• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should adultery be a criminal offense punishable by jailtime?

Should adultery be a criminal offense punishable by jailtime?

  • Obviously! It should carry MMS and strict for 2nd++ offense..

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Yes, jailtime.

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Yah, first fine, then jail, mild jail time.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hmm.. Perhaps..

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No..

    Votes: 57 87.7%
  • Something else(explain).

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Total voters
    65
Status
Not open for further replies.
You'll get no argument from me there.

IMO "irreconcilable differences" should be taken off the list for just that reason.

Why do you think it is included?

My thought is so abused women can end it without fear of retribution for smearing their abusive spouse's name.
 
Being your mate is the job.
And that doesn't require state involvement.

Whoa whoa whoa, calm down the anti-gay hate speech. Sexuality is only to reproduce? Well wtf are homosexuals doing then?
Or heteros who don't want children!! Or people who are unable to have them!!

To do it successfully, yes, you do; or are you unaware of the data on single parent homes -vs- 2 parent homes?
Are you unaware of the data of 2 parent homes that don't have state sanctioned marriage contracts involved?

Are you unable to comprehend that people can and DO have children together and raise children together all withOUT the government getting involved?

*GASP* I know, it's a big shocker, eh? It's been going on for thousands of years, actually. And still going on today. :shock:

What else are you saying?

See, let's refresh your memory:
If that's not your intent then your relationship doesn't rise to any level disserving respect.
Unless one is able and willing to have children, apparently one's relationship doesn't deserve respect. And it doesn't "rise to the level of marriage". And as such, one cannot be "cheated on".

Please explain how to take your statement any differently.

The state only has a compelling interest in couples raising children.

No children = no interest.
So again... people that don't have children can't be hurt by cheating? Because you twisted this whole conversation around to TEH CHILDREN when we were talking about CHEATING.

More than one person in this thread has said that the emotional pain and suffering caused by cheating should be grounds for jailtime. When I and others queried as to other means with which people inflict the same, if not more emotional pain and suffering and why those things shouldn't have the same punishment, you suddenly went off about biological imperatives and children, and families, etc, etc. As if people who don't sign state contracts can't have families. As if people who don't sign state contracts can't incur pain and suffering.

Would you care to be just a little more concise in your answer and stop beating around the bush? All you have said thus far is that people who don't sign a piece of paper aren't worthy, or can't get hurt, or can't even get cheated on, and some nonsense about only people who sign papers can have 2 parent homes. Really, none of it makes any logical sense.
 
The state steps in and declairs the couple "common law" married. You can even get alomoney off it.

Not in every state.
 
Why do you think it is included?

My thought is so abused women can end it without fear of retribution for smearing their abusive spouse's name.

I always assumed it was meant to cover controversial issues indirectly.

Say a couple got married Christian, but then one converted.

The state can't exactly come in and say "if you change your religion then you can be sued" because that would violate the 1st amendment.

Of if a wife aborted a child and the husband was PL. The state can't come in and say "if you exorcize your right to medical privacy under RvW, then you can be sued."

Kind of like a legal junk box where all the things the state can't directly regulate can be dealt with.

I guess the best way to deal with easy divorce is to keep "irreconcilable differences" but mandate counseling, waiting periods, and similar.
 
Care to explain exactly how it's NOT a destructive act perpetrated by a willing individual?

Care to explain why you would compare a breakup with infidelity?

As far as I'm concerned infidelity (when the relationship was obviously understood to be manogamous) is an attack on the "cheated" spouse. There is no option there. With a "breakup" you merely go your separate ways for xx reason.

You can try to justify it all you want, but I don't think I will ever be able to look at a breakup and cheating as the same thing.
 
Care to explain why you would compare a breakup with infidelity?

As far as I'm concerned infidelity (when the relationship was obviously understood to be manogamous) is an attack on the "cheated" spouse. There is no option there. With a "breakup" you merely go your separate ways for xx reason.

You can try to justify it all you want, but I don't think I will ever be able to look at a breakup and cheating as the same thing.

You said something about emotional pain and that people should be punished for causing someone else emotional pain. I just wanted to see how consistent you were going to be in that wild idea. Obviously, not very. ;) (which is what I figured)

Then you made some qualifier about infidelity counting more in the grand scheme of emotional pain because it's a "destructive act perpetrated by a willing individual". But so is breaking up with someone. So, even your qualifier has a direct comparison.
 
Last edited:
And that doesn't require state involvement.

Yeah it does.

Custody, "community property"....

