The Banned said:
I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm more going through the intellectual exercise of how/why a government would make it illegal. I think it absolutely is an action worthy of illegality.
Where I wasn't very clear is that I don't think laws would be very effective. Especially fines and jail time. Maybe some public humiliation could move the needle, but thats not fool proof either. If I could summarize it as clearly as possible it would be the adultery is awful and worthy of punishment, but I can not think of a punishment that would sufficiently deter people without going barbaric, of which I'm not a fan.
I'm certain that you've stated it already, but to ensure that I am not misunderstanding, can you state the reason for why you would support making adultery illegal? (Ignoring that you think it would be ineffective)
And, can you clarify what power and force the government would have in situations that rise to the standards of those reasons?
Here is where I'm going with my argument: I like the idea of limiting power for the government to force 'moral' behavior. Or at least certain types of moral behavior. The problem with a government being given power to force moral behavior is that it isfine when you agree with the government, but less fine when you don't agree with the government. It is a mistake, I think, for you to assume that your government will always support your moral beliefs. This is why I support moving toward / staying at a consensus that believes we should limit the government's ability to force certain behaviors.
I can imagine that many Christians think that my wife and I are acting immorally in raising our children outside of a Christian church. And I imagine many Christians could argue that our children may be harmed by not having a Christian influence in their youth. However, I feel that most Christians (in the West) also believe that it is neither their job nor a government's job to mandate and force me to raise my children in a church.
I am wondering where you stand on this. You are, I think, now on record supporting giving the government the power to force citizens to comply with more sweeping standards of sexual morality than it current has. Rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and other acts are already illegal and laws can be argued for them on the basis of their being a direct victim not consenting to the act. You wish to extend laws to include adultery on the basis that adultery can cause emotional harm to others. What about premarital sex? Or masturbation, or pornography, or forms and positions of sex which you disagree with? Couldn't you argue that anal and oral sex do not comply with God's intentions and are therefore harmful? Should that be illegal?
Here is the flip side of what I think you are arguing for: A government body that decides that Christianity is immoral and that raising children in Christianity causes them harm utilizes, I think, the same exact reasoning that you use to illegalize adultery. I believe that what you are doing right now is building a case for the government to outlaw any part of Christianity it someday decides it doesn't like. Someday when this country is mostly secular, if they makes laws against Christianity, I think it will do so using exactly the same reasoning you are using to argue for laws against adultery. And I would oppose those laws. And how would you be able to oppose those laws which would be built on the exact precedent you advocate for now?
You keep saying that adultery is bad and therefore should be illegal. And I think that in every post, you have completely ignored the consequences of giving government legal power over who you can and cannot have consensual sex with.
This is tremendous power that you are advocating to give to the government. And like I said before, its not at all in line with my understanding of conservativism.
