What's the point of a vow if you are not somehow bound by that vow? If I go around making promises which I will soon be breaking, doesn't the word "promise" lose any sense of meaning? Instead of being used to establish a meaningful relationship, the promise becomes a means for deception.

I agree that we are morally bound by the vows that we, knowingly and with full intent, make. The question is whether we should be legally bound by them. Do you believe that many people would take traditional marriage vows if they understood that they were to be legally held to account for failing to honour them? That is really the point, I think.

Further to my last post, and more direct to the op, why make a promise if you don't expect to get punished for breaking that promise? What purpose would the promise serve, if there wasn't punishment involved with breaking it?

If one makes a promise to another who is important to one then the disapprobation of the other and in extremis, the loss of relationship with her or him is sufficient punishment, I would say. Not to mention the disapproval of other people one might care about and the reduction of esteem for oneself that might grow in them. "Naming and shaming" has long been an effective form of punishment, albeit less practiced these days. It is a form of moral, not legal, punishment, though: legal punishment is an entirely different matter.

When it comes to promises made to strangers, that is precisely why they are generally made legally binding; because of the lack of trust and care for one another that often exists between strangers.

If one makes a promise to another who is important to one then the disapprobation of the other and in extremis, the loss of relationship with her or him is sufficient punishment, I would say. — John

But this does not take into account the pain caused to the other party. The one who is cheated on deserves no punishment, yet is forced to suffer the same punishment as the cheater.

Sure, I'm not advocating that it is ideal that people should cheat on one another, but you are not addressing the issue; which is whether the person who cheats should be punishable by law. And the associated question is whether cheating itself could be properly legally defined, unless laws were introduced to make marriage vows legally binding in this fuller sense. And even then, would it not be the case that only those who chose to subject themselves to such marriage vows could be legally accused of cheating, let alone punished for it?

His point is that given these 'outs' people should be held accountable before the law if they breach what he claims is the legally binding contract of marriage. — John

Agustino did battle on this topic in the old Philosophy Forum. It was lively. This time around, let's spend less time figuring out how to punish people who commit adultery and spend more time figuring out how to help families be successful.

Adultery in the context of the usual marriage vows is unhelpful, contradictory, and often destructive. What I consider important is that IF a heterosexual marriage leads to children, then the parents should endeavor to keep their relationship healthy and centered on raising healthy, productive and reasonably happy children. That means avoiding adultery, addictions, irresponsible debt, desertion, and the like.

We (American society) do not do a very good job of helping parents succeed, and truth be told, a good many people who think they should become parents ought to be strenuously discouraged from committing much effort to that goal unless they get their act together.

Successful families need:

• to live within modest material budgets so that their resources can be directed toward good parenting.
• to receive enough income that between them, parents can provide 1 FTE parent. Maybe families need to be subsidized to make that possible. Both mother and father should have time to interact with children.
• education in good, traditional child-rearing practices. Many adults have not benefitted from being raised in a healthy large family and they simply do not know what healthy family life looks like. They need training to achieve it. And on-going support.
• Families need good pre-natal health care, good delivery service, and post-natal followup health monitoring.
• Families need functioning communities in which to live.

Single parenthood (as a starting plan) should be strongly discouraged.

In my own country the State is taking less of a role in decreeing how people conduct themselves sexually. I think that's all to the good. What has the State to do with it?

Parents should take financial responsibility for their offspring and I the taxpayer should be last resort - but then, generous - helper of the single parent.

All the rest of this moralising...what has other people's adultery to do with me?

His point is that given these 'outs' people should be held accountable before the law if they breach what he claims is the legally binding contract of marriage. — John

You should specify the harm they can cause to their partner, and the nature of the harm - namely long-term harm, which is not reparable or in any other way amenable.

in (at least Western) societies where adultery was/ is punishable, divorce (except perhaps notably for men in Islamic societies), was/is usually not an option — John

This is not true. In most Western countries divorce became legally possible before adultery was made legally permissible.

Also, due to the fact that many marriages were arranged in traditional societies; it would not be surprising if many people found themselves in marriages which were not satisfying. — John

Many people? Justify this please.

