Yes, and it should have a punishment according to the harm it causes. Maybe a fine of 5$ is enough for such a simple thing. Or maybe no punishment is necessary as it's taken as banter by the other. Anyway, it should be up to the insulted person to decide if he was sufficiently hurt to pursue the other with legal action, and whether the legal action will be worth the effort.Would you like this to be illegal? — coolazice
Yeah, 50 million out of 7 billion. Great! You proved it to me that they aren't outliers. Because they are MILLIONS!Clearly not, since there are millions of users on Ashley Madison, and millions more on other websites that are meant for the same or similar purposes — discoii
There was an option not to answer in this poll. Also answers were anonymous. Again you are spewing bullshit because you're afraid you won't be able to carry on hurting other people in the future. Classic opressor. And yes, a site containing only people who agree with something, is certainly a reliable sample of the population that can be used to measure the population's opinion of that something in question. That's what they teach in statistics 101. Who the fuck are you kidding mate? You don't know basic statistics. Go back to school.The best you can do is claim that most people think they do not agree with such things. You can try to find a poll that supports your claim, but it would be entirely flawed since there's the pressure of not being honest in answering said polls. A site with millions of paying customers engaging in consensual sex with people that aren't their partner is a much more reliable measure of people's opinions here. — discoii
Homosexuality is a natural deviation of the tendency which exists towards heterosexuality. And yes, people are born homosexual. How does this suggest that they do not represent a natural deviation? A natural deviation implies that among a population of 100, only 1 is, let's say, homosexual. Yes, obviously that one will be born homosexual. But that doesn't mean that the tendency is homosexuality. You can't even understand the distinctions employed here.I find it interesting you decided to remove the part about homosexuals from my comment about the fact of human life. Oh, here's another fact: homosexuality is natural, people are usually born homosexuals, it isn't a derivation. — discoii
Mate - go learn some history please. Please. This is embarassing. Name 6 rulers who had no spouses. Not to mention that there never was an attempt to control women's sexual reproduction... Only the communists would make you think so. Show me any ancient (or Victorian) first-hand source which documents an attempt by ANY ONE ruler to control women's sexuality. I don't care about revisionist history, I'm asking for real history, factual, as it happened. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know what revisionist history is. Being a learned man and an intellectual is not easy. It's not enough to complete school and have a few University degrees mate. You can still be the village idiot, even after you have all those qualifications.Finally, last fact: your knight in shining armor Excalibur cock fantasies is so Victorian era, your views on sex originate from attempts by rulers to create a family unit and control women sexual reproduction and this is pretty well documented. Almost none of the rulers themselves actually had one spouse, but politically they aligned with religious sectors (morality police) to try to corral everyone else into this nonsensical and completely unnatural sexual arrangement. — discoii
Ah - the old tactics. You disagree with my views on morality - just because you have a psychological problem. How to solve it? Just do what my moral view demands. Absolute, utter nonsense and smelly shit.Really, the problem with people that would never forgive their partners for sleeping with other people is that they have some sort of sexual repression that they haven't yet resolved. Best way to resolve it currently? Sign up for an account on AshleyMadison.com. — discoii
When things fall apart, when the center does not hold, — Bitter Crank
Bitter Crank, according to Agustino, you are a deviation from heterosexuality and should screw that Excalibur Cock on the right way and find yourself the right woman-sheath so that you may become one with nature. Remember, righty tighty, lefty loosy. — discoii
Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why you want to oblige everyone to live like you. Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why, despite having no intellectual foundation for your theory, and failing to counter any of my arguments, you still attempt to hold an intellectually superior position. Or maybe you should really think if it's right for a person who agrees to be in an exclusive relationship with someone to have sex with other people. Maybe you really should :) Afterall that's why you have a brain. Let's see if you can use it.If you are hurt from someone else having sex with people other than yourself, maybe it's time to re-think why it's painful and why you added unnecessary conditions to your being in a relationship with said person in the first place. — discoii
Yes indeed - you are correct, and I misread. My apologies. Nevertheless, if you re-read what my theory says:You might want to re-read what I said about history. I said that the rulers who set these sexual norms and rules, the ones you hold dear (no, they weren't hammered into through a million years of evolutionary struggle), all fucked multiple people, none of them had just one spouse. But the hypocrisy is that they enforced this whole notion of monogamous ethics and morality which you are spewing now. — discoii
You will be perhaps shocked to discover that it already accounts for men in power desiring and having more than one spouse. Since most of the absolute rulers in European history have been male, it is in perfect accord with the theory that they would be capable to express their real nature most fully. Their real nature according to the theory is polygamous. Hence it is to be expected that if most leaders were men, most of them would have more than one spouse. Why? Because nothing stopped them, hence their real nature manifested most fully.Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. — Agustino
Well probably it should start with something preventing them from causing future suffering in the same way. This may be declining them the right to marry someone else (talking about closed marriages now) for their whole life, or maybe for a fixed period of time. This includes the right of future closed marriage partners to know about their past (in other words, it needs to go on some record). They would still be allowed to form open marriages and open relationships freely.One thing we can be sure of is that if adultery were criminal, the burden would fall disproportionately on black males. What sort of maximum punishments did you have in mind? — photographer
Bitter Crank, according to Agustino, you are a deviation from heterosexuality... — discoii
Agustino, 10% of all humans are estimated to be homosexual, and that's a very low ball estimate. Historically, people have fucked both men and women, and there are many, many examples of this not being an issue whatsoever. — discoii
Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society. — Agustino
That's why we have divorce laws - so adults can end relationships and go forward in life.
Criminalizing personal relationships is about as dumb an idea there is -- which is why it failed and we decriminalized it. In short, we already tried this nonsense. It didn't work. — Landru Guide Us
It is an error formed out of supposing that higher numbers are what creates the "nature" of a being. — TheWillowOfDarkness
One of our problems with marriage these days is that a lot of people are entertaining VERY STUPID IDEAS about it. Like... — Bitter Crank
Yes it does. "We don't get along, we should divorce" is different than "Why the fuck did you cheat on me??". Understood? One of them involves much stronger emotional reactions than the other.It doesn't matter why. — Bitter Crank
You can repeat as much as you want. All through this thread you've attempted to change the topic in subtle ways. The topic is clear, and you have failed to counter any of the arguments. This is a straw-man and a red-herring. Adultery is not "failed marriage". Divorce is failed marriage, and does not require adultery in order to happen.Just to repeat: Punishing people for failed marriages is not going to help, Agustino. It just won't. — Bitter Crank
Ah Mr. Photographer, why the need to insult? I suppose your question was not asked in bad faith was it? Asking a question just to shoot down the answerer regardless of the answer is most definitely the most rank nonsense, and betrays an intellectual dishonesty in openly investigating the issues at hand. Not right for a philosopher. If you didn't ask the question in bad faith, then you implicitly agree that there is an answer to your question, otherwise why ask the question? If you implicitly agree there is an answer, the please enlighten me what this answer is, as clearly you think you know better than I :)Were you on drugs when you dreamed this up? — photographer
YesAre you saying that a marriage is registered as closed or open? — photographer
Until divorce. In theory they could divorce and then re-marry under an open marriage if both of them want to change. But remember, it has to be both. If only one wants to change, then they will just divorce, end of story.If so, is that election closed for all time? — photographer
No - it is one partner enslaving and forcing the other to agree... What do you think? Of course, as it involves both partners it does require mutual agreement.Does the election require mutual agreement? — photographer
Tough luck, it's a percentage of income he needs to pay. Even if his income is lower, he can still pay it. Of course the punishment is supposed to be sufficiently harsh to prevent the adulterer from harming their partner. If they no longer want to live together, they should divorce. Then he can go around having sex as much as he wants to without having a criminal record. Did anyone force them to make their partner go through intense emotional turmoil? No. Therefore they have done it knowingly, and deserve the punishment.I suppose you are blissfully unaware of the impact of a criminal record on employment opportunities, something that would impair the adulterer's ability to pay settlements which already exist in most marriage breakups. — photographer
If the woman is guilty, then this will count as a strong reason NOT to have the kids stay with her :) .If the woman is guilty and the kids stay with her does that diminish her settlement, impacting on the children's welfare? — photographer
Governments that promote monogamy should be sued to repeal those laws because it directly impacts my right to family life (however I should wish to form that), my sexual freedoms and privacy.
The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this. — Benkei
Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society. — Agustino
No - I clearly outlined that adultery (extra-martial sex) is not a crime if both partners of the relationship agree with this - in other words if it is an OPEN MARRIAGE. Do you understand these words? — Agustino
The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this. — Benkei
There's a large difference between open marriages and allowing polygamy. Why shouldn't the latter be legally recognised? Both polygyny and polyandry and any mix thereof, of course.
Your assumption is still very much there but you don't seem to be aware of it. — Benkei
It depends what the consequences of breaking that promise are. Hiding your mounting debts from your spouse is a serious problem yes. But if you told her, is she likely to have a psychological trauma from it? No. She will just get angry, not speak to you for a week, and then she'll try to sort it out together with you, or seek to divorce you. On the other hand if you break your marriage vow, she could end up having serious psychological trauma because of it, assuming that the marriage vow was important to her (and to many people it is). Afterall, you hear that someone shot their husband because they cheated. You don't hear that they shot their husband because he lied about his debt.In that case, after 3 pages it isn't clear to me what the problem is with people breaking a promise? What's so horrible about breaking a marriage vow as opposed to, say, hiding your mounting debts from gambling from your spouse? — Benkei
Finally, if we're going to criminalise this, we should jail every hooker and mistress for tempting married men from having sex outside of marriage as well. — Benkei
We never killed someone because he ate the wrong meat. — Agustino
As far as the article says "Villagers in northern India beat a Muslim man to death and injured four others who were accused of smuggling cows to be slaughtered for beef". Slaughtering beef is illegal in India, so those mentally retarded peasants beat up the poor man thinking they are doing justice. However - you have to remember slaughtering beef is illegal in India - so if someone does plan to slaughter beef, they are planning an illegal activity and nevertheless deserve punishment (even if this punishment is not getting beaten up, or killed).What's for dinner? Beef, you say? In that case, we're going to beat you to death right now.
Anti-beef-eating Hindu zealots killed a Moslem man for allegedly eating beef, and there have been similar incidents. — Bitter Crank
No, it is what is required to prevent such enraged violence. Otherwise, people who are done injustices will take matters into their own hands and will commit exactly this type of injustice that neither of us likes.Your very hard line on adultery is the kind of thinking that can lead to this sort of enraged violence. — Bitter Crank
I am not married BC. If I had been married, and my wife cheated on me with the intent to cheat on me (this excludes possibilities that she was too drunk to know what was happening, or she got raped, etc.), then I would have kicked her out of the house (if she lived in my house) and divorced her the next day (even if I had kids with her). We all have things we can't tolerate, here's what I can't tolerate. From the girlfriends I had in the past, only one cheated on me, and I left her as soon as I found out.Was your wife unfaithful to you? — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.