Or heteros who don't want children!!

Right.

Heteros who don't want children have no business getting married.

Or people who are unable to have them!!

The couple doesn't have to have their own natural children to "rais children". They could adopt.

Are you unaware of the data of 2 parent homes that don't have state sanctioned marriage contracts involved?

Oh it sounds like you have some data. Yummy. Please share.

Are you unable to comprehend that people can and DO have children together and raise children together all withOUT the government getting involved?

That's why the state steps in and declares "common-law marriage" on them.

*GASP* I know, it's a big shocker, eh?

No I expected the nipple piercing, but girl you need to shave that ****.

It's been going on for thousands of years, actually. And still going on today. :shock:

Yeah, syphilis is a bitch.

What else are you saying?

See, let's refresh your memory:

/console ReloadUI

Unless one is able and willing to have children, apparently one's relationship doesn't deserve respect. And it doesn't "rise to the level of marriage". And as such, one cannot be "cheated on".

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

So again... people that don't have children can't be hurt by cheating?

Well of course they can, I just don't care because without children we're talking about splitting property.

Because you twisted this whole conversation around to TEH CHILDREN when we were talking about CHEATING.

I'm pretty good at that :mrgreen:

More than one person in this thread has said that the emotional pain and suffering caused by cheating should be grounds for jailtime. When I and others queried as to other means with which people inflict the same, if not more emotional pain and suffering and why those things shouldn't have the same punishment, you suddenly went off about biological imperatives and children, and families, etc, etc. As if people who don't sign state contracts can't have families. As if people who don't sign state contracts can't incur pain and suffering.

Ahh ok, I see where we differ.

I don't base the crime on the emotional damage of the *adults* who are in control of their lives. I base the crime on the children because they are the innocent party, not in control of anything, who will be actually damaged.

You can cry it out for a few days and move on.

That child will be missing a home and at least one parent at any given time for years. This will have lasting damage.

Would you care to be just a little more concise in your answer and stop beating around the bush? All you have said thus far is that people who don't sign a piece of paper aren't worthy, or can't get hurt, or can't even get cheated on, and some nonsense about only people who sign papers can have 2 parent homes. Really, none of it makes any logical sense.

The people who actually mean it, make the commitment.

The people who don't make the commitment, are liars.
 
Yeah it does.
No, it doesn't.


Heteros who don't want children have no business getting married.
LMFAO


Oh it sounds like you have some data. Yummy. Please share.
They exist, and have for centuries.

That's why the state steps in and declares "common-law marriage" on them.
LOL

In a handful of states, sure:
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

And only if they adhere to the following conditions:
* live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
* intend to be married.

And not a damn thing about children.... weird. Not a damn thing about any contractual agreements either.

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.
Ah, well then. No point in talking to you further.


The people who actually mean it, make the commitment.

The people who don't make the commitment, are liars.
Commitment doesn't require a signature on a piece of paper.
 
Why should I have to be subject to a court with a matter of my personal life. I'd (hypothetically) already would have to go through a divorce which is stressful enough! But again there is nothing wrong with getting a divorce in my opinion and that is my religious belief.
 
No, it doesn't.

Yeah, it does.

If the relationship doesn't include anything which is shared, then it's not a real union.


ZOMGROTFLMAO :mrgreen:

They exist, and have for centuries.

That doesn't mean they should :2wave:


:lol:

In a handful of states, sure:
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

And only if they adhere to the following conditions:
* live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
* intend to be married.

And not a damn thing about children.... weird. Not a damn thing about any contractual agreements either.

Thank you for backing up my argument.

Did you want to make your own now?

Ah, well then. No point in talking to you further.

You love to hate me.

Commitment doesn't require a signature on a piece of paper.

If there is nothing shared, there is no union.

There is only you and him separately living in proximity. That's not a union.
 
Thank you for backing up my argument.

Did you want to make your own now?
The state doesn't just come in and declare people living together to be married, which is what you said. It does no such thing.

If there is nothing shared, there is no union.

There is only you and him separately living in proximity. That's not a union.
Everything is shared, what the heck are you talking about?
 
So when Joe is renting that motel room with the new hot girl Jenny from the office about to get some, I am sure he will stop and say "hmm.. I might go to jail for this...." because if he is not thinking about his wife as he enters in that room with her, I am sure the jail time will be the thing to keep him faithful. Then he can tell his wife he stayed faithful because he didn't want to go to jail over it. And she will hug and kiss him for being such a good boy and they will live happily ever after. Jenny on the other hand.....
 
