# Cheating and Marriage



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Should marriage law be reformed to disallow divorce benifits to someone if he/she cheats, ending the marriage?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Cheats? at what? Cards?

Takes two to make a marriage, two to keep it. Cheating doesn't end a marriage - it's usually a symptom of something else wrong.

So ... the short answer to your question: No.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

That's what court is for. The judge decides.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

If marriage is a contact and one partner cheats, over and over, with no intention of making it work... aren't they breaking it?

The judge can't circumvent the law... and the law divides up the assests, however extra benifits can be perscribed if one partner is deemed in 'need'. Prenuptuals are the only exception, but none are guaranteed.

What if one partner is abusive? Should that partner be entitled to anything?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I thought we had 'no fault' divorce, in which case the courts don't decide.

Either way, I'd recommend mandatory and completely binding prenups (may require some sort of renewal/update rules). No one should get 'half' of the fruits from your life's education, work and creativity for a couple year's together. On the other hand, under current rules, you go into this eyes wide open. If you don't want to risk it, don't get married unless the rules change (still at risk of the rules changing back though...).

It's time to treat marriage as a purely financial and child-responsibility issue, from a government perspective. Religious perspective is for the more meaningful personal and emotional issues.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It treats commonlaw equally with marriage and agreements are only as good as the parties want them to be court orders or not.

This is provincial family law and differs in jurisdictions but "infidelity" is not on the radar.

Lots here
http://www.canadalegal.com/search.asp?a=25&n=100


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

There's more than one way to "cheat" on marriage vows - many ways far worse than have sex with another person not currently party to the marriage contract.

Margaret


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

We do have no-fault divorce in Canada.

There are 3 grounds for divorce: adultery, cruelty (e.g., abuse), and separation for one year. Most divorces are granted for the third reason, even if there is adultery or abuse, because it's the simplest and cheapest route. 

The division of assets and determining spousal support is typically done in a separation agreement, and can be done in a variety of ways. You can go through lawyers, a mediator or come up with your own arrangement. If you can't come to an agreement, the courts get involved. But you have to justify it based on numbers, finances, ability to earn income, etc.,--practical reasons. 

Divorce is hard enough on everyone--both emotionally and financially. Why add further punishment to it?

I agree, if someone cheats repeatedly, they aren't respecting the marriage. If the other person knows about this, they should leave. But relationships are often more complicated than they appear on the surface--I don't think the law has a place in determining who to punish in a relationship gone wrong, and who is at fault. It's almost always murky waters.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good review Sonal.
There is one area I would like to see Federal legislation and that is to bar adversarial lawyers from family law and allow ony those that abide by the mediatorial guidelines.

It's hard enough, the legal system should not encourage combat but rather fair play and cooperation, especially where kids are involved.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/

This should be the code of ethics for all family matters and lawyers failing to abide should not be able to handle family disputes.

http://www.oafm.on.ca/mediators/codeofethics.html

This is one area that CAN be acheived at a provincial level and in my mind should be.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CanadaRAM said:


> That's what court is for. The judge decides.


Yep, and half the time, the judge is wrong.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah, divorce lawyers can really ramp up the costs
best to file your own papers and just have lawyer dots i's and cross t's

that's what i did and it was relatively inexpensive and painless
sort of like a business deal
you get this and i get that


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I did the same Macspectrum--we talked, we agreed, we had papers drawn up and we signed them.

Simple, easy, painless, and cheap. No added bitterness from spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight over dollar store plates.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah was their client's 

••

My first round was straight forward, no kids, few assets, did it ourselves.

THIS time.......ugh. I'll let you know when it's over. 
Not fun even sans adversarial lawyers.  
Getting there finally tho thanks to a patient mediator...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This whole thread makes me so glad to be married to a fine woman for well over 40 years. Best part is we, who are best friends too, are now planning our retirement together. Count us among the lucky few, I guess.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ditto SINC although I think that we (you and I) are truly lucky. Marriage is difficult and I strongly believe that a bad marriage is worse than no marriage. My heart goes out to those of you for whom your dreams did not materialize, no matter how hard you tried. A good marriage is not guaranteed by anything except yourselves and a great deal of luck, give-and-take and patience. Ironically, SINC, this is one reason I believe that same-sex marriages are important to be recognized. I know and appreciate that you do not, and did not raise this to open another debate, but the institution of marriage is about a depth of relationship that needs every speck of respect that it can muster for two people to succeed.

As for cheating, its breaking a fundamental trust and while it may be a symptom of problems, it's no excuse. As for benefits, the milk has been spilt.... Financial penalty should not be used to prevent adultery. All it could do is keep otherwise dysfunctional marriages intact. The disincentive is marital trust. You either have it or you don't. You either have a good marriage or you don't. Artificial means to support a shakey marriage are unlikely to strengthen it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Ironically, SINC, this is one reason I believe that same-sex marriages are important to be recognized. I know and appreciate that you do not, and did not raise this to open another debate, but the institution of marriage is about a depth of relationship that needs every speck of respect that it can muster for two people to succeed.


No debate UTBJ as I truly do understand the relationship part, believe it or not.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> but the institution of marriage is about a depth of relationship


Crap! The institution of marriage is about money and nothing else - benefit plans, inheritance and so on.... It is deal between 2 whatevers and the government for special privileges not accorded to individuals. As such marriage should be banned altogether.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

rgray said:


> Crap! The institution of marriage is about money and nothing else - benefit plans, inheritance and so on.... It is deal between 2 whatevers and the government for special privileges not accorded to individuals. As such marriage should be banned altogether.


