Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Actually, I'm no fan of Islam either, but that's in part because it is a religion.

Christian and Jewish law, per the Bible, also decree that the penalty for adultery is stoning.

Fortunately for Christians and Jews, our secular societies have grown past religious law as the law of the land.


I was reading this quote from Vox...

and I realized there is a disconnect between those who consider moral law in the area of adultery to be serious....

and those that deem moral law in this area to be subjective.....

or not as harshly seen (sorry couldn't word that better)

I am sincerely trying to understand why some people feel adultery should not be harshly punished...

Is it the stance on sex? Do you believe sex to be a drive that is uncontrollable?

and therefore when acted upon, even against the covenant of a marriage, should be tolerated?????

Or is it the stance on murder? That regardless of the "crime" no government should be responsible for murdering its citizens...????

I'm sincerely curious..... May we discuss this issue?



Peace,
Virtue
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Actually, I'm no fan of Islam either, but that's in part because it is a religion.

Christian and Jewish law, per the Bible, also decree that the penalty for adultery is stoning.

Fortunately for Christians and Jews, our secular societies have grown past religious law as the law of the land.


I was reading this quote from Vox...

and I realized there is a disconnect between those who consider moral law in the area of adultery to be serious....

and those that deem moral law in this area to be subjective.....

or not as harshly seen (sorry couldn't word that better)

I am sincerely trying to understand why some people feel adultery should not be harshly punished...

Is it the stance on sex? Do you believe sex to be a drive that is uncontrollable?

and therefore when acted upon, even against the covenant of a marriage, should be tolerated?????

Or is it the stance on murder? That regardless of the "crime" no government should be responsible for murdering its citizens...????

I'm sincerely curious..... May we discuss this issue?



Peace,
Virtue

It would help me out before responding if you could clarify your understanding and use of the term moral law? Are you using this in a Kantian sense à la the Critiques.
Virtue, the reason that adultery is not harshly treated in the US is because of the separation of church and state. Morality is subjective, religious beliefs are based on tenets that may or may not agree with the sentiments of other religions of people in the country. The US is a nation of laws, a government of the people and by the people. The people who "founded" this country came here for religious freedom, therefore the people who founded the country wanted to make sure that no religious tenets from other religions applied to them so there was an agreement, no one religion will govern. So through the years, values that were religious in nature were turned in to statutes or laws, which is why we have civil and religious ceremonies for marriages. Adultery is a reason to dissolve a marriage under law because it would be unreasonable to expect a person to forgive such behavior. There is no crime anymore because the various legislatures decided that the adulterer basically broke a promise to their spouse and to their God but that promise goes to the bond [emotional] marriage and to the [legal] contract marriage and not to a crime against the State which is actionable. Remember, in some religions a man can never rape his wife, but under law a woman, married or not has the right to say no, because her body is her own. Interestingly, we actually agree on this issue. A quick goggle of the topic "crime of adultery" gave me this site, incendiary but an interesting read. You are forewarned, you will not like what it says for the most part and I did not agree with all of it.

Adultery
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:

and I realized there is a disconnect between those who consider moral law in the area of adultery to be serious....

and those that deem moral law in this area to be subjective.....

or not as harshly seen (sorry couldn't word that better)

I am sincerely trying to understand why some people feel adultery should not be harshly punished...

Is it the stance on sex? Do you believe sex to be a drive that is uncontrollable?

and therefore when acted upon, even against the covenant of a marriage, should be tolerated?????

Or is it the stance on murder? That regardless of the "crime" no government should be responsible for murdering its citizens...????

I'm sincerely curious..... May we discuss this issue?



Peace,
Virtue


Okay, I'll take a stab...

I don't think the disagreements with "severe" punishments against adultery have anything to do with any of the above issues. It's simply a question of what the rule of law is, or what we as a society believe it should mean.

In this country, there is an implied constitutional right to privacy. The "right to privacy" is intended to protect us from government's regulation of the most private aspects of our lives. If they can regulate us in these areas, by passing laws that criminalize intimate acts, then we risk two things. First, that there is no ultimate undergirding rationale for preventing government from policing just about every area of life. Second is the idea that Congress can create proxy laws that accomplish what the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing: "pass a law respecting the establishment of religion." No matter how limited ones view is of how that clause should be read, it's unquestionable that if government wants to do something that it's not allowed to do, it can try to do other things that have the effect of accomplishing the very thing they're prohibited from doing. They can say, "Oh, we can't establish a state religion? Well, we can pass laws banning the things that happen to be banned by our religion, and we can pass laws requiring things that happen to be required in our religion." Same difference.

It's like how they used to say, "Oh, we can't discriminate based on race? Okay, then we'll discriminate based on previous condition of servitude." Oppression in the name of someone's idea of God is still oppression. But if God doesn't oppress, then religious law is man's law, not God's.

At worst, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. And since at law marriage is a contract between two people, violation of the terms gives rise to CIVIL sanction, not criminal sanctions. At law (as far as I know), there really isn't any such thing as a criminal penalty for breach of contract.

For the record, I should add that I think there are still some states that do have laws against adultery. But I doubt stoning is the penalty.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
What kind of severe punishment would you recommend for those who commit adultry? Jail, electric chair, how about Vox favorite form of punishment stoning.. haha..


I propose that we have actual facts thrown atchu ... tfro


Actual Facts as in; Who is the Originalman? What is the weight of the Earth? What is the population of the.....?
OOOOOHHHH !!!!! appl appl Thank you for all of your responses.... much food for thought.....
My computer is getting fixed (brand new too-rolls eyes), and I'm in the middle of a project here at work, so I won't be able to log on as I've been doing.....

under time constraints..... please allow me the weekend to respond...

Thank You..

Peace,
Virtue


quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:


Actual Facts as in; Who is the Originalman? What is the weight of the Earth? What is the population of the.....?


rofl...
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Okay, I'll take a stab...

I don't think the disagreements with "severe" punishments against adultery have anything to do with any of the above issues. It's simply a question of what the rule of law is, or what we as a society believe it should mean.

In this country, there is an implied constitutional right to privacy. The "right to privacy" is intended to protect us from government's regulation of the most private aspects of our lives. If they can regulate us in these areas, by passing laws that criminalize intimate acts, then we risk two things. First, that there is no ultimate undergirding rationale for preventing government from policing just about every area of life. Second is the idea that Congress can create proxy laws that accomplish what the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing: "pass a law respecting the establishment of religion." No matter how limited ones view is of how that clause should be read, it's unquestionable that if government wants to do something that it's not allowed to do, it can try to do other things that have the effect of accomplishing the very thing they're prohibited from doing. They can say, "Oh, we can't establish a state religion? Well, we can pass laws banning the things that happen to be banned by our religion, and we can pass laws requiring things that happen to be required in our religion." Same difference.

