-Removed-Its not that its taken 10 years to get a divorce, its that we haven't bothered to get one because its too much bother. If one of us decides we want to get remarried, then we will probably go though the necessary court process. Until then, why bother?
My main point is that a marriage contract is largely an issue between the two parties and only if those parties wish to take an issue to court should the law get involved. If we mutually agree to allow adultery, then we shouldn't be arrested for violating some law.
Originally posted by twhitehead"If we mutually agree to allow adultery, then we shouldn't be arrested for violating some law."
Its not that its taken 10 years to get a divorce, its that we haven't bothered to get one because its too much bother. If one of us decides we want to get remarried, then we will probably go though the necessary court process. Until then, why bother?
My main point is that a marriage contract is largely an issue between the two parties and only if those ...[text shortened]... d. If we mutually agree to allow adultery, then we shouldn't be arrested for violating some law.
"We" who? Democracy dictates that the majority rules. If you want the law changed then lobby for it, but expect to be arrested and possibly convicted if you break the law.
Adultery is a much more serious offense than you think it is.
Originally posted by josephwLuckily, most countries are not democracies (at least not in that sense).
"We" who? Democracy dictates that the majority rules.
If you want the law changed then lobby for it, but expect to be arrested and possibly convicted if you break the law.
As far as I know, adultery isn't illegal in my country, so no law needs to be changed.
Adultery is a much more serious offense than you think it is.
Please enlighten me. What is the maximum sentence for adultery in your country?
Originally posted by josephwI think that the only criminalized sexual acts should be those that use coercion and/or happen without informed consent. Adultery in many cases may be immoral ~ and may well have serious consequences ~ but I don't think it should ever be an "offense" in legal terms: that would be an intolerable intrusion by the state into the private lives of citizens.
Adultery is a much more serious offense than you think it is.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"Practically".
How so?
Morally, legally, religiously?
Everyone knows, except those who never learned it, that the family unit, which consists of a man, his wife and children, is the foundation of all civilized societies as far back as the historical record goes.
Adultery is a direct threat against the fabric of all civilization. And anyone who argues against that is a blithering idiot.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy should I enlighten you?
Luckily, most countries are not democracies (at least not in that sense).
[b]If you want the law changed then lobby for it, but expect to be arrested and possibly convicted if you break the law.
As far as I know, adultery isn't illegal in my country, so no law needs to be changed.
Adultery is a much more serious offense than you think it is.
Please enlighten me. What is the maximum sentence for adultery in your country?[/b]
Is there something you don't understand?
Originally posted by FMFI agree.
I think that the only criminalized sexual acts should be those that use coercion and/or happen without informed consent. Adultery in many cases may be immoral ~ and may well have serious consequences ~ but I don't think it should ever be an "offense" in legal terms: that would be an intolerable intrusion by the state into the private lives of citizens.
Well, I said offense, but not in the legal sense. I agree that legislating morality isn't going to go over so well in a free society.
Look over at what's going on in Iraq and other "religiously" run countries. Isis for example is forcing on the populace their extreme views of personal behavior all the while raping and murdering and plundering.
Religious people are, in my view, the biggest hypocrites, especially when they try to enforce morality.
Laws should protect freedom.
Originally posted by josephwYou appear to have taken the 'adult' out of 'adultery.'
"Practically".
Everyone knows, except those who never learned it, that the family unit, which consists of a man, his wife and children, is the foundation of all civilized societies as far back as the historical record goes.
Adultery is a direct threat against the fabric of all civilization. And anyone who argues against that is a blithering idiot.
Adults are free to make their own decisions and mistakes. Adultery is just another form of 'temptation' and it is the act of overcoming temptation that is the true foundation block of a civilized society.
To fear temptation is to capitulate before it.
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwOr possibly had a better education than you. Nearly every civilization I learnt about was rife with adultery at the very highest levels of leadership.
Adultery is a direct threat against the fabric of all civilization. And anyone who argues against that is a blithering idiot.
And a significant proportion were polygamous.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFIn many countries (the U.S. for example) adultery is legally regarded as an offense in the sense that it is legitimate grounds for divorce... but you can only get a divorce on those grounds if you are already married.
I think that the only criminalized sexual acts should be those that use coercion and/or happen without informed consent. Adultery in many cases may be immoral ~ and may well have serious consequences ~ but I don't think it should ever be an "offense" in legal terms: that would be an intolerable intrusion by the state into the private lives of citizens.
In an intimate boyfriend girlfriend relationship one cannot technically commit adultery (one against the other) because an adulterous relationship already exists between them. There is no real (binding) commitment between the two, so "cheating" has actually been on the table from the start of their relationship as a possibility for either one of them.
A commitment may be implied because they presently live together as a couple. But this kind of arrangement is a bit hazy, as it may not mean the same thing to both parties. There is no real agreement here, other than what may or may not be thought of (as an agreement) in the minds of the people concerned. The problem with relationships like this is that one of them may feel they are soul mates for life, but the other may not feel they are bound by that same level of (undefined, or ill defined) commitment. Some people are okay with this kind of arrangement because of how easy it is to extricate themselves... and then go on to perhaps form other new (non-contractual) arrangements with other new love interests.
But marriage doesn't exist to only discourage indiscriminate bed hopping, it exists to provide a stable environment for children. Children are extremely dependent emotionally (as well as physically) on their parents, and one of the scariest things any child might have to deal with would be parents who are themselves (emotionally) children.