:clap: :clap: 
The groundswell of support for my opinion on this matter is growing! (that is not to suggest it was ever my "original" idea)

The way marriage is currently understood by insurance companies, there is a lot of discrimination.

But I've blathered on about this often enough no need to repeat myself.

Margaret


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah solve it easily.
Kill the term entirely.

I take the "corporate shareholder".......

Kids automatically become minority shareholders with the same kind of protections and we can just use the corporate law for families of any sort.
There is a huge body of precedence, protection, dissolution etc.

There are no genders in shareholding.

KISS


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Marriage is for the religion of your choice to recognise. Secular binding contracts are government's responsibility to recognise and enforce. We're in-between for now, but that's all that is feasible for now. 

Why would government recognise anything beyond basic contractual obligations? Start without Gov. involvement: imagine the outcry if government wanted to expand its reach from enforcing contractual obligations to backing individual religious terminology for what consenting adults do with each other. It would be outrageous. It is none of government's beeswax. 

I understand why government is involved in marriage (historical momentum) but disagree with why it should continue to be. Realistically, we get what we have now.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Back to the original question:


> Should marriage law be reformed to disallow divorce benefits to someone if he/she cheats, ending the marriage?


Yes. If you aren't happy in your marriage, and you want out, get out. Control your urges, keep your pants on, and separate. Once you separate, then feel free to indulge. Until then, if you commit adultery, you don't deserve a cent.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

100% agreed GuyToronto.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Trudeau - "The government has no place in the bedrooms of Canadians"
I include the courts under the term "government".

Since quitting the wedding video biz, I don't go to many weddings, so here's my question:

Is there a part in the marriage vows that goes "And do you ....... (fill in name here) agree to never ever ever have sex, in the broadest defintion of that word, with any other person besides ........ (fill in name here), until separated? (see section G9.14, subsection f3-191 for definition of word "separated")" ?

And if so, is that vow a legally binding contract negating the sexual vagrant's access to a share of the common wealth?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy didn't say it was the law, he said the person didn't *deserve* a cent.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Guy didn't say it was the law, he said the person didn't *deserve* a cent.


Um, yeah. Is that written somewhere in the Bible? Perhaps Leviticus 78:45

"And he who hath slept out of wedlock with another shall be entitled to no Oxen or Cattle or cents"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You don't seem to understand the difference between a value judgement, on one hand, and laws and statutes on the other. 

Bad try with the OT, though. The woman would get nothing.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You don't seem to understand the difference between a value judgement, on one hand, and laws and statutes on the other.
> 
> Bad try with the OT, though. The woman would get nothing.


OOhhh I get it. Lets keep this little gem ON topic. 

So you think that it is fair if one partner provides the lions share of revenue for the couple for x number of years that they should not be entitled to anything if commit adultery?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> So you think that it is fair if one partner provides the lions share of revenue for the couple for x number of years that they should not be entitled to anything if commit adultery?


No. The comment as I understood it was about benefits (i.e., support), not common property.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Right. Property should be split 50-50.

Commit adultery though, and kiss all support payments goodbye. A spouse shouldn't be able to betray the relationship, yet still get a cheque every month.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Right. Property should be split 50-50.
> 
> Commit adultery though, and kiss all support payments goodbye. A spouse shouldn't be able to betray the relationship, yet still get a cheque every month.


So the lesser party essentially has to stay faithful in sort of a prostitutional marriage bed then?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

What? What does that mean? I'm reading it over and over, yet I still don't understand it.

Lesser party? Prostitutional marriage bed? What?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> What? What does that mean? I'm reading it over and over, yet I still don't understand it.
> 
> Lesser party? Prostitutional marriage bed? What?


So the deal is the lesser party (ie. the one who doesn't bring home the income and benefits) has to basically stay with the greater party (the one who does bring home the bacon) if they are to receive any support.

How is that different than prostitution?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

dajonesy is just invoking the golden rule, guytoronto. 'Whoever has the gold, makes the rules'.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Da Jonesy...get your head out of your....the sand.

Nobody said they had to stay together. Just don't cheat before you separate. Is that so hard?

A what is this prostitution crap? Marriages can roll along just fine without any sex involved. Now if you don't mind, I'm off to bed my wife...I mean off to bed with my wife.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Da Jonesy...get your head out of your....the sand.


Dude... do the same. Infidelity is not the end of the world, nor does it make an individual ineligible for required support and benefits.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Infidelity is not the end of the world, nor does it make an individual ineligible for required support and benefits.


It doesn't, but it should. Keep your pants on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> So the lesser party essentially has to stay faithful in sort of a prostitutional marriage bed then?


No, they leave and receive no support.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> No, they leave and receive no support.


Sounds about right to me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, they leave and receive no support.


So, you're including abused, lower income spouse who has slept with someone else?

*Judge guytoronto:* "Too bad, bruised and battered spouse. You put up with the beatings and put-downs for years, but one of the times you tried to leave, you slept in someone else's arms (and there might even have been penetration!! *gasp!*). 
You should have kept your pants/skirt on.
You get nothing, period."

Hmmm. I think in the real world, it would get complicated real fast.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah - don'tja love the little kneejerk nostrums 

The whole contractual rights and responsibilties system needs a rethink



> 37 per cent of U.S. children born out of wedlock
> Updated Tue. Nov. 21 2006 11:28 PM ET
> 
> Associated Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061121/births_study_061121/20061121?hub=World

Some Nordic countries are as high as 50%
Clearly an overhaul of the legal structure guarding children's and "live with" rights needs to reflect the reality that marriage is a weakening institution.