I contend that this is a self-contradictory set of aims because legal enforcement of marriage vows would result in even less people marrying. — John

Good! Those people shouldn't get married in the first place. The point is to protect those who are interested to get married, with everything that marriage entails, and sexual loyalty and exclusivity is one of the entailments of marriage in MOST people's minds - because you so love to throw around this word. If they're not interested in marriage, they can just go ahead and live together, form a civic partnership, etc. Marriage should not be degraded so that we get more people marrying - these people would form terrible marriages anyway - and set terrible examples for everyone else too!

because the most plausible result would be that even less people would want to be married in this new kind of 'ultra-traditional' way — John

First of all - there's nothing "ultra" about it. You throw around these pejorative labels, but there's nothing ultra in there. It's simply traditional. Do you have a problem with tradition? Do you have a problem with respecting traditions? Most people who have ever lived have had similar traditions. You of course ignore that all major religions, without exception, condemn adultery in harsh and explicit manners - and this includes non-Abrahamic religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. There's nothing "ultra" about this proposal - there is something very "ultra-radical" about your proposal perhaps. But that's another story, one that I'm not very interested to explore, because it has nothing to do with the essence of this conversation. I have no need to derail this conversation to score meaningless victories over you - it's about the ideas, and what should be done - not what was done. If we play by what was done, then you've already lost. Second of all, it's about protecting people who want to marry and who want their marriage vows to be respected. They have a right to be protected. This is more important than "less people would want to be married" - I am not concerned whether they want to be married or not - that is irrelevant.

The other point of contention between Agustino and myself in regard to this issue is that I fail to see how instituting something as law that arguably very few people would want to live subject to, could possibly reinforce the stability of society. This is a point which, so far, Agustino has utterly failed to address. — John

Do you happen to have a short memory? :)

This is again liberal propaganda. Most people don't know how bad the cheating statistics are. Most people are not aware that this is a problem. Most people don't know that it's quite likely that this will happen to them. That's why by the time they age, most people will agree with me. So you're wrong - it's not an extreme minority. And if you look through history, you will be surprised to see that most people who have ever lived in fact agree with me. All religions - without exception, be they Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism - all of them have rules against adultery. Do you think all those people were idiots, and you're the only smart person? — Agustino

I hope others will share the burden and rally to the virtuous cause of setting him right on this matter, even if only for his own sake. — John

There is nothing virtuous in gleefully enjoying other people being hurt and seeing their lives ruined. Maybe for you that is virtue - certainly not for me.

Now - the rest of your post is filled with counterfactuals. Such as most people don't care about marriage vows, most people don't want their vow of fidelity and sexual exclusivity to be respected, or don't care too much about it, and other such nonsense. I will not address this. My next post will address what matters - your OP addressed everything probably except the truly important matters.

You seem to have completely missed the fact that marriage is a civil contract and that breach of said contract is therefore a tort and not a crime. Nobody is advocating the vacation of vows and promises by wishing to maintain this eminently sensible distinction which has applied in the vast majority of the world's legal systems for centuries.

One should perhaps remember that in Semitic law which is the basis of Torah and Islamic Law only a woman can commit adultery as the law's original purpose is to ensure the purity of family lines and particularly ensure that the father of a child is known beyond doubt. I assume that you are not suggesting that it would have been better to retain such a law rather than make it a matter for the civil courts?

Sure, I'm not advocating that it is ideal that people should cheat on one another, but you are not addressing the issue; which is whether the person who cheats should be punishable by law. — John

Well, I've clearly argued that the person who breaks the vow ought to be punished, or else the vow is pointless. Now, if it isn't going to be the law, the state, which imposes such punishment who is it going to be? Punishment is not something we can just be handing out to one another, unless we establish a law which allows this. But wouldn't this just be a different form of being punished by law?

Marriage has become a legal institution, rather than a religious one. If certain vows are included in that institution, then the legal system is responsible for the punishment of breaking such vows. Here, I think we come to a very important distinction between the approach of religion, and the approach of the state, toward this type of issue. Most religions are structured toward encouraging success of morality, in distinction from the state, which is structured toward punishment for failure. This directly relates to Bitter Crank's point:

This time around, let's spend less time figuring out how to punish people who commit adultery and spend more time figuring out how to help families be successful. — Bitter Crank

It is much more productive, and constructive, to provide as many means as possible to assist individuals in keeping the vow, rather than simply punishing those who break it. The problem is that instead of taking the very difficult "good" route, which is to help those who need help, prior to them doing something wrong, encouraging success, we so often choose the not so good, but easy route, which is to punish those after they have done something wrong.

If the state has taken on the responsibility of the institution of ,marriage, then it must either discontinue such vows altogether, or structure its laws to support the vows. If such vows are continued, then the state must be structured such that keeping them is encouraged, and breaking them discouraged.

You seem to have completely missed the fact that marriage is a civil contract and that breach of said contract is therefore a tort and not a crime — Barry Etheridge

What's that got to do with it, I get punished for speeding, and that's not a crime.

Successful families need:

to live within modest material budgets so that their resources can be directed toward good parenting.
to receive enough income that between them, parents can provide 1 FTE parent. Maybe families need to be subsidized to make that possible. Both mother and father should have time to interact with children.
education in good, traditional child-rearing practices. Many adults have not benefitted from being raised in a healthy large family and they simply do not know what healthy family life looks like. They need training to achieve it. And on-going support.
Families need good pre-natal health care, good delivery service, and post-natal followup health monitoring.
Families need functioning communities in which to live.

Single parenthood (as a starting plan) should be strongly discouraged. — Bitter Crank

Balderdash, stuff and nonsense, propaganda and codswallop! You may find these things desirable but that is a very distant thing from what others need and this moral censorious charter is absolutely not a guarantee of success (if that term is even meaningful in the context!)

What the heck is 'traditional child-rearing practice' for a start? Whose tradition from what part of history? There are as many 'child-rearing practices' as there are stars in the sky (well visible ones anyway) and almost all of them somehow manage to produce pretty much the same balance of good and bad people. And 'functioning community'? What's that when it's at home?

Of course it's a crime! Speeding is an offence under statute (the Road Traffic Act here in UK). You can't be fined for a civil offence, you'd have to be sued!

Marriage should be banned.

It is a form of enslavement, which the emphasis here given to adultery illustrates. It institutionalises the ownership of another, and has its roots in the male desire to support only the fruit of his own loins. Thus it encourages selfishness. is radically sexist, and treats women and children as chattels.

No one has the right to be loved cherished and obeyed for a lifetime, and such a clause in any other contract would be stuck down as unfair and unreasonable.

But love cannot anyway be subject to contract any more than a gift can be part of a trade. It is a nonsense that belittles the free relationship of people caring for each other.

Let me summarise what happened in a more comprehensive manner. First it is to be noted that @John is not just against not sanctioning adultery legally - and the conversation never started from a discussion of legally sanctioning adultery, as I will illustrate. We were discussing the effects of mystics claiming they have become God. I gave as examples Osho Rajneesh, and Jiddu Krishnamurti:

No those "doctrinal" differences have practical significance. Becoming God can very easily be associated with anything being permitted for you. Like Osho Rajneesh having promiscuous sex with his disciples. Or poisoning a community. Or Krishnamurti having sex with one of his friend's wife behind his back, and having her have an abortion. — Agustino

To which John replied:

I'm going to be blunt here: I think you are transforming yourself into a self-righteous fool.
This is all just malicious unsubstantiated gossip, unless you can show clear evidence for those claims about Osho and Krishnamurti . And again, even if those claims were true; so what? No man is perfect. — John

Then Wayfarer and myself actually gave John the evidence - to which of course he never replied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_in_the_Shadow_with_J._Krishnamurti — Wayfarer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack — Agustino

But he did continue with the pejorative counterfactual insults:

self-righteous purism — John

self-righteous fool — John

fossilization of the arch-conservatives — John

someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing — John

The other point was about church dogma, and ultra-conservative fundamentalist interpretations thereof; which I think you are guilty of — John

I tried to remedy these biases and explain to John:

LOL! It's laughable if you think my interpretation are ULTRA-conservative FUNDAMENTALIST. Really - I can't be bothered to answer such nonsense. First of all fundamentalism... have I claimed the Earth was created a few thousand years ago? Have I claimed Christianity is the only way? Have I claimed evolution is wrong? No. So please get your concepts straight. Just because you don't like conservatives doesn't mean you get to throw with pejorative statements. There is a long, and respectable tradition in all religions. That isn't ultra conservative. That's just the wisdom that was passed through the ages. — Agustino

