"Adultery" site sued

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If we mutually agree to allow adultery, then we shouldn't be arrested for violating some law."

"We" who? Democracy dictates that the majority rules. If you want the law changed then lobby for it, but expect to be arrested and possibly convicted if you break the law.

Adultery is a much more serious offense than you think it is.[/b]

I'll say, Leviticus'll have you both killed. Fortunately only a complete nutbag would pay any attention to Leviticus. Incidentally, who's supposed to do the killing?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Another interesting question is whether adultery in marriage is morally worse than cheating on a girlfriend/boyfriend or 'life partner'. Is breaking a legal contract relationship worse than breaking a verbal contract relationship?

Until 1750 or so a life partner would be considered a spouse. I think the essential difference is that any agreement between a non-married couple is either implicit or if explicit privately made, whereas marriages involve explicit publicly made promises. So there's a difference of degree in the breaking of the promises.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Lol, grow up darling x

Originally posted by lemon lime
A commitment may be implied because they presently live together as a couple. But this kind of arrangement is a bit hazy, as it may not mean the same thing to both parties. There is no real agreement here, other than what may or may not be thought of (as an agreement) in the minds of the people concerned.

Many countries recognise verbal or even implied agreements as legally binding. Similarly, many countries recognise long term relationships as being in many ways equivalent to marriage from a legal stand point.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

to duchess and twhitehead

I'm not actually concerned with the legal nuts and bolts involved with all of this, my main concern is with the advantages of a committed and loving relationship over the disadvantages (and that's putting it mildly) of relationships with no clear boundaries or sense of loyalty. Things can go terribly wrong if there is no real understanding (on both sides) of how important the basic family unit is, even when there are no children involved.

Various statutes and laws, and moral precepts expressed in holy books, have always existed and addressed this basic and naturally advantageous kind of relationship, and have dealt with problems that will naturally arise due to infidelity. Laws and statutes didn't come into existence simply to control people in these relationships, that would be putting the cart before the horse. Rules in regard to marriage (in particular) exist to deal with problems that always seem to pop up within that kind of relationship... such as jealousy, child neglect and endangerment, and hurt feelings that can sometimes lead to extreme actions like murder and suicide. The idea that Something is good because it feels good, and it's not wrong if no harm is done doesn't apply here... we can't just say no harm no foul and that's that. This would be like saying:

"It doesn't matter what kind of fuel or oil I put into my car, because fuel is fuel and and oil is oil... and it makes me so darn angry when moralizing mechanics have the audacity to tell me how I should take care of my car! It's none of their blankety blank business! And now I shall throw back my head and say harrumph, and storm off in a huff. Good day!"

that was fun 😵

Anyoldwho... I would also like to note that in spite of some cultures that may have a more liberal attitude toward marriage, this can't actually overcome basic human nature and negate the need for a secure environment for everyone involved (themselves, their children, and perhaps other relatives). The same problems that can occur when there is a betrayal of intimacy in a strict moralistic society can happen in cultures more open to casual liaisons. Being a part of a different culture isn't enough to change our DNA, or able to change what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring. So I would think it should go without saying that what is deemed normal for cats and dogs and hermit crabs and etc. etc. isn't necessarily good or normal for humans. On the other hand...

...Eagles don't dream up lofty sentiments and rules for themselves when it comes to mating, because they don't need to. They simply mate for life because it makes inherent sense to do so... it's a bit sad that more men and women aren't as sensible as some birds.😞

Originally posted by divegeester
Who here thinks adultery is morally acceptable?

I think in many cases ~ in fact almost all cases ~ adultery involves immoral acts - if it harms someone and if it involves deception - and therefore I think it is wrong and not morally acceptable in such cases. So called "adultery" in an 'open marriage' where there is honesty and consent does not constitute immorality in my view. However cases of the latter are far outnumbered by the former, I am sure.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

We aren't talking about divorce, we are talking about adultery. So when the marriage is annulled the vows are publicly renounced, I'd extend that to couples who have separated obviously, depending on the separation. In a divorce or separation the former couple release each other from the promises. Adultery involves the breaking of vows which are still in place.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The same problems that can occur when there is a betrayal of intimacy in a strict moralistic society can happen in cultures more open to casual liaisons. Being a part of a different culture isn't enough to change our DNA, or able to change what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring.

Are you claiming that culture does or doesn't have a key effect on "what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring"?

Presumably your use of the word "normal" makes provision for it to be defined variously and according to the culture in which the said environment exists?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you claiming that culture does or doesn't have a key effect on "what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring"?

Presumably your use of the word "normal" makes provision for it to be defined variously and according to the culture in which the said environment exists?

Are you claiming that culture does or doesn't have a key effect on "what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring"?

Cultures are made up of and are defined by the people who live within those cultures, so I think it's safe to say that any culture would have a key effect (whether for good or bad) on the people living within the culture.

Presumably your use of the word "normal" makes provision for it to be defined variously and according to the culture in which the said environment exists?

Yes, the word normal leaves open the idea of variance. No one says it's 'normal' for water to flow down hill, because water is never known to defy gravity and start flowing uphill. So the word normal doesn't apply to inanimate objects, but in regard to behavior that word does apply to people.

The word "normal" can also be applied to the rest of the animal kingdom. People are able to observe normal behavior in animals as are the animals themselves. Most animals (especially the social ones) are highly sensitive to abnormal variances within their own kind, and will react quickly to those variances. They will also react to variances in other species, so the idea of "normal" behavior is not only understood by people but is understood by other creatures as well.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, the word normal leaves open the idea of variance. No one says it's 'normal' for water to flow down hill, because water is never known to defy gravity and start flowing uphill. So the word normal doesn't apply to inanimate objects, but in regard to behavior that word does apply to people.

The word "normal" can also be applied to the rest of the ani ...[text shortened]... "normal" behavior is not only understood by people but is understood by other creatures as well.

You said this right? [my slight paraphrase]: 'Being a part of a different culture isn't enough to [be] able to change what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring'. Surely, you have now just conceded that ~ to the contrary ~ culture CAN change what it takes to create what is seen as being a normal environment for offspring, right? We're not talking about "inanimate objects" or "water flowing uphill".