• 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.
Harshaw said:
We already do -- as I said, breach of the marital vows is grounds for divorce. And there are countries which do impose legal penalties.

I'm not advocating anything here, just providing the legal framework upon which it could be done.
Click to expand...

GOVCO already has the legal framework. Just use the helmet law theory. "Stepping Out" could produce illegitimate children and/or leave current children unsupported. That is a draw on the system so it should illegal.:roll:
 
talloulou said:
Many couples survive affairs and live on to have happy marriages.
Click to expand...

What about the ones that don't?

What about the ones that just keep on cheating and never get caught?

I belive this country should take some serious steps to instill better family values and help make marriages a more sacred relationship again...instead of having spouses on the same level as trading in for a new car every 2-5 yrs...
 
RiverDad said:
That's why we empower judges with discretion. The plaintiff makes a case about damages and asks for remedy. The defense counters and makes their case. A judge decides.
Click to expand...

We empower judges to enforce the terms of contracts. If the contract doesn't lay out damages, the judge isn't going to do ****. Furthermore, judges do not enforce contracts that are contrary to public policy, which this one most assuredly is.
 
Tucker Case said:
Nope. For better for worse, in sickness and in health, 'Till death do us part means severe punishment if one party shows any weakness. Instead of addressing the reasons why people stray, we should jail them!

Morally bankrupt I tells ya!
Click to expand...

about as simpleton as it gets
 
Imagine half of the country guarding the other half in jail.

What a stupid proposition.
 
RiverDad said:
A verbal contract is as legally binding as a written contract. The reason that verbal contracts face more challenge in court is because there is little, or no, evidence of them being executed. However, if both parties to a verbal contract went to court and both admitted to the existence of a verbal agreement and the terms of the agreement but one party disputed the contractual nature of the verbal agreement because it wasn't codified in written form, then that party would lose their argument as the judge found the verbal contract did exist and that its terms enforceable.

Most wedding vows don't make a habit of noting that sexual fidelity is off the table and that the partners can screw around as they please.
Click to expand...

Doing some research on wedding vows, I find some that mention "faithful" but none that specifically mention sexual fidelity.

Isn't it likely that such an interpretation of "faithful" using webter's:


Main Entry:
1faith·ful Listen to the pronunciation of 1faithful
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth-fəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century

1obsolete : full of faith
2: steadfast in affection or allegiance : loyal
3: firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : conscientious
4: given with strong assurance : binding <a faithful promise>
5: true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original <a faithful copy>
Click to expand...

None of these definitions are necessarily violated by a game of hide the sausage. How can we prosecute when the vast majority of vows I've found do NOT mention sexual fidelity? Perhaps it is implied, but in contract law, one must expressly state things to prevent misinterpretations quite often.
 
rivrrat said:
Don't need that to get divorced. Just gotta say you want to get divorced.
Click to expand...

That's fine if both parties want it. If only one wants a divorce they are (in general) required to wait a year prior to divorce proceedings starting. In the case of an adultery, one party can file and receive an almost immediate divorce. This being the case the government is essentially establishing marriage as a 1 year daily renewing contract. Barring special circumstances a couple may divorce after 1 year of separation. In light of special circumstances (insanity, Adultery, abandonment) the contract may be dissolved in less than a year.

DivorceNet - North Carolina Grounds for Divorce
 
creativedreams said:
What about the ones that don't?

What about the ones that just keep on cheating and never get caught?

I belive this country should take some serious steps to instill better family values and help make marriages a more sacred relationship again...instead of having spouses on the same level as trading in for a new car every 2-5 yrs...
Click to expand...

I personally think folks should work harder at making marriages work. I've been married 12 years now. Marriages go in phases, ups and downs, etc. Often marriages can be put back together after infidelity depending on the circumstances. Encouraging people to divorce and even further encouraging imprisonment for infidelity is NOT going to help families stay together.

As far as the person who never gets caught that says as much about the cheater as the one being cheated on in my opinion. If your spouse can cheat for long durations of time without ever getting caught then there are many issues in the marriage on top of the stepping out.
 
We opened pandora box on this a long time ago.We took Equal rights as far as biology could take us.Turns out women are miserable when they arent dominated and many men are made unhappy by their freedom.

People would bve much happier if they imbraced the animals within.
 
RightinNYC said:
We empower judges to enforce the terms of contracts. If the contract doesn't lay out damages, the judge isn't going to do ****. Furthermore, judges do not enforce contracts that are contrary to public policy, which this one most assuredly is.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not very confident on this point, but my understanding is that judges quite often hold hearings to determine damages that result from violation of contract. Why would they do this if they are bound to restrict the damage award to what is specified in the contract?

As for this being contrary to public policy, that a moot point in that this whole question is predicated upon the adoption of this measure being viewed by the public as something that does further the public interest.
 
Phoenix said:
That's fine if both parties want it. If only one wants a divorce they are (in general) required to wait a year prior to divorce proceedings starting. In the case of an adultery, one party can file and receive an almost immediate divorce. This being the case the government is essentially establishing marriage as a 1 year daily renewing contract. Barring special circumstances a couple may divorce after 1 year of separation. In light of special circumstances (insanity, Adultery, abandonment) the contract may be dissolved in less than a year.

DivorceNet - North Carolina Grounds for Divorce
Click to expand...

No, both parties don't have to want a divorce in order for a divorce to happen. There may be "waiting periods" in certain states, sure. All states have different laws regarding the matter. But really, it's just a stupid legal thing. If I want out of a marriage, I'm just going to ****ing walk out the door. I'd like to see some state law stop me. I may still be technically legally married, but WTF difference does that make in the grand scheme of things when I move the **** out? Nothing. It's the relationship I want out of. The legal documentation is just a formality.

But, what you cited merely says that in NC a couple must separate for a year, and then they can be granted a divorce - IF one party (for some absolutely insane reason) doesn't agree to the divorce. Which means that what I said previously is quite accurate.
 
Tucker Case said:
Let's just round everyone up who thinks differently and put them in camps. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I agree! Then we can tell them what to think, and value. Would be easier for them not to have to think for themselves, right?
 
rivrrat said:
Yeah... ain't freedom a bitch? Societal evolution just blows too.
Click to expand...

Freedoms great... but the way things are heading...having children is going to be more of a business contract...oh that's right it pretty much already is for the vast millions paying childsupport!
 
rivrrat said:
No, all that's required by the state is a piece of paper signed by the husband, wife, witnesses, and the person officiating.
Click to expand...

Witnesses to what? Officiating what?


No ceremony need be performed.
Click to expand...

On this, for the most part, you would be wrong. There might be a required form, but there's a requirement for a ceremony. See my questions immediately above.

No vows are EVER necessary.
Click to expand...

I never said they were -- but in most ceremonies, including civil ones, they're usually done.

Don't need that to get divorced. Just gotta say you want to get divorced.
Click to expand...

And we go around in a circle.
 
I can't believe that our country has the most people imprisoned per capita and we are looking for ways to jail more. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom