NationStates Jolt Archive

And not even in a Bible belt state! Michigan!

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

I bring this up because Bottle and I had a brief discussion about whether or not adultery was considered a serious crime in the US. Apparently, the legislature in Michigan has to straighten this out - because the courts in that state are following the adultery definition to the letter.

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

Time to review those old laws, and maybe get rid of them...

Why? If Michigan wants to discourage people from violating marital agreements, what's the problem?

Oh, What the fuck?!

I blame Tony Stamas.

...


I blame the UP.

I guess this means that Pyotr has to be more careful now...

This sounds like it definetly needs revision, think scale. Adultury bad, but it is just a moral issue. I believe that Mormon radicals should be able to be polygimous, but only get tax benefits with one wife, it is their belief system I think that it is horrid, but that is my bloody opinion. I definetly do not think that somebody should be sentanced to life for fucking around at a bachelor party, or stepping outside the relationship for sex because your wife is menopausal. This sounds like crazy talk to me.

On the other hand, that would require maximum sentancing, and I would like to see what the court of appeals would say if a guy(or gal) got life for adultury.

I guess this means that Pyotr has to be more careful now...

Why?

I'm not married. :p

Why?

I'm not married. :p

That's exactly it - having sex outside of marriage in Michigan is apparently illegal.

This sounds like it definetly needs revision, think scale. Adultury bad, but it is just a moral issue. I believe that Mormon radicals should be able to be polygimous, but only get tax benefits with one wife, it is their belief system I think that it is horrid, but that is my bloody opinion.

Most average Mormons nowadays aren't polygamous. Associating nutcases like Warren Jeffs with mainstream Mormonism is the same as declaring Osama Bin Ladin to be the Pope of Islam or Pat Robertsen the ArchBishop of the United States.

That's life in prison for what? Contract violation?

Perhaps they should just lesson the punishment level of these criminals, punishing them for a level of harm they caused to a number of people, sufficient to match the crime...

Who but through naivety and ignorance can argue that adultery doesn't do harm? It harms individuals, (the cheated spouse looses family, and spouse and a reasonable expectation of STD's etc.,) and it harms entire families (the children from broken homes are affected in a multitude of ways, all harmful) and it harms society in general (the loss of social stability, by the reduction of stable homes in it, and the harm caused to the community cohesiveness and financial burden of broken homes ). Adultery IS criminal sexual conduct, perhaps it should be a level II type though, like statutory rape. Still punishable, but not life in prison like a serial rapist.

The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Looks like the State Attorney General is worried about going to jail...

Great name, Cox.

And not even in a Bible belt state! Michigan!

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

I bring this up because Bottle and I had a brief discussion about whether or not adultery was considered a serious crime in the US. Apparently, the legislature in Michigan has to straighten this out - because the courts in that state are following the adultery definition to the letter.
The courts may be following that definition to the letter, but it sounds like the Attorneys General are not, so it doesn't really matter at this point. However, it does show a need to make sure that you don't elect a "family values" DA, someone who might decide that adultery is a prosecutable crime.

4 or 5 years ago a disgruntled exhusband turned his wife in for living in sin. turned out that there was a newmexico statute that made it illegal for a man and woman to live together in a sexual relationship. he somehow forced the DA to deal with it.

the legislature quickly changed the law.

i dont know how the case turned out.

Most average Mormons nowadays aren't polygamous. Associating nutcases like Warren Jeffs with mainstream Mormonism is the same as declaring Osama Bin Ladin to be the Pope of Islam or Pat Robertsen the ArchBishop of the United States.

Notice the word Radical before I said Mormon, I am well aware that just as those you mention (Osama, Robertson...) are radicals or fundamentalist or whatever you wish to call them, so are most of the residents of two forks and green valley and those other fundamentalist mormons who are not recognized by the official seer/revalator dude at the LDS headquarters. I apologize for any offence I offered mormons, I read Under the Banner of Heaven and am aware of whom it focuses on, I have freinds who are mormon and while I make fun of the kooky origins I respect Mormons as much as any religious group. I also have great discussions when the Mormons come to our front door (I once talked to these two guys for three hours while I was watching my little brother outside, it was a nice day and I was bored)

Why? If Michigan wants to discourage people from violating marital agreements, what's the problem?

What's the problem?! It's their own damned business, that's the problem! The only bit of marriage the government should be involved in is the legal rights accorded to married couples, and even then, they should probably be called civil unions under the law so religions can take care of marriage all on their own. He's getting life in prison for having an affair! That's not justice, that's old school theocratic smackdown.

Life in prison for breach of contract?

Makes me glad I live in the UK.

Good points made by PootWaddle though. A sentence proportional to the severity of the crime is something I fully endorse.

That's exactly it - having sex outside of marriage in Michigan is apparently illegal.

That's not what the article says. It adultery would be punishable, or any criminal sexual conduct which might or might not include non-married copulation. Fornication (sex between two non-married persons) was not mentioned so how did you conclude that sex between them would be illegal in Michigan. Adultery requires at least one of the two people are married to a third party.

Why? If Michigan wants to discourage people from violating marital agreements, what's the problem?

its none of their business, thats the problem.

What's the problem?! It's their own damned business, that's the problem! The only bit of marriage the government should be involved in is the legal rights accorded to married couples, and even then, they should probably be called civil unions under the law so religions can take care of marriage all on their own. He's getting life in prison for having an affair! That's not justice, that's old school theocratic smackdown.

It harms the spouse that is being cheated on, it harms the children of the marriage when their parents break up, it harms the society that has to suppliment the living standard of the family because it suddenly became a one parent family... Lots of harm is done.

Perhaps they should just lesson the punishment level of these criminals, punishing them for a level of harm they caused to a number of people, sufficient to match the crime...

Who but through naivety and ignorance can argue that adultery doesn't do harm? It harms individuals, (the cheated spouse looses family, and spouse and a reasonable expectation of STD's etc.,) and it harms entire families (the children from broken homes are affected in a multitude of ways, all harmful) and it harms society in general (the loss of social stability, by the reduction of stable homes in it, and the harm caused to the community cohesiveness and financial burden of broken homes ). Adultery IS criminal sexual conduct, perhaps it should be a level II type though, like statutory rape. Still punishable, but not life in prison like a serial rapist.

Oh, Come ON!!!
The same can be said of a guy cheating on his girlfreind, it is no longer entirely uncommon for unmarried couples to have kids. The STD risk is the same, and I know married couples who have been together for shorter periods time than some of my unmarried freinds. You must understand that there are many ways to hurt people that are not against the law, if a relationship is entered into by two willing parties, it is not the governments place to step in if emotional harm is dealt.

It harms the spouse that is being cheated on, it harms the children of the marriage when their parents break up, it harms the society that has to suppliment the living standard of the family because it suddenly became a one parent family... Lots of harm is done.

Not all harm is criminal, though--that's why we have a civil court system, to address non-criminal harm.

The courts may be following that definition to the letter, but it sounds like the Attorneys General are not, so it doesn't really matter at this point.

Agreed.

However, it does show a need to make sure that you don't elect a "family values" DA, someone who might decide that adultery is a prosecutable crime.

Why? Grossly violating a contract should be a prosecutable crime. If I have an agreement with my business partner to share the profits 50/50, and I take 75 percent, shouldn't he be able to take legal action against me?

Oh, Come ON!!!
The same can be said of a guy cheating on his girlfreind, it is no longer entirely uncommon for unmarried couples to have kids. The STD risk is the same, and I know married couples who have been together for shorter periods time than some of my unmarried freinds. You must understand that there are many ways to hurt people that are not against the law, if a relationship is entered into by two willing parties, it is not the governments place to step in if emotional harm is dealt.


The difference is that the cheated on spouse has a contract that says the cheating spouse wouldn't cheat. If you don't want to serve the time, don't do the crime (don't get married at all, or divorce before you cheat). If a person gets married and then cheats anway in that state then you break the law, the spouse and kids should be able to sue for financial compensation too I imagine.

The difference is that the cheated on spouse has a contract that says the cheating spouse wouldn't cheat. If you don't want to serve the time, don't do the crime (don't get married at all, or divorce before you cheat). If a person gets married and then cheats anway in that state then you break the law, the spouse and kids should be able to sue for financial compensation too I imagine.
But life in prison is way too extreme.

The difference is that the cheated on spouse has a contract that says the cheating spouse wouldn't cheat. If you don't want to serve the time, don't do the crime (don't get married at all, or divorce before you cheat). If a person gets married and then cheats anway in that state then you break the law, the spouse and kids should be able to sue for financial compensation too I imagine.

Okay, so life in prison for breach of contract. I agree with Nazz and the english fellow. Hell, much of any criminal prosecution for doing something you officially promised you wouldn't seems to me to be a bit overboard. I am not arguing for adultury to be legal, just that life in prison is several orders of magnitude to great a punishment

Why? Grossly violating a contract should be a prosecutable crime. If I have an agreement with my business partner to share the profits 50/50, and I take 75 percent, shouldn't he be able to take legal action against me?Contract disputes are handled in civil court. Not all contract disputes are criminal in nature, though it was convenient for you that you chose one that could be construed as such. And if you think the courts are clogged now, imagine what happens when you can be prosecuted for ripping a cd to your computer--no thanks. Again, not all harm is criminal harm.

What's the problem?! It's their own damned business, that's the problem! The only bit of marriage the government should be involved in is the legal rights accorded to married couples, and even then, they should probably be called civil unions under the law so religions can take care of marriage all on their own.

I tend to agree. Unfortunately, I don't think the reasoning you're using on this particular case (rather than the general principle) is valid.

He's getting life in prison for having an affair! That's not justice, that's old school theocratic smackdown.

Let's say that a guy cheats on his wife of ten years. They have a very normal three children and a fairly inexpensive home.

Their marriage contract has been broken, and the wife is left to raise three children by herself (a very painful situation she did not consent to) with financial resources and time so limited that she cannot raise her children properly (unfair consequences).

That sounds like criminal harm on the level of rape to me, especially taking into account the effects on the wife and the children. I'd prefer it if he was simply required to financially compensate his wife long-term rather than being subjected to a life sentence in prison, but I figure Michigan can institute harsher punishments if it sees the need.

I'm really not a big fan of the "eye for an eye" mentality that prisons represent, but I think the sentence is this case was not nearly so unfair or ridiculous (in the context of our legal system) as some folks are painting it.

And not even in a Bible belt state! Michigan!

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

I bring this up because Bottle and I had a brief discussion about whether or not adultery was considered a serious crime in the US. Apparently, the legislature in Michigan has to straighten this out - because the courts in that state are following the adultery definition to the letter.

I stand corrected. As it turns out, my fellow Americans are even more bugfuck insane than I gave them credit for.

I stand corrected. As it turns out, my fellow Americans are even more bugfuck insane than I gave them credit for.

On this type of thing, however, it looks like we're growing out of it. It's been since 1971 since anyone was convicted of it, after all.

Contract disputes are handled in civil court. Not all contract disputes are criminal in nature, though it was convenient for you that you chose one that could be construed as such. And if you think the courts are clogged now, imagine what happens when you can be prosecuted for ripping a cd to your computer--no thanks. Again, not all harm is criminal harm.

Is rape criminal harm? I dare say the harm in the case of adultery is often on par with rape.

Frankly, I don't particularly like that level of sentencing for either violating business contracts or marital contracts. I'm quite socially libertarian compared to most folks, including most liberals.

I just don't think the arguments being put forward in this case are valid. I also find it interesting that an arrangement with a religious connotation is seen to be of lesser import than a business arrangement despite having similar and possibly greater ramifications when broken.

And not even in a Bible belt state! Michigan!

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

I bring this up because Bottle and I had a brief discussion about whether or not adultery was considered a serious crime in the US. Apparently, the legislature in Michigan has to straighten this out - because the courts in that state are following the adultery definition to the letter.



Time to review those old laws, and maybe get rid of them...

Holy Christ...

(shakes head sadly)

I have completely lost faith in society as a whole.

Is rape criminal harm? I dare say the harm in the case of adultery is often on par with rape.I'm sorry, but that's beyond ludicrous. It's insulting to rape victims, to be blunt about it.

Frankly, I don't particularly like that level of sentencing for either violating business contracts or marital contracts. I'm quite socially libertarian compared to most folks, including most liberals.

I just don't think the arguments being put forward in this case are valid. I also find it interesting that an arrangement with a religious connotation is seen to be of lesser import than a business arrangement despite having similar and possibly greater ramifications when broken.
I think the idea of criminal penalties for adultery are barbaric--they're the stuff of theocracy and superstition, not of an enlightened society.

This is craziness! From the title of the thread, I assumed I'd be reading another case of Sharia law gone bad...

Is rape criminal harm? I dare say the harm in the case of adultery is often on par with rape.

Frankly, I don't particularly like that level of sentencing for either violating business contracts or marital contracts. I'm quite socially libertarian compared to most folks, including most liberals.

I just don't think the arguments being put forward in this case are valid. I also find it interesting that an arrangement with a religious connotation is seen to be of lesser import than a business arrangement despite having similar and possibly greater ramifications when broken.
I disagree. A rapist... well I don't really understand whats going through their minds but raping some one is somnething you have to have a great determination to do because it takes a lot of work. But cheating, thats something that happens with very little resistance and you keep thinking "oh its just harmless flirting" until you take it one step too far.

What's the problem?! It's their own damned business, that's the problem! The only bit of marriage the government should be involved in is the legal rights accorded to married couples, and even then, they should probably be called civil unions under the law so religions can take care of marriage all on their own. He's getting life in prison for having an affair! That's not justice, that's old school theocratic smackdown.

Not to mention you'd better not be a swinger or a hotwifer there...

I'm sorry, but that's beyond ludicrous. It's insulting to rape victims, to be blunt about it.

To be blunt, your position insults the victims of adultery and the choice of all those who get marriage contracts and take them seriously.

I think the idea of criminal penalties for adultery are barbaric--they're the stuff of theocracy and superstition, not of an enlightened society.

Sorry, but your anti-religion bias has no more place in my country's legal system than a Biblical literalist's anti-science bias.

To be blunt, your position insults the victims of adultery and the choice of all those who get marriage contracts and take them seriously.


Your positions insult adulterers and the spouses who forgive them.

Why? Grossly violating a contract should be a prosecutable crime. If I have an agreement with my business partner to share the profits 50/50, and I take 75 percent, shouldn't he be able to take legal action against me?

It's a civil breach of contract...why should it involve criminal charges? You generally get hammered worse (where it hurts, in the pocket) in civil court than in criminal anyway.

I disagree. A rapist... well I don't really understand whats going through their minds but raping some one is somnething you have to have a great determination to do because it takes a lot of work. But cheating, thats something that happens with very little resistance and you keep thinking "oh its just harmless flirting" until you take it one step too far.

It's really not that hard to keep from allowing yourself an inappropriate degree of emotional and physical closeness with a little self-control and responsibility, same as it's not hard to keep from having nonconsensual sex with a little self-control and and responsibility. Not buying the "oh but adultery is easier" argument, sorry.

If you make an agreement with someone, you should keep it unless there are genuinely extenuating circumstances, like abuse and so on, not just because you couldn't keep yourself from flirting with someone else.

To be blunt, your position insults the victims of adultery and the choice of all those who get marriage contracts and take them seriously.If you really believe that the trauma suffered by a person with a cheating spouse is the same as that of a person who has been forcibly raped, you've got a seriously skewed sense of priorities. I've been cheated on, and I survived pretty easily. It ended my marriage, but it was a marriage that was dying anyway. But I would never go so far as to call it as bad as rape. That's offensive, and you ought to be ashamed for it. I hope some rape victims call you out for it, as a matter of fact.



Sorry, but your anti-religion bias has no more place in my country's legal system than a Biblical literalist's anti-science bias.
My anti-religion bias has a whole hell of a lot more place in the US's legal system than what you're describing, because the US is, legally, a secular country. Religion has no place in the US legal system--none--which is why calling adultery a crime is ludicrous on its face. The state has no business determining that consensual sexual conduct between adults is criminal. Lawrence v Texas made that case pretty strongly.

To be blunt, your position insults the victims of adultery and the choice of all those who get marriage contracts and take them seriously.

Forgive me, but this is just so goddam funny.

No, it is not insulting to "victims of adultery" to point out that being the victim of adultery is not like being raped.

Adultery is a betrayal, to be sure, and an extremely serious one. But comparing adultery to rape...well, clearly you've never experienced rape or serious assault first hand.

Perhaps they should just lesson the punishment level of these criminals, punishing them for a level of harm they caused to a number of people, sufficient to match the crime...

Who but through naivety and ignorance can argue that adultery doesn't do harm? It harms individuals, (the cheated spouse looses family, and spouse and a reasonable expectation of STD's etc.,) and it harms entire families (the children from broken homes are affected in a multitude of ways, all harmful) and it harms society in general (the loss of social stability, by the reduction of stable homes in it, and the harm caused to the community cohesiveness and financial burden of broken homes ). Adultery IS criminal sexual conduct, perhaps it should be a level II type though, like statutory rape. Still punishable, but not life in prison like a serial rapist.

Apparently no one realizes that this is hardly an either/or situation. Yes, there are problems associated with adultery, but it's should be equally obvious that using the law to enforce marital fidelity is also an atrocious response: it puts the law in the middle of a dispute over feelings between two people, it subjects the law to the vagaries of individual's differing and flexible definitions of fidelity, and enacting such a law only encourages disrespect for other, more necessary laws when people inevitably and repeatedly flout that law. That's why we place those norms in the realm they deserve to be in: the realm of cultural institutions.

For a good example, consider: is it illegal to tell a young child that her parents are dead in order to make her cry? No. Is it right? No. Does anyone do it? No. Why not? Well, because we are generally inculcated in a cultural framework of what we should and should not do, and one of the things we generally pick up is that inflicting emotional distress on a young child is not cool. As such, we don't need a law, because everyone already agrees not to do it because we've been trained to accept a certain modicum of civility and decency. If someone actually did it, the law would be silent, but people would treat the offender like the douchebag he is, which is punishment enough. The solution, then, is to encourage people to treat those who cheat just like the person who tells a kid her parent's are dead for kicks.

If your spouse cheats on you there is something wrong in the marriage. Nothing criminal about that. Go to court, swap some money back and forth or go to counseling. People are ridiculous.

Your positions insult adulterers and the spouses who forgive them.

Not at all, actually. Even if it were my position that adulterers should get life in prison (which it's not), it wouldn't matter in the case of a spouse who chose not to press charges and instead forgave the person. There would be no legal issue, so the legal consequences would be a moot point.

Ugh, comparing rape victims to the spouse who is cheated on...unreal.

Way to go progress.

Not at all, actually. Even if it were my position that adulterers should get life in prison (which it's not), it wouldn't matter in the case of a spouse who chose not to press charges and instead forgave the person. There would be no legal issue, so the legal consequences would be a moot point.Are felonies such that they don't get pursued if the person doesn't press charges?

Wow... just wow. Just... wow.

I don't even know what to say except that I'm fucking totally stunned that anyone can seriously compare adultery to rape, and blame the victim of rape for being raped.

The pedestal I put the mods on just got shattered today.

Are felonies such that they don't get pursued if the person doesn't press charges?

Murder is legal unless the victom her/him self presses charges

Murder is legal unless the victom her/him self presses charges

Uh... that seems to be not possible.

:confused:

Murder is legal unless the victom her/him self presses charges

I hope you were trying to be humorous, cos I lol'd.

Uh... that seems to be not possible.

:confused:
No, pretty sure that person is joking. Civil prosecution can be pursued by the victim's family, and criminal prosecution is actually the state (not the victim or the victim's family) versus the offender .

Uh... that seems to be not possible.

:confused:

Not possible but True :D

EDIT Smilie added to show joke nature

No, pretty sure that person is joking. Civil prosecution can be pursued by the victim's family, and criminal prosecution is actually the STATE versus the offender (not the victim or the victim's family).

After what I've seen here, Bottle, I take everything at face value unless I know they're being sarcastic.

Murder is legal unless the victom her/him self presses charges

Ha, good point:) In criminal matters, it isn't about the victim versus the accused, it is about the state versus the accused.

After what I've seen here, Bottle, I take everything at face value unless I know they're being sarcastic.
Heh, I suppose that's probably wise.

It's really not that hard to keep from allowing yourself an inappropriate degree of emotional and physical closeness with a little self-control and responsibility, same as it's not hard to keep from having nonconsensual sex with a little self-control and and responsibility.

Well, it's really not that hard to keep from murdering somebody with a chainsaw with a little self-control and responsibility. So would you compare adultery to chainsaw murder, too?

Heh, I suppose that's probably wise.

After I saw a bunch of posters I thought were trolls that were dead serious in their crazy (to me) beliefs... yeah, it's probably for the best.

After I saw a bunch of posters I thought were trolls that were dead serious in their crazy (to me) beliefs... yeah, it's probably for the best.
And considering that we're on a thread where somebody is seriously asserting that adultery and rape are equivalent crimes, I guess nothing should be assumed to be a joke at face value...

And considering that we're on a thread where somebody is seriously asserting that adultery and rape are equivalent crimes, I guess nothing should be assumed to be a joke at face value...

I seem to have picked a good OP though...

If you really believe that the trauma suffered by a person with a cheating spouse is the same as that of a person who has been forcibly raped, you've got a seriously skewed sense of priorities. I've been cheated on, and I survived pretty easily. It ended my marriage, but it was a marriage that was dying anyway. But I would never go so far as to call it as bad as rape. That's offensive, and you ought to be ashamed for it. I hope some rape victims call you out for it, as a matter of fact.

Leave the self-righteous nonsense to the religious folks, please. I've known victims of both sexual assualt and broken marriages, and the trauma to both the spouses and any children or other family members involved was of similar scope regardless of whether it was a result of rape of adultery. A lot of the same issues like having problems with trust and helplessness were present in both as well.

My anti-religion bias has a whole hell of a lot more place in the US's legal system than what you're describing, because the US is, legally, a secular country. Religion has no place in the US legal system--none--which is why calling adultery a crime is ludicrous on its face. The state has no business determining that consensual sexual conduct between adults is criminal. Lawrence v Texas made that case pretty strongly.

Sorry, but I'm not suggesting that adultery is illegal on religious grounds, or that it should be. Feel free to beat up on that straw man some more, though.

Forgive me, but this is just so goddam funny.

I don't find this discussion funny at all.

No, it is not insulting to "victims of adultery" to point out that being the victim of adultery is not like being raped.

I agree. Unfortunately, I doubt that either you or The Nazz will aknowledge that his statement was similarly incorrect, which was my point in making that statement.

Adultery is a betrayal, to be sure, and an extremely serious one. But comparing adultery to rape...well, clearly you've never experienced rape or serious assault first hand.

I've had the ever-living shit beat out of me by my peers. I'd say that's serious assault. As was my biological father's abuse of me. I've known several women who have dealt with sexual assault and adultery, and helped them get through those situations as best I could.

I'm familiar with psychological and physical abuse, as well as the unique affects of sexual assualt and relationship betrayal on a person's psyche.

It really has nothing to do with a lack of experience with the relevant phenomena.

Are felonies such that they don't get pursued if the person doesn't press charges?

Depends on the felony and the particulars of the case, to my understanding.

Wow... just wow. Just... wow.

I don't even know what to say except that I'm fucking totally stunned that anyone can seriously compare adultery to rape, and blame the victim of rape for being raped.

The pedestal I put the mods on just got shattered today.

Um...I didn't blame rape victims for getting raped. Where are you getting that from? :confused:

Well, it's really not that hard to keep from murdering somebody with a chainsaw with a little self-control and responsibility. So would you compare adultery to chainsaw murder, too?

Not on those grounds. I've already stated other reasons for why I think they could be seen to have equivalent ethical and legal consequences.

I just don't think it being easier to commit a certain crime is much of an excuse.

Why? If Michigan wants to discourage people from violating marital agreements, what's the problem?

I was thinking the same thing.

I don't find this discussion funny at all.

Not funny "ha-ha," to be sure. More like funny "uh-oh."


I agree. Unfortunately, I doubt that either you or The Nazz will aknowledge that his statement was similarly incorrect, which was my point in making that statement.

Which statement are you referring to?


I've had the ever-living shit beat out of me by my peers. I'd say that's serious assault. As was my biological father's abuse of me.

So why not compare adultery to those abuses? Why choose to compare it to rape, which you admit you have not experienced?


It really has nothing to do with a lack of experience with the relevant phenomena.
Sure it does. At least, I'm choosing to assume that it's your lack of experience and understanding speaking, rather than assume that you're so callous as to make that comparison knowing full well how wrong-headed it is.

See? Sharia law and the laws you can find in some US states are not that far appart, theoretically :p

More on point though, the law should be changed. Adultery should not be punishable by prisontime. I'd actually go so far as to say that adultery shouldn't be punishable at all. Grounds for divorce and perhaps economic compensation - tort - but not something for the criminal justice system.

Not on those grounds. I've already stated other reasons for why I think they could be seen to have equivalent ethical and legal consequences.

I just don't think it being easier to commit a certain crime is much of an excuse.
Fair enough. We agree on that much.

Hell, it's relatively difficult to commit securities fraud, but it's comparably quite easy to shoot somebody in the face. I'm kind of glad we don't assign punishments/penalties based on the effort required to commit a given crime.

Um...I didn't blame rape victims for getting raped. Where are you getting that from? :confused:

Here.

...same as it's not hard to keep from having nonconsensual sex with a little self-control and and responsibility.

It's really not that hard to keep from allowing yourself an inappropriate degree of emotional and physical closeness with a little self-control and responsibility, same as it's not hard to keep from having nonconsensual sex with a little self-control and and responsibility. Not buying the "oh but adultery is easier" argument, sorry.

If you make an agreement with someone, you should keep it unless there are genuinely extenuating circumstances, like abuse and so on, not just because you couldn't keep yourself from flirting with someone else.

It isn't about easy-ness its about one that is obviously wrong and the other is completely OK up to a point.

If you make an agreement with someone, you should keep it unless there are genuinely extenuating circumstances, like abuse and so on, not just because you couldn't keep yourself from flirting with someone else.
This assumes that anybody having an extramarital affair is failing to keep their agreement with their partner. Who are you to decide that for other people?

Throughout history, it has been quite common for married people to "look the other way" while their partner has a fling or flings. Maybe you or I might not like that idea, but I really don't think it's any of our damn business to tell other people how to run their own marriages. If somebody else is okay with being married to somebody who has flings with other people, then that's their private choice to make.

Which statement are you referring to?

This one:

I'm sorry, but that's beyond ludicrous. It's insulting to rape victims, to be blunt about it.

So why not compare adultery to those abuses? Why choose to compare it to rape, which you admit you have not experienced?

Because it's even more closely analogous to rape in terms of psychological ill-effects.

I could make an argument for it being equivalent to or greater than armed robbery due to the combined psychological and financial effects of adultery. Would you prefer to debate something like that?

Sure it does. At least, I'm choosing to assume that it's your lack of experience and understanding speaking, rather than assume that you're so callous as to make that comparison knowing full well how wrong-headed it is.

What you're really choosing to assume is that you're right and I'm wrong, and that thus I must either not know what I'm talking about regarding the subject matter or I'm simply callous. I'd say that's a pretty nice false dilemma.

Perhaps you could try evaluating the discussion without that assumption. I'd welcome being proven wrong. In fact, I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already.

But sadly, most of the objections to the idea that rape and adultery should have similar legal consequences have been of the "OMG how could you say that?" variety. That line doesn't work here any better than it would against you telling someone that you think believing in Yahweh is just as silly as believing in Zeus.

Here.

That would be me blaming the rapist for having nonconsensual sex with someone, not blaming the victim.

This assumes that anybody having an extramarital affair is failing to keep their agreement with their partner. Who are you to decide that for other people?

Throughout history, it has been quite common for married people to "look the other way" while their partner has a fling or flings. Maybe you or I might not like that idea, but I really don't think it's any of our damn business to tell other people how to run their own marriages. If somebody else is okay with being married to somebody who has flings with other people, then that's their private choice to make.

I'll certainly agree with that. If the terms of the marriage contract were such that adultery was not a violation of it, there would be no legal basis for prosecution. Or as mentioned previously, if a spouse chooses to forgive their partner and not press charges for the breach of contract, then there would be no reason to prosecute.

PootWaddle posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12217242&postcount=11) something along the lines of "let the punishment fit the crime".

If adultary causes a great deal of harm, it should be punished a great deal.

Same as any unlawful action.

Also, I loved being called "the english fellow" back there on page three.

A husband has an extramarital affair. Sleeps with his wife. Makes her infertile from a STI and leaves her with other unpleasant side effects (such as herpies). Wife finds out. Children loose their parents as they break up - hating each other. Society loses out as benefits are paid to the single mother who now has to give up her life to juggle work and the kids. Her career prospects are shot.

More or less "bad" than the college girl who gets real drunk then regrets what she did the next day?

You can't say "X is worse than Y" without knowing some of the background.

Adultary can have serious and perminant side effects. It can ruin lives.

Not only is it potentially devestating, but it also is a direct breach of a written statement saying you wouldn't commit the act.

Now I'm not saying "lock em up and throw away the key". And I think life in prison is excessive for just about all cases - sometimes cheating (believe it or not) can actually strengthen a relationship (and no harm, no foul - and if it was in the contract that cheating was ok... then cheating is ok).

What I am saying is that comparing rape to adultary is like comparing a space shuttle to a strawberry field.

But most importantly:

Let the punishment fit the crime.

I'll certainly agree with that. If the terms of the marriage contract were such that adultery was not a violation of it, there would be no legal basis for prosecution. Or as mentioned previously, if a spouse chooses to forgive their partner and not press charges for the breach of contract, then there would be no reason to prosecute.
Then you, yourself, are admitting that prosecution for adultery SHOULD NOT be like prosecution for rape.

While I do think it is wrong to compare those who have been cheated on to those who have been raped (although individual reactions would certainly vary), it would be equally wrong to ignore the harm that adultery does cause.* A person who has been cheated on is likely to feel violated - emotionally and physically.

And here is the thing: They have most likely been having sex with another person under false pretenses. Now, I'd have to look closely at the case-law, but I believe there have been cases in which someone has been convicted of some kind of sexual assault (although generally a misdemeanor version, IIRC) for coercing someone into sex under false pretenses (misrepresenting themselves, their health, etc.). I could see how this type of thinking could apply to adultery, particularly if we are talking about a long-term affair, rather than a one-night fling. Unless the married couple has not been having sex all that time, one partner was having sex without all of the relevant information. Interestingly enough, the person being cheated with, if they were not aware that their partner was married, could possibly claim similar harm.

That said, I certainly don't think extramarital sex should be, in and of itself, illegal. If the cheated-upon spouse wishes to push for prosecution under the above circumstances, that is one thing, but it doesn't require that adultery itself be listed as a crime. It would basically place it in that murky place between civil and criminal law where the victim has to initiate any actions taken. And it should definitely never be prosecuted as a felony offense.

*Note: Adultery in this sentence does not include swinging or hotwifing or any agreed upon extramarital sex. It involves a situation in which the agreement to be monogamous has been made, and one person has broken it.

That would be me blaming the rapist for having nonconsensual sex with someone, not blaming the victim.

Maybe you should clarify your statements, then? I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

So um Michigan, that's some law you got there.

Because it's even more closely analogous to rape in terms of psychological ill-effects.

And you know this...how?

Honestly, please provide me with your sources for how adultery has psychological ill-effects that are more comparable to rape than, say, battery.

Or at least provide me with your personal experiences of rape, battery, and adultery, and tell me about how the feelings you experienced after your rape were closer to the feelings after adultery than were the feelings after you were battered.

Oh, but I forgot, you have friends who were raped. Which, I'm sure, makes you completely able to understand what it feels like to be raped, and to conclude that being cheated on is more like being raped than it is like being beaten up.

I could make an argument for it being equivalent to or greater than armed robbery due to the combined psychological and financial effects of adultery. Would you prefer to debate something like that?

I'd prefer you not waste anybody's time with equally nutty examples.


What you're really choosing to assume is that you're right and I'm wrong, and that thus I must either not know what I'm talking about regarding the subject matter or I'm simply callous. I'd say that's a pretty nice false dilemma.

If you were asserting that having one's spouse cheat is comparable to eating a grilled cheese sandwich, I'd also assume that you're wrong or clueless. If you compared committing adultery to committing homicide using a golf club, I'd also assume you were wrong or clueless. This is no different.

You're either wrong unintentionally (because you don't know what you're talking about) or you're wrong intentionally (because you feel like asserting that adultery is like rape even though you know it's not).


Perhaps you could try evaluating the discussion without that assumption. I'd welcome being proven wrong. In fact, I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already.

Yes, you very neatly distracted people and muddied the topic by introducing inflamatory statements into the conversation. As a moderator, I expect that you have plenty of experience seeing this sort of thing in action.


But sadly, most of the objections to the idea that rape and adultery should have similar legal consequences have been of the "OMG how could you say that?" variety.

Why should anybody bother to try reasoning with somebody who equates adultery and rape? That's like trying to have a logical discussion about taxes with somebody who equates the levying of taxes with robbing banks at gun point. You should know as well as anybody that such discussions never go anywhere.


That line doesn't work here any better than it would against you telling someone that you think believing in Yahweh is just as silly as believing in Zeus.Meh. If you want to learn more about why "Crimes Against Morality" are bullshit, feel free to read up on Prohibition.

Then you, yourself, are admitting that prosecution for adultery SHOULD NOT be like prosecution for rape.

A couple of points before dinner:

We were comparing the consequences of the two and debating whether they should have the same sentence as a result. The way prosecution functions in those cases is really irrelevant to the comparison between the consequences and sentencing of the acts.

That said, I'm not sure it's really so different. In both cases of adultery and rape we have exceptions to the rule that the act should be prosecuted.

1. Where there was an agreement that the act was acceptable (consensual sex rather than rape and adultery with the spouse's agreement rather than without it).

2. Where the victim is not willing to go forward with the pressing of charges. To my understanding, based on my experiences with sexual assault cases, charges aren't generally pressed if the victim doesn't want to go through with it.

Lawrence v. Texas anyone? Didn't that ruling, the one that legalized all forms of sodomy in 2003, state that a person's private sexual relationships could not be interjercted by law? Or am I remembering the content of the ruling wrongly?

"I'll certainly agree with that. If the terms of the marriage contract were such that adultery was not a violation of it, there would be no legal basis for prosecution. Or as mentioned previously, if a spouse chooses to forgive their partner and not press charges for the breach of contract, then there would be no reason to prosecute." - HotRodia
Then you, yourself, are admitting that prosecution for adultery SHOULD NOT be like prosecution for rape.
Uh... HotRodia says "if both people agree to have adultery then it's not a crime".
Bottle says "well then it's NOT like rape".
Nag Ehgoeg says "if both people agree to have sex, then it's also not rape".

Followed by "please stop attacking straw men to shore up your own argument. Thanks."

Bottle does raise a host of interesting points... but as I frequently find myself debating taxes in relation to robbing banks I'm going to leave them alone as this argument is going no-where.

Read My Mind: Legal contract. Not private sex life.

A marital contract seems to me to be a civil matter.

Let's hope this gets thrown out by a more competent judiciary on broader constitutional grounds.

That hits really close to home for me. My mum would be pleased, but I'd have a tough time (emotionally and financially) with a dad behind bars.

Has everyone forgotten something here?
Mainly: If he cheats, you can sue him.
If you play your cards right, you can get a whole lot of cash out of the cheater.
Jail time is not required.

Not that this is relevant to the actual serious topic of the thread, but this bit of the article made me laugh:

Cox's spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution.

"To even ask about this borders on the nutty," Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. "Nobody connects the attorney general with this -- N-O-B-O-D-Y -- and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic."

Apparently, if I ingest the reporter, pink unicorns will fly around my head. :p

Apparently, if I ingest the reporter, pink unicorns will fly around my head. :p

Not if I do first...

And you know this...how?

It's called close observation and analysis of the evidence. You know, those things that the conviction of criminals would ideally be based on.

Honestly, please provide me with your sources for how adultery has psychological ill-effects that are more comparable to rape than, say, battery.

I could get relatively unbiased sources on rape pretty easy, but I'm not sure where I would get unbiased literature on the effects of adultery. That's a tough one. I'll see what I can find though.

Oh, but I forgot, you have friends who were raped. Which, I'm sure, makes you completely able to understand what it feels like to be raped, and to conclude that being cheated on is more like being raped than it is like being beaten up.

I never claimed complete understanding. What I will suggest is that I have sufficient first-hand experience with abuse and victimization, as well as sufficient second-hand experience with both cases of sexual assualt and adultery to discuss them in general terms and in the context of the American legal framework.

I'd prefer you not waste anybody's time with equally nutty examples.

If you were asserting that having one's spouse cheat is comparable to eating a grilled cheese sandwich, I'd also assume that you're wrong or clueless. If you compared committing adultery to committing homicide using a golf club, I'd also assume you were wrong or clueless. This is no different.

Believe it or not, I could probably make a good case for the homicide using a golf club example.

You're either wrong unintentionally (because you don't know what you're talking about) or you're wrong intentionally (because you feel like asserting that adultery is like rape even though you know it's not).

Yes, you very neatly distracted people and muddied the topic by introducing inflamatory statements into the conversation. As a moderator, I expect that you have plenty of experience seeing this sort of thing in action.

If you want to accuse me of trolling, just come out and say I'm trolling. Report it in the Moderation forum and let the Mods rule on it.

It just seems odd that I would have admitted previously in the thread that my beliefs about how government should function and what types of acts should be prosecuted doesn't jive with this discussion, and that I'm primarily curious about why this seems like such a big deal within the American legal system. It seems to fit with all sorts of legal and ethical principles within that system, after all. It's hard to see how it's trolling if the poster openly admits to playing devil's advocate.

Why should anybody bother to try reasoning with somebody who equates adultery and rape? That's like trying to have a logical discussion about taxes with somebody who equates the levying of taxes with robbing banks at gun point. You should know as well as anybody that such discussions never go anywhere.

I sure do. That's what happens when a person (or multiple persons) in a debate choose a base assumption and aren't willing to genuinely discuss it. It happens a lot in abortion debates, for example. Some pro-life folks won't even entertain the idea that life may not begin at conception, which certainly stifles debate. I'm sure you're as familiar with that as I am.

Meh. If you want to learn more about why "Crimes Against Morality" are bullshit, feel free to read up on Prohibition.

It's interesting that I have not brought up religious morality as an issue in this debate, but this is the second time it's been used as a straw man against me.

Either way, I've enjoyed the debate, as I always do when debating you, Bottle. Have a nice evening. :)

Has everyone forgotten something here?
Mainly: If he cheats, you can sue him.
If you play your cards right, you can get a whole lot of cash out of the cheater.
Jail time is not required.

You forget that you can do both!

Maybe you should clarify your statements, then? I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

No worries. Clarification is a normal part of discussion and debate, and I appreciate you taking the effort to listen to clarification. Hopefully I can be more clear in my writing in the future.

What you're really choosing to assume is that you're right and I'm wrong, and that thus I must either not know what I'm talking about regarding the subject matter or I'm simply callous. I'd say that's a pretty nice false dilemma.
I am right on this, and so is Bottle. I'm not making any assumptions about why you have such a horrific and fallacious point of view on this--I'm just noting the horrific nature of the opinion.

Perhaps you could try evaluating the discussion without that assumption. I'd welcome being proven wrong. In fact, I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already.
Maybe it's because the very notion that being a cuckolded spouse is somehow on the same level as being raped is frankly offensive, and that's the opinion of everyone in this thread.

But sadly, most of the objections to the idea that rape and adultery should have similar legal consequences have been of the "OMG how could you say that?" variety. That line doesn't work here any better than it would against you telling someone that you think believing in Yahweh is just as silly as believing in Zeus.

Believing in Yahweh is just as silly as believing in Zeus, but that's not the point here. Here's the point--millions of men and women get divorced every year, and most of them do not suffer the same level of psychological trauma that rape victims to. Hell, when my divorce was final, I had a fucking party. Ever heard of a rape victim having a party to celebrate his or her rape or the anniversary thereof?

This is the fucking Michigan penal code, and it says this is BS.

750.520b. First degree criminal sexual conduct
Sec. 520b. (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist:
(a) That other person is under 13 years of age.
(b) That other person is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and any of the following:
(I) The actor is a member of the same household of the victim.
(ii) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the fourth degree.
(iii) The actor is in a position of authority over the victim and used this authority to coerce the victim to submit.
(c) Sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony.
(d) The actor is aided or abetted by 1 or more other persons and either of the following circumstances exists:
(I) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
(ii) The actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual penetration. Force or coercion includes but is not limited to any of the circumstances listed in subdivision (f) (I) to (v).
(e) The actor is armed with a weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a weapon.
(f) The actor causes personal injury to the victim and force or coercion is used to accomplish sexual penetration. Force or coercion includes but is not limited to any of the following circumstances:
(I) When the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or physical violence.
(ii) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence on the victim, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats.
(iii) When the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim, or any other person, and the victim believes that the actor has the ability to execute this threat. As used in this subdivision, “to retaliate” includes threats of physical punishment, kidnapping, or extortion.
(iv) When the actor engages in the medical treatment or examination of the victim in a manner or for the purposes which are medically recognized as unethical or unacceptable.
(v) When the actor, through concealment or by the element of suprise, is able to overcome the victim.
(g) The actor causes personal injury to the victim, and the actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
(h) That other person is mentally incapable, mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, and any of the following:
(I) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the fourth degree.
(ii) The actor is in a position of authority over the victim and used this authority to coerce the victim to submit.
(2) Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years.

This is the fucking Michigan penal code, and it says this is BS.

It's section C that's being discussed, but only in tandem with the fact that adultery is also a felony under another section of the penal code.

It's section C that's being discussed, but only in tandem with the fact that adultery is also a felony under another section of the penal code.

Okay, the michigan penal code doesn't say it, but it's BS.

This is the fucking Michigan penal code, and it says this is BS.

"Mentally incapable, mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated" describe most of the married people I know, so maybe the prosecution is not off the mark.

"Mentally incapable, mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated" describe most of the married people I know, so maybe the prosecution is not off the mark.

That's cold.

Anyone who would want to have any form of relationship with more than one woman has to be intrinsically insane...

Cigarettes have government health warnings...
Doctors and healthcare experts denounce drink and drug abuse...

So why isn't it legal by statute that women have to have government mental health warnings tattooed on their foreheads...????

I have an IQ of 186, passed three times the national average amount of exams; have taught science,philosophy,religion and even lectured in logic
but try and have a rational discussion with my wife about the fairness of the relationship and reality within the space-time continuum and it doesn't work!!!


I can't cook a full roast turkey dinner in 30 seconds because she's hungry NOW, I can't make Boston 100 miles nearer because she feels car sick now! I can't stop the rain, I can't make tomorrow saturday , I can't make her lottery numbers be the ones picked by that infernal machine and I can't make Tony Blair or George Bush into rational ,moral human beings and I can't make the Tv companies put on Ally McBeal and Boston legal and House and Judging Amy on 24-7!!

does any husband out there feel like Scotty on the enterprise screaming;
"I canna change the laws of physics" ?!!!

Oscar Wilde says that bigamy is marriage with one too many women, exactly the same as monogamy !!

anyone who wants more than one woman should be locked up and they should throw away the key...

And do you know what's the worst thing in the whole scenario ?

I love the woman so much it hurts [and I don't just mean my bank balance]

nnnnnnooooooooo

Maybe it's because the very notion that being a cuckolded spouse is somehow on the same level as being raped is frankly offensive, and that's the opinion of everyone in this thread.

Maybe that's the problem, that folks think I'm saying the situations are exactly equal or "on the same level". When actually what I've been saying is that they're similar enough in the degree and type of harm (grossly unfair situation for the victim without their consent, psychological trauma, financial expenses for ameliorating the situation) that it makes sense to have similar treatment under the law, particularly in terms of criminal punishment.

Here's the point--millions of men and women get divorced every year, and most of them do not suffer the same level of psychological trauma that rape victims to. Hell, when my divorce was final, I had a fucking party. Ever heard of a rape victim having a party to celebrate his or her rape or the anniversary thereof?

See above. I don't need to demonstrate that rape and adultery are the same, just that their effects are similar enough to justify similar punishment.

If you want to claim that there are qualities that make either rape or adultery different or unique despite what similarities they have, fine. I'll certainly agree that they are not the same.

If you want to make the argument that they should be punished vastly differently (as in serious jail time for rape and nothing for adultery), I'm going to have to ask on what legal or ethical principle that decision is based. Because while it seems reasonable to have a lesser jail sentence if you think the psychological trauma is significantly less, it does not seem reasonable to remove the punishment entirely if we're acting in accord with the legal and ethical principles of the American legal system.

Maybe that's the problem, that folks think I'm saying the situations are exactly equal or "on the same level". When actually what I've been saying is that they're similar enough in the degree and type of harm (grossly unfair situation for the victim without their consent, psychological trauma, financial expenses for ameliorating the situation) that it makes sense to have similar treatment under the law, particularly in terms of criminal punishment.



See above. I don't need to demonstrate that rape and adultery are the same, just that their effects are similar enough to justify similar punishment.


This is what we disagree with.

This law makes it the state's decision as to whether to press these charges, though. If the marriage agreement includes promiscuity, this law can still imprison people who haven't caused any harm.

Very few rape victims ever forgive their rapists.
It is very possible to forgive cheating. Look at Bill Clinton.

Rape: Assault+sex.
Cheating:Sex.
See the difference?

Cheating only breaks a relationship if the other partner wants to break it.
Rape causes massive mental trauma whether or not the victim wants it.

If nobody catches a cheater, nobody is harmed, including the cheaters wife(unless the cheater is exceptionally stupid and does not use any form of protection. And then the cheater is necissarily harmed as much as his victim).
If nobody catches a rapist, the original victim+his next victim are both harmed.

Do you see now why rape and cheating are two totally different things?

EDIT: I'd like to point out something while I'm posting:
Cheating by itself doesn't hurt people, it's only the getting caught that hurts people.
So how about making it illegal to catch a cheater?
Doesn't make any sense? Didn't think so.
Get the point?

I have been cheated on. I know someone who has been raped. To compare the results of the first to the results of the second is narrow minded beyond belief.

So um Michigan, that's some law you got there.

I doubt we'll have it for long. This is how those anachronistic blue laws get repealed.

That's exactly it - having sex outside of marriage in Michigan is apparently illegal.

No this is about Adulterous relationship....which is sex with someone who is not your spouse when you are married.

Has nothing to do with unmarried sex. pay attention in class please.:D

I tend to agree. Unfortunately, I don't think the reasoning you're using on this particular case (rather than the general principle) is valid.



Let's say that a guy cheats on his wife of ten years. They have a very normal three children and a fairly inexpensive home.

Their marriage contract has been broken, and the wife is left to raise three children by herself (a very painful situation she did not consent to) with financial resources and time so limited that she cannot raise her children properly (unfair consequences).

That sounds like criminal harm on the level of rape to me, especially taking into account the effects on the wife and the children. I'd prefer it if he was simply required to financially compensate his wife long-term rather than being subjected to a life sentence in prison, but I figure Michigan can institute harsher punishments if it sees the need.

I'm really not a big fan of the "eye for an eye" mentality that prisons represent, but I think the sentence is this case was not nearly so unfair or ridiculous (in the context of our legal system) as some folks are painting it.

Hey now no stereotyping.....as a male in Michigan who is a single parent....I also have many male friends with custody.... do not blame just the men for wrongs such as cheating...i also have many female friends who have cheated on said hubbies or bf's....the gate swings both ways.

If you want to make the argument that they should be punished vastly differently (as in serious jail time for rape and nothing for adultery), I'm going to have to ask on what legal or ethical principle that decision is based. Because while it seems reasonable to have a lesser jail sentence if you think the psychological trauma is significantly less, it does not seem reasonable to remove the punishment entirely if we're acting in accord with the legal and ethical principles of the American legal system.

Legally, putting adultery on the same level as rape, punishment-wise, ignores the vast differences in the two. Rape is a direct physical violation of a person sexually and without consent, while adultery is the violation of an agreement made between two adults. Spouses that feel that they were traumatized as a result of adultery can seek legal recourse in divorce proceedings, asking for a greater share of their joined possessions than the cheating party may be willing to give up by using adultery as a basis. In other words, there already exists legal recourse in case of adultery.

The key difference lies mostly in the nature of the act. Rape is physical, psychological, and direct. As marriage, legally, is mostly a financial union, the harm is similar to that of a broken contract, not physical in any way, and indirect. Unless you can add physical trauma and a direct violation of consent, not an indirect violation of contractual consent, to the psychological trauma, then giving adultery the same felony status as rape is excessive punishment.

This is what we disagree with.

And I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer as to why.

I understand the emotional answer. After all, thinking about what happened to my female friends who have been sexually assaulted makes me cry, while thinking about my friends who have been victims of a cheating spouse does not make me cry. I feel sadness, yes, but it's not nearly as powerful.

Unfortunately, the emotional answer isn't what I'm looking for here.

Hey now no stereotyping.....as a male in Michigan who is a single parent....I also have many male friends with custody.... do not blame just the men for wrongs such as cheating...i also have many female friends who have cheated on said hubbies or bf's....the gate swings both ways.

I didn't mean to stereotype, mate. It was just an example.

The key difference lies mostly in the nature of the act. Rape is physical, psychological, and direct. As marriage, legally, is mostly a financial union, the harm is similar to that of a broken contract, not physical in any way, and indirect. Unless you can add physical trauma and a direct violation of consent, not an indirect violation of contractual consent, to the psychological trauma, then giving adultery the same felony status as rape is excessive punishment.

Finally! Thank you for actually getting to the crux of the problem.

The reason we tend to give harsher sentences for things like rape and murder is that they are directly impinging upon a person's body. They are more immediate and personal, a violation of our very selves.

It really has nothing to do with rape being somehow greater than all other types of psychological trauma. There are plenty of horrific ways to cause serious psychological trauma. It has to do with us seeing our bodies as our most valuable possessions, and believing that the only way to compensate for that kind of violation is to punish the other person physically, whether that be by killing them or limiting their physical lives to a prison where they will likely be subjected to similar physical violation.

That's actually one of the big reasons I don't like the American justice system. It perpetuates an unhealthy revenge mentality, particularly in cases of direct physical harm or sexual misconduct. I'd rather have the revenge mentality out of the justice system entirely.

Adultury bad, but it is just a moral issue. I believe that Mormon radicals should be able to be polygimous,.I believe that any Mormon should be able to be polygimous..

Anyone who would want to have any form of relationship with more than one woman has to be intrinsically insane...ever had a threesome?
its fun.

That's exactly it - having sex outside of marriage in Michigan is apparently illegal.

Don't confuse fornication (sex between unmarried people) with adultery (sex where at least one partner is married).

I am all for adultery who wants the same lover over and over again without a little variety? Michigonians must be a pretty boring bunch.

I am all for adultery who wants the same lover over and over again without a little variety? Michigonians must be a pretty boring bunch.

Michiganders.

And I still blame the UP.

This law makes it the state's decision as to whether to press these charges, though. If the marriage agreement includes promiscuity, this law can still imprison people who haven't caused any harm.
I'd like to see a show of hands:

How many of you believe that your elected officials are intelligent, rational, informed, and trustworthy enough to be regulating your marriage?

Agreed.



Why? Grossly violating a contract should be a prosecutable crime. If I have an agreement with my business partner to share the profits 50/50, and I take 75 percent, shouldn't he be able to take legal action against me?

Punishment yes ... disproportionate punishment ...

There becomes a point where it becomes cruel and unusual ... its a hard place to draw a line but you cant go giving life sentences for just anything.

Do they get stoned after or before incarceration?

This truly is anachronistic, moralistic twaddle. How does the breaking of what is essentially a contract, with no stipulations, necessitate life imprisonment?

Do they get stoned after or before incarceration?

This truly is anachronistic, moralistic twaddle. How does the breaking of what is essentially a contract, with no stipulations, necessitate life imprisonment?

Nobody is to stone anybody, not until I blow this whistle...

Nobody is to stone anybody, not until I blow this whistle...

Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do fuck somebody.

Nobody is to stone anybody, not until I blow this whistle...

*coughs*JEHOVA*coughs*;)

Crazy Americans :rolleyes:

I'd like to see a show of hands:

How many of you believe that your elected officials are intelligent, rational, informed, and trustworthy enough to be regulating your marriage?

*buries hands*

hehe

I think the government can come up with a general agreement that many married couples would want - which is essentially what I view a marriage license as. But as for any real regulation of my marriage, I think that should be left up to my spouse and I.

I'd like to see a show of hands:

How many of you believe that your elected officials are intelligent, rational, informed, and trustworthy enough to be regulating your marriage?

Not me. I'd prefer them way the fuck out of marriage.