[Stu Cohen]

Adultery shouldn't be a crime that gets someone a fine or prison time. It's a moral failing but elevating it to the level of criminal conduct doesn't make much sense to me.

I disagree. However, I do concede that your opinion is in the majority, and I think it is a large part of what has lead to the decline of marriage. Adultery is indeed, a crime. If you want to F whoever you want, don't get married. Once you are married, it should indeed be a crime because the ramifications and damage to others are immeasurable. Marriage should not be taken lightly. When you enter it, you do EVERYTHING to make it work. That is the committment you made. Wen you decide to destroy it, it should be a crime every bit as much as beating someone about that head.

I think a lot of folks have a very immature and unrealistic view of adultery.

I don't. Nobody NEEDS to stick their penis into nother person's vagina, and vice-versa. We are seperating needs and wants here. Sometimes I want something that my spouse cannot provide. What do I do? I do without it ... I don't break my marriage vows because I want it. Marriage imposes some restrictions on our abilities to pursue wants, and sometimes a spouse cannot meet a want. That is the risk you take when you enter marriage. I think your view of adultery is immature, IMHO. It's this "me first" mentality that has led to divorce rates approaching 50%. you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you just might find, you get what you need. Maybe the woman down the street would really rock your world if your spouse got ill. That doesn't make it right.

And the fact that "everyone isn't a saint" isn't an excuse. Strive for personal excellence despite the flaws of others. You might find that you can be a better person than you had initially thought.

The truth is that adultery is a lot more complex. What I am saying makes sense, it benefits both men and women. For example, if my bride emotionally and physically neglects me, and becomes cruel, I could rationally come to the decision that I don't want to be married to her anymore.

Then make a case for fault and get divorced before you start nailing everything that walks. In 90% of divorces, there is fault. We have to quit pretending that there isn't. If someone is that fickle, don't marry them. Wait until you know them for awhile. We are better judges of character than we think, we just like to ignore it. Maybe there should be a 5 year waiting period between marriage license and marriage. It's too disposable nowadays.

What you are arguing for is basically the dissolution of the whole institute of marriage. Under your system, what would the point of marriage be? I can't see one benefit.

Then again, maybe I could find myself drawn to a better woman before I could break up the marriage. Yes, it's wrong, and not the best thing to do, but it happens.

There should be repurcussions for doing "wrong" things. No? If you know it is wrong before you do it, it is "premeditated" and even more wrong (ie. not like spilling a glass of water). Take responsibility for your actions. "I'm not perfect" doesn't absolve resonsibility.

Why should the fact that I cheated on someone who mistreated me somehow cause a financial 'sudden death' or give my bride an undue financial benefit?

Because you had the choice not to do it, and you deemed in advance some illicit nookie worth it. Pay up. Adultery shouldn't be without strong consequences to the person who commits it.

It makes no sense - I get the 1/2 that I already owned anyway, so does she, we say 'adios,' and I can a life and so can she.

If you believe in deterrents, it makes perfect sense. Say adios before cheating, and don't treat marraige as a disposable entity ... or better yet, don't get married.

There is a strong paradigm that the cheated upon and replaced spouse has the moral highground. That's not necessarily true - just the fact that they were not the one to cheat doesn't entitle them to any kind of undue benefit.

I think the victim of a crime deserves compensation, and the perpetrator punishment. If one robs a bank because the CEO of the bank is corrupt, should the robber go free? You say yes, I say no. An apparent irreconcilable difference.

Fair's fair.

Indeed.

[HitmanLV]

The idea of locking people up for breaking their marriage vows serves no legitimate public purpose. The idea of elevating that moral failing to a criminal level doesn't make any sense. It's a reason for the other spouse to dump them, it's not a reason to get criminal courts and DAs involved.

Saying that once you get married you should do everything to make it work doesn't make much sense either. Most people have never done everything possible towards any end in their lives: why should marriage be different? Marriage requires a similar worldview and aligned goals, as well as aligned values. To me, saying that someone should do 'everything' possible, in light of the fact that overwhelmingly nobody does everything possible towards any goal in their life, makes it an unrealistic standard.

I think people should do a lot thats practical, but that's different than saying they should do everything that's possible.

Nobody needs to have sex outside of marriage, certainly. But that's not to say it doesn't happen. And in separating needs from wants, maybe somebody genuinely needs the emotional and physical affection that their spouse isn't giving them (for whatever reason). I agree its wrong, but don't overstate it. The fact that a man cheats on his wife means that he made a very bad decision, but that very bad decision doesn't necessarily mean that his wife is a completely innocent victim.

I agree we should strive for personal excellence, though thats not to say personal perfection. But that has almost nothing to do with this. The fact is that people cheat for all sorts of reasons, and many people who do cheat didn't set out to. It's a bad decision, and there are better alternatives, but in most cases cheating has much more to do with opportunity than it does with a 'cheating' personality or worldview.

A person who is a perfectly good spouse for a decade or more, loyal and sincere, can make some very bad choices for very bad reasons, for example, and enter into a relationship with another person. I don't think that automatically makes them a vile and subhuman person, nor do I automatically think that their cheated-upon spouse is necessarily an innocent victim.

The repercussions for doing a wrong thing (like cheating on my wife) is that she leaves me and costs me that marriage. That's perfectly fair and legitimate. Like I said, there is no benefit nor penalty financially to what I am saying: each party gets the 1/2 they already owned anyway. Why is this controversial?

I agree its best to break up before entering a new relationship, but what's best doesn't always happen. Why should this be a financial matter?

And why is there a presumption that a cheated-upon spouse somehow deserves some benefit above and beyond the 1/2 of the property that they already own, anyway?

You are giving too much credit to a cheated upon spouse. They get what they deserve, nothing more. This dynamic works to both spouses advantage. It is fair.