Basing economic responsibilities and rights between couples on sexual conduct is completely ludicrous in any body of law as well as totally out of step with reality.



> various studies suggest adultery has been increasing, with 25 to 50 percent of married women and 50 to 65 percent of married men now having at least one liaison at some time in a marriage.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE3DD143AF93AA35750C0A96F948260

Forget the sex - concentrate legal tenents on responsibility.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There are many options out there once we get out of this government-backed Marriage business. 

Multiple kinds of "marriage" contracts, not just all or nothing (for ever and ever, sort of) like we have now that was designed for very different circumstances and labour force design. 

There can be some clause about 18-22 year mandatory obligations if kids become involved, but adults alone are given limited choice. Right now there is just one decision (marriage, not-marriage) although, before a recent Supreme Court ruling, it wasn't even clear that choice existed (long-term cohabitation and obligations). I'm still not certain it's clear. 

We're a long way from getting there but, again using a clean starting point, who would think up the current system and how much laughter would that idea involve? It has served its purpose (homogenous culture; man works, woman stays home; relatively rigid social 'norms' etc.) and society has moved on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's right Doc, just because you can't keep your pants on, we'll just pretend that adultery is cool.


EDIT: PLEASE SEE APOLOGY BELOW


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's right Doc, just because you can't keep your pants on, we'll just pretend that adultery is cool.


What is it with you guys? Nobody here is condoning adultery, what we are saying is that committing adultery does not absolve legal issues around compensation and benefits in cases of divorce.

I think you guys have some serious sexual/trust/betrayal issues.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Humans are the only primate that make any pretence of being monogamous.

Weather you think it is 'cool' or a 'sin' or whatever is irrelevant to the fact that there's 4.5 billion years of evolution driving people to engage in extra-pair reproduction.

If you build a brittle social system that can't cope with any of this biologically normal behaviour, it's going to (and has) cause(d) a lot of suffering and stress.

Realistically, while you may hate it, and work hard to prevent it, you've got to have 'rules of engagement' that can bend when this happens, because it's inevitable.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Wowsers._ Clearly a divisive issue, judging by the various heated replies and moralizing tones. Difficult to separate the emotional baggage from the discussion!

MacDoc: this is sort of a lateral topic, but do you think new biosciences and other realms of technology are going to render marriage as we currently know it moot? In other words, if we're headed into a world where virtual sex is common and one can change one's gender with very little commitment or financial penalty, will those new realties shaken or even completely destroy the foundation of marriage?

In third world nations and the most populous nations, is there solid evidence that the institution of marriage is under attack?

I put forth these questions because I question the notion that marriage is going the way of the dodo.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> That's right Doc, just because you can't keep your pants on, we'll just pretend that adultery is cool.


ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR!
This is just plain rude.
I have never seen MacDoc or anyone in this thread condone cheating. Just vulgar kneejerk reactions to others opinions.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So the deal is the lesser party (ie. the one who doesn't bring home the income and benefits) has to basically stay with the greater party (the one who does bring home the bacon) if they are to receive any support.
> 
> How is that different than prostitution?


What guytoronto is trying not to understand is that in a relationship where only one partner is employed and the other is a stay at home spouse, his position is only punitive on the person with no income (like a housewife for instance) if they cheat. Leaving the primary breadwinner to have no consequences for their bad behavior if they cheat. 
guytoronto if you can't see why this is one sided you are completely and willfully blind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SoyMac said:


> So, you're including abused, lower income spouse who has slept with someone else?


Yes. 



martman said:


> ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR!
> I have never seen MacDoc or anyone condone cheating. .


You're right, I misread the post. My apologies to MacDoc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Weather you think it is 'cool' or a 'sin' or whatever is irrelevant to the fact that there's 4.5 billion years of evolution driving people to engage in extra-pair reproduction. Realistically, while you may hate it, and work hard to prevent it, you've got to have 'rules of engagement' that can bend when this happens, because it's inevitable.


Evolution also teaches us to kill our enemies in order to maintain territory, control resources and allow our genetic pool to dominate. When we see this on an international scale (war) we're told it's just plain wrong--that we have evolved beyond this. 

I think you're being selective about what evolution excuses.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

martman said:


> In a relationship where only one partner is employed and the other is a stay at home spouse, his position is only punitive on the person with no income (like a housewife for instance) if they cheat.


Not at all. If the primary breadwinner is the cheat, he or she should have to cut a huge, healthy cheque every month to their ex.

As for the whole "evolution" argument, we also don't fling our crap at each other like the monkeys at the zoo. Our actions separate us from the monkeys.We wear pants, They don't. Let's keep them on.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Not at all. If the primary breadwinner is the cheat, he or she should have to cut a huge, healthy cheque every month to their ex.


On what basis? Clearly you are confusing fiduciary responsibility with punitive measures based fidelity? Where do you want that to stop? Does that then play into custody of dependents?

Look, adultery is certainly painful, but it does not justify punitive fiscal measures during divorce proceedings.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Da_jonesy? Are you a cheat? Are you trying to justify your actions with us here? Come on...be honest....

If not, why are you defending the cheats so much? What other consequence should they face when they cheat then, if not financial?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> What other consequence should they face when they cheat then, if not financial?


I won't dignify the first comments with an answer...

I pose this question to you? What constitutes adultery then? Who decides what it is and when it occurs? Is it a kiss? heavy petting? the deed? What about in cases of consensual intercourse with other parties? What about in cases of platonic love?

Several of you are bent on taking personal issues related to fidelity in a relationship and attaching punitive measures to them for a divorce situation. None of you have addressed the issue in such a way to justify your position.

C'mon guys let hear it. Give us a rational reason for instituting punitive measures in cases of infidelity. Describe to us what infidelity is and who gets to identify it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> As for the whole "evolution" argument, we also don't fling our crap at each other like the monkeys at the zoo. Our actions separate us from the monkeys.


In the context of this increasingly vitriolic discussion, this comment almost broke my irony-meter. Very little separates humans from other primates, and this isn't an example... throwing feces at other prisoners or guards is very common behaviour in human captives.



macfury said:


> Evolution also teaches us to kill our enemies in order to maintain territory, control resources and allow our genetic pool to dominate. When we see this on an international scale (war) we're told it's just plain wrong--that we have evolved beyond this.
> 
> I think you're being selective about what evolution excuses.


Evolution doesn't 'excuse' anything. It does however explain and predict almost all biological phenomena, including those you allude to above.

My point is that, given our evolutionary history, it's a given that people will be prone to these behaviours. If it's really imperative that the behaviour not be exhibited, then we must ensure the conditions that trigger it are not allowed to exist. I would argue that sexual infidelity isn't necessarily that big a deal, and it has certainly been 'normal' behaviour throughout human history. So making it an inexcusable behaviour, by definition (certainly there are contexts where it may be inexcusable) is simply setting yourself up for failure. If you're going to fight evolution, you've got to pick your battles (and even then, you'll probably loose).



max said:


> this is sort of a lateral topic, but do you think new biosciences and other realms of technology are going to render marriage as we currently know it moot? In other words, if we're headed into a world where virtual sex is common and one can change one's gender with very little commitment or financial penalty, will those new realties shaken or even completely destroy the foundation of marriage?


I don't think we need any SciFi technologies to render marriage irrelevant. Society has largely moved beyond the need for marriage already. It's a vestige of our past (and, a rather unpleasant one, in my opinion).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

At what point do we actually "steal" a car? When we think about stealing it? When we think of it as ours? When we walk around the car and touch it?

...OR WHEN WE BREAK INTO IT AND DRIVE AWAY!!!!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> At what point do we actually "steal" a car? When we think about stealing it? When we think of it as ours? When we walk around the car and touch it?
> 
> ...OR WHEN WE BREAK INTO IT AND DRIVE AWAY!!!!


Nice try... Conspiracy to commit (enter capital crime of choice) are in fact things that are illegal as are the attempts.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> Marriage alternative:
> 
> 1) Find someone you hate.
> 2) Buy them a house.
> ...


But the wedding was so much fun!

I'd *love* to throw another wedding... not so much on the getting married bit, but the big, fabulous party would be awesome. 

I'm with SoyMac. Relationships are complicated. 

Divorce is hard enough on all parties involved without adding punishment to it. Best in the long run to let *everyone* get through it as quickly and cleanly as possible, without adding more lasting bitterness to the whole thing.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I don't think we need any SciFi technologies to render marriage irrelevant. Society has largely moved beyond the need for marriage already. It's a vestige of our past (and, a rather unpleasant one, in my opinion).
> 
> Cheers


That's SF to you, bub!

Seriously now, why do you consider it a vestige of our past? There have been plenty of reasons, from a socio-anthrological perspective, why marriage has endured, spanning cultures and phases of human society. The creation of dynasties... the subsequent preservation of same. The merging of powerful families to consolidate holdings and subsequent expansion. Love may or may not have to do with it; it often came about as a good business move. In a similar vein, marriage has been used as a peacemaking device between warring peoples and nations: the carrot instead of the stick. It probably was also used as a device to at least attempt to ensure that inbreeding wouldn't decimate or weaken a given population - marry outside of one's clan so as to increase the chances of longevity for the particular gene pool that you swim in.

I'm sure there are other reasons. Why are you so certain we as a species are moving past it? I'm curious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> On what basis? Clearly you are confusing fiduciary responsibility with punitive measures based fidelity? Where do you want that to stop? Does that then play into custody of dependents?
> 
> Look, adultery is certainly painful, but it does not justify punitive fiscal measures during divorce proceedings.


Exactly. :clap:

Bryanc's point about evolution has been misinterpreted as well.
ABOLITION DOESN'T WORK.

Laws, rights and obligations need to work within human society as it exists - not in some ideal world.

There was a study in Australia about the number of children who were NOT fathered within the the marriage and the husband did not know they were not his. The number is incredible.

Good bodies of law provide frameworks that citizens can resolve differences and judges can make relatively consistent rulings. Not to modify sexual behaviour.

That's an issue with sharia law - it's entirely dependent on the judge and has no consistent framework.

Except for limited cases of criminal behaviour ( minors ) sexual conduct is not subject to legal interdictions in modern societies.
Trudeau was exactly right.

We have a strong body of corporate law that continues to evolve.
I wish family law were as well thought through. It is getting there and bringing sexual behaviour into it AGAIN is a ludicrous step backward.

One thing the gov could do is force mandatory mediation/arbitration on family issues so that the richer spouse is not at an advantage and things do not drag out in the courts.
This would be particularly beneficial where kids are involved so that resolution can be sooner than later.

