• 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 are saying that cheating caused murder. As if the murderer didn't have a choice in the matter. The responsibility lies with the murderer, not the cheater.

Do you then believe that people are able to make consistant rational decisions in a damaged state?

Not advocating murdering someone over cheating, but I don't know that I would be able to fully hold someone accountable for an act of outrage over... well... an outrageous act?
 
Thanks. I see the need in the military for this. I don't think that translates to civilian life very well though.

It's an organizational thing. The military is an organization seperated from the rest. So is At&T or Dodge or Time Warner Cable. If a Marine's job performance is hindered within the Platoon because there's this big ugly monster in the room, then certainly the job performance of civilians can be hindered in the same manner. A co-worker, who has had an affair with your wife, would certainly be cast out by some, leading to an inability to work together or achieve goals easily.

I don't know about it being a "law," but it is certainly an organizational concern.
 
Last edited:
You said it was beyond your comprehension. This means you haven't used logic to arrive at your stance. That only leaves emotion.

It may be emotion.

I suppose (after giving a bit more thought) I don't see cheating as an act that should be rewarded.

I only hold this position in the occurance of a married party cheating. A boyfriend or a girlfriend is not under contract.
 
Do you then believe that people are able to make consistant rational decisions in a damaged state?

Not advocating murdering someone over cheating, but I don't know that I would be able to fully hold someone accountable for an act of outrage over... well... an outrageous act?

People murder over losing their job. The fact is, these people weren't stable to begin with. Any number of things could have sent them over the edge.
 
It may be emotion.

I suppose (after giving a bit more thought) I don't see cheating as an act that should be rewarded.

I only hold this position in the occurance of a married party cheating. A boyfriend or a girlfriend is not under contract.

And this is dealt with through divorce.
 
Murder, psychosis, should I go on? The reaction to adultery is often times quite detrimental to one or more parties involved.
I think you've seen too many movies.

Many, many people in this country are cheated upon and do not kill their significant other or go insane. Yea, it sucks and it hurts mentally for most but so do a lot of things in life. Being picked on, or called names, and all other things that are mentally damaging have similiar results.

On a side not: being cheated on when in a marriage is no different than being cheated on outside of marriage. The pain and hurt caused by such an experience isn't unique to marriage. Nothing magical occurs just because you sign a piece of paper and have a ceremony. Though, granted it is probably easier to argue that a marriage implies monogamy where a relationship does not in a court.
Nonetheless this tangent begs the question: if you argue that adultery should be. Criminal because of the mental anguish it causes then you must also agree that all deceitful acts that cause mental anguish should also be criminal. That is, it is a non-sequitur why adultery is so narrowly targeted.

'tis why I think it should be in the contract. At the moment it is not specifically noted.
Not noted? Its actually not there at all. Though some states do take infidelity into consideration if monetary or custody disagreements go to court.
 
It's an organizational thing. The military is an organization seperated from the rest. So is At&T or Dodge or Time Warner Cable. If a Marine's job performance is hindered within the Platoon because there's this big ugly monster in the room, then certainly the job performance of civilians can be hindered in the same manner. A co-worker, who has had an affair with your wife, would certainly be cast out by some, leading to an inability to work together or achieve goals easily.

I don't know about it being a "law," but it is certainly an organizational concern.

I understand. I would mark the difference is that in the military you put your life in others' hands. That's why I see the need for punishment. Of course, I see that they aren't jailing anyone for it. They handle it reasonably.

Many companies do have fraternization policies.
 
In the absence of marriage, there is no assumption of monogamy.

It is imposable to cheat on a boy/girl friend.

***
In light of some recent arguments, I’m re-thinking my position. The state is a signing party in the marriage, so if another party breaches the license, doesn’t the state suffer damage? If so, that’s a ‘criminal offence’. It would be easy to add up the costs in government assistances and juvenile crime and call these damages to the state.

In offering jail time as deterrence, the state does have a compelling interest in that marriage for the upbringing of children…..hmmm….

Wouldn't that in effect outlaw all divorces since they are all breaches of said license?
 
.

Not noted? Its actually not there at all. Though some states do take infidelity into consideration if monetary or custody disagreements go to court.

Wouldnt that be the same thing? It is not noted... as in it is not there... blah. nevermind.

Like I said, I believe it should be a part of a manogamous contract. Which marriage at the moment is.
 
Wouldnt that be the same thing? It is not noted... as in it is not there... blah. nevermind.

Like I said, I believe it should be a part of a manogamous contract. Which marriage at the moment is.
For most it is an implicit assumption. Good luck arguing that in court though if even the slightest hint of evidence suggests otherwise.
 
Wouldn't that in effect outlaw all divorces since they are all breaches of said license?

As well as engagements. The ring is a conditional gift as part of a promise to get married. If the engagement is broken, the man is entitled to the ring back.
 
Wouldnt that be the same thing? It is not noted... as in it is not there... blah. nevermind.

Like I said, I believe it should be a part of a manogamous contract. Which marriage at the moment is.

Where did you get the idea that marriage is a monogamous contract? People have open relationships. People who are unable to perform sexually may allow their spouse to seek sex elsewhere as well.
 
Wouldn't what outlaw all divorces?

This part:

The state is a signing party in the marriage, so if another party breaches the license, doesn’t the state suffer damage? If so, that’s a ‘criminal offence’.

All divorces are a breach of the marriage license. If the state has a compelling interest in that marriage, and any breaches of that license damage the sate and should be treated as criminal offenses, then divorces, by their very nature of being an end of the license, would always act against the compelling interests of the state.

For example, if two parties have children together, and the compelling interest of the state with regards to that marriage is the upbringing of children, then allowing the two parties to divorce would be in direct contradiction to the state's interests.

The basic premise being given is that anything that acts in opposition to the state's interests, damages the state, and should be seen as a criminal offense.

Therefore, all divorces, which can only exist in opposition to the state's interests, and therefore DAMAGE the state, should be viewed as criminal offenses.

There is plenty of evidence, often cited in defense of marriage, that shows raising a child in a broken home can be quite damaging to the child.

The belief that the state has a compelling interest in marriage coupled with a desire to outlaw adultery can only mean that the state has a vested interest in keeping marriages intact. Therefore, divorce itself should be a criminal offence, by the logic described.

In essence it is: "In offering jail time as deterrence, the state does have a compelling interest in that marriage for the upbringing of children…..hmmm…."

Except I've applied this same logic to divorce in general, instead of a single factor of divorces, for the sake of consistency in defending the state's interests in marriage.



It's a simple fact: The only way the State could possibly be damaged by adultery is if the adultery leads to a divorce since the state's interest in the marriage hinges entirely n the upbringing of children. For example: My wife banging the neighbor without me being aware of it cannot possibly, in and of itself, harm the state. Damage can only occur if it hinders the state's interests: i.e. the upbringing of children.

If the state's interests in the upbringing of children is strong enough, I might even be COMPELLED to remain in a marriage even after the infidelity in order to assure the environment that the state desires: i.e. my interest in dissolving the marriage is outweighed by the State's interests in not dissolving the marriage. Not only that, but I may even be compelled to "pretend it didn't happen" for the sake of the children.
 
I suppose I consider it different for reasons beyond my comprehension.

To me, cheating is more than just a lie. It's a destructive act perpetrated by a willing individual.
And dumping someone isn't?
 
In the absence of marriage, there is no assumption of monogamy.

It is imposable to cheat on a boy/girl friend.
Incorrect. There is a verbal agreement and assumption of monogamy if the participants dictate that in their relationship. Just like any relationship, including marriage. There is only an assumption of monogamy in a marriage if the participants MAKE that assumption and/or verbalize it. It is no different in a relationship that doesn't include a signed paper. The ONLY difference is in one relationship the state is involved, and in another... the state isn't involved. The relationships are identical in the sense that they are what the participants wish them to be.

So you are very much incorrect that one cannot be cheated on unless one has the government involved in their relationship.

In light of some recent arguments, I’m re-thinking my position. The state is a signing party in the marriage, so if another party breaches the license, doesn’t the state suffer damage? If so, that’s a ‘criminal offence’. It would be easy to add up the costs in government assistances and juvenile crime and call these damages to the state.

In offering jail time as deterrence, the state does have a compelling interest in that marriage for the upbringing of children…..hmmm….
I'm all for it. It would virtually eliminate state-run marriages altogether and that's a great thing.
 
Last edited:
All divorces are a breach of the marriage license.

Wrong.

Divorce itself is not a violation of the license. Divorce is a lawsuit seeking to recover damages when the license has been breached.

Kindly redress your post accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

Divorce itself is not a violation of the license. Divorce is a lawsuit seeking to recover damages when the license has been breached.

Kindly redress your post accordingly.

Ever heard of no-fault divorce?

Dissolution of marriage?

Anullment?
 
There is a verbal agreement and assumption of monogamy if the participants dictate that in their relationship.

You are assuming that the person you are interviewing for the job is under an obligation not to have resumes in at other locations and to apply with you exclusively until rejected or the application withdrawn.

Just as you are free to interview more than one person for the job, so are they free to apply at more than one place.
 
Divorce itself is not a violation of the license. Divorce is a lawsuit seeking to recover damages when the license has been breached.

A divorce is the legal termination of a marriage, not a lawsuit.


Marriage is a lifelong obligation to REMAIN TOGETHER as one. Adultery does not change that obligation. It only only excuses one's failure to live up to the obligation.


If you have some sort of evidence that divorce is a lawsuit, and not a legal termination of the obligations inherent in marriage, I'm all for seeing such evidence. If you provide credible evidence, then and only then will I change my post.

Failure to provide evidence will be construed as a concession to the point.
 
A divorce is the legal termination of a marriage, not a lawsuit.

My own divorce papers beg to differ.

"Divorce" is the name of a specific type of a civil lawsuit to terminate the marriage where I had to claim a damage and seek remedy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom