Quote:

 

My doomed marriage didn't begin with a romantic gesture or a planned proposal. It was an ultimatum. She told me point blank one day, "If we're not married by July, I'm moving on." Back then, I didn't understand what "marriage" actually meant. Not really. To me, it was a ring and a piece of paper that said we were officially hooked up. I knew that if we didn't work out in that first year, we could always get an annulment. And if we lasted longer than that and ran into trouble, a divorce wasn't unheard of. In fact, it was pretty common.

So I did it. We went up to the courthouse and signed some paperwork. We paid a small fee. Then we met in the town park and had a quick five-minute ceremony in which four people attended. And just like that, we were married. Ten years later, I was sitting dumbfounded, alone in my new apartment, trying to figure out what went wrong.

I wasn't exactly the type of person who planned years ahead for things, so there was never this clear idea of, "This is the only woman I'm going to be with until the day I die." It was just the next thing to do. When you've been with a girl for a while, you sign these papers and she changes her name.

Imagine marriage didn't even exist as a thing. Like imagine you didn't live in a society where marriage is expected and where you continually get shit from people for not "tying the knot." Imagine all of those social pressures were gone, nobody was nagging you about it. Would you still make the promise to stay with this person forever? Are you getting married because you want to be married? Or just because that's what people do? A stunning number of marriages seem to happen because of the latter.

About a year ago, Emily and I discussed marriage, and I told her that under no circumstances did I ever want to go through that again. I had been down that road, and I couldn't imagine having to deal with all the bullshit a second time. We didn't fight or argue about it, but there was still a short time where I didn't know if she was going to wake up one morning, call it quits and move back home.

But she didn't. She thought it over for a few days and then told me that she was planning on staying with me forever, whether we got married or not. She respected my feelings and accepted my decision on the subject.

She made me realize that there exists a commitment so deep that some people are willing to bind themselves to its vows even without a piece of paper and a preacher to walk you through them. And I feel the same way she does. I mean, when you boil it right down to the basics, I'm committed to never cheating on her. I already love her, and I always will -- true, honest love isn't something that just dries up one day. I will always take care of her, no matter what the circumstance. I'm prepared to spend the rest of my life with her ...

... Oh. Well, I guess when I put it that way, I'm actually kind of surprised we aren't already married by now. I can be kind of a dumbass from time to time.

Emily Clark, will you marry me?

Siadhal

Jan 15 2012, 12:17 AM

But this isn't a matter of morality. It's a matter of logic. Adultery does nothing but create strife within society, so naturally it should be penalized. It's not a matter of whether or not it's immoral. It's a matter of that it is bad for society. The adulterer/adulteress is already risking the marriage when committing the act, and when found out, the spouse and the children are almost always hurt, many times scarred for life. This leads to potential vengeance, hence further potential crimes. Adultery makes every member of that family less efficient within society. If there was a heavy penalty for adultery, it would happen far less often because people would not want to suffer that penalty. Let's not so quickly assume this would drive up divorce rates or the number of illegitimate children. That is based on what? Nothing. It could make the rates go down. We don't really know. What we do know is the negative effects adultery has on society. And what are laws for if not to protect society?

As to the matter of swingers and the like, it would only take a simple change in the definition of adultery that has already been done in some jurisdictions. Define adultery as engaging in extramarital relations without the consent of the spouse. There. Simple. Sure, it's not very moral, but as I said, this isn't about the morality.

Now, yeah, I myself am extremely morally opposed to adultery. But I'm not going to go forcing my morals on everybody. I'm also morally opposed to prostitution, but I know things work better if it is legalized and regulated by the government. The same goes for drugs. And again, I am using logic, not morals, to figure what is best for society.

However, one might argue that our natural morality is the basis for law. None of us likes when we are stolen from, when someone we love is killed, when we are attacked, when our home is invaded, etc. And if someone were raised without human contact outside of society, even though they would not have language or any great intelligence, they would naturally dislike such actions as well.

To get to the bottom of this, we sort of need to analyze how marriage came about. Man is naturally stronger than woman. You could say ancient man viewed ancient woman as his property. Were another man to violate that property, he would kill him, and the wife if she were willing in the violation. It comes down to the simple jealousy and rage associated with such a violation. Of course, men would go around sleeping with whoever they wanted without consequence, unless it were another man's woman. Naturally, as society developed, the natural way of things was made into law. Men take women to be their wives because they want sex and this results in the reproduction of the species. Because we have emotions, we don't want other men to screw our women. It's rather simple. Monogamy comes about because it is naturally problematic to have more than one wife and the resulting children, and because of the ratio of men to women. It makes logical sense. Of course, one could argue polygamy makes logical sense when the man is well off and support multiple wives and the resulting children, and that is why there are societies with polygamy. That is why in the upper class polygamy was common for a time, and in the lower class monogamy was common. It was a simple matter of logistics.

So, given that monogamous marriage was the natural result of human nature, and the natural reaction to being cheated on is negative, laws against adultery, just like any other offense, naturally came about. I can only think that laws against adultery were repealed because of the natural tendency of people not to be able to control themselves sexually. But if that's the case, laws against murder should be repealed because of the natural tendency of people to kill other people. If such laws were repealed, the murder rate would shoot straight up because people want to kill each other for a myriad of reasons.

Laws should not be made to be in favor of negative human actions. Society should not let people run around causing harm however they want. Murder, theft, adultery, and more all cause harm, and should all be punished. Again, not a matter of morals, but rather a matter societal efficiency.

We must either ban marriage as a societal construct so people can run around an sleep with whomever they want without consequence, which is the natural desire, or we must ban adultery. And given that marriage is a natural product of human nature, and adultery is a natural offense to our nature, it is obvious which one should be banned.

Seriously, just really sit down and think about it for a moment. In depth. Forget what modern society has brainwashed you to think. Think logically about the matter. Think about its history. Think about what you would want to be done in the matter that your spouse cheated on you. Think about what you might do if you caught your spouse in the act. Think about how you would feel. Then think about how your children would feel. Then think about how you would feel if your parents were adulterous. Think about it. No one here would be happy with it. Everyone would feel wronged. How can this be suffered to be legal? Something so damaging to the human mind should not be tolerated. It is every bit as much a crime as assault and theft.

Quote:

 

Laws should not be made to be in favor of negative human actions. Society should not let people run around causing harm however they want. Murder, theft, adultery, and more all cause harm, and should all be punished. Again, not a matter of morals, but rather a matter societal efficiency.

We must either ban marriage as a societal construct so people can run around an sleep with whomever they want without consequence, which is the natural desire, or we must ban adultery. And given that marriage is a natural product of human nature, and adultery is a natural offense to our nature, it is obvious which one should be banned.

Quote:

 

Seriously, just really sit down and think about it for a moment. In depth. Forget what modern society has brainwashed you to think. Think logically about the matter. Think about its history. Think about what you would want to be done in the matter that your spouse cheated on you. Think about what you might do if you caught your spouse in the act. Think about how you would feel. Then think about how your children would feel. Then think about how you would feel if your parents were adulterous. Think about it. No one here would be happy with it. Everyone would feel wronged. How can this be suffered to be legal? Something so damaging to the human mind should not be tolerated. It is every bit as much a crime as assault and theft.

Siadhal

Jan 15 2012, 06:21 AM

Q, your problem is you're thinking inside of the American box. Did I say anything about throwing the parent in jail? No. Did I even suggest a specific punishment? No. Stop assuming things. Furthermore, the reason I went about the history of marriage the way I did was for simplicity and brevity. The post turned out to be long as it is; I am not going to write you a research paper. I was not being ahistorical. I didn't even say men were expected to be faithful. You need to stop seeing things that aren't there.

There's plenty of a logical chain to what I have written. You're just being difficult. You aren't offering any kind of argument to prove me wrong. You're just criticizing how I argue. I'm arguing that adultery does cause a great amount of harm, and just like other things that cause harm, laws should be made against it. With penalties against adultery, its occurrence could be curbed. This isn't morality. It really is a matter of simple logic.

Morality would be saying adultery is wrong, and off of that fact alone it should be punished. In that case lying should be punished, fornication should be punished, all types of sin should be punished. But that is not my argument. I'm merely stating laws should be made for the good of society, keeping it running smoothly. Adultery interrupts said smoothness.

So, Q, how about you stop being an ass and actually express your own views on the subject. And don't just repeat what you've said, because so far you've sidestepped the issue. Can you honestly tell me that you believe adultery does no harm to society? Can you honestly tell me nothing should be done about it? My argument so far has only established that 1) Adultery causes great harm to people, and 2) Something should be done about it. Can you really disagree with that? Do you really think it is good for society to simply let people run around and sleep with whoever they want? I say no.

Quote:

 

Q, your problem is you're thinking inside of the American box.

Quote:

 

Did I say anything about throwing the parent in jail? No. Did I even suggest a specific punishment?

Quote:

 

There's plenty of a logical chain to what I have written. You're just being difficult. You aren't offering any kind of argument to prove me wrong. You're just criticizing how I argue. I'm arguing that adultery does cause a great amount of harm, and just like other things that cause harm, laws should be made against it. With penalties against adultery, its occurrence could be curbed. This isn't morality. It really is a matter of simple logic.

Quote:

 

So, Q, how about you stop being an ass and actually express your own views on the subject.

Quote:

 

And don't just repeat what you've said

Quote:

 

Can you really disagree with that? Do you really think it is good for society to simply let people run around and sleep with whoever they want? I say no.

Quaon

Jan 15 2012, 01:27 AM

Your analysis of the history of marriage is ahistorical in that it assumes that men were in actuality expected to stay faithful to their wives, which isn't really the case.

New Harumf

Jan 15 2012, 11:13 AM

If government would simply stay out of the marriage business and only provide civil contracts, and let the Church marry people if they wish , then perhaps divorce might again become an exception. I don't think it will diminish marriage or create out-of-wedlock situations - there would be a contract to protect both parties and the children; and those that choose a religious marriage will again have the stigma of adultry re-instated, through their local community's pressure. This is how it should be.

NRE

Jan 15 2012, 08:03 PM

New Harumf

Jan 15 2012, 11:13 AM

If government would simply stay out of the marriage business and only provide civil contracts, and let the Church marry people if they wish , then perhaps divorce might again become an exception. I don't think it will diminish marriage or create out-of-wedlock situations - there would be a contract to protect both parties and the children; and those that choose a religious marriage will again have the stigma of adultry re-instated, through their local community's pressure. This is how it should be.

Yes, yes yes yes yes yes yes.....oh and YES I believe this first and foremost the best idea and would save the government all the senseless bureaucratic bullshit in debating the matter.

Now back on to this so-called logical argument, I think its silly. Not only that I feel we're talking about adding another layer of responsibility to local courts and law enforcement officials, which in turn will cost....wait for it...MONEY. However logical it may or may not be, it will just be another costly issue to enforce and well maybe in the best economic weather it'd be a good idea, but in this day and age it would not. The government has better new ideas to consider and put money into like...oh I dunno...EDUCATION!

Siadhal

Jan 16 2012, 12:08 AM

To say we shouldn't institute such laws because it is currently impractical to institute them is the same as saying we shouldn't attempt to make a better healthcare system or we shouldn't improve our education system because it would cost too much money to reform the systems already in place. Sadly, that is essentially the position the government takes, hence nothing changes (or things change badly), and things only get worse. We can't just ignore problems because they are costly. Something must be done.

Rhadamanthus

Jan 16 2012, 05:24 PM

This is not directly about adultery, but I think it is nevertheless tangent to the issue. It is an article about changing attitudes to divorce in the general culture, with a focus on the college-educated segments and higher socioeconomic strata: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/fashion/how-divorce-lost-its-cachet.html?_r=1&hpw

NRE

Jan 16 2012, 06:10 PM

Siadhal

Jan 16 2012, 12:08 AM

To say we shouldn't institute such laws because it is currently impractical to institute them is the same as saying we shouldn't attempt to make a better healthcare system or we shouldn't improve our education system because it would cost too much money to reform the systems already in place. Sadly, that is essentially the position the government takes, hence nothing changes (or things change badly), and things only get worse. We can't just ignore problems because they are costly. Something must be done.

I don't think I'd argue that we shouldn't address these issues at all, but lets do it in the best manner possible. I feel in making laws to punish individuals for this sort of case, we'll simply be wasting money that could be better spent else where and yet still solve the problem. I feel a lot of social ills could be and can be solved through better sources of education throughout the population. Now this won't be necessarily true in all cases because after all we can't wipe out adultery because its an impulse, done more out of emotion I feel that cold-calculated thought.

However, I think the more educated the society, the better choices they will make. Things will just, as you say, make more logical sense.

Quote:

 

To Quaon, you aren't reading carefully enough. I explicitly stated I was using jailtime as an example, not what I actually think should be done. Again, stop being an ass. Your argument is still lacking.

Quaon

Jan 17 2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

 

To Quaon, you aren't reading carefully enough. I explicitly stated I was using jailtime as an example, not what I actually think should be done. Again, stop being an ass. Your argument is still lacking.

Siad, please know your incorrect evaluation of my argument means very little to me.

It is fucking moronic to call someone an ass for attacking an argument's logic. That is the essence of debate; if you can't handle it, you shouldn't be putting an argument forward.

You also have (and have had for your entire time on this board) massive delusions of grandeur and overconfidence in your own intellect, which makes it really irritating to attempt to engage you in reasoned debate.

Siadhal

Jan 17 2012, 05:25 PM

EDIT: RD, just saw your post. So just keep in mind I made this before I saw your post thus without it in mind. I have nothing further to say on the matter past what is said here, however. I am interested in continuing the debates, though, particularly with NRE.