It does not follow at all. I have presented the alternative that adultery should be prevented by preventing folk from entering contracts that your own statistics show they in the majority do not wish to, or are unable to, honour. — unenlightened

Yes, just like cancer can certainly be prevented by suicide >:O

Solutions my friend are found WITHIN the framework in discussion - not outside of it. To say you prevent adultery by not getting married is a sophism. We're discussing how adultery is to be prevented within the framework of monogamous marriage here. We're not discussing whether that framework should or should not exist. That question is already presupposed to be answered by "yes it should" in this discussion, because without that presupposition, there is no adultery to even talk about. This should be obvious.

1. What would be the public policy goal of a law that made adultery a punishable criminal offence? — andrewk

-Deterring adultery, encouraging divorce as a way of separation
-Preventing social conflicts that arise out of adultery, as I'm sure you know, adultery provokes the worst passions in men and women, including anger, hatred, jealousy, etc. which can lead to violence, self-harm, or worse.
-Preventing others from intentionally harming their partners in marriage.

2. What reasons are there to believe that the goal would be achieved by such a law? — andrewk

-Clearly if there is a punishment, less people will engage in the activity. This is a well known fact - contrary to what many progressive unbelievers think - which does deter the activity in question whatever it happens to be (here, here, here, here, or here) - this is not to say there will not still be people engaging in it, just that the numbers will be reduced.
-Thus punishment will prevent others from harming each other, and in the case they do, the law will be present to render the justice which they deserve. And if you still have doubts - just look at the trend of adultery. It has increased from about 10% to over 50% in many countries over the past 50 years. Why? Because we don't punish it anymore (either legally or socially)- moreover, we make it to be something cool. This is terrible. Not to mention that now we get some people - like @unenlightened or @Terrapin Station - in fact maybe the two of them should join forces and form a commune, unenlightened can be Krishnamurti and Terrapin Rajagopal perhaps - who even claim we should abolish marriage - why? Because 50% of people don't respect it. They forget that they used to respect it - when we had the required social infrastructure around. Clearly marriage and human nature haven't changed - only our social organisation has. We have removed barriers which previously existed, and this is the result of it.

How would achievement of that goal weight up against potential negative public policy impacts of such a law? — andrewk

I don't see any negatives, except that less people will get married at least in the short-term. But that's a good thing. Those people who were never serious about marriage, shouldn't have got married in the first place. The other potential negative is that divorce will become easier. Overall I think the policy would be successful in sorting out the wheat from the chaff, deterring adultery, preventing social harms arising out of it, preventing intentional harm in marriage, protecting the marriages of people who care about them, and rendering justice to those people who are deceived and caused to waste their time with partners who never intended to respect their vows.

Yes, just like cancer can certainly be prevented by suicide >:O — Agustino

Back to your tried and failed analogy.

Those people who were never serious about marriage, shouldn't have got married in the first place. — Agustino

We agree about the 70%, then and the government could prevent them from marrying by preventing marriage. The presumed 30% of successful marriages will be unaffected, since those people want to remain together and need neither a contract nor the interference of government to do so.

This of course presumes that people who commit adultery were never serious about their relationship, which is obviously not so. People change; one changes and one's partner changes, and even without these changes, one discovers the other in a relationship and not prior to it. One obvious essential to making an informed lifetime commitment that you seem to favour is to have pre-marital sex. Try before you buy needs to be mandatory in the interest of informed consent. Sexual compatibility cannot be judged at arm's length.

The presumed 30% of successful marriages will be unaffected, since those people want to remain together and need neither a contract nor the interference of government to do so. — unenlightened

This is a presumption.

One obvious essential to making an informed lifetime commitment that you seem to favour is to have pre-marital sex. — unenlightened

The experience of hundreds (or better said thousands!) of years disagrees with you. People generally do prefer if their partner had saved themselves up for them. If they could choose, they would certainly opt for that. Now the viscitudes of life make that difficult for many in practice - especially today. Yet you seem to ignore basic human natural preferences in favor of your ideology. But of course, you are entitled to believe whatever you want.

Try before you buy. Sexual compatibility cannot be judged at arm's length. — unenlightened

Right - because love is a business transaction...

You seem to ignore basic human natural preferences in favor of your ideology. — Agustino

No, that's you. Marriages break up because people do not want to continue with them. There is nothing natural about the preference for virginity; it is all about the maintenance of patrilineal inheritance.

Right - because love is a business transaction... — Agustino

You are the one wanting to enforce contracts, not I.

Marriages break up because people do not want to continue with them. — unenlightened

Yes it's called divorce - not adultery, thankfully.

There is nothing natural about the preference for virginity; it is all about the maintenance of patrilineal inheritance. — unenlightened

When I say natural I simply describe a predisposition of the human organism. Most people would prefer that. Now you prefer your ideology - that it's about the maintenance of patrilineal inheritance. As if premartial sex certainly had anything to do with children. Yes ... that certainly makes much sense, bravo! :-!

You are the one wanting to enforce contracts, not I. — unenlightened

As social policy - not as love.

When one is divorced, the marital assets are equitably divided. Equitably means fairly, as opposed to equally, which means cut in half. Sometimes equitably is equally, sometimes not. I would expect a judge or jury to consider the adultery when deciding how to spilt the assets. Additionally, alimony (in Georgia at least) is unavailable to the unfaithful spose.

My point here is just to say that committin adultery already negatively impacts the adulterer in a divorce. As with all contractual breaches, the "punishment" is not of the criminal type (like fines, imprisonment, community service, etc.), but is just one where you get financially the short end of the stick.

At any rate, I'd be more in favor of a law forbidding unsympathetic conduct betwen spouses than in one forbidding adultery because I think that is a greater cause of marital unhappiness. I also think both are equally impossible to enforce.

As social policy - not as love. — Agustino

So all your arguments about the union of two as one, and about love are irrelevant. Your policy is not about promoting love at all, nor is it about preventing the harm of losing love.

When push comes to shove, it becomes about the children of loveless marriages and the social costs of childcare. Time to reformulate your argument.

So all your arguments about the union of two as one, and about love are irrelevant. Your policy is not about promoting love at all, nor is it about preventing the harm of losing love. — unenlightened

No - they are not. They are about love. Love requires certain social policies to be made possible and encouraged. Those policies are compatible with love. You seem to think per your ideology that love is something that has nothing to do with society and social policy. This is not true. Empirically it's not true.

My point here is just to say that committin adultery already negatively impacts the adulterer in a divorce. — Hanover

In some countries - unfortunately not in all of them. Where I am originally from, in Eastern Europe, divorce in most countries is in the favor of the man, regardless of adultery or not. That's not fair - especially since in those countries men are much more likely to engage in adultery than women. That's a problem. And in some Western countries, adultery or not doesn't make a difference in divorce anymore - which again is a very big problem. And in yet other Western countries, everything is pardonable to women - because they are women - this is again a very big problem. Because ideologists like unelightened run the place in those countries - that's why they are so unenlightened places!

Love requires certain social policies... — Agustino

Indeed! Love requires freedom, because love that is coerced is not love but a reaction from fear. Love requires the absence of coercive policies, the absence of legal contracts, the absence above all of fear. So we agree that social policies are required to foster love, but we disagree about what those policies should be. You might have noticed that I have actually advocated a social policy. The policy you propose would serve to confine and thus rather than fostering love would foster fear resentment and hatred.

I don't know why you keep branding me as an ideologue as if what you propose is not based on an ideology. Nowhere have I said that anything, let alone everything is pardonable to women and not to men, nor do I live in a country where any view of the sort is currently widespread, in fact there is no such country. So if you are concerned with 'empirical truth', such claims need to be withdrawn.

Now as to my name; are you claiming to be enlightened? If not then frankly, you needn't bother with the snide innuendo, it is pretty unconvincing, and if you are I will bow to your supreme wisdom and argue no more.

You know, interesting factoid! You know how a bunch of different species of birds mate for life? Well since that advent of genetics we now know that more than half of the species they preciously thought to be monogamous cheat. So discreetly that no one apparently even observed it until they knew it was happening based on the genetics of offspring.

Love requires freedom, because love that is coerced is not love but a reaction from fear. — unenlightened

I agree.

Love requires the absence of coercive policies, the absence of legal contracts, the absence above all of fear. — unenlightened

Nope. We disagree here. These social policies don't stop you from loving if that's what you want to do. They stop you from harming others. They are there to protect people from harming each other, not in order to force people to love each other as you seemingly think. If you want, you can divorce. You are absolutely free. No being able to commit adultery doesn't mean you're in chains. It simply means you can't harm your partner - not that you can't leave them.

I don't know why you keep branding me as an ideologue as if what you propose is not based on an ideology. — unenlightened

Because everything you have said is passed through your anti-patriarchal ideology. It's not considering what are normal human reactions and expectations, which arise naturally in most human beings. It's not grounded in this. It's grounded in a theoretical framework that you have built, which you use to judge reality. It's bad according to you that people desire loyalty, it's bad that they desire their partners to save themselves up, etc. These are unnatural desires according to your framework. But then if we return to reality - the world as it is - we will see that these are perfectly normal, and spontaneously arising desires. Just follow the life of a teenager - even in our modern decadent world. Follow the life of such a young person, and you will see many of these desires arising, sometimes fading, sometimes persisting - sometimes abandoned as unachievable ideals, and so forth. Look at life in its fullness - then you may be able to decide what is worth pursuing.

nor do I live in a country where any view of the sort is currently widespread, in fact there is no such country. So if you are concerned with 'empirical truth', such claims need to be withdrawn. — unenlightened

Yes tell that to the white, male professor who tried to get a university position and was denied - instead the black female lesbian was accepted. Being male is a disadvantage in many many Western societies now. You seem unable (or better said unwilling) to recognise this. This is comparable to the opposite situation in many Eastern societies where being female is a disadvantage. These are problems that we have to solve. And no - not by denigrating men or women. We have to solve them together - both men and women.

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. — unenlightened

This - what you said in the beginning - illustrates that you just don't care about the well-being of people. You have become cold-hearted, like other ideologues such as Marx. You judge everything through the narrow prism of your anti-patriarchal lenses.

Yes tell that to the white, male professor who tried to get a university position and was denied - instead the black female lesbian was accepted. — Agustino

Huh? Does that relate in some way to This?

And in yet other Western countries, everything is pardonable to women - because they are women - this is again a very big problem. Because ideologists like unelightened run the place in those countries - that's why they are so unenlightened places! — Agustino

Is there some reason why a white male professor should be preferred? And if there has been an instance or even several instances of unfairness to men or to whites or both, does this then become the inversion of patriarchy, the inversion of all that history you are so fond of? Really, your scattergun approach that does not even attempt to address the arguments is too tiresome to me to continue this. Carry on making shit up and proving your points alone, or with someone more patient.

Huh? Does that relate in some way to This? — unenlightened

Short comings in terms of experience, career and aptitudes are permitted to the black female lesbian while not to the white male heterosexual.

Is there some reason why a white male professor should be preferred? — unenlightened

No - they should rather be chosen based on their aptitudes, not on their gender, sexual orientation, or skin color as it happens now in many places.

Really, your scattergun approach that does not even attempt to address the arguments is too tiresome to me to continue thi — unenlightened

Right thank you. I was getting a bit tired to talk with someone who never even once responded to the points I have repeatedly made at different times in this conversation.

For example - this point you've never answered - because you can't:

Nope. We disagree here. These social policies don't stop you from loving if that's what you want to do. They stop you from harming others. They are there to protect people from harming each other, not in order to force people to love each other as you seemingly think. If you want, you can divorce. You are absolutely free. No being able to commit adultery doesn't mean you're in chains. It simply means you can't harm your partner - not that you can't leave them. — Agustino

Anyway have fun thinking through your anti-patriarchal ideology :D - maybe one day you'll be able to reach the point where at least it is coherent.

Yes that was a point i might have responded to if you weren't so busy justifying your prejudice.

Yes that was a point i might have responded to if you weren't so busy justifying your prejudice. — unenlightened

You have a prejudice against white, heterosexual males sir. I don't have any - I treat all people equally.

I have explained it harms people - do you disagree with that? I have explained the state has a role to prevent actions which cause harm to others - especially if that harm is significant and has large ramifications. Do you disagree with that? — Agustino

To varying degrees infidelity does harm people. But then so, to some degree, however small, does all social interaction. How much harm have you caused to others on these forums by disagreeing with them? If you are unfaithful and don't tell your partner, does that harm them? Even if you do tell them, and they leave you in consequence, might that not harm you more than them? In relationships, what people want and expect, rightly or wrongly, from one another is different each time, and that includes relationships online. As I said before, I agree that deliberate harm should be punishable.

I have explained that adultery is an action which fits that criteria - namely it causes harm which has potentially large and severe ramifications. Do you disagree with that? Very well, if you don't, then you agree that maybe adultery should be legally punished in some form.

I have only been speaking about infidelity in the passage above, charitably broadening the scope. If you want to say that adultery should be legally punishable then you would need to determine that it actually constitutes a legal breach of contract under current laws. Bigamy is illegal; but I would say that adultery does not constitute a legal breach of contract, but it has for a long time merely been grounds for divorce. Nowadays divorce is much more easily obtained, you can be granted it on the grounds that the relationship no longer works for you. Consider this situation; a couple are married under the new marriage laws that sanction punishment of adultery by law. They love one another very much, but in a moment of weakness the women meets a man she is highly attracted to, and in a moment of weakness, allows herself to be seduced. She feels terrible remorse afterwards and suffers terrible agonies of conscience; she cannot decide whether to tell her husband as she knows it will hurt him terribly, and she loves him so much she cannot bear to see him suffer, but, on the other hand the guilt is eating her up inside and causing her great pain. Should she tell him? He will not suffer unless she does tell him. Is it more selfish of her to tell him in order to alleviate her own suffering than it is to suffer in silence to protect him? Unbeknownst to her, someone spied her infidelity, filmed it and reports it to the police. In the meantime she tells her husband, and he, although angry, loves her so much he forgives her. The police come to arrest her, and the man says he does not want to press charges, because he loves his wife and understands that she is only human. The police say that she must be charged under the new laws and spend some time in prison to set an example an example for others.

-Clearly if there is a punishment, less people will engage in the activity. — Agustino

It's not clear to me, unless by 'less people' you set the bar as low as 'at least one person will not do it that otherwise would'. As has already been pointed out, punishments exist already in the form of social disapproval and guilt. The onus is on you to show that a legal punishment would significantly increase the number of people managing to overcome their temptations

I don't see any negatives, except that less people will get married at least in the short-term. — Agustino

Any new criminalisation of any activity will have negatives, amongst which are:
- the costs to society of detecting, arresting, trying, convicting and punishing those convicted under the law
- the inevitable occurrence of erroneous convictions
- displacement effects, whereby a reduction in the proscribed activity causes an increase in another, more harmful activity. An easily foreseeable one here is an increase in spousal rape in the case of partners with highly mismatched sexual appetites.
- providing a breeding ground for organised crime. We only need consider the Prohibition era and the impact of the US's puritanical 'war on drugs' to see how criminalisation of activities generates a boom in organised crime that has a much bigger harmful impact than the problem they were intended to solve.
- forcing those that do the proscribed activity to take risks they otherwise would not take, at risk to themselves and others. A good example of this is how the criminalisation of drugs makes taking small recreational amounts of drugs much more risky because one cannot know whence they came or have a reliable way of knowing they are unadulterated and of a known concentration.

I agree with you, as would many on here I imagine, that adultery is often harmful and immoral, and best discouraged.

So is calling somebody an idiot.

But most harmful and immoral things are not illegal, because making something the subject of criminal law has huge costs and consequences. These things need to be weighed up with enormous care and diligence. To just say 'This law will discourage that harmful activity and clearly there are no downsides' is naive and dangerous in the extreme. It reveals a complete failure to understand the complexity and importance of the development of public policy.

This is not a left vs right or conservative vs progressive issue. I feel the same way about some laws that emanate from the progressive movement ('my' movement). In my country we have laws against racial and religious vilification. While I wish racial and religious vilification to be strongly discouraged, I think it is a bad idea for there to be laws specifically against it, because there are potential negative consequences that I do not think have been sufficiently taken into account. There is a very aggressive public commentator that lost a court case against him for racial vilification of indigenous people. While what he said is loathsome, I think it is regrettable that the response to it was via a court case rather than by public condemnation.

It seems to me that the arguments you have made in favour of criminalising adultery, or analogs thereof, can be applied just as easily to the harm of calling someone an idiot. Would you then also support the criminalisation of that activity?

To varying degrees infidelity does harm people. But then so, to some degree, however small, does all social interaction. — John

I said significant, long-lasting and unrepairable harm.

Consider this situation; a couple are married under the new marriage laws that sanction punishment of adultery by law. They love one another very much, but in a moment of weakness the women meets a man she is highly attracted to, and in a moment of weakness, allows herself to be seduced. She feels terrible remorse afterwards and suffers terrible agonies of conscience; she cannot decide whether to tell her husband as she knows it will hurt him terribly, and she loves him so much she cannot bear to see him suffer, but, on the other hand the guilt is eating her up inside and causing her great pain. Should she tell him? He will not suffer unless she does tell him. Is it more selfish of her to tell him in order to alleviate her own suffering than it is to suffer in silence to protect him? Unbeknownst to her, someone spied her infidelity, filmed it and reports it to the police. In the meantime she tells her husband, and he, although angry, loves her so much he forgives her. The police come to arrest her, and the man says he does not want to press charges, because he loves his wife and understands that she is only human. The police say that she must be charged under the new laws and spend some time in prison to set an example an example to others. — John

Okay a few points. First your narrative is quite unrealistic - most people committing adultery do not have such a character. Second of all your story is very abstract - it's very very unlikely that it's "a moment of weakness". You know, a moment is not enough for adultery to take place. Suppose it's true that she is attracted to him. She can't just jump and have sex with him in the middle of the office for example - she must first talk to him - probably much more than once. All this time what is her conscience doing? In her mind she knows she is attracted to him and thus doing wrong. Then she actually has to arrange with him to do it somewhere - say a hotel. What is her conscience doing on that psychologically long way to the hotel - and even in actually arranging it? In most people fear they are doing something wrong intervenes. Then when she reaches she must undress herself - what is her conscience doing? Sleeping? Then she actually has to engage in quite a few things such as foreplay and kissing before getting to the actual intercourse. This means she must look at herself naked before that man, This is not instantaneous. So in that time - what is her conscience doing? Then she must actually go through the act! Is her consciousness in a comma?? A moment of weakness - give me a break. Such things are intentional - they are not moments of weakness. If she is say drunk - thats not a moment of weakness that would qualify as rape most likely. It's like murder - can't be done in a moment of weakness - most plan it, and later they may justify it as moment of weakness etc. Anyway - if thats the case she morally has a duty to tell her husband - because he must have a right to choose if he wants to remain with such a woman or not. Also she morally has a duty to do something about herself and fix whatever issues she has.

Now, from a legal point of view, I never specified the nature of the punishment. You assume the punishment is a prison sentence and that the police can persecute by itself, even if the victim is against such prosecution - suggesting that adultery has been made a criminal offence. I have nowhere detailed this and i would probably disagree with it. Im not sure on the nature of the punishment, I simply said there should be one given the tremendous harm of the act.

I appreciate your input, I find it very thoughtful., coherent and rational. I must agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I'm not at home so I can't give a detailed response yet. So my apologies, I will return to your post at a later time. But you are right about possible disadvantages.

I will say this quickly - a very big problem is that social condemnation and disapproval for adultery is vanishing. So I disagree on the point that this mechanism works. We have a problem precisely because it doesn't work. Hence the rising rates of adultery. We have movies and a culture which not only don't condemn adultery, but actually encourage it, either by making something of a joke out of it, or by diminishing its consequences. What is clear is that we have to do something to lower the rates of adultery - if social disapproval is the way, how do we implement it in a culture which makes a "cool" thing out of adultery?

I said significant, long-lasting and unrepairable harm. — Agustino

Then I don't agree that adultery, for the most part, qualifies.

Okay a few points. First your narrative is quite unrealistic - most people committing adultery do not have such a character. — Agustino

How do you know what the characters of "most people" are? Have you met "most people" and lived with them enough to know what they are like?

In any case, it was only offered as one possible kind of scenario that could result if the law is allowed to intervene in people's private lives.

If you loved someone and they committed an infidelity, would you be able to find it in your heart to forgive that? Would you still want to be with them, or are you so unforgiving that you would throw away your love? Who do you love, your beloved or your image of how she must be? What would hurt you more; the fact of the infidelity, or the fact that you could not forgive, and threw your love away?

The law has no business interfering in affairs of the heart; and I cannot see that anything but more trouble and heartache would come from it. Human beings are not perfect when it comes to emotion and desire; that may offend your purist sensibilities; but I think it is something you will be forced to deal with.

How do you know what the characters of "most people" are? Have you met "most peolple" and lived with them enough to know what they are like? — John

It's an observation considering the people i have met and interacted with. Do you disagree with it?

If you loved someone and they committed an infidelity, would you be able to find it in your heart to forgive that? — John

Depends on the particular situation. Generally if I have to pick an answer I would say that i would not forgive it. Most people don't change their characters and thats just a pragmatic lesson we have to learn. I'd look for someone else. But if despite this she made sacrifices, showed true repentance, showed that she was willing to do whatever it takes to remedy her character and make herself a better person, showed that she really hated herself for doing such a thing, and showed evidence of never doing such a thing again then I would very possibly end up forgiving her. But as you see it's not so simple to give an answer. It depends on the people. If she's some feminazi who says she can do whatever she wants with her body, that she did nothing wrong, that she felt ignored, etc. then definitely i won't forgive her. She must be sorrowful and repentant to be forgiven at minimum.

Im not home I'll deal with other parts of your post later.

It's an observation considering the people i have met and interacted with. Do you disagree with it? — Agustino

I disagree with any claim that you could possibly know what most people are like.

Most people don't change their characters — Agustino

Again with the unwarranted generalizations. There's no point for me in even attempting to have a discussion with someone who insists on relying for the argument on such groundless generalizations, because nothing I say could possibly make any difference to such a person; they will just keep on making that same claims, which amount to saying simply "I'm right, and you're wrong".

You asked me how I would react to that and if i would forgive her. i told you how I would act - what more do you want? It was an honest response based on how I am. Of course I use generalisations which have been developed from my experience when taking personal decisions- what else do you expect? If you answer a personal question you would too. There's no argument in that response just a description for how i would act.

No, I would forgive or not forgive based on my love and on my ethics regarding forgiveness, not on some generalized expectation about her character. In order words I would risk being hurt in the name of love.

No, I would forgive or not forgive based on my love and on my ethics regarding forgiveness, not on some generalized expectation about her character. In order words I would risk being hurt in the name of love. — John

There's a difference between risking to be hurt in the name of love, and being stupid. The pragmatic prejudice (which does have a place for most conservatives, by the way) isn't contrary to my ethics - it merely helps one sort the wheat from the chaff in order to avoid behaving stupidly. We are creatures of flesh and blood - we have to act pragmatically, we can't just act ideologically following X ethics without any other rules which govern practical behaviour.

Now if person X cheats on me, then I have misjudged their character - I thought they were someone else, but they're not. I was wrong. So nothing changed about my love - my love is still there, except that they turned out not to be the person I loved - I had made a mistake in judgement. Now if someone cheats on you, you forgive, they do it again, you forgive again etc. - that's not called taking a risk in the name of love - it's called stupidity. Love is about caring for the other as much as you care for yourself - this presupposes that you must first love yourself. Hence "you shall love your neighbour as yourself". Of course erotic love is a special type of love - but it is built upon this neighbourly love.

Then I don't agree that adultery, for the most part, qualifies. — John

I think it does due to the nature of it. It's a betrayal of someone out of a life-long deal - and it's not like divorce - it's also insulting and disrespectful to the other person. It's not simply an assertion of your freedom to be your own person and do as you wish (as divorce would be) - it's a direct and intentional disrespect of the commitment you have to the other (who moreover is someone you claim to love) - a mockery of it. That is precisely why adultery leads to the creation of probably one of the most poisonous mixes of emotions - more poisonous than the reaction you would have if your lover were to steal quite a bit of your money and spend them without your knowledge for example. Have you not heard or read stories about people who killed themselves or others due to adultery - or otherwise behaved violently, etc.? I've read and heard quite a few. This shows that such activity is very dangerous, as it can very easily escalate to worse sins. For example, one of my neighbours back when I was a child attempted to kill herself (although thankfully she survived) because of her husband's repeated affairs which she couldn't even bear the thought of. I would say in order of moral gravity it would go like murder (with violence and other direct privations here including self-harm) -> adultery -> theft. Adultery is very likely to lead to what's included in the category of murder here - much more likely than say theft (depending of course on what's stolen, how valuable it is perceived to be, etc.). But all sins are likely to escalate though to worse sins - some moreso than others. That's why I have said adultery means social instability - because it promotes very dangerous emotions. That's exactly why something must be done to prevent, limit and control its occurence.

The law has no business interfering in affairs of the heart; and I cannot see that anything but more trouble and heartache would come from it. Human beings are not perfect when it comes to emotion and desire; that may offend your purist sensibilities; but I think it is something you will be forced to deal with. — John

Right - that's why you can divorce. You can't disrespect and harm your partner by intentionally and unlawfully breaking your marriage vows - but that's different. That's there not to be involved in the affairs of the heart between you and your partner, but to protect both of you from unlawfully hurting each other. If the affairs of the heart between you two determine that you should divorce nothing wrong with that - you go ahead and do it.

The thing is you could love someone so much that if it makes them happy to have sexual relations with another, then you will happily allow it. We do not own others. I used to be more of a jealous type when younger than I am now; that kind of tendency softens with time, or it has in my case, at least.

Everyone is a different case; that's why I abhor generalizations about 'how one should be in such and such a situation'. Emotional relations are really a matter for the people involved to work out and work through; there may be some, or even a lot of emotional pain; but, hey, that's how people grow and mature. Why would I want to protect anyone from that kind of invaluable experience?

I think that if people are very religious or very idealistic, and they want to get married in the traditional way and take all the traditional vows then that's fine and they should take it seriously. but quite often people who do this are just kids, not very mature or emotionally well-seasoned at all. I would certainly never advocate adultery. Personally I don't have much desire for casual sex; and when it has found me, I mostly haven't found it very satisfying and it certainly doesn't usually live up to the excited expectations it can occasion.

As to divorcing someone; I have done that twice in relationships where my wife did not want to end it. And I can tell you that caused significant suffering to the other (and to myself on account of intense feelings of guilt at having not fulfilled their expectations). I wouldn't want to go through that again. I think if a partner 'cheated on me' now and told me; that would be a 'walk in the park' by comparison, to be honest.

The thing is you could love someone so much that if it makes them happy to have sexual relations with another, then you will happily allow it. — John

That ignores aspects of oneself, and promotes degrading tendencies in the loved one - so that's really a lose-lose situation. You don't help bring out the best in the very person you claim to love - that in-itself is replaced with some petty sentimentalism where you do whatever makes your loved one comfortable instead of whatever is good for them, even though it might make them uncomfortable. There's nothing good in such an attitude I don't think - and I don't think such an attitude can be called love.

I used to be more of a jealous type when younger than I am now; that kind of tendency softens with time, or it has in my case, at least. — John

That depends - jealousy, like all other emotions, has situations when it is objectively justified, and situations when it is a passion that one should eliminate. If using money that you have stolen from me you buy yourself a big mansion and I feel jealous - then that feeling of jealousy is objectively justified, because you have acquired something for yourself in an unjust way. You are enjoying what rightfully belongs to me. On the other hand if I were to get jealous of you because my wife speaks to you on the phone or something like that - then of course it's not objectively justified. But to be jealous when it is not justified is a wrong. And the opposite is also true - NOT to feel jealous when it is objectively justified is also a malfunctioning of the mind/organism. One shouldn't cower from one's emotions - as one's emotions are useful guides. In adultery one feels jealous because what belongs to them (at least while they're married) - the love, devotion and intimacy of another - is given to someone else. This is an objectively valid feeling of jealousy. If one were to NOT feel jealous, then there would be a problem - probably the person in question is repressing their natural feelings because they are painful - that's a problem. Emotional dullness is not to be mistaken for virtue and wisdom.

Everyone is a different case; that's why I abhor generalizations about 'how one should be in such and such a situation'. Emotional relations are really a matter for the people involved to work out and work through; there may be some, or even a lot of emotional pain; but, hey, that's how people grow and mature. Why would I want to protect anyone from that kind of invaluable experience? — John

People only have to be protected from unlawful harm. That's why you don't outlaw divorce - which is still a harm. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected from intentional harm - like adultery - which is different.

And I can tell you that caused significant suffering to the other (and to myself on account of intense feelings of guilt at having not fulfilled their expectations). I wouldn't want to go through that again. I think if a partner 'cheated on me' now and told me; that would be a 'walk in the park' by comparison, to be honest. — John

No one claimed it's an easy experience, I don't think divorce is moral (good) either for that matter. Quite a few people from my family, including my parents have divorced. But there's nothing the law can do here. And your choices are your choices. Morally though we should condemn divorce (at least in many cases - certainly not in all) - but there's nothing we can legally do about it.

There's nothing good in such an attitude I don't think - and I don't think such an attitude can be called love. — Agustino

But, if two people love one another, however they might express that love and organize their lives together, disapproval from you based on a generalization about what you think love is, or even more particularly, based on what you think love is for you, in other words what you call love or think about love will be irrelevant to them.

I disagree entirely about jealousy. It is a negative emotion that everyone would be better off not experiencing, if that were possible. The issue has nothing to do with whether it is justified or not; jealousy has no need of justification, to speak of justification is a category error, the point is whether or not jealousy is felt and what one does with the feelings; whether one submits to them or not.

You keep speaking of adultery as "intentional harm". This is wrong because it ignores a distinction between deliberate malicious harm, and harm which may be able to be anticipated, but which one would certainly not wish to inflict, but which one may in any case inflict due to failure to avoid the action that causes the harm.

To me the fact that you want to morally disapprove of things in general betrays a misplaced tendency to generalize.that would ignore the nuanced differences of individual cases. In any case, I don't imagine what I have said will take any effect on you, so having said about as much on this topic as I am motivated to say, given my flagging interest in it; I think we are going to have to rest content with mutual disagreement.