One good aspect of Canadian family law is that it revolves around the kids.
The legal system is mandated in that direction.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Max aren't you painting a pretty broad sweep for "marriage" - one could just as well use the word "alliances" some of which are familial or sexual.
Also dynasties were just as often maybe more so polygamous - even Henry the IV was a serial polygamist in searching for a heir.

I think the term is antiquated as chattel is.

Civil unions cover many forms just as corporate law covers many business relationships.

I think marriage as a legal term should be retired entirely and left in the realm of handfast as a religious or social custom to celebrate.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Canada has no-fault divorce, but I don't know how many countries do, so the issue of punitive measures doesn't seem like some insurmountably vague idea, it also doesn't seem like a good idea, along the lines of Sonal's post.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Seriously now, why do you consider it a vestige of our past? There have been plenty of reasons, from a socio-anthrological perspective, why marriage has endured, spanning cultures and phases of human society. The creation of dynasties... the subsequent preservation of same. The merging of powerful families to consolidate holdings and subsequent expansion..<other historical reasons for marriage snipped>


This is exactly my point. Marriage as a contract has been about the mutually beneficial exchange of property (the bride) between two men (usually the father of the bride and the groom or the groom's family).

I would hope that most of us would agree that modern relationships are not about who owns sexual rights to the bride. Given that modern couples (or other multiples) have their own idiosyncratic reasons for being together, or splitting apart, we either need a much more flexible legal definition of 'marriage' or we need to recognize that society no longer has any business governing people's sexual relationships. Society *did* need to govern people's sexual relationships in the past, and that's the historical constraint we're running up against here.



> Why are you so certain we as a species are moving past it? I'm curious.


People can have perfectly happy, healthy, effective relationships, raise families and even deal effectively with the failure of their relationships without ever getting married. So what does marriage accomplish?

I've asked many of my friends why they got married, and I've heard only two rational answers: 1) because of all the loot, and 2) because some governments require it for Visas.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that we're changing as a species, or that we're likely going to stop having long-term relationships or stop having children (although I'd be very pleased to see us slow down significantly on that last point). But what I do hope to see, and think I am seeing, is an increasing realization that we don't need any government or other organization to give us licence to do these completely normal human things.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Max aren't you painting a pretty broad sweep for "marriage" - one could just as well use the word "alliances" some of which are familial or sexual.
> Also dynasties were just as often maybe more so polygamous - even Henry the IV was a serial polygamist in searching for a heir.
> 
> I think the term is antiquated as chattel is.
> ...


Handfast? Not sure what you mean by that term, MacDoc.

I guess it depends on your definition of marriage or, more specifically, the weight you attach to the term. I work with a fellow who attaches a great deal to it. He often employs a certain framework of terms stemming from the idea of marriage. If he's "not married" to an idea, for instance, it means he's flexible and open to suggestion regarding how to implement another idea or solution. This is a guy who's been married to his college sweetheart for nearly a quarter century, and for him 'marriage' carries strong connotations of certitude and commitment.

If I'm painting with a broad brush here it's because the term is a loaded one and means many things to different people. Of course that's part of the problem.

BryanC; good answer, thanks. I'm guessing that marriage might go away entirely in the coming ages. However, should we suffer a cataclysmic relapse in terms of going through horrific world war and all sorts of attendant disasters, I fully expect the return of marriage and harsh societal order (not that in earlier days this wasn't entirely ignored by the ruling class when they thought no one was looking, of course). Much depends on how long we are able to keep moving forward without running into barriers mankind itself has created - catastrophic environmental damage, biological contagion, engineered or otherwise, full-scale nuclear war with global fallout, etc. I'm guessing anyone left alive after that kind of shock might be inclined to be rather superstitious and fearful of how best to recreate a working society, that they would seek out certain rigorous forms of social order, however ceremonial or symbolic in the end.

But if all that doomsday stuff fails to come to pass? I think we will move away from marriage too.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> But the wedding was so much fun!
> 
> I'd *love* to throw another wedding... not so much on the getting married bit, but the big, fabulous party would be awesome.


Did you guys do the big indian wedding?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Did you guys do the big indian wedding?


We had two: the small Indian wedding (a mere 375 people) with lunch reception, and then the civil ceremony and party on a 3-masted schooner over a 4 hour cruise on Lake Ontario (about 150 people).

The boat part was the hugely fun part. Weather was perfect, everyone was relaxed, there was this gorgeous sunset in the midst of the evening, food was good, music was good--at one point, everyone down the whole length of the boat was dancing. 

That is when I learned that nothing brings diverse cultures together--Indians and French Canadians--like Michael Jackson.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I've asked many of my friends why they got married, and I've heard only two rational answers: 1) because of all the loot, and 2) because some governments require it for Visas.


I don't know about your friends but none of their answers would be in my top 10 answers.

1) Because I want to raise a family. I want someone that is willing to make a commitment with me for life to see to it that we provide our children a stable, loving, two parent environment for a balanced upbringing. If a partner was unwilling to make a commitment in marriage, it would be naive to assume they would be committed to staying with you for life to raise a family. For if you were committed to staying together as a family, what could possibly be the downside of a marriage? Unless of course you're not sure you are committed or want the option of an easy exit door should something better come along.

2) Beer and Popcorn money from the Conservatives! 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Been thinking about this whole "If you aren't happy, just leave" statement.

It implies that the decision to leave a marriage is easy, which it is not.

Yes, I agree that if we were all perfect, we would all come to a perfectly crystal clear understanding that the marriage is over and unfixable, the children will be fine in the end and not need years of therapy, it is truly better to be apart then together, we are not failures if the marriage didn't work out, we are not repeating patterns of our upbringing that we swore we wouldn't repeat, we will not be afraid of being alone, being destitute, being unable to cope outside of the marriage, we are not giving up the Ward-and-June dreams we had as children, no one will look at us funny for leaving and not doing the 'right thing' by staying and working things out, so let us all sit down and amicably split up the finances and be on our merry way to better things and healthier relationships.

It doesn't work like that, though.

Out here in the messy world of human relationships, people doubt, people fear, people rationalize, people get caught up in other things that they don't always see what is happening around them.

In most cases, it is not like yesterday things were perfect, today things are awful, and so the contrast is clear. More often, it's a slow decline that you don't even notice until it is *that* bad. And then you wonder--is it really bad enough to actually divorce over?

Yes, there are people who go out specifically looking for affairs who want both the comfortable married life and the little something-something on the side--spend a little time on dating sites, and you will find them. Some of them are open about it, others lie. They are plugging holes in their marriage or themselves by turning outside of it.

But there are also people who not sure if things are that bad, they happen to find a sympathetic ear somewhere--a friend from work, someone at the gym--and they talk, they share and feelings develop, a connection forms, and now we have an emotional affair... not a long step to a physical affair. Suddenly, the contrast is clearer--how bad it is at home is a lot easier to see.

But then the question is, why was it so bad at home before anyone cheated?

Was it all the fault of the spouse who cheated, or were they both to blame? Did either of them remember to pay attention to their relationship and ensure that it stayed healthy, or did they both let it slip? Did either of them attempt to fix the marriage beforehand? Did the other spouse acknowledge attempts to fix things? Did communication breakdown, but was not revived? Was there a major life stress that changed the relationship? Or do we have two basically incompatible people who are trying to make work what cannot, and are not ready to admit that to themselves?

Who's fault is it then? One spouse may have broken the "forsake all others" vow but the other may have broken the "love and honour" vow first. It gets tangled and twisted fast.

I am generalizing a lot, and for every example of each scenario I can think of, there is almost certainly a counterexample. But these are my points:

1) Human relationships can get messy fast because no one is perfect all the time.

2) The reason why a relationship falls apart is not always crystal clear, even when there has been infidelity.

3) Realizing that the marriage is really over and actually initiating the divorce is not nearly as simple as it sounds.

4) Blame is useless. Finding where you went wrong in a relationship may help you in your future relationships as you move forward in your life. Pointing fingers and assigning punishment leads to more bitterness and hatred; a particularly bad thing if you are co-parenting.

5) Divorce stinks. I may be happier single than I was married, it may have been my choice to leave and I may have had the world's most amicable divorce, but it still stinks anyway. Why make it worse on everyone by adding a punitive aspect?

I like no-fault divorce and I like the idea of mediation over the adversarial approach--it keeps the focus on both parties moving forward to happier lives rather than looking backwards in hatred, anger and bitterness.

(I also post on a few relationship boards--we discuss these things a lot.)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal - great post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Was it all the fault of the spouse who cheated, or were they both to blame?


I think this is the crux of it. Both parties may be responsible for the conditions that harmed the marriage, but only the cheater is responsible for the act of cheating. If you vowed at the beginning of the marriage to remain faithful to your partner, then the act of adultery is the clincher. Leave before you make a difficult situation into something far worse. I have no respect for:

"I couldn't throw away the dirty water until I was sure I found some clean water."
"I couldn't help myself."
"How could anything so wrong feel so right."
"It will only make our relationship stronger."
"He/she made me do it."
"The whole time I was with her, I was thinking of you."


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If you vowed at the beginning of the marriage to remain faithful to your partner, then the act of adultery is the clincher.


But the vows cover a lot more than just adultery. Love, honour and cherish come to mind. Do we also punish those who withdraw love, honour and cherishment? Do we start fighting it out in court to prove that someone stopped behaving lovingly and say "Hey, you broke your vows to be loving--no spousal support for you!"

If you choose to look at marriage as a contract, fidelity is only ONE aspect of it. There is also love, mutual support, mutual respect, trust, shared dreams and goals, shared responsibilities for the household and finances--do we run around punishing everyone who broke those promises too?

And where would that lead?
"You cheated on me!"
"You belittled and degraded me for years! I'd forgotten what it was like to be appreciated!"
"Well that's because your business failed and you didn't support the family!"
"My business failed because you never supported me!"
"You never supported me either! I was practically raising the kids alone!"
"Well maybe if you weren't spending this family into the poorhouse, I wouldn't have to spend so much time working!"

And so on. Blame leads no where.

I mean look at the pro-punitive arguments here. To me, they reads as though fidelity is the only vow made during a marriage. Marriage is so much more than a single vow of fidelity--why punish the breaking of just that one vow when in a bad marriage, there are often so many other vows broken by both parties?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal: I'm not arguing with you about provability, I'm telling you what I think the person deserves. It's not workable in a court of law. 

If I were the one who had committed adultery I'd die of shame. I'd probably just beg forgiveness, give away the house, and slink away.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm not arguing provability either. 

But it follows that if a person deserves punishment for breaking one vow, do they not deserve punishment for breaking a different vow? 

Why is this one particular marital vow being held to a different standard than every other marital vow? 

Okay, so you would die of shame and give away the farm if you committed adultery. 

Would you do the same if you ridiculed your spouse constantly and treated with little respect? 
If you destroyed the relationship through alcoholism or other addictions? 
If you abused your spouse?
If you failed to support the household and/or the finances?
If you chose not to support your spouse's dream and demanded full support of your own and left them feeling increasingly unfulfilled?
If you simply failed to meet your spouse's emotional needs because you didn't understand them or take them seriously and invalidated them?

But then, what if you were doing one of the above to your spouse, and your spouse had an affair? You both broke vows. Is only your spouse deserving of punishment, or (provable or not) are you not deserving of it too?

I'm not saying adultery is right--I'm saying that adultery is not the only broken vow there is. 

Even if it was provable, more often than not, you would likely find that BOTH people have broken vows. So then what, we punish both people?

But really, in terms of the mechanics of divorce, assigning blame, pointing fingers, and giving people what they "deserve" does not _help_ anyone.

If there are children involved, it is in their best interest that the divorce proceed as amicably as possible. No matter what the impact of adultery or divorce is on children, it is far worse if their parents are bitter and angry and vengeful towards each other. It may mean that one spouse does not get what they deserve, but the children do not deserve warring parents even more.

But even if there are no children involved, punishment doesn't help anyone. Maybe one person deserves it more than the other. That is not going to make either party a better or happier person. It's not going to make moving forward and re-starting your life easier. Perhaps it satisifies a particular person's abstract notion of justice, but in terms of the day-to-day practicalities of getting over it and moving on with your life--it's pointless.

Divorce is the number 2 most stressful life event* a person goes through--more stressful than jail time, marriage, personal illness and losing your job. (Death of a spouse was number 1.) Why add to the stress? The reality for most people is that having to go through a divorce is punishment enough.

* Reference: I couldn't find the actual study, but I found a lot of sources that refer to the same study.
http://www.divorceinfo.com/divorcestinks.htm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal: Adultery is the ultimate immoral act that is not otherwise illegal. You can go to jail for violence and other crimes, but I consider adultery the absolute worst of everything else--beyond anything else you mentioned. We can't argue this point further, because we simply don't agree on where adultery sits on the scale.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

You are right; we don't don't agree on the scale, so there is no point in arguing further.

I'm curious, however. You make a very strong statement about adultery. May I ask how you arrive at that conclusion? 

I can think of a lot of terrible things that can happen in a relationship, but I would like to understand why you feel that adultery is the worst of all of them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I don't know about your friends but none of their answers would be in my top 10 answers.
> 
> 1) Because I want to raise a family.


Are you suggesting that unmarried couples don't raise families?



> I want someone that is willing to make a commitment with me for life to see to it that we provide our children a stable, loving, two parent environment for a balanced upbringing.


Are you suggesting that your commitment to your personal relationships is defined by the government and/or religious organization?



> If a partner was unwilling to make a commitment in marriage, it would be naive to assume they would be committed to staying with you for life to raise a family.


Why? Personally I think of marriage as an antiquated farcical tradition... how would my hypocritical willingness to participate in something I clearly have no respect for convince you I was committed to a relationship?



> For if you were committed to staying together as a family, what could possibly be the downside of a marriage?


"If you were committed to staying together as a family, what could possibly be the downside of painting yourself blue, burning $20,000 in a big fire, an praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" You see my point... if you don't believe in the superstition underlying the religious tradition of marriage, and have no need to show off how much money you can waste, and don't see the government has having a role in your relationship, marriage makes no sense at all.



> Unless of course you're not sure you are committed or want the option of an easy exit door should something better come along.


Apart from needing quickie no-fault divorce settlement, does being married make it any more difficult to leave the relationship, should 'something better come along.'



> 2) Beer and Popcorn money from the Conservatives!


In other words: "loot!" Which is one of the two rational reasons I've heard for getting married.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Adultery is the ultimate immoral act


Wow. Just wow.

You have the most absurd sense of proportion of anyone I've ever (virtually) met.

I'm glad you're not a judge.

cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sonal: Adultery is the ultimate immoral act that is not otherwise illegal. You can go to jail for violence and other crimes, but I consider adultery the absolute worst of everything else--beyond anything else you mentioned. We can't argue this point further, because we simply don't agree on where adultery sits on the scale.


None of you have addressed the issue of describing what adultery actually entails?
So on your "scale" where does what act lie? What about platonic love? Is a kiss cheating?

Does your moral compass apply to others? Thankfully it does not... my advice to you is make sure *your* prenup is pretty clear about the consequences for infidelity.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Bryan I'm going to put this in terms you can relate to.

Marriage is basically a contract.
Say you were embarking on a 15 year scientific study and you had two top notch scientists that say they'd be willing to work with you. These scientists are top rate and there are lots of other labs that would love to hire them. 
You present them with a 15 year contract since in order to succeed with this research, you need that full commitment. If they leave the job half way through it could jeopardize the whole project.

Scientist A has no problem accepting the contract and agrees to sign it.

Scientist B says he agrees to the terms but refuses to sign the contract saying he doesn't believe in contracts. However assures you he's up for the job.

Which scientist would you feel more confident in going forward with for the 15 year study? 
Granted choosing Scientist A is not without risk. They could lack the integrity to meet the terms of the contract. 
But Scientist B just flat out refuses to sign from the get go while in the next breath he's trying to convince you he's committed to the job.