So when Joe is renting that motel room with the new hot girl Jenny from the office about to get some, I am sure he will stop and say "hmm.. I might go to jail for this...." because if he is not thinking about his wife as he enters in that room with her, I am sure the jail time will be the thing to keep him faithful. Then he can tell his wife he stayed faithful because he didn't want to go to jail over it. And she will hug and kiss him for being such a good boy and they will live happily ever after. Jenny on the other hand.....

My wife would LOVE it if I came home and said, "You know honey, I was sorely tempted to give this broad at the bar a roman soldier and have her give me a hot Carl in return, but then I remembered that if I banged that bitch I could go to jail. I love you. Wanna take a **** on my forehead?"


She'd be all over that ****!
 
My wife would LOVE it if I came home and said, "You know honey, I was sorely tempted to give this broad at the bar a roman soldier and have her give me a hot Carl in return, but then I remembered that if I banged that bitch I could go to jail. I love you. Wanna take a **** on my forehead?"


She'd be all over that ****!

Totally. I mean, I know that would so totally make me hot to know that the only reason my partner didn't bang someone else was because he'd go to jail. I'd just be... ecstatic. Not hurt at all!

If it takes threat of jailtime to keep my partner faithful, then I don't need him around at all. Who the **** would want to be with someone who was only faithful because the police made them be? WTH kind of relationship is THAT? Oh I know! It's a fascist one. Yippie.
 
What does that even mean :confused:

I guess it means why the f#$k should I have to face penalties for commiting adultery? There is no really good reason, except to satisfy someone's jealousy. AND it seems like another instance of government forcing morals (that may not necessarily be my own) on me. You can't legislate morality, at least it hasn't ever really been that sucessful.
 
Not one of the jail adulterers crowd answered my question of what happens when both parents are caught cheating.
 
They're.... not.... listening.... to........ you......

:lol::lol::lol:

Their whole argument is emotional.

It was pretty rude of me to bring logic into this wasn't it? :lol:
 
Totally. I mean, I know that would so totally make me hot to know that the only reason my partner didn't bang someone else was because he'd go to jail. I'd just be... ecstatic. Not hurt at all!

If it takes threat of jailtime to keep my partner faithful, then I don't need him around at all. Who the **** would want to be with someone who was only faithful because the police made them be? WTH kind of relationship is THAT? Oh I know! It's a fascist one. Yippie.

How selfish.

The point wouldn't be to keep him from breaking the license with you.

The point would be to keep him from breaking the license with the state.

When the state sends someone to jail for braking the terms of their driver’s license, the state isn’t doing it just because you or some other random party was harmed. The state does it because the state was harmed.

Same idea here with a marriage license.
 
Not one of the jail adulterers crowd answered my question of what happens when both parents are caught cheating.

You asked a question?

My bad.

Idk, I'm open to the idea and would like to see an answer to that myself.

What happens when both parents are caught in any other jailable offence?
 
How selfish.

The point wouldn't be to keep him from breaking the license with you.

The point would be to keep him from breaking the license with the state.

When the state sends someone to jail for braking the terms of their driver’s license, the state isn’t doing it just because you or some other random party was harmed. The state does it because the state was harmed.

Same idea here with a marriage license.

I know I am coming into this late but a marriage license does not state anyplace if you have sex with someone else it breaches the contract. Now adultery is acceptable terms for divorce, but it is a civil matter, not criminal. This is how it should be.

Government should not be involved in marriage to begin with. So wanting someone to go to jail for adultery is just stupid as far as I am concerned.

PS Marriage is a right, driving is a privilege.
 
I know I am coming into this late but a marriage license does not state anyplace if you have sex with someone else it breaches the contract. Now adultery is acceptable terms for divorce, but it is a civil matter, not criminal. This is how it should be.

The license itself doesn't state that you have next-of-kin status either.

My diver's license, the license itself, doesn't say what side of the road I have to drive on either.

When you look at the regulation on the license, you see all the various rules thereof.

My point here is to direct you away from looking only to the actual license, and to open yourself up to the existing regulation of that license to get an accurate view.

Government should not be involved in marriage to begin with. So wanting someone to go to jail for adultery is just stupid as far as I am concerned.

That's a whole other thread all by itself.

PS Marriage is a right, driving is a privilege.

I didn't go there.

They are both licenses and that is why my analogy applies.

I didn't argue that they were both rights. If you want to use only licenses for things which are rights then I can bring in my CCW and make the same argument. If you really need me to waste a post doing so then please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom