Should adultery (specifically, someone that is married having sex with someone they're not married to) be illegal? I don't think it should be, but I asked one of my friends and he said he wouldn't be opposed to it being illegal, although he didn't know what the punishment should be. What are your thoughts?

If it was illegal, jail time or a felony conviction would deter people. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be a deterrent if it was consistently enforced and publicized.

It is illegal in the US military.

When it comes to sexual sin, there is really no stopping people. Best you can do is limit access in situations like porn or make it socially damaging in a case like adultery. Nothing about the act merits jailing someone when they still have a duty to their family as a care giver or provider.

Also, the goal should be for that couple to stay together, but even if they divorce there needs to be healing for the sake of both parties and any kids. Hard to do that when one person is behind bars

What we think should he law is related to what we think government's role should be. Laws against speeding or murder are justified when we agree that government's role includes keeping us safe. Or at least to keep citizens from physically harming one another. These actions can be justified by arguing that they remove freedom from someone else. Me murdering someone infringes in that person's freedoms.

Laws against adultery and premarital sex and pornography aren't supported by the same justification. My consensual sexual sin does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms or cause anyone physical harm. To justify laws agains 'sexual sins' requires some other justification and an expanded definition of what government's role should be. It requires we give power to the government to enforce against sin.

To justify laws against sexual sins also requires that you justify imposing this beliefs on those that don't share the same beliefs. These laws would limit my freedom. Right?

Adultery can cause severe mental harm. We have laws against that on the books right now. Harassment, stalking, noise complaints, public indecency, etc.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I am generally against the criminalization of private acts between consenting adults. I'm also generally against the propensity of some Christians to make every single moral issue into a matter of criminal law. So I'm against any laws that would criminalize adultery for several reason.

However, I'd wouldn't have a problem with something against adultery in the civil code. For instance, I'd support a law that allowed wronged parties to have in increased share of assets in a divorce at the expense of the adulterer.

---

Agree

kurt vonnegut said:

---

What we think should he law is related to what we think government's role should be. Laws against speeding or murder are justified when we agree that government's role includes keeping us safe. Or at least to keep citizens from physically harming one another. These actions can be justified by arguing that they remove freedom from someone else. Me murdering someone infringes in that person's freedoms.

Laws against adultery and premarital sex and pornography aren't supported by the same justification. My consensual sexual sin does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms or cause anyone physical harm. To justify laws agains 'sexual sins' requires some other justification and an expanded definition of what government's role should be. It requires we give power to the government to enforce against sin.

To justify laws against sexual sins also requires that you justify imposing this beliefs on those that don't share the same beliefs. These laws would limit my freedom. Right?

---

There are competing notions of freedom. You take a negative view of freedom without exception. So we ought to be able to do anything that is not a restraint on the ability of someone else to do anything. Without some foundation of basic moral convictions or absolutes, you just end up with moral relativism at the end of the day. Relativism becomes the moral absolute. I think about the govt's role in terms of rights and obligations. As in preventing people from encroaching on the rights of other people. I think children especially have the right to more than just food and shelter from their parents.

eta: I can easily argue along the lines of your justification for laws against speeding from your first paragraph. Adultery fosters an environment that is harmful and violative of the freedom of your spouse and children. How can it not be?

It is illegal. Just move to one of those countries.

craigernaught said:

---

Some of y'all really need to travel more. These types of laws are not awesome. Enforcement of these laws is definitely not awesome.

---

Isn't it still illegal in some states? I don't think you'd have to travel too far.

Macarthur said:

---

Amazing times we are living in now....

---

Agree. But for the opposite reasons that you think.

Macarthur said:

---

I think it's flat out insane that there's even the suggestion of laws against adultery.

On the lighter side, there is a joke there about you guys running out of men to lead your churches.

---

So that is weirder than people not knowing what a woman is?

Churches in my experience are nothing like you project.

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I think it's flat out insane that there's even the suggestion of laws against adultery.

On the lighter side, there is a joke there about you guys running out of men to lead your churches.

---

So that is weirder than people not knowing what a woman is?

Churches in my experience are nothing like you project.

---

Fox News straw man.

---

I have not watched Fox News in ten years.

So it is a Dermdoc straw man.

And since I have not watched news, I am truly curious.

Did a dem appointed judge say she did it know what a woman was?

dermdoc said:

---

And since I have not watched news, I am truly curious.

Did a dem appointed judge say she did it know what a woman was?

---

In her defense, she's not a biologist.

Bob Lee said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Some of y'all really need to travel more. These types of laws are not awesome. Enforcement of these laws is definitely not awesome.

---

Isn't it still illegal in some states? I don't think you'd have to travel too far.

---

I really dont.

Bob Lee said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And since I have not watched news, I am truly curious.

Did a dem appointed judge say she did it know what a woman was?

---

In her defense, she's not a biologist.

---

Read Romans 1. Paul wrote about this thousands of years ago.

There is truly nothing new under the sun.

"Progressive" my foot.

Bob Lee said:

---

There are competing notions of freedom. You take a negative view of freedom without exception. So we ought to be able to do anything that is not a restraint on the ability of someone else to do anything. Without some foundation of basic moral convictions or absolutes, you just end up with moral relativism at the end of the day. Relativism becomes the moral absolute. I think about the govt's role in terms of rights and obligations. As in preventing people from encroaching on the rights of other people. I think children especially have the right to more than just food and shelter from their parents.

eta: I can easily argue along the lines of your justification for laws against speeding from your first paragraph. Adultery fosters an environment that is harmful and violative of the freedom of your spouse and children. How can it not be?

---

Definitions of harmful and violative are subjective. Maybe I think religious indoctrination of children is harmful and violative. Maybe I don't. I can easily make the argument if I was inclined to do so.

. . . And, like I just said in my previous post. There are many actions by parents / guardians that can be argued to be harmful to children. How far do you want to carry your logic here?

What is the role of government and what are these extra rights that children have beyond food and shelter? Tell me why adultery should be illegal and why it should be legal for a parent to be lazy without hypocrisy.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Adultery can cause severe mental harm. We have laws against that on the books right now. Harassment, stalking, noise complaints, public indecency, etc.

---

Everyone of those examples are examples of one person taking an action against someone who has not consented.

Alcoholism can cause mental harm. Do you want a law against being an alcoholic? Laziness can cause mental harm. How about a law against laziness? How about loneliness? Or having a difficult job. Social workers, firefighters, nurses, lawyers, psychologists, soldiers. . . All of these jobs have high risks of mental illness. Lets outlaw them as well.

How would you apply "Adultery should be illegal because it causes mental harm" in a consistent way?

---

I'll try not to get too into the weeds here, but first I'd ask you read my original post. "Illegal" doesn't need to mean jail time. The strong reactions to this seem to straw man it by assuming severe penalties. I am not suggesting that.

Secondly, did the husband or wife that was cheated on consent? They're the ones with the mental harm and they damn sure didn't consent. In fact, they entered into a life long relationship in the assumption the other would not commit adultery. If you enter into an "open marriage" (which I would suggest is not a true marriage) then obviously these sort of laws wouldn't matter.

Your other examples don't really rise to this same level and therefore can not be applied evenly in all cases. The closest we'd have would be a spouse refusing to stop drinking despite deleterious effects on the family or their unwillingness to get and keep a job harming the family financially. Similar to my feelings on making adultery "illegal", I don't support jail time for these types of things. Public humiliation is a far greater deterrent in my opinion. If people want the government to aid in the public humiliation by making adultery illegal, then ok. If they don't, that's fine too. I don't have strong feeling on this. I'd rather people just stop being *******s.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

There are competing notions of freedom. You take a negative view of freedom without exception. So we ought to be able to do anything that is not a restraint on the ability of someone else to do anything. Without some foundation of basic moral convictions or absolutes, you just end up with moral relativism at the end of the day. Relativism becomes the moral absolute. I think about the govt's role in terms of rights and obligations. As in preventing people from encroaching on the rights of other people. I think children especially have the right to more than just food and shelter from their parents.

eta: I can easily argue along the lines of your justification for laws against speeding from your first paragraph. Adultery fosters an environment that is harmful and violative of the freedom of your spouse and children. How can it not be?

---

Definitions of harmful and violative are subjective. Maybe I think religious indoctrination of children is harmful and violative. Maybe I don't. I can easily make the argument if I was inclined to do so.

. . . And, like I just said in my previous post. There are many actions by parents / guardians that can be argued to be harmful to children. How far do you want to carry your logic here?

What is the role of government and what are these extra rights that children have beyond food and shelter? Tell me why adultery should be illegal and why it should be legal for a parent to be lazy without hypocrisy.

---

Now we're rolling back around to the "there's no such thing as neutrality" thread from awhile back.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I am generally against the criminalization of private acts between consenting adults. I'm also generally against the propensity of some Christians to make every single moral issue into a matter of criminal law. So I'm against any laws that would criminalize adultery for several reason.

However, I'd wouldn't have a problem with something against adultery in the civil code. For instance, I'd support a law that allowed wronged parties to have in increased share of assets in a divorce at the expense of the adulterer.

---

Yes. The scales in divorce court are strongly weighed against men. It's ridiculous that a woman can commit adultery, take half of the assets, and have majority custody of the children.

In what world can the party who broke the contract come out ahead? We hold business vows to a higher standard than marital vows.

The Banned said:

---

I'll try not to get too into the weeds here, but first I'd ask you read my original post. "Illegal" doesn't need to mean jail time. The strong reactions to this seem to straw man it by assuming severe penalties. I am not suggesting that.

Secondly, did the husband or wife that was cheated on consent? They're the ones with the mental harm and they damn sure didn't consent. In fact, they entered into a life long relationship in the assumption the other would not commit adultery. If you enter into an "open marriage" (which I would suggest is not a true marriage) then obviously these sort of laws wouldn't matter.

Your other examples don't really rise to this same level and therefore can not be applied evenly in all cases. The closest we'd have would be a spouse refusing to stop drinking despite deleterious effects on the family or their unwillingness to get and keep a job harming the family financially. Similar to my feelings on making adultery "illegal", I don't support jail time for these types of things. Public humiliation is a far greater deterrent in my opinion. If people want the government to aid in the public humiliation by making adultery illegal, then ok. If they don't, that's fine too. I don't have strong feeling on this. I'd rather people just stop being *******s.

---

I think my argument stands as is whether 'illegal' implies a fine, jail time, or any other legal penalty. Can we fine a parent for being lazy? Or drinking too much?

Regarding the second paragraph, is it the government's job to legislate that people uphold common standards in social or marital relationships? A neglectful person can cause harm to their partner. Can we fine someone for forgetting their spouses birthday? There are many social 'things' that can cause stress or mental harm. A bad friend, a manipulative friend, a friend that encourages you to abandon responsibility, a friend that talks behind your back, a spouse that is neglectful, a spouse that is manipulative, a spouse that lies or cheats and on and on and on. I am not advocating that any of these things are okay or 'good'. Only that I don't see a path for justification of illegalization of this action but not others.

Alcoholism, laziness, work stress, PTSD . . . those things absolutely destroy families. I reject that they don't rise to the same level.

I agree with hoping people would stop being *******s. If I judged Christianity to be immoral and advocated for public humiliation of Christianity, would I be an *******? Yes, this is an obvious trap question.

The Banned said:

---

Now we're rolling back around to the "there's no such thing as neutrality" thread from awhile back.

---

I don't see how. I'm asking for simple consistency. What is government's role in ensuring people do not cause mental harm to those they are in a relationship with? And what is government's role in ensuring a parent's actions do not cause them mental stress? Whatever you think that role is . . . . apply it consistently and lets explore those implications.

I was trying to avoid a novel. I failed.

We do charge people for severe laziness. We call that neglect. Don't get your kids to school, don't bathe them enough, leave them home alone too long, etc. happens all the time. We don't fine people for failing to sign their kids up for little league. We also penalize you for drinking too much, depending on the location in which you imbibe. Or if you have terrible behavior because of what you consumed. Context really matters. We're not talking about guys that let their eyes linger too long. We're talking about people who actively engage with another person, remove their clothes and engage in an activity that should be reserved for their spouse.

Context in this situation: cheating on your girlfriend is bad. Cheating on the woman you promised your life to, commingled finances with, planned your life with and, most importantly, share DNA with in your offspring? Moreover she entered into this agreement with the understanding you won't cheat on her? Much, much worse. One could be penalized and not the other. Similar to not getting your kids to school vs not signing them up for t ball.

Sorry your wife was banging her boss. But at least she remembered your birthday!!

Sorry your husband has slept with all his secretaries. But at least your friends aren't talking about you behind your back!!!

Sucks that she was sleeping with that other guy but at least you don't have manipulative friends!!

I know he's seeing his side piece on his "work trips", but at least he's not a drunk!!

Is this really the path you want to go down? Marriage is a contract. It has been long understood that cheating violates that contract in a very terrible and unique way, and it has been reflected in divorce courts around the nation. This isn't a "common standard". It's a central tenant for entering into the agreement in the first place. Ask anyone you know "did you marry your spouse under the condition that they never become an alcoholic?" Or how about "did you marry your spouse because you felt assured they would never forget your birthday or become lazy?" This is not some radical position. Furthermore, I'm not advocating for making it illegal. I simply see a logical reason to try and reduce it.

Additionally, when a spouse intentionally inflicts mental or emotional torment on the other, we have found this to be against the terms of agreement to love one another. Another far cry from "he didn't tell me he loves me enough"

As for work stress and PTSD, these are things that happen TO a person. Even if you sign up for stressful job, it's because you think you can handle it. Not because you're actively thinking "I want to traumatized. That sounds good". Cheating on your spouse doesn't happen TO you. You engage. This is a nonsensical comparison.

To your last paragraph, you're asking me about free speech. You're conflating two very different issues. Can you express your opinion about my beliefs? Absolutely. I find that to be a far cry from someone breaking a contract and being held publicly accountable. In fact, sans a settlement with an NDA, that happens often. Adultery in the vast, vast majority of marriages is not a belief. It's a person actively breaking a promise to a person who willingly gave up a good chunk of their personal autonomy in order to marry them.

I'll respond tomorrow . . . But I noticed you ignored my trap question.