Again, as I see things, you are just adopting liberal and progressive prejudicies without thinking about it. You are never even questioning them. You think saying adultery is wrong is ultra conservative. Hell - even saying sex before marriage is wrong isn't ultra conservative. Those are things that people have believed for most parts of history, and in most societies. Ultra-conservative are reactionary movements - such as Puritanism. There's a difference between the two. Apparently you don't think there is. — Agustino

It is also significant to state that John mentioned adultery first:

But in the realm of ethics, because each one of us is a unique individual there will always be nuances in unique situations, such that it cannot be right to make blanket moral pronouncements such as "divorce is wrong", "adultery is wrong", "homosexuality is wrong" and other like ultra-conservative dictatorial claims such as the ones you make on these forums. — John

but it will not do to prosecute and punish people for transgressing what are merely moral injunctions — John

To which I replied:

Of course. That's why social means and social pressure is used to combat those. Although maybe some immoral things ought to also be illegal - say adultery. But that is a different debate. — Agustino

For you, Orthodoxy is ultra-conservative. That's false. It is historically false to say the least. Adultery is wrong means it is harmful. Always. That's not ultra conservative. Please go research what ultra conservative is. Or read the article I have read just yesterday http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ — Agustino

To this - which notice has to do with the morality of adultery, and NOT its legality, John replies:

I'm sorry to say it Agustino, but I find most of what you say highly disagreeable, even repugnant.

I cannot see anything in it that persuades me you would be open in the slightest to any alternative reason on these matters, so I feel no inclination to engage with you further; it would it seems just be a complete waste of time. Good luck with your life, man... — John

Of course one is surprised at such a reaction - especially as it had been John the one who has consistently ignored the evidence provided, consistently attempted to say that Orthodox tradition had no mystics, consistently trying to say or insinuate that Orthodoxy is totalitarian, and consistently refusing to accept his incorrect readings of the Bible - which he has started to even call "creative misreading". So I have to inquire why - this is about the morality of adultery here - he apparently is so disgusted if a husband beats his wife - but he is not disgusted at all if the same husband were to cheat on his wife! In fact - if someone dares to label this latter act as immoral, he is suddenly catalogued as "ultra-conservative" - forget the legality issue - this is bigger than that. Here is a man who is opposed to morally condemning adultery! So to this John continues with the same dogmatic propaganda and insults:

Beating someone up is an act of aggression pure and simple, it is in no way analogous to adultery, as you are suggesting it is. The committing of adultery could be as a result of a whole range of diversely variant circumstances. Perhaps the relationship is not good, they are not really attracted to one another physically, perhaps the one who commits adultery (does that consist in 'being an adult', by the way? ;) ) has difficulty controlling sexual desires, perhaps s/he has fallen in love with the person s/he commits it with, perhaps husband and wife share an agreement to live in an 'open' relationship. Will you punish people in all these very different circumstances? The way you frame the whole question is very male-centric, by the way. It wouldn't surprise me if you believe that men are naturally superior to women and that they should, in line with your beloved traditional values, rule the household. — John

Notice his flippancy - as if any of these (apart from the open relationship claim) is a justification for adultery - somehow if these things are the case, according to the Gospel of Liberal Progressive John, it becomes at least less immoral to commit adultery! Furthermore, I have explained to him by pointing to statistics that men cheat more often than women, and women are more likely to be negatively affected by adultery. And yet of course John ignores it. He doesn't even retract his false accusation that morally condemning adultery is a case of patriarchal control over a woman's sexuality - while the truth, as shown by the facts, is quite literarily the opposite. If anyone is controlled by having adultery be immoral, then it is much moreso men than women. Through the rest of the thread, which did descend into a discussion of the legality of adultery, I kept being appalled by the pure and irrational unquestioning dogma of John, which he has repeatedly tried to enforce on others.

I don't mind questioning for example whether tradition is important or not. Certainly you never brought the question up. I don't mind discussing the importance of authority in religion or in society - but again you never brought that up. You take your liberal principles as a priori truth, and aren't even willing to discuss them, much less question them. You consider them holy truth, and disgusting to even dare to question them! In fact principles which are different are emotionally repugnant to you. But hey - each to their own! — Agustino

OK, having said that I don't want to indulge in slanging matches; I'll try to address what you write here, without doing that. It's true that I have characterized some of what you have written as "prozelytization" and "self-righteousness", and that's because that's just what I perceive when someone speaks about "making adultery illegal" and such like. If someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing statements then they are, by virtue of that and to that degree at least, self-righteous prozelytizers. Beyond that I have not indulged, as far as I can remember, in ad hominen characterizations of your personality, as the part I underlined above certainly shows you to be doing in regard to what you purport to be my personality. — John

This is in contra-distinction to other progressives who intervened and discussed their views politely - without insulting - such as AndrewK.

