marry, then wait a year to see if they really were suited to marriage?

They used to call it an engagement.

 

[James R]

Anti-flag:

I don't think adultery is at all acceptable behaviour of any mature adult and as such they should be prepared to accept consequences for the damage done. Perhaps saying they should get nothing is too far, I'll admit that, but certainly it should limit greatly what they receive from a divorce settlement, it is technically a breach of contract.

Do you think that marriage is a desirable institution to retain? I get the impression you do. But if such harsh penalties were generally applied to people, don't you think it would discourage people from marrying in the first place?

The problem is they also have responsibility, especially when in a relationship, and people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, good and bad. I'm aware most people are incapable of monogamy, but I'd suggest these people don't get married.

So, you'd reserve marriage for a few paragons of virtue, then?

I'm sure you realise that it in the past the institution of marriage has been more about cementing inter-family relations than about modern ideas of romantic love. What's your opinion of its current relevance?

Also not everyone feels guilty [about adultery] afterwards, and what consequences do these people face?

Should they face consequences, other than the usual interpersonal consequences? Should they be punished monetarily, or perhaps corporally, or by a jail sentence (returning to the original question of the thread)? How did you vote in the poll, by the way? Adultery a crime, or not?

And if there are to be criminal consequences, what is the rationale? Retribution on the part of the "victim"? Compensation? Or just plain old punishment to teach them a moral lesson?

I'm aware you probably also don't find adultery morally acceptable, and I find it is something which is hard to decide on a punishment. I don't think this should be based in law because some people are forgiven, some are openly both happy with it, and there are I'm sure other reasons, but I think a case of a closed marraige is an exception and it should carry consequences. If you'd care to suggest alternatives I would be interested in hearing them.

I don't think adultery is morally acceptable. But I'm not so sure it is a matter for the criminal justice system. It is not, in general, a matter of public concern, but a matter of private concern. As such, private individuals should deal with it as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of course.

I believe adultery to be the only reason I'd ever give up on a marraige, if I love someone enough to marry them anything else is worth working through to keep that.

What about falling out of love? What if your partner stops loving you, but is still sexually faithful? Doesn't matter? Are you saying happiness is unimportant in marriage?

This is why I'm concerned, a fling should not be an attractive prospect to anyone if they are married.

Should we have moral police, then, whose job it is to track down people having affairs and charge then with the new crime of infidelity? And would you stop at fidelity enforcement, or proceed to a more general kind of thought policing?

---

Anti-flag, I hope you're aware that I am, to some extent, playing devil's advocate here. In terms of general ethical principles, it seems to me we are probably on more or less the same page. I am simply worried about increasing the degree of public intrusion into what I consider to be private matters.

 

[Bells]

Following on from the above, I'd like to say that in my opinion the one-year period required before a divorce can be granted is at the wrong end of the process.

People can head off to Las Vegas, or wherever, and get hitched at the drop of a hat. Roll up to a registry office, sign the papers, and you're done. There's no enforced one-year trial period here. But when it comes to getting out of a marriage, bad luck. You need to wait one year. (Does this apply even for marriages where violence occurs?)

Wouldn't the system work better if people had to register their intent to marry, then wait a year to see if they really were suited to marriage?

The 'one year' term of seperation is not exactly how you might think.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) basically ensured that there was one 'no fault' ground for divorce, which basically gives the reason of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, which needs to be demonstrated by a 12 month period of separation with no prospect of reconciliation. However the filing of the application for divorce is done after the 12 months is over.

Separation basically occurs if one (or both) of the parties makes their intent to separate known to the other party and acts upon it (eg splitting bank account, bills are in separate names, moving to a second bedroom, moving out, etc). Separation can also occur under the same roof. Usually by the time one has decided to divorce and have been married for more than 2 years, the separation has usually been ongoing for quite a while. For example, an emotional withdrawal, as well as a complete loss of a sex life between the two, with one moving into the spare room or has started seeing other people, etc..

It isn't hard at all.

In a situation where violence has been an issue, a protection order can basically begin the process of separation. If a protection order has never been sought, merely going to an emergency shelter refuge to escape from the violent spouse is enough. Seeking a loan from the government (for example) for emergency housing can also be seen to be a sign. There are many ways in which a person who has been a victim of domestic violence who is scared to leave, etc, can prove separation from their spouse.

------------------------------------------------

As to the question for the thread.

No adultery should not be a crime.

 

[Roman]

I changed my mind. Adultery should be a crime.

 

[(Q)]

It must be a backwards place. Surely no civilised western society would require a couple to live apart for a year before being able to get a divorce... (?)

I went away after I had posted my comment and discovered that for myself. You learn something every day!

Frankly, I'm quite astonished by this: that a no-fault divorce won't be granted before a one-year separation period has elapsed.

Yes, 'Oz' is a backwards place and uncivilized, and you probably often feel like Dorothy grasping Toto, locked in the witches tower and wishing you were back home, but don't worry about it, just stand up and belt it out:

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true

Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?

 

[everneo]

no-fault divorces are given immediately on mutual consent in many countries, backwards or frontwards..

unilateral divorces are given after confirmation that the differences could not be reconciled after a reasonable duration of time. even then the party that is affected because of the divorce for no fault of them get the compensation.