It's like how they used to say, "Oh, we can't discriminate based on race? Okay, then we'll discriminate based on previous condition of servitude." Oppression in the name of someone's idea of God is still oppression. But if God doesn't oppress, then religious law is man's law, not God's.

At worst, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. And since at law marriage is a contract between two people, violation of the terms gives rise to CIVIL sanction, not criminal sanctions. At law (as far as I know), there really isn't any such thing as a criminal penalty for breach of contract.

For the record, I should add that I think there are still some states that do have laws against adultery. But I doubt stoning is the penalty.


yeah
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Actually, I'm no fan of Islam either, but that's in part because it is a religion.

Christian and Jewish law, per the Bible, also decree that the penalty for adultery is stoning.

Fortunately for Christians and Jews, our secular societies have grown past religious law as the law of the land.


I was reading this quote from Vox...

and I realized there is a disconnect between those who consider moral law in the area of adultery to be serious....

and those that deem moral law in this area to be subjective.....

or not as harshly seen (sorry couldn't word that better)

I am sincerely trying to understand why some people feel adultery should not be harshly punished...

Is it the stance on sex? Do you believe sex to be a drive that is uncontrollable?

and therefore when acted upon, even against the covenant of a marriage, should be tolerated?????

Or is it the stance on murder? That regardless of the "crime" no government should be responsible for murdering its citizens...????

I'm sincerely curious..... May we discuss this issue?



Peace,
Virtue

It would help me out before responding if you could clarify your understanding and use of the term moral law? Are you using this in a Kantian sense à la the Critiques.


I don't understand it... I'm sorting through it... I have fluctuated back and forth.... and the last time I read Kant(in College X yrs. ago)was ONLY the Critique of Pure Reason... and my head nearly burst a vessel trying to comprehend it.... of all my philosophical study, his writings were the most challenging....

I mostly got from Kant (and ummm... asking my phil. prof. to "help" me decipher it! lol) that he believes in universal principles that stand alone outside of scientific inquiry.. or ummm... that principles arrived by "reason" are subject to experience.... which is subject to "space and time" which is elusive and dependent upon PAST experience... moral principles cannot be revealed through scientific explanation...

okay, I understand Kant in so much as an argument against Hume... not much else... this is the best I can do to remember and interpret what I've read...

The question was asked to aid in my further study and search...

bottom line Kresge.... I don't have a position... I'm seeking one..

Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Nikcara:
Virtue, the reason that adultery is not harshly treated in the US is because of the separation of church and state. Morality is subjective, religious beliefs are based on tenets that may or may not agree with the sentiments of other religions of people in the country.


Hmmm.... I guess the heart of my question is WHY should adultery be or not be harshly punished.... and this would lead into the severity of the crime... which would lead to the subjective value placed on such a crime...

this is not simply the domain of religion....


quote:
Adultery is a reason to dissolve a marriage under law because it would be unreasonable to expect a person to forgive such behavior.


Why?

quote:
There is no crime anymore because the various legislatures decided that the adulterer basically broke a promise to their spouse and to their God but that promise goes to the bond [emotional] marriage and to the [legal] contract marriage and not to a crime against the State which is actionable.


Now, we're getting somewhere... Possible reason 1:

Adultery is a violation of an essential societal institution, why is that NOT a crime against the State....? the general body politic? Why would this warrant execution? Why wouldn't it?

quote:
Interestingly, we actually agree on this issue.


I hold no position... I am seeking answers to sort out where I will choose to stand...

quote:
A quick goggle of the topic "crime of adultery" gave me this site,
Adultery


I am not sure of the intent of your link... I saw mostly definitions .... not explanations....

save one more...

possible reason number 2:

Adultery increases the likelihood of the violation of a father's rights to lineage...

being that ?% (brb gotta get the stats), of father's are not genetically linked to the heirs they claim...

From the provided link:

"12.6 million wives have given birth to children who are not the biological offspring of the husbands of those families"

"Some physicians doing tissue typing for organ donations estimate that maybe 20% of people are not genetically related to the men claiming fatherhood"

but the question would be why would the denial of a father's rights to lineage be worthy of death? why wouldn't it be?

Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

Okay, I'll take a stab...

I don't think the disagreements with "severe" punishments against adultery have anything to do with any of the above issues. It's simply a question of what the rule of law is, or what we as a society believe it should mean.


I suppose then what I'm asking is....

What are the principles held within a given society that give rise to justification for or against the severe punishment of adultery?



quote:
In this country, there is an implied constitutional right to privacy. The "right to privacy" is intended to protect us from government's regulation of the most private aspects of our lives. If they can regulate us in these areas, by passing laws that criminalize intimate acts, then we risk two things. First, that there is no ultimate undergirding rationale for preventing government from policing just about every area of life.


Why not? This government has passed such laws in the past without consternation...

quote:
Second is the idea that Congress can create proxy laws that accomplish what the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing: "pass a law respecting the establishment of religion." No matter how limited ones view is of how that clause should be read, it's unquestionable that if government wants to do something that it's not allowed to do, it can try to do other things that have the effect of accomplishing the very thing they're prohibited from doing. They can say, "Oh, we can't establish a state religion? Well, we can pass laws banning the things that happen to be banned by our religion, and we can pass laws requiring things that happen to be required in our religion." Same difference.

It's like how they used to say, "Oh, we can't discriminate based on race? Okay, then we'll discriminate based on previous condition of servitude." Oppression in the name of someone's idea of God is still oppression. But if God doesn't oppress, then religious law is man's law, not God's.


Is your point that this government has decided that adultery is too intimate an act to sentence harshly and there are laws that gird against its passive agressive societal condemnation? or subsequent circumstantial condemnation?

quote:
At worst, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. And since at law marriage is a contract between two people, violation of the terms gives rise to CIVIL sanction, not criminal sanctions. At law (as far as I know), there really isn't any such thing as a criminal penalty for breach of contract.


Why?

quote:
For the record, I should add that I think there are still some states that do have laws against adultery. But I doubt stoning is the penalty.


Well, what is your personal opinion?



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
What kind of severe punishment would you recommend for those who commit adultry? Jail, electric chair, how about Vox favorite form of punishment stoning.. haha..


I don't know.... I really wanted to get into a discussion regarding the worth of marriage to society ..... or the implications of adultery and its damage to both parties.... something like that.... and what are the factors that society consider when assigning value and judgment to such an act....

Personally, early in my marriage, if my husband had committed adultery, his punishment would have been severe... for someone like him....

I would have left him, I wouldn't have fought for the marriage, nothing.... everything he had worked to build would have been destroyed by him.... his status, his money, his pride.. his identity, his family would have been gone....

I would have told him, she should be worth it...

but.... that was when I was younger... as our marriage progressed in years.... I probably would have stayed if he had committed adultery, with counseling and sincerity....

but would I have killed him? iono... maybe that too....

but people do this and all of the above, I was just wondering why......


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Okay, I'll take a stab...

I don't think the disagreements with "severe" punishments against adultery have anything to do with any of the above issues. It's simply a question of what the rule of law is, or what we as a society believe it should mean.

In this country, there is an implied constitutional right to privacy. The "right to privacy" is intended to protect us from government's regulation of the most private aspects of our lives. If they can regulate us in these areas, by passing laws that criminalize intimate acts, then we risk two things. First, that there is no ultimate undergirding rationale for preventing government from policing just about every area of life. Second is the idea that Congress can create proxy laws that accomplish what the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing: "pass a law respecting the establishment of religion." No matter how limited ones view is of how that clause should be read, it's unquestionable that if government wants to do something that it's not allowed to do, it can try to do other things that have the effect of accomplishing the very thing they're prohibited from doing. They can say, "Oh, we can't establish a state religion? Well, we can pass laws banning the things that happen to be banned by our religion, and we can pass laws requiring things that happen to be required in our religion." Same difference.

It's like how they used to say, "Oh, we can't discriminate based on race? Okay, then we'll discriminate based on previous condition of servitude." Oppression in the name of someone's idea of God is still oppression. But if God doesn't oppress, then religious law is man's law, not God's.

At worst, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. And since at law marriage is a contract between two people, violation of the terms gives rise to CIVIL sanction, not criminal sanctions. At law (as far as I know), there really isn't any such thing as a criminal penalty for breach of contract.

For the record, I should add that I think there are still some states that do have laws against adultery. But I doubt stoning is the penalty.


yeah


EP May I ask your personal opinion?


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
As I type responses, perhaps I am really asking the worth and value of marriage in our society?

adultery is the destruction of this and its punishment reflective of the worth and value of marriage...



I see what you're saying. But I guess I draw a line, and think society should too, the more personal the matter is. Before society has enough of a stake in how individuals treat their marriages to allow criminal punishments for adultery, society would need to play more of a role in marriage to begin with. In times of arranged marriages, dowry, and all of that, one could imagine adultery as a crime. If there's a societal structure in place that puts marriage as almost an inevitable state for every adult, as nearly-universal as graduating from high school, then they have turned adultery into a pretty high stakes crime, because clearly if they've gone there, they've placed a lot of investment in marriage as an institution. Where you have a situation like that, or one in which one dissolved marriage can directly impact society, I would venture to suggest that adultery SHOULD be a crime, punishable fairly severely.

Instead, we live in a world of individual control over these kinds of choices. In fact, it's to the point where some marriages are so horrible that many DIVORCES are actually more beneficial to society than a marriage is. If society allows us to develop freely and individually into whatever kind of person we become, and to conduct our relationship situations as freely as we do, then we shouldn't, and probably can't, say that violating the contract is a crime.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Okay, I'll take a stab...

I don't think the disagreements with "severe" punishments against adultery have anything to do with any of the above issues. It's simply a question of what the rule of law is, or what we as a society believe it should mean.

In this country, there is an implied constitutional right to privacy. The "right to privacy" is intended to protect us from government's regulation of the most private aspects of our lives. If they can regulate us in these areas, by passing laws that criminalize intimate acts, then we risk two things. First, that there is no ultimate undergirding rationale for preventing government from policing just about every area of life. Second is the idea that Congress can create proxy laws that accomplish what the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing: "pass a law respecting the establishment of religion." No matter how limited ones view is of how that clause should be read, it's unquestionable that if government wants to do something that it's not allowed to do, it can try to do other things that have the effect of accomplishing the very thing they're prohibited from doing. They can say, "Oh, we can't establish a state religion? Well, we can pass laws banning the things that happen to be banned by our religion, and we can pass laws requiring things that happen to be required in our religion." Same difference.

It's like how they used to say, "Oh, we can't discriminate based on race? Okay, then we'll discriminate based on previous condition of servitude." Oppression in the name of someone's idea of God is still oppression. But if God doesn't oppress, then religious law is man's law, not God's.

At worst, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. And since at law marriage is a contract between two people, violation of the terms gives rise to CIVIL sanction, not criminal sanctions. At law (as far as I know), there really isn't any such thing as a criminal penalty for breach of contract.

For the record, I should add that I think there are still some states that do have laws against adultery. But I doubt stoning is the penalty.


yeah


EP May I ask your personal opinion?


Peace,
Virtue


Vox pretty much already said it all for me.

Adultery is a terrible breach of marriage contract, but it is a legal/civil breach. It isn't the government's place to regulate it on religious grounds. It should be punished on civil grounds, not a crime since it is not against any secular law. It may be a crime in the Old Testament, but that's not what we base American law off of.


If you really want to know, personally I don't believe in marriage. I don't believe in traditional marriage on historical, social, romantic and spiritual grounds. It's a man-made tradition that has nothing to do with the bonding of two human hearts, minds, bodies and souls. I don't believe that people should be forced into expected legal contracts to be together. I believe in common law marriage at most for financial and legal protection for two mates.
For adultery to be harshly punished, the sanctity of marriage itself needs to be examined. Today, so many people marry for reasons other than love and compatibility--such as financial gain/stability or for the sake of having a ring on their left hand--that the instiution has become grounded in materialism. It's safe to say that many people who marry for less than honorable reasons end up committing adultery at some point or another. So if adultery were be punished in a harsh manner, could the same punishment stand for people who marry frivolously?
quote:
Originally posted by Virtue:
Hmmm.... I guess the heart of my question is WHY should adultery be or not be harshly punished.... and this would lead into the severity of the crime... which would lead to the subjective value placed on such a crime...



quote:
Originally posted by Virtue: this is not simply the domain of religion....
Where else would you put it?


quote:
Originally posted by Nikcara: Adultery is a reason to dissolve a marriage under law because it would be unreasonable to expect a person to forgive such behavior.


quote:
Originally posted by Virtue: Why?


I do not tolerate unfaithfulness in boyfriends, I would never tolerate it in a husband, to me sex with someone other than me is the only reason I need to end that relationship.


quote:
Originally posted by Virtue: Adultery is a violation of an essential societal institution, why is that NOT a crime against the State....? the general body politic? Why would this warrant execution? Why wouldn't it?


Why is it that marriage is an essential societal institution. Who ever said that, George Bush? Based on my research on the history of marriage, marriage is about the transfer of property, real or personal from one generation to the next.

Americans came up with the concept of happiness in marriage which has spread around the world. Marriages used to be arranged prior to birth or in early childhood to seal alliances and maintain wealth, and in still continues in some countries for those purposes.

Clearly you do not need marriage to have a child so when you say societal institution whose society are you referring to because marriage as we know it today is recent in origin.

quote:
Originally posted by Virtue: but the question would be why would the denial of a father's rights to lineage be worthy of death? why wouldn't it be?


Men used to have multiple wives or concubines, so faithfulness to woman was abnormal. But those same marriages required faithfullness under penalty of death from women. Women during those times were mere vessels to carry on the family line. Their happiness was not an issue or concern, they need only to find favor with their husband and bear him sons that survived to adulthood so that the husbands assets could be passed from father to son. Who would want to give assets to another person's child to the detriment of your own?

That is certainly not that way that they did is back in the day. Land was transfered as " to the issue [children] of Joe Blow by his wife Sally Blow". If you are being that specific there is a reason. You, the Grantor of the assets, only want your relatives to have your property, [property equals wealth, power and choice, some places citizenship] So you, Grantor, want to be sure your property is going to only your legitimate heirs. How did your heirs become legitimate, they were born in marriage. By the way why do you think legitimatcy is such a big term in the law. Child born in marriage is presumed legitimate. What do they call children out of wedlock? Illegitimate right? They are not the legitimate heirs of the Grantor because thier paternity was not "guaranteed" via marriage, the only thing they had back in the day. Why do you think a woman's virginity was so prized? She had no children and was untouched by another man so the new husband could safely presume the children she bore were legitimately his children. Why the term wedlock? There are reasons for these terms. They all have to do with the transfer of property or wealth. Not love or happiness.

quote:
Originally posted by Virtue: I hold no position... I am seeking answers to sort out where I will choose to stand...


I thought, apparently wrongly, that we agreed because you refer to adultery as a crime more than once. I thought you defined it as a crime because you believed the behavior was wrong. For the record, I think adultery should be a crime. I do find it would be astonishing Virtue that you describe something as a crime if you do not think it is wrong and are simply searching for answers to come to a conclusion.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I see what you're saying. But I guess I draw a line, and think society should too, the more personal the matter is. Before society has enough of a stake in how individuals


ahhhh Vox, this will take us into a discussion of Individual and Society (a sociological critique---- V's not ready for that)..... because I tend to think the opposite....


quote:
treat their marriages to allow criminal punishments for adultery, society would need to play more of a role in marriage to begin with. In times of arranged marriages, dowry, and all of that, one could imagine adultery as a crime. If there's a societal structure in place that puts marriage as almost an inevitable state for every adult, as nearly-universal as graduating from high school, then they have turned adultery into a pretty high stakes crime, because clearly if they've gone there, they've placed a lot of investment in marriage as an institution. Where you have a situation like that, or one in which one dissolved marriage can directly impact society, I would venture to suggest that adultery SHOULD be a crime, punishable fairly severely.


So, then Vox, am I correct in understanding that you believe the worth of marriage depends upon society's investment in the institution?

quote:
Instead, we live in a world of individual control over these kinds of choices...........

.......If society allows us to develop freely and individually into whatever kind of person we become, and to conduct our relationship situations as freely as we do, then we shouldn't, and probably can't, say that violating the contract is a crime.


Then, Vox, outside of the intimate nature of marriage and your view that society should restrict its interference in such, how do you view marriage as a stabilizing institution in society? where does the safety and security of children fit in to a society built for the individual or the group? where does stability etc ... fit in? Is there a trade off? typically the more stable a society, the more "stagnant" a society at least that is how those societies that are constantly in flux view them.... May I ask your view?


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:


Vox pretty much already said it all for me.

Adultery is a terrible breach of marriage contract, but it is a legal/civil breach. It isn't the government's place to regulate it on religious grounds. It should be punished on civil grounds, not a crime since it is not against any secular law. It may be a crime in the Old Testament, but that's not what we base American law off of.


Are you able to make a judgment of adultery outside of its role in secular society? Do you defer to secular rule in your judgment of such things?


quote:
If you really want to know, personally I don't believe in marriage. I don't believe in traditional marriage on historical, social, romantic and spiritual grounds. It's a man-made tradition that has nothing to do with the bonding of two human hearts, minds, bodies and souls.


Why do you think man created it? How does the union of two people, have NOTHING to do with their hearts, minds, bodies and souls....

quote:
whatI don't believe that people should be forced into expected legal contracts to be together. I believe in common law marriage at most for financial and legal protection for two mates.


How are two people FORCED into a legal contract? Why is marriage nothing more than a business transaction to you? Are you viewing marriage from a purely academic theoretical vantage point? What of the people who get married and their reasons for such? Do you believe two people get married because they have no love for one another, share nothing of their minds, souls or bodies????


I'm really a bit disheartened by your viewpoint if it is so..... ummmm.... yes... just a little bit... I'm hearing something akin to this from young men like yourself, and since I have a young daughter, I feel for her.....


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by blkfemmephenom:
For adultery to be harshly punished, the sanctity of marriage itself needs to be examined.


Yes.... I agree...

quote:
Today, so many people marry for reasons other than love and compatibility--such as financial gain/stability or for the sake of having a ring on their left hand--that the instiution has become grounded in materialism.


I agree to an extent.... When I was in the world, love was top priority to me... and I knew no one who married other than for love, it was when I left "the world" that marriage became something different.... and had nothing to do with materialism.... it had everything to do with fear... and those around me experienced the same thing....

yet regarding women with whom relationships are based in materialism? Actually, I don't know any.... it's a theory to me..... something read in the tabloids

quote:
It's safe to say that many people who marry for less than honorable reasons end up committing adultery at some point or another.


Or they leave. Adultery isn't always necessary.... but I understand your point... point taken...

quote:
So if adultery were be punished in a harsh manner, could the same punishment stand for people who marry frivolously?


Society used to make provisions before marriage to prevent such frivolity. It was called rites of passage....

The analogy of intent of marriage to breach of marriage is not the same in my mind....

mainly because intent is usually known after a breach, or non breach... so intent becomes irrelevant.... If the intent was frivolous, then don't all those who sanctioned and supported the marriage initially somehow become "accessories"? whereas the "breach" is usually seen as between the two people only....

Hope I'm making myself clear....

off
I love your avatars..... tfro



Edited: because the original post was not coherent! lol...

Peace,
Virtue
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Nikcara:
I do not tolerate unfaithfulness in boyfriends, I would never tolerate it in a husband, to me sex with someone other than me is the only reason I need to end that relationship.



quote:
Why is it that marriage is an essential societal institution. Who ever said that, George Bush? Based on my research on the history of marriage, marriage is about the transfer of property, real or personal from one generation to the next.

Americans came up with the concept of happiness in marriage which has spread around the world. Marriages used to be arranged prior to birth or in early childhood to seal alliances and maintain wealth, and in still continues in some countries for those purposes.

Clearly you do not need marriage to have a child so when you say societal institution whose society are you referring to because marriage as we know it today is recent in origin.


quote:
Men used to have multiple wives or concubines, so faithfulness to woman was abnormal. But those same marriages required faithfullness under penalty of death from women. Women during those times were mere vessels to carry on the family line. Their happiness was not an issue or concern, they need only to find favor with their husband and bear him sons that survived to adulthood so that the husbands assets could be passed from father to son. Who would want to give assets to another person's child to the detriment of your own?

That is certainly not that way that they did is back in the day. Land was transfered as " to the issue [children] of Joe Blow by his wife Sally Blow". If you are being that specific there is a reason. You, the Grantor of the assets, only want your relatives to have your property, [property equals wealth, power and choice, some places citizenship] So you, Grantor, want to be sure your property is going to only your legitimate heirs. How did your heirs become legitimate, they were born in marriage. By the way why do you think legitimatcy is such a big term in the law. Child born in marriage is presumed legitimate. What do they call children out of wedlock? Illegitimate right? They are not the legitimate heirs of the Grantor because thier paternity was not "guaranteed" via marriage, the only thing they had back in the day. Why do you think a woman's virginity was so prized? She had no children and was untouched by another man so the new husband could safely presume the children she bore were legitimately his children. Why the term wedlock? There are reasons for these terms. They all have to do with the transfer of property or wealth. Not love or happiness.


quote:
I thought, apparently wrongly, that we agreed because you refer to adultery as a crime more than once. I thought you defined it as a crime because you believed the behavior was wrong. For the record, I think adultery should be a crime. I do find it would be astonishing Virtue that you describe something as a crime if you do not think it is wrong and are simply searching for answers to come to a conclusion.


Okay...
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
Are you able to make a judgment of adultery outside of its role in secular society? Do you defer to secular rule in your judgment of such things?


I don't defer to any rule except logical rule. Logically, adultery is a betrayal of trust and betrayal of a social contract you have entered with another person. Therefore, it's wrong.


quote:
Why do you think man created it? How does the union of two people, have NOTHING to do with their hearts, minds, bodies and souls....


I didn't say it had nothing to do with it, I said the union of two people, two hearts, two souls, two bodies and two minds has EVERYTHING to do with it. Legalized Ceremonies and governmental contracts are things that have been attached to them over the years.

And yes, I do believe that man created the idea of marriage as a legal construct and a legal ceremony.

quote:
How are two people FORCED into a legal contract?


The government doesn't consider unions to be legit when they aren't conducted in some sort of religious establishment or town hall.

quote:
Why is marriage nothing more than a business transaction to you? Are you viewing marriage from a purely academic theoretical vantage point? What of the people who get married and their reasons for such?


I believe in common law marriage. I personally don't believe in traditional marriage because I believe it's a 200 year old Western construct. For people who DO want to get a traditional marriage, I still respect their view. Some people want to have a traditional marriage because that is what they were raised to believe in.

If you read up on the history of marriage, yes, that's what it was created for. It was a business contract.

http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article...SVB8F79C&sub_cat=106



quote:
Do you believe two people get married because they have no love for one another, share nothing of their minds, souls or bodies????


Not at all. When did I suggest that? I believe that the way marriage is structued today, that it ruins relationships and can kill love between two people. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and even one that stay together often have unhappy spouses.

Yes, I do believe that traditional marriage kills love in many people. Not everyone is meant for that.

I believe that love is not meant to be constrained by legal contracts and social stigmas (there is a stigma in society against people who want to have a life-long relationship with someone without ever getting married).


quote:
I'm really a bit disheartened by your viewpoint if it is so..... ummmm.... yes... just a little bit... I'm hearing something akin to this from young men like yourself, and since I have a young daughter, I feel for her.....


Peace,
Virtue


I'm not advocating promiscuity or adultery. I'm saying that I believe two people can have a lifelong committed relationship without getting married. I don't equate "committed" with "getting legally married".

What do you think about common law spouses?
It seems that what it boils down to is what the society as a whole decides. It changes or can change from one day or generation to the next.

Nickara's legal break down summed it up nicely.

But why can't we as a society change our concept of family and of marriage. I mean what's with all the debate about gay marriage in this society about? Especially if we have, as a society always seen marriage as a institution between a man and a women? Some areas of our society are changing that.

So why not change this one aspect of it? Why not have a more severe punishment for adultery? What if once you got married, it was much harder ( as if divorce were easy) to dissolve? And what if common law marriage was the norm also – so you couldn't' just shack up? What would happen?

Would people take the institution of marriage more serious? Would people just have physical relationships?

What's the upside and the downside?
The only way Adultery could possibly be a crime is if it was impossible to get a divorce. Since its requires two concenting adults, each party has the right to walk away at anytime. I mean what if the wife no longer wants to have sex with her husband or what if she uses it as a tool, does the man have to simply suffer because his wife wont give him any. What if the man abuses his wife should she have to stay? I just believe in a capitalistic society when indiviualism and materialism runs the world its no wonder there is such a high rate of infidelity and divorce or even people not choosing to get married. Everyone only thinks about their own personal intrest,very little consideration is given to family or the community. Just my opinion
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
I don't defer to any rule except logical rule. Logically, adultery is a betrayal of trust and betrayal of a social contract you have entered with another person. Therefore, it's wrong.


Okay...


quote:

I didn't say it had nothing to do with it, I said the union of two people, two hearts, two souls, two bodies and two minds has EVERYTHING to do with it.


Please help me to understand this statement made by you....

"Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
It's a man-made tradition that has nothing to do with the bonding of two human hearts, minds, bodies and souls."


quote:
Legalized Ceremonies and governmental contracts are things that have been attached to them over the years.

And yes, I do believe that man created the idea of marriage as a legal construct and a legal ceremony.


Okay....

quote:
The government doesn't consider unions to be legit when they aren't conducted in some sort of religious establishment or town hall.


Are people not "free" to commit to one another outside of marriage?

quote:

I believe in common law marriage. I personally don't believe in traditional marriage because I believe it's a 200 year old Western construct. For people who DO want to get a traditional marriage, I still respect their view. Some people want to have a traditional marriage because that is what they were raised to believe in.

If you read up on the history of marriage, yes, that's what it was created for. It was a business contract.

http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article...SVB8F79C&sub_cat=106


This article seems to support your view of marriage.... not whether or not it was created as a business contract....



quote:
Not at all. When did I suggest that?


I was basing this off your quote above.... where you say it has nothing to do with the bonding of hearts..etc...

quote:
I believe that the way marriage is structued today, that it ruins relationships and can kill love between two people. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and even one that stay together often have unhappy spouses.


The institution of marriage seems to reflect the mentality of those utilizing it.... and we live in an individualistic society... individual over community.... ergo....

quote:
Yes, I do believe that traditional marriage kills love in many people. Not everyone is meant for that.


How so? May I ask, not meant for what?

quote:
I believe that love is not meant to be constrained by legal contracts and social stigmas (there is a stigma in society against people who want to have a life-long relationship with someone without ever getting married).


I'm not sure I understand.... I would have to understand how you define love.... there is a stigma associated with everything that is not accepted as normal..... if everyone "shacked up" then it there would be a stigma against those who married.... stigmas don't bother me.... what is considered the norm does concern me....

quote:


I'm not advocating promiscuity or adultery. I'm saying that I believe two people can have a lifelong committed relationship without getting married.


Yes, anything can happen... especially if you focus on the two people only.... traditionally, marriage wasn't just about the two people involved only....

quote:
I don't equate "committed" with "getting legally married".


funny.... some people do... the terms are synonymous....

quote:
What do you think about common law spouses?


Not trying to be snide.... I honestly pray you don't take this to be a snap at you....

but, I don't.... I try not to focus on them at all.... my focus is marriage....



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
It seems that what it boils down to is what the society as a whole decides. It changes or can change from one day or generation to the next.


Yet society is not an invisible entity it is made up of individuals... and meetings of the mind.... Western society is new.... and the rapid flux in core values seems to be a new thing.... traditional societies were seen as "stagnant" or backward because of their stability ....... and slowness to change key institutions in their society for better or worse....

quote:
Nickara's legal break down summed it up nicely.


Would you share what in particular stood out that you agreed with?

quote:
But why can't we as a society change our concept of family and of marriage. I mean what's with all the debate about gay marriage in this society about? Especially if we have, as a society always seen marriage as a institution between a man and a women? Some areas of our society are changing that.


Society does as it wishes, with enough support...

quote:
So why not change this one aspect of it? Why not have a more severe punishment for adultery? What if once you got married, it was much harder ( as if divorce were easy) to dissolve? And what if common law marriage was the norm also – so you couldn't' just shack up? What would happen?


questions I am asking....

quote:
Would people take the institution of marriage more serious? Would people just have physical relationships?

What's the upside and the downside?


answers I'm trying to sort out myself...


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
The only way Adultery could possibly be a crime is if it was impossible to get a divorce. Since its requires two concenting adults, each party has the right to walk away at anytime. I mean what if the wife no longer wants to have sex with her husband or what if she uses it as a tool, does the man have to simply suffer because his wife wont give him any. What if the man abuses his wife should she have to stay? I just believe in a capitalistic society when indiviualism and materialism runs the world its no wonder there is such a high rate of infidelity and divorce or even people not choosing to get married. Everyone only thinks about their own personal intrest,very little consideration is given to family or the community. Just my opinion


I agree with the latter bolded parts.... I'm still sorting out the balance between individual and society.... and wanted differing viewpoints.... still trying to sort out the value of marriage in society, and the arguments for and against.....

ZAKAR, are you 5%? NGE?


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
Please help me to understand this statement made by you....

"Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
It's a man-made tradition that has nothing to do with the bonding of two human hearts, minds, bodies and souls."


Oh I see. I thought you were saying that I said unions have nothing to do with hearts and minds. I was saying that I believe organized marriage has nothing to do with that. I'm referring to the legal document itself, not the feelings of the people who are in a marriage.

quote:
Are people not "free" to commit to one another outside of marriage?


They can, but there is very little protection for them. The state does not recognize their union as official.

quote:
This article seems to support your view of marriage.... not whether or not it was created as a business contract....


Oops, wrong article. Red Face



quote:
The institution of marriage seems to reflect the mentality of those utilizing it.... and we live in an individualistic society... individual over community.... ergo....


Yes, that could be true too. But, I'm not sure marriages were any happier in the past. In the past it was just more tabboo to get a divorce. People just stayed together in an unhappy union.

quote:
How so? May I ask, not meant for what?


I believe that it makes people get into the mindset of obligation and constraint. They come to see their relationship with their significant other as an obligation, not a voluntary arrangement. Many spouses refer to their significant other as "the ole ball and chain". That reflects their view on their union. The bad thing about the way marriage is currently structured is that it is like a job. People are married because it's expected of them and it's a financial arrangement. It's a job and they feel "stuck" with the spouse. Not necessarily "stuck" as in not free to be promiscuous, but "stuck" in that they are being forced into a regimented relationship.

Many couples are often more amicable towards one another when they are boyfriend and girlfriend or "shacking up". Even when it goes on for a very long time. I've heard stories of people shacking up for 20 years and being happy, then eventually getting married and the relationship ends in divorce 3 years later.

Perhaps it is the feeling of legalism and obligation that kill love. And there are people aren't meant to be married because some people will never be monogamous. Some people (both men and women) are naturally inclined to be polygamous.

quote:
I'm not sure I understand.... I would have to understand how you define love.... there is a stigma associated with everything that is not accepted as normal..... if everyone "shacked up" then it there would be a stigma against those who married.... stigmas don't bother me.... what is considered the norm does concern me....


I define "love" as a voluntary mutual attraction between two human beings. And I don't believe that being "committed" means being legally bound.

quote:
Yes, anything can happen... especially if you focus on the two people only.... traditionally, marriage wasn't just about the two people involved only....


What was it traditionally about?

quote:
funny.... some people do... the terms are synonymous....


To some people. Not to everyone.

quote:
Not trying to be snide.... I honestly pray you don't take this to be a snap at you....

but, I don't.... I try not to focus on them at all.... my focus is marriage....



Peace,
Virtue


I didn't view that as a jab at all. I can respect your beliefs. Smile I just don't like it that some people consider being committed without being married to be a "sin". I always think, "I didn't know that God views relationships as valid or invalid depending on whether or not the two people have gone through the legal conditions of society. I didn't know that God judges bondage by Man's law."
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
Please help me to understand this statement made by you....

"Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
It's a man-made tradition that has nothing to do with the bonding of two human hearts, minds, bodies and souls."


Oh I see. I thought you were saying that I said unions have nothing to do with hearts and minds. I was saying that I believe organized marriage has nothing to do with that. I'm referring to the legal document itself, not the feelings of the people who are in a marriage.

quote:
Are people not "free" to commit to one another outside of marriage?


They can, but there is very little protection for them. The state does not recognize their union as official.

quote:
This article seems to support your view of marriage.... not whether or not it was created as a business contract....


Oops, wrong article. Red Face



quote:
The institution of marriage seems to reflect the mentality of those utilizing it.... and we live in an individualistic society... individual over community.... ergo....


Yes, that could be true too. But, I'm not sure marriages were any happier in the past. In the past it was just more tabboo to get a divorce. People just stayed together in an unhappy union.

quote:
How so? May I ask, not meant for what?


I believe that it makes people get into the mindset of obligation and constraint. They come to see their relationship with their significant other as an obligation, not a voluntary arrangement. Many spouses refer to their significant other as "the ole ball and chain". That reflects their view on their union. The bad thing about the way marriage is currently structured is that it is like a job. People are married because it's expected of them and it's a financial arrangement. It's a job and they feel "stuck" with the spouse. Not necessarily "stuck" as in not free to be promiscuous, but "stuck" in that they are being forced into a regimented relationship.

Many couples are often more amicable towards one another when they are boyfriend and girlfriend or "shacking up". Even when it goes on for a very long time. I've heard stories of people shacking up for 20 years and being happy, then eventually getting married and the relationship ends in divorce 3 years later.

Perhaps it is the feeling of legalism and obligation that kill love. And there are people aren't meant to be married because some people will never be monogamous. Some people (both men and women) are naturally inclined to be polygamous.

quote:
I'm not sure I understand.... I would have to understand how you define love.... there is a stigma associated with everything that is not accepted as normal..... if everyone "shacked up" then it there would be a stigma against those who married.... stigmas don't bother me.... what is considered the norm does concern me....


I define "love" as a voluntary mutual attraction between two human beings. And I don't believe that being "committed" means being legally bound.

quote:
Yes, anything can happen... especially if you focus on the two people only.... traditionally, marriage wasn't just about the two people involved only....


What was it traditionally about?

quote:
funny.... some people do... the terms are synonymous....


To some people. Not to everyone.

quote:
Not trying to be snide.... I honestly pray you don't take this to be a snap at you....

but, I don't.... I try not to focus on them at all.... my focus is marriage....



Peace,
Virtue


I didn't view that as a jab at all. I can respect your beliefs. Smile I just don't like it that some people consider being committed without being married to be a "sin". I always think, "I didn't know that God views relationships as valid or invalid depending on whether or not the two people have gone through the legal conditions of society. I didn't know that God judges bondage by Man's law."


Thanks for answering will be back to answer later.... (at work)


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
So, then Vox, am I correct in understanding that you believe the worth of marriage depends upon society's investment in the institution?


Not so much "depends on," as much as maybe "reflected in." And not so much the "worth" of marriage, so much as the "impact" of marriage. So, the impact of an institution on a society is reflected in society's investment in it. Wouldn't you agree that a small, simple hunter-gatherer society with an oral culture probably has more of a stake in the success of an individual marriage than a complex society of 290 million that stresses the individual and privacy? A society that's one small step from extinction probably requires the order that rigid family structures provide in order to survive. One failed marital union, between one couple, could create chaos among such a society that could take a generation to overcome. Adultery, therefore, would represent a serious crime against that society; certainly more so than in one like ours.


quote:
Vox, outside of the intimate nature of marriage and your view that society should restrict its interference in such, how do you view marriage as a stabilizing institution in society? where does the safety and security of children fit in to a society built for the individual or the group? where does stability etc ... fit in? Is there a trade off? typically the more stable a society, the more "stagnant" a society at least that is how those societies that are constantly in flux view them.... May I ask your view?


In our kind of civilization, I have no doubt that marriage, in the form we know it, must serve a vital stabilizing function. But if marriage is in trouble, I believe it's because our culture these days is just not calibrated toward encouraging marriage. There's too much going on at the front end to encourage the right kind of bonding with the right kind of partners. I would even go so far as to suggest that adultery isn't really the problem. Adultery, and divorce in general, is the result of a society that has everybody too caught up in things that discourage the right kind of partnering.

We used to have a member here, Henry38, who used to talk about arranged marriages. I was never in favor of something like that, and I'm still not. But if there was enough harmony between youth and elders, and enough "community" within our communities, the family and the community would form a stronger front line against the deleterious effects of the media and capitalism that harm our ability to "see straight," when it comes to things like family, dating/courting, and love. We would then grow up have different expectations, and become better potential mates ourselves. At that point, marriage and stability are probably a given.

Therefore, I think we should explore the possibility that the problem isn't adultery or divorce; it's not even the desire to delay marriage. It's the fact that outside influences, that come from forces that see us as nothing but consumers to be swayed and sold to -- are developing people away from each other instead of toward each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

I'm referring to the legal document itself, not the feelings of the people who are in a marriage.


Do you think the legal document secures areas of a relationship for two people whose hearts, minds and souls have come together?

quote:

They can, but there is very little protection for them. The state does not recognize their union as official.


What do you think is the state's rationale for its non recognition?

quote:

Oops, wrong article. Red Face


Where is the correct one?

quote:

Yes, that could be true too. But, I'm not sure marriages were any happier in the past. In the past it was just more tabboo to get a divorce. People just stayed together in an unhappy union.


You can't be certain.... only speculate from those that have written of other's history, yes?

quote:

I believe that it makes people get into the mindset of obligation and constraint. They come to see their relationship with their significant other as an obligation, not a voluntary arrangement.


Ep, you are speaking for their intent... are you sure this is the position you wish to take?
quote:
Many spouses refer to their significant other as "the ole ball and chain". That reflects their view on their union.


Some spouses...

quote:
The bad thing about the way marriage is currently structured is that it is like a job. People are married because it's expected of them and it's a financial arrangement. It's a job and they feel "stuck" with the spouse. Not necessarily "stuck" as in not free to be promiscuous, but "stuck" in that they are being forced into a regimented relationship.


Again you are speaking "for" married couples...

quote:
Many couples are often more amicable towards one another when they are boyfriend and girlfriend or "shacking up". Even when it goes on for a very long time. I've heard stories of people shacking up for 20 years and being happy, then eventually getting married and the relationship ends in divorce 3 years later.


I've heard the opposite... that shacking leads to irresponsibility when children inevitably are born into such a situation.... that there is no accountalbity in other areas, areas that a marriage contract covers..

quote:
Perhaps it is the feeling of legalism and obligation that kill love. And there are people aren't meant to be married because some people will never be monogamous.


there are many reasons for and against.... no monolithic reasoning here....

love is relative and subjective.... to guage its death in all marriages would be a tremendous undertaking...

quote:
Some people (both men and women) are naturally inclined to be polygamous.


no touching this one...

quote:
I define "love" as a voluntary mutual attraction between two human beings. And I don't believe that being "committed" means being legally bound.


love is so much more to me than mutual attraction.... I find myself in situations of mutual attraction often.... love is reserved for something far deeper and more profound.... no one can just claim that in my book....

society protects those instiutions it holds dear..... I see no problem with a legal contract to secure and protect a commitment....

quote:

What was it traditionally about?


the union of two souls.... as well as the union of two or more families... (extended)

quote:
To some people. Not to everyone.


and vice versa....

quote:

I didn't view that as a jab at all. I can respect your beliefs. Smile I just don't like it that some people consider being committed without being married to be a "sin".


Do you understand why? or are you simply averse with no empathetic knowledge.... to have such a view, you do not have to agree... but an intimate understanding is required.....

quote:
I always think, "I didn't know that God views relationships as valid or invalid depending on whether or not the two people have gone through the legal conditions of society. I didn't know that God judges bondage by Man's law."


that depends, on whether you separate God from Man..


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Not so much "depends on," as much as maybe "reflected in." And not so much the "worth" of marriage, so much as the "impact" of marriage. So, the impact of an institution on a society is reflected in society's investment in it. Wouldn't you agree that a small, simple hunter-gatherer society with an oral culture probably has more of a stake in the success of an individual marriage than a complex society of 290 million that stresses the individual and privacy? A society that's one small step from extinction probably requires the order that rigid family structures provide in order to survive. One failed marital union, between one couple, could create chaos among such a society that could take a generation to overcome. Adultery, therefore, would represent a serious crime against that society; certainly more so than in one like ours.


hmmmmm...... Okay Vox.... I'm chewing on this one...

slowly..

chewing doesn't mean digesting however...

smile...

yep.... chewing...


quote:

In our kind of civilization, I have no doubt that marriage, in the form we know it, must serve a vital stabilizing function.


I agree..... I've heard your critique... may I hear a viable solution...?

quote:
But if marriage is in trouble, I believe it's because our culture these days is just not calibrated toward encouraging marriage. There's too much going on at the front end to encourage the right kind of bonding with the right kind of partners. I would even go so far as to suggest that adultery isn't really the problem. Adultery, and divorce in general, is the result of a society that has everybody too caught up in things that discourage the right kind of partnering.

We used to have a member here, Henry38, who used to talk about arranged marriages. I was never in favor of something like that, and I'm still not.


I must admit the more I learn about arranged marriages, the more appealing it is to me, however...


quote:
But if there was enough harmony between youth and elders, and enough "community" within our communities, the family and the community would form a stronger front line against the deleterious effects of the media and capitalism that harm our ability to "see straight," when it comes to things like family, dating/courting, and love. We would then grow up have different expectations, and become better potential mates ourselves. At that point, marriage and stability are probably a given.


The family promotes values.... If the family's values are stained by the lustful, overstimulating, shallow, materialistic culture that the media breeds and capitalism cultivates... then respectfully, your solution holds no weight....

quote:
Therefore, I think we should explore the possibility that the problem isn't adultery or divorce; it's not even the desire to delay marriage. It's the fact that outside influences, that come from forces that see us as nothing but consumers to be swayed and sold to -- are developing people away from each other instead of toward each other.


But, Vox.... we decide that this is the way we want to live.... and we do not wish to fight it... we enjoy it... and even defend it here do we not?

What do you see as an alternative?



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Not so much "depends on," as much as maybe "reflected in." And not so much the "worth" of marriage, so much as the "impact" of marriage. So, the impact of an institution on a society is reflected in society's investment in it. Wouldn't you agree that a small, simple hunter-gatherer society with an oral culture probably has more of a stake in the success of an individual marriage than a complex society of 290 million that stresses the individual and privacy? A society that's one small step from extinction probably requires the order that rigid family structures provide in order to survive. One failed marital union, between one couple, could create chaos among such a society that could take a generation to overcome. Adultery, therefore, would represent a serious crime against that society; certainly more so than in one like ours.



In our kind of civilization, I have no doubt that marriage, in the form we know it, must serve a vital stabilizing function. But if marriage is in trouble, I believe it's because our culture these days is just not calibrated toward encouraging marriage. There's too much going on at the front end to encourage the right kind of bonding with the right kind of partners. I would even go so far as to suggest that adultery isn't really the problem. Adultery, and divorce in general, is the result of a society that has everybody too caught up in things that discourage the right kind of partnering.

We used to have a member here, Henry38, who used to talk about arranged marriages. I was never in favor of something like that, and I'm still not. But if there was enough harmony between youth and elders, and enough "community" within our communities, the family and the community would form a stronger front line against the deleterious effects of the media and capitalism that harm our ability to "see straight," when it comes to things like family, dating/courting, and love. We would then grow up have different expectations, and become better potential mates ourselves. At that point, marriage and stability are probably a given.

Therefore, I think we should explore the possibility that the problem isn't adultery or divorce; it's not even the desire to delay marriage. It's the fact that outside influences, that come from forces that see us as nothing but consumers to be swayed and sold to -- are developing people away from each other instead of toward each other.


That was truly awesome. rock
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:

Nickara's legal break down summed it up nicely.



MidLifeMan, thanks for the compliment and for actually reading what I wrote and think about how it applies to us today.

Unfortunately it seem that this particular thread is more about "philosophical quagmire" of adultery from a 21st century view of American marriage rather than the actual history of marriage and adultery as it impacts our reality today. My bad for thinking it was the latter. Next time I will know that enlightenment is not the goal. Or maybe it was about one particular attorneys opinion. Or perhaps she only wanted to really discuss this issue with men.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×