Wow, criminal anti-adultery laws! Better build a lot of new prisons.

Quote from: droogWow, criminal anti-adultery laws! Better build a lot of new prisons.

Maybe they can double-bunk with all the pot smokers already there.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOr maybe I'm not arrogant enough to take satisfaction in seeing others punished for not conducting their personal affairs according to my personal standards.

Maybe this will make you feel better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyRQljpkf34&feature=related

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RMaybe this will make you feel better.

Sadly, I am not an avenging angel of God.  I am, however, beginning to suspect that John is.

!i!

Quote from: droogWow, criminal anti-adultery laws! Better build a lot of new prisons.

Sent to prison because of adultery, become someone's bitch and then commit adultery again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowAll laws are legislated morality.  Makes you feel superior about yourself imagining that you are somehow above mere morality, doesn't it?

And what's wrong with treating marriage as an actual monogamy contract?  Don't want monogamy, don't get married.

That doesn't seem very different from the existing situation, as far as I understand it.  If a business relation breaks a contract, the other side can sue them in civil court, where the terms of the contract are held as grounds against them -- though other factors are also considered.  If the other party does not sue over breach of contract, nothing is done.  If the breach doesn't involve any monetary harm, then the suit is unlikely to result in much penalty.  

If a person cheats and their partner divorces them, the adultery is generally held against them -- i.e. the court will favor against them in judging splits such as custody of children and division of shared assets.  In neither case would the charge go to criminal court, though.  If someone wants to insist on specific penalties for adultery, they can include those in a pre-nuptial agreement.

Quote from: David RSent to prison because of adultery, become someone's bitch and then commit adultery again. It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya.

Oh of course the liberals are going to scream that prisons are just a training ground for adulterers...

Duplicate

Quote from: KoltarDo you tend to watch the show at all??

Yes, I watch the show.  The episode was good and she's not really a daughter -- more of a variant clone.  

I made a comment in passing which was actually about a comment in the article.  

Quote from: KoltarI can see why Tennant would be attracted to her

Yeah, why think about her child or anything else about the article when I could make superficial comments about her appearance.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYes, yes, I'm beyond good and evil, John.  Or maybe I'm not arrogant enough to take satisfaction in seeing others punished for not conducting their personal affairs according to my personal standards.

If marriage were simply a matter of "personal affairs", there would be little reason for gays and lesbians to fight for it.  

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou're really beginning to squirm now that your pet and his toadies are on their way out now, aren't you?

You mistake me for someone who thinks Obama is going to win the election or that the Democrats, if they gain power, will hold on to it for more than a few years.

Quote from: Ian Absentia(P.S. All laws are legislated morality?  You really are a laugh riot.  I'll remember that the next time I stop at a red light.  That's an awfully long stretch of the concept of "morality".)

Yes, putting in a red light and demanding that I stop at it is legislated morality.  Why should I be obliged to stop at a red light even if there is clearly no traffic coming, for example?  If stopping at red lights were some sort of law of nature or unchallengeable necessity of life, why do we need punitive laws requiring people to stop at them?  Wouldn't they just do so willingly?  Of course given the large number of people who still drive through red lights in certain circumstances (very common for "No Turn on Red" intersections but also common, for example, at long lights late at night) shouldn't we consider such laws failed attempts at legislating morality and simply repeal them?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSadly, I am not an avenging angel of God.  I am, however, beginning to suspect that John is.

It would seem that way to someone who is being good and evil and morality, I suppose.  Please note that I never specified a punishment.  My use of the term "criminal" was to specify that I was talking about penal law rather civil law, which does not necessarily require jail time or harsh punishment.

Quotes rearranged to make replying easier:

Quote from: jhkimThat doesn't seem very different from the existing situation, as far as I understand it.  [...] If a person cheats and their partner divorces them, the adultery is generally held against them -- i.e. the court will favor against them in judging splits such as custody of children and division of shared assets.

Actually, that's not the case.  I friend who lives not far from you (across the Bay) was served divorce papers by his wife and he was told that any evidence he might have of his wife having committed adultery was irrelevant to the division of assets and custody of the children.  And I've heard plenty of other similar cases.  In practice, many jurisdictions in the United States treat adultery, who filed for divorce, and why they are filing for divorce as irrelevant when it comes to assets, support, and child custody.  The courts, like Ian, are apparently beyond good and evil and have no interest in legislating morality.

And yes, I'm fully aware that we can thank Ronald Reagan for California's no-fault divorce laws which he signed as governor.

Quote from: jhkimIf a business relation breaks a contract, the other side can sue them in civil court, where the terms of the contract are held as grounds against them -- though other factors are also considered.  If the other party does not sue over breach of contract, nothing is done.  If the breach doesn't involve any monetary harm, then the suit is unlikely to result in much penalty.

Correct.  The problem is that marriage is often no longer legally considered a contract in any meaningful way and, in many cases, has become not only an agreement that either side can break with impunity but that the person breaking the agreement can use to their advantage punitively against their spouse.

Quote from: jhkimIn neither case would the charge go to criminal court, though.  If someone wants to insist on specific penalties for adultery, they can include those in a pre-nuptial agreement.

Pre-nuptial agreements are not always binding in practice and can be overturnedin practice, especially for that sort of condition.  I also think that an agreement to not commit adultery should be read into every marriage contract (just as the UCC is read into every business contract) automatically and if you want to change that, then write a pre-nuptial agreement saying so.  And there are a few states experimenting with two tiers of marriage, one that's more binding and harder to get out of than the other.

I suppose I should also point out that as a monogamy contract rather than a partnership for the purpose of having children, gays and lesbians could make a strong moral case for marriage that would undermine on of the main "special nature of the marriage of a man and a woman" arguments against it.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, putting in a red light and demanding that I stop at it is legislated morality.

:haw: I just knew that if I handed you that example you'd stretch the definition of "morality" to near-breaking point.  And you did not disappoint.

QuotePlease note that I never specified a punishment. My use of the term "criminal" was to specify that I was talking about penal law rather civil law, which does not necessarily require jail time or harsh punishment.

Emphasis in bold mine. But you are suggesting some kind of punishment.  What a sad, sad joke you're making, John.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia:haw: I just knew that if I handed you that example you'd stretch the definition of "morality" to near-breaking point.

And I was expecting an example like that, which doesn't prove your point.  Other than driver inattention (e.g., not seeing the light) please tell me (A) why people blow through red lights (and I've seen and heard plenty of reasons, including a guy that I once worked with who had driven cabs in the Bronx and would blow through red lights with impunity because he didn't want to stop his cab in certain neighborhoods) and (B) why we need laws to tell people to stop at right lights.  

ADDED:  Here, let me help you out.  To want to pass a law against any behavior, a person needs to assess that the behavior in question should be discouraged, that the force of law should be used to discourage it, that the cost of the discouragement and the problems caused by the behavior outweigh any possible benefit from the behavior and the benefits caused by it, and so on.  All of those are personal moral assessments.  You might find this article and this article interesting, about towns that have been removing traffic signs and regulations, including those at intersections, in order to improve safety.  But you are so morally sure of yourself, I presume you never considered advocating an idea like that was possible.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd you did not disappoint.

Nor did you.  But as usual, you don't really address the substance of the point.  No wonder you like Obama.  All style.  No substance.  You two are a good fit for each other.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEmphasis in bold mine. But you are suggesting some kind of punishment.  What a sad, sad joke you're making, John.

Correct, but it's not a joke.  Do you feel that adultery should play a role in the settlement from divorce proceedings and, if so, how?