 

[invert_nexus]

Marriage and divorce laws vary by state in the US. Nevada is a popular state both in which to marry and in which to divorce because of this.

 

[everneo]

I changed my mind. Adultery should be a crime.

OK i agree. But after the punishment the adulteress would be a full-fledged whore. Then whoredom need to be legalized by popular demand. So, better leave the matter to the hubby.

As for the male adulterer : well, 99.9 % of males, including judges, are indiscriminate f**kers.

no point in making adultery a crime anyway.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Anti-flag:
Do you think that marriage is a desirable institution to retain? I get the impression you do. But if such harsh penalties were generally applied to people, don't you think it would discourage people from marrying in the first place?

I think if the thought is in their mind that they would perhaps commit adultery then they should be discouraged from marrying. Open relationships will always be an exception.

So, you'd reserve marriage for a few paragons of virtue, then?

I'm sure you realise that it in the past the institution of marriage has been more about cementing inter-family relations than about modern ideas of romantic love. What's your opinion of its current relevance?

In a way yes, I would prefer if only the people who plan to stick by their vows would get married. I have no objections to a family being started by couples in an open relationship, whilst not an ideal stable environment it should have no bearing on the parents love for their children. There are also a considerable number of people who have families outside of a marraige, again something I don't consider a problem.

Should they face consequences, other than the usual interpersonal consequences? Should they be punished monetarily, or perhaps corporally, or by a jail sentence (returning to the original question of the thread)? How did you vote in the poll, by the way? Adultery a crime, or not?

And if there are to be criminal consequences, what is the rationale? Retribution on the part of the "victim"? Compensation? Or just plain old punishment to teach them a moral lesson?

I think that if it causes a divorce, something painful to a great degree, there should be a form of punishment; Although I prefer the term consequence, to their actions. I wouldn't consider it a crime in legal terms, it is a moral crime, and I think it is punishable for the damage it does. The only feasible way I can see this being done is in divorce settlements, I don't feel that a person who is responsible for a marraige breakup is entitled to the same as a couple with whom things just didn't work out and nobody is to blame. Outside of marraige people are free to do whatever they want, but making a commitment to somebody should be upheld, preferably outside of the law. Would compensation then be the best option?(Lord help me for encouraging the culture to sue that we already have)

I don't think adultery is morally acceptable. But I'm not so sure it is a matter for the criminal justice system. It is not, in general, a matter of public concern, but a matter of private concern. As such, private individuals should deal with it as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of course.

Unfortunately a divorce case can be relatively public, or at least in a local sense. I feel when going through that process it is relevant information and should be accounted for as it is the reason for the breakup. It is a failure to fulfil a duty to their partner, the person has chosen this course of action, both the original decision to be with this person, and the decision to cheat.

What about falling out of love? What if your partner stops loving you, but is still sexually faithful? Doesn't matter? Are you saying happiness is unimportant in marriage?

I believe if you stop loving someone there is a reason for it, that in itself may not be beyond the realms of repair, feelings don't suddenly stop one day, and it's usually due to things that have happened or changed(no matter what people say love is always conditional, the condition is that the person doesn't change from being the things you love). To me I would want to find out what has changed and why, and to at least attempt to fix it, if it doesn't work then fair enough.
Perhaps I should rephrase, adultery is the only reason I would immediately abandon a relationship.

Should we have moral police, then, whose job it is to track down people having affairs and charge then with the new crime of infidelity? And would you stop at fidelity enforcement, or proceed to a more general kind of thought policing?

Good question, morals of course being subjective as they are we would find it very difficult to enforce anything, marraige is the exception because we know it as a commitment to a person for as long as we live. Moral police; not quite, but certainly something should be in effect. This is where I lean to it being a law, but as you rightly say it isn't, and shouldn't be a government affair. All I can think of to stop it is for people to realise it wouldn't be tolerated and they would have a lot to lose from it.

Anti-flag, I hope you're aware that I am, to some extent, playing devil's advocate here. In terms of general ethical principles, it seems to me we are probably on more or less the same page. I am simply worried about increasing the degree of public intrusion into what I consider to be private matters.

I did suspect it, and have no objection to that at all, all I had a problem with was the judgemental tone to the original posts that may be misinterpreted by others as things I have said or implied when I don't feel I in any way have(although I'd hope people would read and think things through, I realise people don't always do such). If that's part of the act to ignite the debate then fair enough, and hopefully no harm is done, but I'd prefer being asked and going from there. It's been a long time since I had in any way a serious debate, and it's welcome as I'm fully aware I require the practice!
As for public intrusion, if a person says "I forgive you, I want to work through this" or something along those lines, and wishes not for a divorce, it would remain as private as they like.
When a divorce case comes to being, at least the family and friends will be aware of the cause, and perhaps a general rumour will inform others, usually this will do no harm to either parties and will be quickly forgotten, most people are aware things go wrong and don't always go to plan, and there is no shame or wrong in divorce. I don't think a case would become a great deal more public just because it involves an adulterer, especially if the general acceptance is that they sacrifice(at least some of) their marital priviledges with such an act.