Now the really important bits:
1. John finds it repugnant to condemn adultery, even in a moral sense. He doesn't find it equally repugnant to condemn violence, or theft - even though quite often adultery produces MORE HARM than these. In fact, even some progressives in the thread in question have recognised that adultery is "most often" harmful.
2. John doesn't care about the nuclear family as he seemingly tries to fake in this thread:

As to such things as the breakdown of the family: I am not sure the nuclear family is necessarily the best model — John

3. John is dogmatic, and insulting about his assertions. He demands that it be as he says it is, while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. All the arguments and statements he has made have been refuted - they are factually wrong. He - and not anyone else - is in fact totalitarian.
4. John has failed to answer what bothers him, or any hypothetical person, about adultery being made illegal - does he plan to commit it? If a man doesn't plan to commit adultery, why would he be bothered by the legality of it?! At worst, he would be indifferent. If he is bothered by it, clearly something is taken away from him (or from others) by such a law - what is it, except the freedom to commit adultery which is precisely under the question?
5. John has repeatedly tried to insinuate that a law against adultery is the dissolution of private life - yet he has failed to realise that for most people private life isn't for committing adultery, and if it was, then it should rightly be abolished.
6. John has repeatedly failed to acknowledge that harmfulness of adultery, and continued to insist in the apologetics he provided for it. I would not be surprised if in his life John has committed or wants to commit adultery - certainly nothing else could justify such dogmatism. It is understandable if one thinks that adultery shouldn't be criminalised - like some of the people in the other thread - but they recognise that this is only their opinion, and not the only one which can claim to being reasonable. However - to seek to impose this by threat of ridicule through slanderous statements is intellectually dishonest.
7. John has never addressed the core of the argument
a) Adultery is a long-term, serious, unreperable harm that is done to someone - a harm that will follow them their whole life.
b) Adultery is both a breach of consent and contract, and also a direct harm - a harm which doesn't stop just with breaching a contract - it causes profound spiritual and emotional torment, and excites the most violent, rapacious, and destructive emotions, combining anger, hatred, disgust, jealousy, and much more.
c) People have a right to be protected from being intentionally harmed by others.
d) Therefore: is at least necessary to condemn adultery very strongly from a moral point of view - as has been done by virtually all religions - and quite possibly to instantiate a legal punishment for it. This is not in agreement with John's lacking morality, which prefers to see innocent people suffer at the hands of their oppressors and sees such suffering as normal and part of life, which is much more like the attitude exemplified 100 years ago by slave owners. It certainly doesn't justify John feeling it "repugnant" to morally condemn adultery. And it certainly doesn't justify his dogmatic attitude about the legality of adultery. This quite possibly also justifies a legal punishment for adultery - although the argument isn't proof for this, but merely indication that it may be good to have such a punishment - this means there is nothing "ultra-conservative" about it, and it is a perfectly acceptable position to hold.

Of course it's a crime! Speeding is an offence under statute (the Road Traffic Act here in UK). You can't be fined for a civil offence, you'd have to be sued! — Barry Etheridge

Where I live, speeding is not a criminal offence. Such things vary from one country to another.

Marriage should be banned.

It is a form of enslavement, which the emphasis here given to adultery illustrates. It institutionalises the ownership of another, and has its roots in the male desire to support only the fruit of his own loins. Thus it encourages selfishness. is radically sexist, and treats women and children as chattels.

No one has the right to be loved cherished and obeyed for a lifetime, and such a clause in any other contract would be stuck down as unfair and unreasonable.

But love cannot anyway be subject to contract any more than a gift can be part of a trade. It is a nonsense that belittles the free relationship of people caring for each other. — unenlightened

Truly you bear your name :P Read Kierkegaard's Works of Love - maybe you'll learn something about it (namely that duty is a sanctification of love), and remove that "un" from your name ;) . Owning each other is exactly what love is. Just like the Communists wanted ownership of property in common, two lovers want ownership of each other in common - and they want their love to be eternal. They don't want to be two people - they want to be one with each other. For eternity - this is just what they want.

As for your counterfactual assertions about women and children - that's totally false. First of all, sanctions for adultery have benefited women much more than men. This is a fact. Just look at the statistics. If marriage didn't exist, 1000 years ago, women would have been chattel. Men would have had sex with them, and thrown them away - out, into the street. They would just take the children. That's the condition women would have lived in without marriage. This is nothing other than progressive liberal propaganda - which is counterfactual - very important.

Ideologues like you, fail to see that you shall love your neighbour as yourself! You want to love your neighbor more than yourself - that's why you say it's selfishness to listen to your own desires. But this is false. Being one with someone means, that just like your liver does not forget its own needs while in collaboration with the rest of your body, so too, you do not forget your self in collaboration with others, whether in a love relationship, or in a community. It's about giving equal priority to yourself and to the other person. If the other hurts, you hurt. But if you hurt, then the other also hurts - which you seem to forget.

Not to mention that your whole post is a failure to acknowledge the fair and normal desire for another, which is found in most human beings. What you promote is not love - but a moral abomination.

Well, as you are apparently unwilling to reveal the identity of this strange 'plase' I suppose I'll have to take your word for it while retaining my right to extreme skepticism!

Well, as you are apparently unwilling to reveal the identity of this strange 'plase' I suppose I'll have to take your word for it while retaining my right to extreme skepticism! — Barry Etheridge

There's nothing strange about it. In my country it is the same as for MU. You fail to differentiate between something which is penal, and something which is punishable by civil law. Speeding is punishable by civil law, but is not penal - at least in most cases. Killing someone is penal - it's in the penal code of your country - which is different than the civil code of your country.

Crimes are in the penal code. Offences are in the civil code. Crimes also generally involve punishments with or related to going to prison, whereas offences imply other sorts of punishment - such as fines, etc.

Indeed nobody has the right. That's why it's a contract requiring the agreement of both parties. And in the vast majority of cases these days that contract is devoid of 'clauses' regarding obeisance, ownership and the other stuff you seem to object to. So unless you're advocating that all contracts freely entered into by both parties and sealed with the requisite consideration should be banned, which would make life infinitely more complicated and chaotic, I'm really not sure that your argument has any merit at all!

Again, this would be a lot easier to argue if you actually identified the country so that I can pinpoint the relevant law. I am a little mystified at how something for which there is a penalty is not part of a penal code. But maybe I'm just not being clear as to my definitions (though it seemed pretty obvious to me) so ...

I am simply using the gross legal distinction between crime, that which is prohibited by law (be that national statute, local by-law, local authority order, or court injunction) and punishable by imprisonment, fine or other privation (in accordance with the provisions of the law), and tort, damage or injury to a person or corporation by neglect, default or intention under an actual or implied contract (duty of care, for example) for which upon application by the plaintiff the defendant may be required to make restitution and/or pay compensatory. The niceties of whether it's called a crime, or a (civil) offence, or a misdemeanour are irrelevant. If you're charged then it's criminal, if you're sued then it's civil. Speeding, no matter what words are used to describe it or what the title of the particular law or order under which it is prohibited is therefore criminal. The police or the relevant traffic authority do not sue you for compensation. They fine you. If you do not pay the fine they will go on to prosecute you in a criminal court.

Adultery is in the vast majority of countries a tort (civil) not an offence (criminal). It is not prohibited by any legal instrument. It may be grounds for divorce which, though rarely these days actually coming to the attention of a court, is a law suit seeking the dissolution of the contract of marriage and equitable division of assets.

Speeding, no matter what words are used to describe it or what the title of the particular law or order under which it is prohibited is therefore criminal. — Barry Etheridge

No - this isn't the case. In your country - the UK - you are correct. But for example in the US, speeding is not a crime. Neither is it a crime in many other places across Europe. Not all things which are prohibited by law are criminal.

This time around, let's spend less time figuring out how to punish people who commit adultery and spend more time figuring out how to help families be successful. — Bitter Crank

I largely agree. I'm not interested to discuss the legality of adultery with John, so much so that I am morally horrified at his moral lack of concern for the victims of adultery - be they the spouse or the children. The fact that he finds it "ultra conservative" or other such pejorative label to even state publicly that adultery is morally wrong - that's what I have a problem with. I think the avenue you propose is more helpful.

Adultery in the context of the usual marriage vows is unhelpful, contradictory, and often destructive. What I consider important is that IF a heterosexual marriage leads to children, then the parents should endeavor to keep their relationship healthy and centered on raising healthy, productive and reasonably happy children. That means avoiding adultery, addictions, irresponsible debt, desertion, and the like. — Bitter Crank

Yes - but a marriage will lead to children, unless one of the partners is unable to have children perhaps. But even then adoptions are possible. And as for people getting married and not having children - that is very strange. Perhaps they shouldn't get married if they never plan to have children. They could still live together, etc. but why marry? Furthermore, what about the harm that adultery would do to the partner, not only to the children? It seems to me that adultery would be contradictory and destructive in any monogamous relationship where loyalty and sexual exclusivity exist, and where the intimacy between partners is important ie in a marriage. People can live together outside of marriage, and obviously there is no adultery there as such - except that obviously people will be harmed by cheating, less severely than in a marriage, but still harmed, in a way that is morally reprehensible - obviously though there would be no legal grounds to sanction this though. Nor can much be done to discourage it except what you said afterwards, which is to have strong families, which can educate people, and guide them away from the dangers of such lifestyles, leaving it ultimately to their choice after this.

to live within modest material budgets so that their resources can be directed toward good parenting.
to receive enough income that between them, parents can provide 1 FTE parent. Maybe families need to be subsidized to make that possible. Both mother and father should have time to interact with children.
education in good, traditional child-rearing practices. Many adults have not benefitted from being raised in a healthy large family and they simply do not know what healthy family life looks like. They need training to achieve it. And on-going support.
Families need good pre-natal health care, good delivery service, and post-natal followup health monitoring.
Families need functioning communities in which to live. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

Your proposals seem dangerously close to conservatism though BC :P How does a Marxist explain this?

So you're just not going to bother with the very clear distinction that I made and you're just going to go on playing semantics? Whoopee! Well I suppose it keeps you from having to engage with the actual issues under discussion! Would it be better for you if I replaced 'criminal' with 'illegal' then? Or shall I just make something up. Speeding is "kersplutzabubble' whereas adultery is "fluddlepuddle", perhaps?

I think the point I was making is absolutely clear as was the intent of the reply to enmire me in obscurantism to avoid addressing it. If neither of you have anything to contribute on the actual matter in hand, I'll take my leave and wish you a very good afternoon from the splendidly well defined UK to your legally impenetrable countries.

So you're just not going to bother with the very clear distinction that I made and you're just going to go on playing semantics? Whoopee! Well I suppose it keeps you from having to engage with the actual issues under discussion! Would it be better for you if I replaced 'criminal' with 'illegal' then? Or shall I just make something up. Speeding is "kersplutzabubble' whereas adultery is "fluddlepuddle", perhaps? — Barry Etheridge

I don't engage with it, because I don't care about such matters - honestly. I don't want to discuss whether adultery should be civil offence, or a penal offence, etc. These are details. If I was a politician I would hand this stuff to the lawyers for them to best decide how to legally handle it. They aren't even relevant to the conversation I was having with John. The question at most was whether adultery should be punishable - how it will be punishable is a matter for debate, a debate which I'm not interested in now. But to determine whether something should be punishable in some way X, it is enough to look at the effects of certain actions, and the place they have in the relationship between people.

I just stopped to correct a mistaken assumption that you were making about other countries, and that's all. I have no interest to go into a detailed discussion of this. You can read about US law (or Latvia's law, etc.) by yourself.

Truly you bear your name — Agustino

Can't argue with that, I chose it myself. A strong argument that anything I say can be dismissed without argument.

First of all, sanctions for adultery have benefited women much more than men. This is a fact. Just look at the statistics. If marriage didn't exist, 1000 years ago, women would have been chattel. — Agustino

It is not a fact. Show me the statistics.

But your counterfactual declaration is simply a pronouncement that sexism, and slavery are the natural state of man; a Hobbesian argument in favour of the least worst option. My partner and I have been faithfully unmarried for 27 years during which we have brought up 4 children, one of which is my biological offspring. If one doesn't want to be separate, two people, then there is no difficulty in living as one. So you rather reinforce my point than attack it. Punishment, and the threat of punishment is a form of coercion that has no place in a mutual relationship, and can only have a negative impact, sustaining a loveless and divided relation through fear.

Ideologues like you, fail to see that you shall love your neighbour as yourself! You want to love your neighbor more than yourself - that's why you say it's selfishness to listen to your own desires. But this is false. Being one with someone means, that just like your liver does not forget its own needs while in collaboration with the rest of your body, so too, you do not forget your self in collaboration with others, whether in a love relationship, or in a community. It's about giving equal priority to yourself and to the other person. If the other hurts, you hurt. But if you hurt, then the other also hurts - which you seem to forget. — Agustino

I tell you what, why don't you make shit up about me and what people like me think, and argue with that instead of addressing my post? Oh, you already did.

It is not a fact. Show me the statistics. — unenlightened

http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/cheating-statistics-do-men-cheat-more-women for example this. 70% for men, 50% for women in the US. The difference is much larger in parts of Europe. And by the way, you have no right to stomp your feet and demand statistics that you can look up for yourself.

But your counterfactual declaration is simply a pronouncement that sexism, and slavery are the natural state of man — unenlightened

There is no sexism in that sir. It's the same deal for both man and woman. What's sexist about it if I may ask? It's the same rule applied to both. Nothing can possibly be sexist in that. It's not different rules for each. It's the same.

My partner and I have been faithfully unmarried for 27 years during which we have brought up 4 children — unenlightened

Well I'm happy for you - but this isn't to say that this is a stable arrangement. It may have worked in your particular case - but that's all.

Punishment, and the threat of punishment is a form of coercion that has no place in a mutual relationship, and can only have a negative impact, sustaining a loveless and divided relation through fear. — unenlightened

It's not about threat of punishment, etc. It's about protecting people from being intentionally harmed by others.

I tell you what, why don't you make shit up about me and what people like me think, and argue with that instead of addressing my post? Oh, you already did. — unenlightened

I didn't make things up Sir. It's the implications of your statements.

You seem to have some abstract imaginations about what motivates monogamous marriage - namely that the desire to care only for one's offspring or some other looney thing. But this ignores a basic human experience - that of (1) raising children, and (2) that of love. Marriage creates an environment which is guaranteed and in which children can be raised. Love demands the union of two people for eternity - otherwise it is not worthy of being called love. As Kierkegaard said, even the poets refuse in disgust to celebrate any love which does not desire to be eternal. But for love to be eternal, it cannot swear on itself. It must swear on that which is higher - the eternal - God. And therefore it must swear on duty - so the two people accept willingly to be bound by duty - because that is what it takes to give their love eternity.

Look sir - you can think whatever you want - but it's wrong that you judge people based only on your experience. Statistics indicate that your positions - namely that monogamous marriage favors men - are wrong. It's the opposite sir, and it has been so through history. Imagine how badly women would have been treated - like expendable goods - if men did not have to commit to them. You are just refusing to see a basic fact of human existence in order to remain faithful to your ideology.

So unless you're advocating that all contracts freely entered into by both parties and sealed with the requisite consideration should be banned, which would make life infinitely more complicated and chaotic, I'm really not sure that your argument has any merit at all! — Barry Etheridge

No, I'm not advocating that at all. I'm saying that contracts are fine in a limited sphere, and so long as the terms are reasonable, and there are suitable provisions for exit and human rights are maintained. And these are the stipulations that are not fulfilled by marriage contracts. Unfair terms, such as extortionate interest rates on a loan can be 'freely' entered into by the desperate or thoughtless, but such unfair terms should not be, and often are not regarded in law as binding or legitimate. Even mortgages provide for early exit by paying the principal early.

It's not about threat of punishment, etc. It's about protecting people from being intentionally harmed by others. — Agustino

The thread is about punishment for adultery. Punishment can only protect to the extent that it deters through fear.

But let us be clear. Punishment for adultery would protect me from the intentional harm caused me by person I want to be one with? And " If the other hurts, you hurt. But if you hurt, then the other also hurts ...", so you kindly instruct me. So the net effect is that I am to be hurt for hurting myself. Clearly I have gone wrong somewhere; I cannot believe you are advocating such abhorrent madness.