I actually want to jump back into the original thoughts expressed in the OP of this thread...
***Let's start by making it clear that pretty much EVERYONE agrees that adultery is morally wrong***
Now let's get into this...
Quote:
I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation and it should be the only valid reason for divorce.
This whole mentality exposes a clear lack of consideration for what this would actually mean, and what the potential ripple effect may be.
Let's start with how you'd want our government to define adultery:- Does flirting count?
- Does holding hands count?
- Does kissing count?
- Tongue? No tongue?
- Does sexting count?
- Does dry humping count?
- Does manual stimulation count?
- Mutual masturbation?
- Does oral sex count?
- Does anal sex count?
- Does penetration have to be involved?
- What about sex toys?
- Just the tip?
- Or does it have to be full penal/vaginal penetration?
- What about scissoring?
- Sword fighting?
I literally want you to respond to those. I need to know where we should draw the line.
I think we'd all agree that you can actually 'cheat' on your spouse purely emotionally. How will we include that in our definition and set of laws?
Let's move on to questioning how this would be tracked, and enforced by our government...In what ways are you comfortable with the Government/Justice System gathering information to enforce this new law you propose?
- Gov't actively monitoring our homes, phones, email, workplaces, etc.?
- Rely only on formal accusations from spouses?
- Rely on accusations from 3rd parties? (witnesses, friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc)
- Heck, if we're going to rely on 3rd parties, are we going to put $10k bounties on this stuff, too??
How will we PROVE these accusations in court?- Force the accused to be given "rape kit" type tests? (this would mean they'd have to be caught and arrested basically in-the-act)
The more I think about it, depending on how we define "adultery" for the purposes of our 'new law', it almost seems like there would have to actually be pornographic video evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that one consenting adult had sex with another consenting adult absent a pregnancy.
Let's think about this, too. Do you really want our criminal court system bogged down with literally millions of accusations of adultery clogging up the system? And clogging up the prison system? This would increase the number of jury trials by hundreds of thousands per year of lawyers arguing whether or not people actually slept together, or maybe the just flirted through text. Blah blah blah.
Adultery is obviously wrong, but adding that burden to our criminal justice system is just crazy talk.
Quote:
I also think that you should not be allowed to marry at all unless you get a religious marriage. This would ensure all marriages are religious in nature and eliminate those who just want to get married for tax purposes.
Semantics. You're hung up on the word
marriage. Why do you give one single thought to what someone else calls their relationship. It has no impact on you. Religions don't have a monopoly on two people deciding to combine their lives. The way you're wording this, it seems like as long as those getting married subscribe to SOME form of religion, you're ok with it. But, if they don't subscribe to any at all, you're not. That's insanely strange given that most religions treat every religion outside their own basically the same as non-religious people. They're ALL going to hell, right?
Also, News Flash. The idea that non-religious people are getting married "for tax purposes" is just ignorant. My wife and I are not religious, and taxes were not even the faintest of fleeting thoughts that factored into our decision to get married. I'd wager that's the same for the VAAAAST majority of non-religious married people.
Possibly an unpopular take here but, I'd be ok with removing all tax benefits (whatever they may be) for being married. I'd remove them for having children, too. I doubt removing those benefits would have a statistically significant impact on the number of people getting married, or the number of people having children.
Quote:
if you don't have a religious marriage, why do you even care about faithfulness? You just have a civil union for tax purposes so who cares what your spouse does? Your marriage isn't valid in the eyes of the lord anyway.
Once again, as has been discussed throughout this debate, religion is not required for morality to exist in a society. Also, News Flash: We DGAF about our marriage being valid in the eyes of a god no more real than Zeus or Poseidon were. We love each other, and combining our lives creates something greater than the sum of our individual parts.
WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS WE SHOULD OUTLAW AND ASSIGN PRISON TIME BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOESN'T SPEAK FAVORABLY ABOUT THEM...- Let's make lying illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.
- Let's also make getting drunk illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.
- Let's also make "Not Honoring Your Father and Mother" illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.
- Let's make using the lord's name in vain illegal with a minimum 1-year of prison for every violation.
Do you see how this works? I bet you've lied a few times in your life. I bet you've been drunk, too. Ever use the lord's name in vain?Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean our government needs to get involved.Don't you think god can handle this stuff? If he can't/isn't, he's just not as great as you think he is.