Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should Adultery be Illegal? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing to do with religion or morality as such - but I've often wondered, given the misery that horrendous damage that adultery inevitably causes, whether it should in fact be considered a crime?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Nothing to do with religion or morality as such - but I've often wondered, given the misery that horrendous damage that adultery inevitably causes, whether it should in fact be considered a crime?
    Of course not. This is not a fascist state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It is antisocial. sometimes it involves a great deal of regret and recrimination. I don't think it is criminal, like murder or fraud. It is often a mistake.
    There are serial adulterers who call themselves serial monogamists.
    Sometimes the adulterers stay together at the expense of previous partners.
    It is interesting that the word can be split into adult and erer The former being a curious description of one who lies the latter one who "er ers " when questioned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No. Sexual behaviour should not be regulated any more than absolutely necessary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Making something illegal rarely gets rid of the problem.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Actions of a conseunsual nature, no matter how unethical they're considered to be, provided they harm none cannot be reasonably justified to be enforced by law. It ought not to be the law that people act morally, merely that they don't transgress upon others' rights, and that they act in ways society deems necessary in order to mitigate legitimate harm.

    Besides, such a law would be ineffectual, costly and impractical to uphold.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    That would be progress.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Actions of a conseunsual nature, no matter how unethical they're considered to be, provided they harm none cannot be reasonably justified to be enforced by law. It ought not to be the law that people act morally, merely that they don't transgress upon others' rights, and that they act in ways society deems necessary in order to mitigate legitimate harm.

    Besides, such a law would be ineffectual, costly and impractical to uphold.
    This sort of thing does of course harm others - though "only" emotionally/mentally, and we might say that they shouldn't get upset about it. But, there is certainly precedent for things that cause strictly non-physical harm to be outlawed.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    This sort of thing does of course harm others - though "only" emotionally/mentally, and we might say that they shouldn't get upset about it. But, there is certainly precedent for things that cause strictly non-physical harm to be outlawed.
    Not necessarily - the government would have to enforce monogamy, which individual couples do not necessarily abide by.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    That would be progress.
    I would say it's deeply regressive, but I suppose that depends on your point of view. I genuinely don't see any benefit to it though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Not necessarily - the government would have to enforce monogamy, which individual couples do not necessarily abide by.
    Perhaps there could be room for non-standard "contracts" between couples, I suppose, to remove the need to enforce monogamy when neither partner cares.

    *just going with the idea*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Actions of a conseunsual nature, no matter how unethical they're considered to be, provided they harm none cannot be reasonably justified to be enforced by law. It ought not to be the law that people act morally, merely that they don't transgress upon others' rights, and that they act in ways society deems necessary in order to mitigate legitimate harm.

    Besides, such a law would be ineffectual, costly and impractical to uphold.
    Adultery surely harms lots of people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    oh **** off. "marriage" is imaginary, people can legally bang anyone who agrees to bang them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NB_ide)
    Perhaps there could be room for non-standard "contracts" between couples, I suppose, to remove the need to enforce monogamy when neither partner cares.

    *just going with the idea*
    Gotta admit, I do actually prefer the idea of generalising marriage out to the point where it becomes a class of contracts that people can form. But we're not there yet.

    (Original post by Howard)
    Adultery surely harms lots of people.
    But not uniformly. Every victim of assault, theft, rape, murder, and so on has definitely been harmed in the process - often in an objectively measurable way. A person whose spouse commits adultery might not be harmed, if they are how much they are harmed is not predictable nor linked to the magnitude to what was done, and the harm which is done to them isn't something which is easy to measure or assess in any objective sense.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    oh **** off. "marriage" is imaginary, people can legally bang anyone who agrees to bang them.
    Marriage is a legally binding contract ....

    For a start, you can't be legally married to more than one person at the same time
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DCFCfan4eva)
    Marriage is a legally binding contract ....

    For a start, you can't be legally married to more than one person at the same time
    what I was getting at is, if someone is unmarried but just in a relationship and bangs someone else, they're a cheater but it;s not "adultery". But, if these people have stood in a church, made some inconsequential utterances, put a metal hoop on each other's fingers then one of them bangs someone else... it's somehow worse?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Far aside from the ridiculous infringement on autonomy it would involve, it'd be almost impossible to regulate as it just doesn't fit with society any more. Far less people remain in one married relationship for their entire lives, so how long do you have to be in a relationship with someone for sleeping with someone else to count as adultery? What if you break up, sleep with someone else and then get back together? What if you get raped? All these questions and more would have to be solved for any law to work (not that it'd ever get through Parliament anyway)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes , good idea this is , but not legally to become reality, to much complications to find the truth,,,

    But if u have a bad mariage for like 10 years, the damage could be easaly put into a number : For example 800 000 dollars cash u dint make becuase a partner/wife/husband made ur life completely misarable...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in no way saying adultery should be illegal, but why is a 16 yr old guy having sex with his 15 yr old girlfriend against the law, but a man cheating on his wife perfectly legal? Alot of laws don't seem to be based on that much logic.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.