Should adultery be re - criminalized?

[SlowFJH]

There's been a plethora of threads from OW in recent days. The general feeling on MN seems to be "cheating is always wrong". Yet most "civilised" countries have removed "Thou shalt not commit adultery" from their statute books many years ago. Was this a mistake?

Of course in those same countries it is still a legitimate grounds for divorce.

And I don't really believe in the idea of a contract of monogamy. I believe in behaving consciously and responsibly.

If laws and morality are entirely and totally separate (as you have said Offred - repeatedly ), how would you prosecute a case using the law on "Outraging Public Decency?"

Could you construct an entirely legal position without any reference to what is / is not acceptable according to the morals of the time?

Yes.

This is your thread. Accusing MN of being wrong. Just explain why you think cheating is not wrong. I am not on trial.

I dont want to see adultery criminalised but I would like to see the injured party more protected by law. Often men cheat and leave their wives for ow and the staye does very little to ensure they pay proper child support. They get to remarry and have more dc or move in with a woman who has dc and therefore reduce what they pay to the first family. I would like to see all that stopped - for men to be held properly financially accountable for their original families. This is why adultery is morally wrong. Broken promises and deception aside, it is because it allows men (sometimes women but mostly not) to abandon their responsibilities and leaves women having to deal with situatiobs that they didn't agree to.

I would also support laws which penalise people who have exposed their spouse to disease by having secret sex with other people. That does have implications for consent.

"Accusing MN of being wrong?"

Three questions

1. Is MN a single entity?
2. Are you its anointed spokesperson?
3. Where and how specifically have I "accused MN of being wrong"??

I disagree with you personally in your contention that "Affairs are always morally wrong".

Not a therapist. Asking questions is a way of finding out what others think. I'm interested.

I think individuals should be able to have consensual sex with whoever they want, whenever they want
Call me old fashioned :o

I am very interested how Offred would construct a prosecution using "Outraging Public Decency" using the dictum of Law. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Morality

You are not interested in discussing views. If you were you wouldn't have characterised my answer as to why I believe cheating is wrong as "because I say it is" and you wouldn't consistently refuse to articulate why you think it isn't wrong.

It is not unfair to assume based on your posts that you are not interested in discussion but actually interested in characterising views opposed to yours as ridiculous and unreasonable.

What's the point? You don't have an understanding of law and the separation from morality. You don't actually bother to read or acknowledge any of my responses and prefer to characterise them as "because I say so".

The separation of law and morality and how correlation is not causation is not a difficult concept to grasp if you are open to understanding it.

Hadtoreregister

A no questions post :-

1. Throughout history what is / is not "morally acceptable" evolves and develops over time.

2. Our statutes reflect the values and beliefs of the time regarding what is right/proper vs what is wrong/improper. In this respect, our laws legislate the morality of that era.

3. For me personally, I find it more helpful to express preferences in a relationship ("I would prefer it if you didn't do xyz..In fact it would be a deal breaker for me") rather making statements about moral absolutes ("xyz is ALWAYS wrong, because it's immoral, because I say so").

Sorry for the repetition but I think I have made my own POV as clear as I can.

Your second point is factually incorrect for the reasons previously articulated.

Your third point is conflating the having of moral standards with the imposing of your moral standards on others.

Offred I'm not sure if getting so irritated with an alternative perspective is going to serve you well in your legal studies. You seem to have a completely black and white, no ifs no buts, compartmentalization in your thinking.

I believe life is a little bit more complicated than that.

I'm well aware that you feel your view is the morally superior one (ironic)...

You clearly do not understand the law so I'm sceptical of your assessment of how well I will or won't do.

Having moral standards does not mean you are a black and white thinker.

If you would like to have a discussion about the complexities you need to articulate why you think "the general feeling on MN is cheating is wrong" and why you specifically disagree that cheating is wrong.

Thinking law is based on moral standards is not an alternative view btw, it is just an incorrect understanding of what the law is and how it is made.

Really Offred ? So it is factually incorrect to say that morals change over time? So you think a micro - bikini would have been morally acceptable on a Victorian era beach???

You think it would have been morally acceptable for two homosexual men to kiss in public on said Victorian beach?

Morals don't change with time?

No, it is incorrect to say law is based on morality.

Moral standards and laws change over time. That is because they are both influenced by similar considerations of what is harmful. That does not mean law is based on morality. They are different things.

Sorry I thought you were rejecting my first point.

Hadtoreregister
If I ask questions you're unhappy. If I state my point of view you're unhappy.
Sorry.

Do you believe the abolition of slavery came about purely as a result of legal rather than moral considerations?