• 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.
Jerry said:
When grounds for divorce are present, the obligations of the marriage contract no longer exist.
Click to expand...

They exist until divorce. You can remain married in spite of those conditions. People can change their behavior.
 
Tucker Case said:
Granted, this is becoming a semantics debate more than anything else so it would probably be best for me to simply abandon it. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm answering your question in post 566.

No, the state would not outlaw all divorces because divorce is not a breach of the license.

As I sourced, the state has a specific list of things which breach the license, and "divorce" is not on that list.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
They exist until divorce. You can remain married in spite of those conditions. People can change their behavior.
Click to expand...

The specific obligation in question is "until death", which Tucker notes the absence of "until divorce" in his argument.

The requirement "until death" stops existing for the other person when their spouse breaches the license.
 
Jerry said:
WTF are YOU talking about with 'wtf am I talking about'?

I'm talking about what you're talking about, so if you don't know what I'm talking about then you don't know what you're talking about :lol:

...so I guess idk wtf ur talkin about anymore :2wave:
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about marriage, but then you went on some tangent about jobs and interviews. Soooo.... huh?
 
Jerry said:
The specific obligation in question is "until death", which Tucker notes the absence of "until divorce" in his argument.

The requirement "until death" stops existing for the other person when their spouse breaches the license.
Click to expand...

Are you using breach to mean divorce? People can remain married until death even in the face of those conditions.
 
rivrrat said:
I thought we were talking about marriage, but then you went on some tangent about jobs and interviews. Soooo.... huh?
Click to expand...

The purpose of dating is to find someone to marry.

You = interviewer

Your BF = the applicant

Until there's an actual, substantive agreement, there is no reason at all why he can't date other women to see if they're a match; nor is there any reason at all why you can't date other men to see if they're a match.

Sure, the 2 of you can say you want to be exclusive, but you can also agree on what movie to see and in neither case would there an actual substative contract to that effect.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
Are you using breach to mean divorce? People can remain married until death even in the face of those conditions.
Click to expand...

I've been using "divorce" to mean "divorce".

I've been using "breach" to mean:
South Dakota Codified Laws
25-4-2. Grounds for divorce. Divorces may be granted for any of the following causes:
(1) Adultery;
(2) Extreme cruelty;
(3) Willful desertion;
(4) Willful neglect;
(5) Habitual intemperance;
(6) Conviction of felony;
(7) Irreconcilable differences.
Click to expand...

Divorce is not a breach. Divorce is what can happen after a breach has occured.
 
Jerry said:
The purpose of dating is to find someone to marry.
Click to expand...
Umm...no, it's not.

You = interviewer

Your BF = the applicant
Click to expand...
No, if he's my BF, he's no longer an "applicant". Otherwise, he wouldn't be my BF.

Until there's an actual, substantive agreement, there is no reason at all why he can't date other women to see if they're a match; nor is there any reason at all why you can't date other men to see if they're a match.
Click to expand...
Uhh.. yeah, there is a reason we can't do that if we agree that's not within the boundaries of our relationship. If we're seeing other people, then he's not my BF, and I'm not his GF.

Sure, the 2 of you can say you want to be exclusive, but you can also agree on what movie to see and in neither case would there an actual substative contract to that effect.
Click to expand...
There is a verbal agreement, and that is all that is necessary. What is substantive is our WORD to one another, our commitment. I dunno about you, but I don't need a government instituted contract in order to keep my word to someone or be committed to them. And I sure as **** don't need one in order to expect someone else to keep their word to me.

What you're basically saying is that it's impossible to lie to someone unless you have a government instituted contract with them. Which is just... well... stupid, to put it simply.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Umm...no, it's not.


No, if he's my BF, he's no longer an "applicant". Otherwise, he wouldn't be my BF.


Uhh.. yeah, there is a reason we can't do that if we agree that's not within the boundaries of our relationship. If we're seeing other people, then he's not my BF, and I'm not his GF.


There is a verbal agreement, and that is all that is necessary. What is substantive is our WORD to one another, our commitment. I dunno about you, but I don't need a government instituted contract in order to keep my word to someone or be committed to them. And I sure as **** don't need one in order to expect someone else to keep their word to me.

What you're basically saying is that it's impossible to lie to someone unless you have a government instituted contract with them. Which is just... well... stupid, to put it simply.
Click to expand...

That's like interviewing for a job just so that you can have people interviewing for the job.

Quite narcissistic, imo.

The whole evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to find a mate to produce a family with.

If that's not your intent then your relationship doesn't rise to any level disserving respect. You're just playing around, which is fine if that's all you want to do, but it is in no way even remotely as elevated as marriage.
 
Jerry said:
That's like interviewing for a job just so that you can have people interviewing for the job.

Quite narcissistic, imo.

The whole evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to find a mate to produce a family with.

If that's not your intent then your relationship doesn't rise to any level disserving respect. You're just playing around, which is fine if that's all you want to do, but it is in no way even remotely as elevated as marriage.
Click to expand...

In it's basic terms, it's to continue the species. The concept of one-mate species is another issue and marriage which is only found in our species is an even further issue.

Make no mistake - our design like all other animals is to mate to reproduce.
 
Captain Obvious said:
In it's basic terms, it's to continue the species. The concept of one-mate species is another issue and marriage which is only found in our species is an even further issue.

