• 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.
scourge99 said:
family members don't count Jim Bob. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Nice comeback...Yeah it was a little cheesy that I threw that in there...:)

Guess I should quit listening to "Bruce Springsteens- Glory Days" and buy a new album...:cool:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You cannot sue someone for jail time.

You can only sue for monitory damages.

The perpetrator can only receive jail time if they are found guilty of a criminal charge, which is a crime against The People.

Adultery is not a criminal offence; therefore an adulterous cannot receive jail time.

If adultery were a criminal offence, then the State would either charge her in conjunction with your civil suit or have to peruse charges independently if you chose not to file.
Click to expand...


This is all perfectly irrelevant to the question I had been asked, which related to the POLL in the beginning of the thread and at the top of every page of it.

Please stop trolling the thread.
 
Tucker Case said:
This is all perfectly irrelevant to the question I had been asked, which related to the POLL in the beginning of the thread and at the top of every page of it.

Please stop trolling the thread.
Click to expand...

Johnny (Jerry) Cochrane: Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself; What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

:mrgreen:
 
Adulterers should be imprisoned and then fined for the rest of their lives if the family desires it...
 
scourge99 said:
Johnny (Jerry) Cochrane: Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself; What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

If you can't dazzle them with some knowledge...baffle them with some bullsh**...
 
Tucker Case said:
This is all perfectly irrelevant to the question I had been asked, which related to the POLL in the beginning of the thread and at the top of every page of it.

Please stop trolling the thread.
Click to expand...

Then I didn't understand your answer.

If adultery were a criminal offence and you were a DA, generally speaking would you file?

Why or why not?
 
Jerry said:
Then I didn't understand your answer.

If adultery ere a criminal offence and you were a DA, generally speaking would you file?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Well, if the adultery was committed against me (which was a major premise of the question) and it was a criminal offense to commit adultery, me filing the charges as DA would be a breech of professional etiquette and therefore immoral.

I would need to recuse myself from the case entirely.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Then I didn't understand your answer.

If adultery were a criminal offence and you were a DA, generally speaking would you file?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No, I think he's asking what he asked the first 6 or so times. Honestly not sure why the **** you're dancing around the question.

If adultery were a criminal offense, would you press charges against your wife knowing a guilty verdict would have jail time involved?
 
rivrrat said:
No, I think he's asking what he asked the first 6 or so times. Honestly not sure why the **** you're dancing around the question.

If adultery were a criminal offense, would you press charges against your wife knowing a guilty verdict would have jail time involved?
Click to expand...

Actually, rivrrat, the question in question was posed to me by Maximus Zeebra.
 
creativedreams said:
Even if there is no adultery I think there should be a hefty divorse tax to help compensate for society damage

and to make people take marriage more seriously and not just jump in it with the attitude "I can just upgrade later"

or simply exchange their spouse for a new one every five years.

(I am stating this even though I was lucky enough to be one of the most popular in my school, and am lucky enough to be attractive to many woman)
Click to expand...

What if you're not married but you break someone's heart anyway? What about all those people? Aren't they able to get some silly revenge by way of jailing the person who hurt them? Why do you care only about the pain of people who signed a marriage license? Is everyone else irrelevant? Is the pain decreased because there's no signature on a piece of paper? Are the children any less hurt?
 
rivrrat said:
No, I think he's asking what he asked the first 6 or so times. Honestly not sure why the **** you're dancing around the question.

If adultery were a criminal offense, would you press charges against your wife knowing a guilty verdict would have jail time involved?
Click to expand...

My first post on this thread answers the question dyrectly, though :confused:
 
rivrrat said:
What if you're not married but you break someone's heart anyway? What about all those people? Aren't they able to get some silly revenge by way of jailing the person who hurt them? Why do you care only about the pain of people who signed a marriage license? Is everyone else irrelevant? Is the pain decreased because there's no signature on a piece of paper? Are the children any less hurt?
Click to expand...

Once you and your significant other feel like you two should bond (marry) and bear children then this is where the line starts...

Having children should be looked at as a privilage to those who are willing to commit and marry

Children out of wedlock should be another issue logically addressed.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If nothing else, the sources I gave from Matthew seal it up.
Click to expand...

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

According to Jesus in this passage, a man commits adultery when he lusts after a woman just by looking at her. Jesus further teaches that men should not do this.
Click to expand...
SO this passage:
a)only applies to married men looking at unmarried woman
b) unmarried men looking at unmarried woman
c) married men looking at other married woman
d) all of the above
e) just the ones to make your argument?

:lol: It says none of the above.

Jesus is telling the people that desire can be bad. This is NOT a passage about creating law forbidding adultery as adultery is already presumed wrong. Matthew 5:28 (King James Version) :: Forerunner Commentary :: Bible Tools

Thus, the question remains, HOW WAS ADULTERY DEFINED?

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Click to expand...
this is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
SO this passage only applies to married men looking at unmarried woman, unmarried men looking at unmarried woman, married men looking at other married woman, all of the above or just the ones to make your argument?:lol: It says none of the above. Jesus is telling the people that bad thoughts are just as bad as the action itself. This is NOT a passage about creating law forbidding adultery as adultery is already presumed wrong.

Thus, the question remains, HOW WAS ADULTERY DEFINED?

this is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

My wife has a sense of humor.

If a hottie is nearby, she'll often nudge me and say "here's one for you".

I always hoped it was a bi-curious side of her coming out, but I think it's just her way of being cool.

Anyway, if I look - is that adultery? Is she committing adultery vicariously through me by doing so, and would she be prosecuted?

This topic is so laughable on so many different levels.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Anyway, if I look - is that adultery? Is she committing adultery vicariously through me by doing so, and would she be prosecuted?
Click to expand...
The point of the passage isn't about discussing the morality of adultery. Adultery is already known to be immoral.

For example, if I use marbles to show you how to do simple arithmetic then our discussion isn't about marbles even though marbles are involved, likewise, Jesus' use of the adultery isn't a discussion about adultery. There is a deeper meaning.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
The point of the passage isn't about discussing the morality of adultery. Adultery is already known to be immoral.

For example, if I use marbles to show you how to do simple arithmetic then our discussion isn't about marbles even though marbles are involved, likewise, Jesus' use of the adultery isn't a discussion about adultery. There is a deeper meaning.
Click to expand...

Then why criminalize it? On what basis?

It's all about morality. Take morality out of the argument and it becomes a clear definition of breech of contract.

I marry my wife with an agreement that neither of us boink anybody else. I boink the bartender and breech the contract.

The original suggestion is that adultery wrecks marriages, families - ie: immoral.

Clue me in if I'm missing something.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Then why criminalize it? On what basis?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't think it should be. I'm trying to figure out why other people want it so badly beyond their petty emotional appeals and overbearing sense of morality.


Captain Obvious said:
I marry my wife with an agreement that neither of us boink anybody else. I boink the bartender and breech the contract.
Click to expand...
I don't believe all marriage contracts have that clause. Infidelity clauses are in some.
 
creativedreams said:
Once you and your significant other feel like you two should bond (marry) and bear children then this is where the line starts...
Click to expand...
No... bonding doesn't require marriage, and marriage doesn't require bonding.

Having children should be looked at as a privilage to those who are willing to commit and marry
Click to expand...
Commitment doesn't require marriage, and marriage doesn't require commitment.

Children out of wedlock should be another issue logically addressed.
Click to expand...
So, in your opinion, people should sign a legal and otherwise meaningless piece of paper before having children? And likewise, signing that piece of paper is all about having children?


So, all in all, you only concern yourself with the pain caused to others if they happen to have children? Anyone else's pain is irrelevant? Because I was talking about love and commitment, not children. You suddenly brought children into the mix as if they are required for love and commitment, and thus required in order for someone to be harmed enough by cheating as to result in jail time.

So, only people who have signed a piece of paper and have children are worthy of being recognized for their pain and suffering?
 
rivrrat said:
So, in your opinion, people should sign a legal and otherwise meaningless piece of paper before having children? And likewise, signing that piece of paper is all about having children?
Click to expand...

Yes...I think that having children should be looked at as a privilage just like driving a car is a privilage.

To be able to have children without consequences you must first meet your significant other

then go through classes sort of like drivers training and both must pass requirements to obtain a marriage license

then be elegible to the privilage to bear children...

After all this must take proper steps for a divorce and pay divorce tax before having any type of adultery relationship or have legal consequences
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom