Should adultery carry legal penalties?

[John Dule]

I'm curious to see if there's any meaningful support on Atlas for the "yes" answer. Call me crazy, but I can see the logic behind it from a libertarian perspective. If we view marriage as a contract, and adultery as a violation of that contract, then perhaps it could be argued that it is the government's duty to enforce that contract. Perhaps under such a system, marriage contracts could choose to either include or omit this kind of clause.

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

I'm curious to see if there's any meaningful support on Atlas for the "yes" answer. Call me crazy, but I can see the logic behind it from a libertarian perspective. If we view marriage as a contract, and adultery as a violation of that contract, then perhaps it could be argued that it is the government's duty to enforce that contract. Perhaps under such a system, marriage contracts could choose to either include or omit this kind of clause.

contract this contract that, why don't libertarians contract their pieholes

[Devout Centrist]

This is akin to arguing that marital rape is impossible because marriage represents a contractual agreement to be open to sex at any time.

[John Dule]

This is akin to arguing that marital rape is impossible because marriage represents a contractual agreement to be open to sex at any time.

Uh... no?

[dead0man]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, but I'm not surprised that there are libertarians arguing for it. Libertarianism was never about fostering a truly free and open society, and always about setting up a system to permanently entrench the existing power structures under the guise of muh contracts.

[John Dule]

No, but I'm not surprised that there are libertarians arguing for it. Libertarianism was never about fostering a truly free and open society, and always about setting up a system to permanently entrench the existing power structures under the guise of muh contracts.

I'm not arguing for it, I just noted that there is a potential argument to be made for it that still falls under the umbrella of libertarian reasoning. I'm not sure if there are any self-professed libertarians out there who support this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, but I'm not surprised that there are libertarians arguing for it. Libertarianism was never about fostering a truly free and open society, and always about setting up a system to permanently entrench the existing power structures under the guise of muh contracts.

I'm not arguing for it, I just noted that there is a potential argument to be made for it that still falls under the umbrella of libertarian reasoning. I'm not sure if there are any self-professed libertarians out there who support this.

Fair enough. It wouldn't surprise me that some libertarians would support it, though. There are libertarians who support even more authoritarian social policies, like that Hoppe guy.

[John Dule]

I'm curious to see if there's any meaningful support on Atlas for the "yes" answer. Call me crazy, but I can see the logic behind it from a libertarian perspective. If we view marriage as a contract, and adultery as a violation of that contract, then perhaps it could be argued that it is the government's duty to enforce that contract. Perhaps under such a system, marriage contracts could choose to either include or omit this kind of clause.

contract this contract that, why don't libertarians contract their pieholes

Libertarians contract. Socialists dilate.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

No, Keep the government out of people's bedrooms.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

[John Dule]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

How do you feel about "polyamorous" people?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

How do you feel about "polyamorous" people?

Polyamorous people gentrified being promiscuous.

[HisGrace]

I do think there's a certain validity to the "contract" argument but it's just not a good idea to have "sex contracts".

No, but I'm not surprised that there are libertarians arguing for it. Libertarianism was never about fostering a truly free and open society, and always about setting up a system to permanently entrench the existing power structures under the guise of muh contracts.

Even in that system someone who did not want to be monogamous would be free to not get married, or could likely even still get married and simply exempt the promises of fidelity from whatever contract they signed. It's still a very bad idea but it's not really a "freedom" issue.

[Fight for Trump]

Adultery has always been legally-recognized grounds for divorce, so the government already plays a role. There is no logical reason why the state should intervene in a punitive manner. How the couple divides their assets, child custody, etc. is a separate matter.

[Fight for Trump]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

I find it hard to imagine any other behavior that you have such an unforgiving attitude towards. The circumstances of every marriage is different, so it is impossible to morally judge the actions of others based on a legal status. Even then, people make mistakes. Serial adulterers or bigamists are easier to judge, but how much tolerance is there for that...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

I find it hard to imagine any other behavior that you have such an unforgiving attitude towards.

You do? Really?

(Serious answer: yes, people do make occasional mistakes, even serious ones, that aren't necessarily reflections of their overall character or the overall quality of their relationships with others; this is why I said "next to no" rather than "no". However, I think that the vast majority of the time a "moment of weakness" in the context of infidelity is symptomatic of broader issues, issues that don't necessarily themselves have anything special to do with sex.)

[Velasco]

It would make sense to raise this question if we were in the Middle Ages (countries like Saudi Arabia are still there), but the obvious answer nowadays is that infidelity is at most a cause to file for divorce.

On the other hand, we all know that some persons are more prone to promiscuity than others. While it's legitimate and reasonable to expect fidelity from your life partner in a monogamous relationship,  I see no reason to oppose polyanorous relationships that eventually could fulfill the aspirations of people who is unhappy with monogamy. In my opinion  such relationships should have legal status

What I find unacceptable in a western developed society is advocating the social ostracism of those found guilty of infidelity, especially is this call comes from our libertarian (liberticide?) folks

[LBJer]

Of course not.  I don't see how anyone can say "yes" and claim to believe in freedom. 

[Fight for Trump]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

I find it hard to imagine any other behavior that you have such an unforgiving attitude towards.

You do? Really?

(Serious answer: yes, people do make occasional mistakes, even serious ones, that aren't necessarily reflections of their overall character or the overall quality of their relationships with others; this is why I said "next to no" rather than "no". However, I think that the vast majority of the time a "moment of weakness" in the context of infidelity is symptomatic of broader issues, issues that don't necessarily themselves have anything special to do with sex.)

It's impossible to know what really goes on in someone else's marriage, though. What may appear to be one person cheating on the surface could be a "marriage" that has completely broken down but is not legally separated or divorced for some reason (finances, kids, family/social pressure, etc.), abuse or neglect coming in the other direction, temporary separation, or any number of other situations. I don't think there is any need to even attempt to cast any sort of rigid, puritanical judgement on anyone when we can never know the full context. It's their private life, we know nothing about it, and we don't need to know unless they choose to share, and even then, we can only know one side of the story.

[John Dule]

What I find unacceptable in a western developed society is advocating the social ostracism of those found guilty of infidelity, especially is this call comes from our libertarian (liberticide?) folks

Just because others are free to act as they choose doesn't mean we aren't free to judge them for those actions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

This. There should be next to no social toleration of infidelity but it shouldn't carry penal consequences.

I find it hard to imagine any other behavior that you have such an unforgiving attitude towards.

You do? Really?

(Serious answer: yes, people do make occasional mistakes, even serious ones, that aren't necessarily reflections of their overall character or the overall quality of their relationships with others; this is why I said "next to no" rather than "no". However, I think that the vast majority of the time a "moment of weakness" in the context of infidelity is symptomatic of broader issues, issues that don't necessarily themselves have anything special to do with sex.)

It's impossible to know what really goes on in someone else's marriage, though. What may appear to be one person cheating on the surface could be a "marriage" that has completely broken down but is not legally separated or divorced for some reason (finances, kids, family/social pressure, etc.), abuse or neglect coming in the other direction, or any number of other situations. I don't think there is any need to even attempt to cast any sort of rigid, puritanical judgement on anyone when we can never know the full context. It's their private life, we know nothing about it, and we don't need to know unless they choose to share, and even then, we can only know one side of the story.

I'm speaking from the (hypothetical) perspective of someone who knows the (hypothetical) couple fairly well. I believe that it's generally possible to arrive at a good working understanding of a loved one's private situation even if you don't know it in all its intricacies.

Regardless, this discussion has drifted far afield from the original political/legal question Dule asked (to which I think we agree the answer is "obviously no, other than maybe redounding to the adulterer's discredit during divorce proceedings"), so I'm happy to drop it for now if you are.

What I find unacceptable in a western developed society is advocating the social ostracism of those found guilty of infidelity, especially is this call comes from our libertarian (liberticide?) folks

Just because others are free to act as they choose doesn't mean we aren't free to judge them for those actions.

I love being tactically allied with you on issues like this. It's a shame our worldviews aren't conducive to it happening more often.

[Beet]

No; the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Then if two people want to make a contract between themselves that governs each others' sexual behavior, they can do that in the private sector without the government's involvement.

[Velasco]

What I find unacceptable in a western developed society is advocating the social ostracism of those found guilty of infidelity, especially is this call comes from our libertarian (liberticide?) folks

Just because others are free to act as they choose doesn't mean we aren't free to judge them for those actions.

You are free to have a negative opinion of other people's actions, but you are not entitled to act as an inquisitor with regard behaviours you don't approve. Social ostracism is libericide by definition, because its purpose is imposing a certain sense of morality to others

[John Dule]

What I find unacceptable in a western developed society is advocating the social ostracism of those found guilty of infidelity, especially is this call comes from our libertarian (liberticide?) folks

Just because others are free to act as they choose doesn't mean we aren't free to judge them for those actions.

You are free to have a negative opinion of other people's actions, but you are not entitled to act as an inquisitor with regard behaviours you don't approve. Social ostracism is libericide by definition, because its purpose is imposing a certain sense of morality to others

I can't control whether or not other people choose to ostracize someone. All I can say is that I find adultery (in the true sense of the word-- betraying a person who loves and cares for you) to be a singularly loathsome quality and I personally wouldn't want to interact with the kind of person who made a habit of such a thing. That's not being an inquisitor, that's having a preference.