Make no mistake - our design like all other animals is to mate to reproduce.
Click to expand...

See there I go assuming everyone is paying attention to context again :doh Silly me :lol:

Unless and until the state issues marriage licenses and divorce decrees to species other than human, I am only taking about humans. Therefore, I am speaking of the entire umbrella of human sexuality, which tends to best exist within structured marriages.

Various types of marriages exist, sure, but that has no bearing on "BF/GF brake up = divorce".
 
Jerry said:
See there I go assuming everyone is paying attention to context again :doh Silly me :lol:

Unless and until the state issues marriage licenses and divorce decrees to species other than human, I am only taking about humans. Therefore, I am speaking of the entire umbrella of human sexuality, which tends to best exist within structured marriages.

Various types of marriages exist, sure, but that has no bearing on "BF/GF brake up = divorce".
Click to expand...

Well, first - there are 60+ pages of stuff here. Pardon me if I only went back a few posts to jump into the conversation.

Second, you're painting a broad brush over our sexual tendencies by suggesting our evolutionary purpose is to find a mate (ie: to get married). IMO, it's still to reproduce just like we have a fight-or-flight reaction when something really bad is confronting us.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Well, first - there are 60+ pages of stuff here. Pardon me if I only went back a few posts to jump into the conversation.
Click to expand...

All you had to do was read the thread title to get the context, but w/e :2wave:

Captain Obvious said:
Second, you're painting a broad brush over our sexual tendencies by suggesting our evolutionary purpose is to find a mate (ie: to get married). IMO, it's still to reproduce just like we have a fight-or-flight reaction when something really bad is confronting us.
Click to expand...

You just agreed with me after disagreeing with me :lol:
 
Jerry said:
All you had to do was read the thread title to get the context, but w/e :2wave:



You just agreed with me after disagreeing with me :lol:
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I did. I also noticed that the discussion (as do most forum discussions) deviated a bit from the topic, or evolved which would be a better description.

As for "agreeing" with you, let me refresh your memory since you posted this maybe a half hour ago:

The whole evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to find a mate to produce a family with.
Click to expand...

Now that your memory is fully refreshed, allow me to once again disagree with you by suggesting that our evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to continue the species. In it's basic terms, of course. Not to find a "mate", not to produce a "family" per se, but to continue the species.
 
Jerry said:
The purpose of dating is to find someone to marry.

You = interviewer

Your BF = the applicant

Until there's an actual, substantive agreement, there is no reason at all why he can't date other women to see if they're a match; nor is there any reason at all why you can't date other men to see if they're a match.

Sure, the 2 of you can say you want to be exclusive, but you can also agree on what movie to see and in neither case would there an actual substative contract to that effect.
Click to expand...

Well then you are wrong. The "until death" doesn't automatically stop. People stick it out after your "breaches" often times.
 
Jerry said:
That's like interviewing for a job just so that you can have people interviewing for the job.

Quite narcissistic, imo.
Click to expand...
Again, WTF are you talking about? There is no "job".

The whole evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to find a mate to produce a family with.
Click to expand...
No, it's to reproduce. Don't need a state sanctioned contract to do that. Or are you unable to understand that simple fact?


If that's not your intent then your relationship doesn't rise to any level disserving respect. You're just playing around, which is fine if that's all you want to do, but it is in no way even remotely as elevated as marriage.
Click to expand...
Ah, so unless I am able to have children - or even WANT to - my relationships are irrelevant. I see. How's the view up there on that self-righteous high horse?

So now only people with children can be married and are able to be injured by cheating?
 
Captain Obvious said:
Absolutely, and I did. I also noticed that the discussion (as do most forum discussions) deviated a bit from the topic, or evolved which would be a better description.

As for "agreeing" with you, let me refresh your memory since you posted this maybe a half hour ago:

Now that your memory is fully refreshed, allow me to once again disagree with you by suggesting that our evolutionary purpose of sexuality is to continue the species. In it's basic terms, of course. Not to find a "mate", not to produce a "family" per se, but to continue the species.
Click to expand...

Creating a family is how we continue the species :2wave:

I'm not sure where you think you disagree.
 
Jerry said:
Creating a family is how we continue the species :2wave:

I'm not sure where you think you disagree.
Click to expand...

Creating a baby is how we continue the species.

A "family" is another social matter.
 
Jerry said:
Right, they have the *option*, not the obligation.
Click to expand...

They always have the option. Irreconcilable differences could mean anything at anytime.
 
rivrrat said:
Again, WTF are you talking about? There is no "job".
Click to expand...

Being your mate is the job.

rivrrat said:
No, it's to reproduce.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, calm down the anti-gay hate speech. Sexuality is only to reproduce? Well wtf are homosexuals doing then?

rivrrat said:
Don't need a state sanctioned contract to do that.
Click to expand...

To do it successfully, yes, you do; or are you unaware of the data on single parent homes -vs- 2 parent homes?

rivrrat said:
Ah, so unless I am able to have children - or even WANT to - my relationships are irrelevant. I see.
Click to expand...

Right.

rivrrat said:
How's the view up there on that self-righteous high horse?
Click to expand...

I can see down your shirt :mrgreen:


rivrrat said:
So now only people with children can be married and are able to be injured by cheating?
Click to expand...

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

No children = no interest.
 
You can have a two parent home without being married.

Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed are an example of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom