have sex go to prison

[Puddles]

Right, if there weren't any sanctions against adultery then all marriages would de facto become "open" marriages.

Taking it a step further, if adultery is considered to be OK by society, would there be any real reason for marriage in the first place?

But why should that be sanctioned by the government? Why can't grown adults be able to make these decisions for themselves?

 

[5stringJeff]

I wouldn't call it just "prudishness".

Adultery is a form of breaking your marriage "contract". If a divorce results from adultery, the harmed party has the right to claim more of the goodies in the breakup. Or gets the kids. Therefore adultery must be a "crime" of sorts.

I certainly believe adultery is bad. But I don't think we need a legal mechanism to enforce marital fidelity between two adults.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But why should that be sanctioned by the government? Why can't grown adults be able to make these decisions for themselves?

I certainly believe adultery is bad. But I don't think we need a legal mechanism to enforce marital fidelity between two adults.

Both of these questions address the same question - why does the government have to enter the picture?

If two people enter into a marriage it means they have agreed to responsibilities towards each other and towards their children. Therefore there must be a mechanism in society to enforce the agreed upon responsibilities. If one of the married couple does not do his/her part to live up to their agreement, this is where society/government/legalities must enter the picture. Otherwise society would be chaos or under the thumb of the strongest.

 

[Puddles]

Both of these questions address the same question - why does the government have to enter the picture?

If two people enter into a marriage it means they have agreed to responsibilities towards each other and towards their children. Therefore there must be a mechanism in society to enforce the agreed upon responsibilities. If one of the married couple does not do his/her part to live up to their agreement, this is where society/government/legalities must enter the picture. Otherwise society would be chaos or under the thumb of the strongest.

Adultery laws are hardly abided by now and adultery happens all the time, so unless you consider our current situation in a state of chaos...then you're grossly exaggerating.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Adultery laws are hardly abided by now and adultery happens all the time, so unless you consider our current situation in a state of chaos...then you're grossly exaggerating.

You mean to say that adultery is no longer a factor in divorce settlements?

 

[5stringJeff]

Both of these questions address the same question - why does the government have to enter the picture?

If two people enter into a marriage it means they have agreed to responsibilities towards each other and towards their children. Therefore there must be a mechanism in society to enforce the agreed upon responsibilities. If one of the married couple does not do his/her part to live up to their agreement, this is where society/government/legalities must enter the picture. Otherwise society would be chaos or under the thumb of the strongest.

From a civil standpoint, yes. If one spouse commits adultery, that should be grounds for divorce, and in the ensuing divorce hearings, that spouse ought to be found at fault. But from a criminal standpoint, there's nothing to be gained by making/keeping adultery illegal.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

From a civil standpoint, yes. If one spouse commits adultery, that should be grounds for divorce, and in the ensuing divorce hearings, that spouse ought to be found at fault. But from a criminal standpoint, there's nothing to be gained by making/keeping adultery illegal.

Agreed, the criminality repercussions of adultery have long gone by the wayside, yet the civil ones remain. However, I'm not so sure I agree with you that there is nothing to be gained by making adultery a criminal act. It might be helpful in keeping many families intact....seems to work with the muslims...

If adultery is not a crime, then why can it still be used in civil cases? The truth is that adultery is a form of wronging others, in essence a crime. However, liberal relativism has diluted its "wrongness" and we now live in a society where it's become pretty much "tolerated" bad behavior.

 

[Dr Grump]

If adultery is not a crime, then why can it still be used in civil cases? The truth is that adultery is a form of wronging others, in essence a crime.

It may or not be a form of wrong doing. That is in the eye of the beholder and the reasons behind the adultery and the culture involved. It is not even close to being a crime. Personally, I believe men, generally, are not monogamous by nature. Women, generally, are (well moreso than men).

However, liberal relativism has diluted its "wrongness" and we now live in a society where it's become pretty much "tolerated" bad behavior.

I would say it is the other way around. Most societies, up until Judism, then reinforced by Christianity, thought it normal for men - especially strong, masculine men, to have a few wives. In some societies it is still the case.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It may or not be a form of wrong doing. That is in the eye of the beholder and the reasons behind the adultery and the culture involved. It is not even close to being a crime. Personally, I believe men, generally, are not monogamous by nature. Women, generally, are (well moreso than men).

Well, of course, you liberals always believe wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder.
That essentially sums up relativism.

You think adultery is not a crime. Well, how about the damage to the kids left behind in the dust of a destroyed marriage due to the adultery of a man who likes to selfishly satisfy his personal urges at will despite having given his word to honor his wife?

I would say it is the other way around. Most societies, up until Judism, then reinforced by Christianity, thought it normal for men - especially strong, masculine men, to have a few wives. In some societies it is still the case.

I don't believe we are talking about ancient history or other cultures than ours here in America. Since the inception of our country our laws have reflected a belief in one man, one wife as constituting a marriage. Adultery has always been considered a crime ever since the inception of our country. Our laws never adopted the heathen practices of polygamy - the only exception to be found is the old Mormon culture.

 

[jillian]

You mean to say that adultery is no longer a factor in divorce settlements?

You mean property awards, not settlements. And the answer is, not really.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You mean property awards, not settlements. And the answer is, not really.

Are children considered to be "property"?

 

[wiggles]

Are children considered to be "property"?

No. Custody agreements are separate from property awards. And custody agreements aren't usually too affected by adultery either.

 

[jillian]

Are children considered to be "property"?

I have never found allegations of adultery to have any bearing on awards of child custody. But that wasn't the implication of your post. Now... spousal abuse, child abuse... THOSE things affect custody and visitation. Judges aren't going to affect the best interests of the child because mom or dad had a fling.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. Custody agreements are separate from property awards. And custody agreements aren't usually too affected by adultery either.

I have never found allegations of adultery to have any bearing on awards of child custody. But that wasn't the implication of your post. Now... spousal abuse, child abuse... THOSE things affect custody and visitation. Judges aren't going to affect the best interests of the child because mom or dad had a fling.

I wonder. I suppose every case is different, but I know of a case where the philandering husband (a professional white guy) was taken to the cleaners financially (child support plus alimony plus the house, etc.) and then basically lost his kids because the ex-wife took them to live in another state although he still had visitation rights (although now much more costly). There was never any spousal or child abuse. He suffered greatly both financially and emotionally.

That was a few years ago....maybe things have been changing? Divorces are now just amicable partings? I'm curious -- who pays and who gets the children (everything else all being equal) when it is the wife who is messing around?

 

[jillian]

I wonder. I suppose every case is different, but I know of a case where the philandering husband (a professional white guy) was taken to the cleaners financially (child support plus alimony plus the house, etc.) and then basically lost his kids because the ex-wife took them to live in another state although he still had visitation rights (although now much more costly). There was never any spousal or child abuse. He suffered greatly both financially and emotionally.

That was a few years ago....maybe things have been changing? Divorces are now just amicable partings? I'm curious -- who pays and who gets the children (everything else all being equal) when it is the wife who is messing around?

I'm, sorry to hear about your friend. Perhaps it's because of the State he lives in since divorce laws differ from State to State. On the other hand, I'm not privvy to the facts of his case. But generally, they try to keep kids within 100 miles of the non-custodial parent.

Personally, in none of the cases on which I worked, did philandering factor into who the kids lived with... unless the philandering parent comported him or herself in such a way that it would impact negatively on the child.

There are minimum standards for child support in many States (I don't know if it's all ... ) which require the non-custodial parent to pay a set percentage of his/her adjusted gross income for child support. Being that child support is, at least theoretically, for the benefit of the child, not the custodial parent, it isn't affected by a parent messing around.

As for property distribution, laws vary from state to state as well. Since both parties have a property interest, it wouldn't be reasonable for someone to be found to have waived that interest by cheating, at least not in any case where I represented someone. Again, that might differ some state-to-state.

I've seen some results that I thought were unfair. But that mostly happened where there was spousal maintenance along with property distribution and child support. As long as mom is a full time stay-at-home, it becomes much rougher for the guys to support themselves because they have to support the ex-spouse/kids in the style they were used to and it's difficult to run two households on one income unless that income is very large. For working class/middle class people, it's near impossible.... which may be why your friend got such a rough deal, particularly where it's next to impossible to divest a stay-at-home mom of custody or force her to work.

BTW, sometimes... but only sometimes... spousal maintenance MIGHT (and again, it's just MIGHT) be affected by philandering... but only on rare occasions.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm, sorry to hear about your friend. Perhaps it's because of the State he lives in since divorce laws differ from State to State. On the other hand, I'm not privvy to the facts of his case. But generally, they try to keep kids within 100 miles of the non-custodial parent.

Personally, in none of the cases on which I worked, did philandering factor into who the kids lived with... unless the philandering parent comported him or herself in such a way that it would impact negatively on the child.

There are minimum standards for child support in many States (I don't know if it's all ... ) which require the non-custodial parent to pay a set percentage of his/her adjusted gross income for child support. Being that child support is, at least theoretically, for the benefit of the child, not the custodial parent, it isn't affected by a parent messing around.

As for property distribution, laws vary from state to state as well. Since both parties have a property interest, it wouldn't be reasonable for someone to be found to have waived that interest by cheating, at least not in any case where I represented someone. Again, that might differ some state-to-state.

I've seen some results that I thought were unfair. But that mostly happened where there was spousal maintenance along with property distribution and child support. As long as mom is a full time stay-at-home, it becomes much rougher for the guys to support themselves because they have to support the ex-spouse/kids in the style they were used to and it's difficult to run two households on one income unless that income is very large. For working class/middle class people, it's near impossible.... which may be why your friend got such a rough deal, particularly where it's next to impossible to divest a stay-at-home mom of custody or force her to work.

BTW, sometimes... but only sometimes... spousal maintenance MIGHT (and again, it's just MIGHT) be affected by philandering... but only on rare occasions.

Yeah, he had a stay at home wife. Anyway it appears that state laws (and the judges) are the determining factors on decisions surrounding infidelity.

If, as you say, infidelity has no bearing on divorce outcome anymore, then what is the outcome in the case when the wife is the one who is philandering?

Let's say she is a stay-at-home mom, kids but no job. She has an affair and the marriage falls apart and she wants the divorce (not him). The totally innocent husband is the provider and he wants to live with his kids and is able to support that. The kids are all of school age but not really old enough to make a choice of which parent to live with. What's the outcome if both are fighting for the kids, the house, the child support, etc.? Let's say she is qualified enough to go get a job. Does he still get shafted because he is the one who is currently providing?

 

[jillian]

Yeah, he had a stay at home wife. Anyway it appears that state laws (and the judges) are the determining factors on decisions surrounding infidelity.

Pretty much the case, but as I said, I don't think its particularly relevant in most cases anymore unless we're talking about extreme behavior that humiliates and abuses the spouse seeking the divorce.

If, as you say, infidelity has no bearing on divorce outcome anymore, then what is the outcome in the case when the wife is the one who is philandering?

Same result regardless of which spouse is cheating, I'd think.... unless there's something I'm missing in your question.

Let's say she is a stay-at-home mom, kids but no job. She has an affair and the marriage falls apart and she wants the divorce (not him). The totally innocent husband is the provider and he wants to live with his kids and is able to support that. The kids are all of school age but not really old enough to make a choice of which parent to live with. What's the outcome if both are fighting for the kids, the house, the child support, etc.? Let's say she is qualified enough to go get a job. Does he still get shafted because he is the one who is currently providing?

My guess is most judges would think about impact on the kids and still give her maintenance. Whether they order her to work or just make maintenance "rehabilitative" (for a period of time to let her get on her feet) often depends on what skills the custodial parent has. If you're talking about someone who's never worked, I'd be hard-pressed to say a judge would make her do anything. Plus, you'd be amazed at how lost and helpless some people can make themselves when they're giving testimony. We may have advanced as a society but a crying mom on the stand talking about how she's always taken care of her kids from the minute they were born is still going to be compelling testimony.

Basically, the law give certain perameters. How it's applied often depends on the judge sitting on the case. Believe it or not, in my practice, the judge I knew who was most likely to award custody to the father was a woman who you'd be likely to call a "feminazi". But in being feminist, she believed that men and women could do the same things... and that included parenting.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Pretty much the case, but as I said, I don't think its particularly relevant in most cases anymore unless we're talking about extreme behavior that humiliates and abuses the spouse seeking the divorce.

Same result regardless of which spouse is cheating, I'd think.... unless there's something I'm missing in your question.

My guess is most judges would think about impact on the kids and still give her maintenance. Whether they order her to work or just make maintenance "rehabilitative" (for a period of time to let her get on her feet) often depends on what skills the custodial parent has. If you're talking about someone who's never worked, I'd be hard-pressed to say a judge would make her do anything. Plus, you'd be amazed at how lost and helpless some people can make themselves when they're giving testimony. We may have advanced as a society but a crying mom on the stand talking about how she's always taken care of her kids from the minute they were born is still going to be compelling testimony.

Basically, the law give certain perameters. How it's applied often depends on the judge sitting on the case. Believe it or not, in my practice, the judge I knew who was most likely to award custody to the father was a woman who you'd be likely to call a "feminazi". But in being feminist, she believed that men and women could do the same things... and that included parenting.

Well, thanks for your input. That's pretty much what I thought. Even though she's the dirt bag, he still gets the shaft and loses his kids. That's why I'm all for bringing back sanctions against adultery and making people pay for the true crime that it is. Adultery is the straw that breaks a marriage and hurts others. It's a definite line that a person can choose to cross or not. If people were encouraged to NOT engage in adulterous behavior that breaks their marriage contract, they would try MUCH harder to mend their marriages and make things work again. If they cross the line, they should pay for their actions.

Actually, this example also makes it more obvious that marriage is NOT really a true "contract" that a couple enter into. She is not being faithful to him as promised, but in this example the adulteress who breaks the marriage "contract" doesn't really lose anything of consequence, yet he does. At least the feminazi you mentioned has it right when men and women are considered to be "equal" and adultery is not considered to be a factor in divorce.

 

[jillian]

Well, thanks for your input. That's pretty much what I thought. Even though she's the dirt bag, he still gets the shaft and loses his kids. That's why I'm all for bringing back sanctions against adultery and making people pay for the true crime that it is. Adultery is the straw that breaks a marriage and hurts others. It's a definite line that a person can choose to cross or not. If people were encouraged to NOT engage in adulterous behavior that breaks their marriage contract, they would try MUCH harder to mend their marriages and make things work again. If they cross the line, they should pay for their actions.

Actually, this example also makes it more obvious that marriage is NOT really a true "contract" that a couple enter into. She is not being faithful to him as promised, but in this example the adulteress who breaks the marriage "contract" doesn't really lose anything of consequence, yet he does. At least the feminazi you mentioned has it right when men and women are considered to be "equal" and adultery is not considered to be a factor in divorce.

You're welcome.

Actually, things are moving in the opposite direction. Having to plead things like adultery inflames the differences between people. You're talking about a relationship with kids. It's in their best interests for the property to be divided, custody to be resolved and the marriage ended with the least amount of rancor possible.

It seems you have this idea that divorce courts are supposed to be moral arbiters seeking vengence on the evil-doers and cheaters. That's betwen people and their G-d... has no place in a divorce court unless the kids have been endangered. Just my opinion, of course.

And, truth of the matter, most people don't have the money to litigate these issues fully.... if they want vengence, it's going to be expensive to extract... even assuming you get there. Personally, I used to tell my divorce clients to save their money to go on with their lives and to resolve their cases in a way that would be pretty close to what a court was likely to do unless there were issues that made that impossible to do. Just the facts of life...

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, of course, you liberals always believe wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder. That essentially sums up relativism.

Most people from any political persuasion think this way (well the ones I know anyway)

You think adultery is not a crime. Well, how about the damage to the kids left behind in the dust of a destroyed marriage due to the adultery of a man who likes to selfishly satisfy his personal urges at will despite having given his word to honor his wife?

What if the wife changes and turns into a real bitch, or the guy a real bastard. People change over time. What if keeping the family together is detrimental to the kids' wellbeing (parents fightin all the time). So you are a believer that somebody who is in a loveless marriage should stay in one?