The beer and popcorn comment was a joke. 
Trust me, raising a family is just the opposite. The so called "loot" would never cover the extra costs of raising a family. If you get married with no intention of having kids then you'd be right. There are financial benefits for them I suppose.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Marriage is basically a contract.


Ah... so it's all business and not about the emotional relationship?



> Say you were embarking on a 15 year scientific study and you had two top notch scientists that say they'd be willing to work with you. These scientists are top rate and there are lots of other labs that would love to hire them.
> You present them with a 15 year contract since in order to succeed with this research, you need that full commitment. If they leave the job half way through it could jeopardize the whole project.
> 
> Scientist A has no problem accepting the contract and agrees to sign it.
> ...


I understand your analogy, and it's perfectly applicable to the world of business, careers, professional obligations, and even research. That being said, I'd go with the person I trusted, regardless of contracts. In fact, I'd be put off by being asked to sign a contract, but that's just me.

More importantly, I wouldn't want to live with, sleep with and raise a family with someone who insisted in wrapping the process in a legal contract. This is especially absurd given that marriage contracts are demonstrably worthless in terms of keeping a relationship together.



> The beer and popcorn comment was a joke.
> Trust me, raising a family is just the opposite.


I don't have to trust you, I take the role of being a father very seriously. I just don't take marriage very seriously.

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> You have the most absurd sense of proportion of anyone I've ever (virtually) met.
> 
> ...


Why did you choose to cut my quote in half. That's unfair and disingenuous. I said it was the most immoral act *that was not otherwise illegal.*


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I said it was the most immoral act *that was not otherwise illegal.*


I apologize for cutting your quote. However, I still think your sense of morality is wildly out of proportion.

Given that you're a theist, how would you relate the morality of abortion (which is legal) and adultery?

To me, it seems that adultery, under many circumstances is less morally repugnant than lots of things that are legal: selling cigarettes, making munitions (esp. indiscriminate tools of destruction like land mines), selling weapons, designing insidious advertising that targets children, lobbying politicians to castrate environmental and social legislation, doing PR to help companies hide their evil deeds, helping obscenely wealthy individuals or corporations avoid paying taxes, etc.

Your average tax accountant can do more evil during a working lunch than a thousand bored housewives having flings with the pool-boy or middle aged executives getting it on with their secretaries. The world would be a much better place if all those nebbish accountants were having adulterous trysts on their lunch breaks instead of figuring out how to dodge taxes for their clients.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Your average tax accountant can do more evil


I understand the point you're trying to make but, wow. This thread is one of the more entertaining ones around.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> said it was the most immoral act that was not otherwise illegal.


Mores are based on a general consensus of society in a certain time period.

I doubt very much the "mores' of this society are anywhere close to what you perceive them to be or your ethical stance on the issue.

If you did poll attempting to ascertain that this society viewed adultery as "the most immoral act that is legal"......I think the number agreeing with you would be very very small.

Society has mores, individuals have ethics....I suspect your sense of where social morality resides is akin to that circa 1600.

Scarlett Letter anyone.

•••
Had you stated *abandoning a child which you are responsible for without support* - that would likely fall into a highly disreputable act by current social mores.

It is aloso illegal at a certain point.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> I understand the point you're trying to make but, wow. This thread is one of the more entertaining ones around.


I am being intentionally provocative, of course. However, I think the point is valid. Many of us do more damage to society by 'just doing our jobs' than any of this stuff most of us seem to place so much moral significance on. I don't mean to trivialize sex, but I do think it has *way* too much significance in our society.

From an evolutionary perspective, you can understand the significance we've been programmed to place on sex, but we threw a monkey wrench into that with the invention of birth control, and we need to adapt our perspective to take our technological modifications of our circumstances into account.

And, you have to admit, MacFury set himself up with the 'ultimate immoral act' bit. I just couldn't resist.

cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Coal miners and SUV builders, scourge of humanity! See a marketing major applying for the wrong job, Judge them. How many people would rather their spouse or significant other cheat on them than work at a corner store that sells cigarettes or something else against one's personal politics on the environment and taxation?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I am being intentionally provocative, of course. However, I think the point is valid. Many of us do more damage to society


Like I said, I understand the point but, "damage to society" is very much personal politics. I'm just having some fun on my vacation. And I'm neither lobbying anyone (until next week  ), selling cigarettes (just buying) or cheating on anyone.
Saint Beej thou shalt call me. beejacon


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> How many people would rather their spouse or significant other cheat on them than work at a corner store that sells cigarettes or something else against one's personal politics on the environment and taxation?


I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't find consensual sex that big a deal, morally. On the other hand, I do think drinkable water, breathable air, a liveable ecosystem, and the sale of known carcinogens are of considerable moral importance.

This is the crux of my point. We've been evolutionarily programmed to focus very intently on the copulatory activities of our mates, because it's in our genetic interest to ensure we aren't wasting our resources raising someone else's progeny. That was the primary force in the development of the social structures that evolved into marriage. However, it's now an anachronism. Obviously our emotional responses to the idea of our spouses having sex with someone else haven't adapted to the modern situation, and it would be unreasonable to expect that, but our rational consideration of the ethical and legal ramifications of normal human behaviour should and must adapt to the modern context.

Adultery is morally equivalent to hurting someone's feelings. That is not to say that it's a good thing to do, but it's hardly the ultimate immoral act.

Cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanC: I was referring to activities within marriage--as defined by the scope of this thread.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> bryanC: I was referring to activities within marriage--as defined by the scope of this thread.


? So am I.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I find some of the posts interesting, because they seem to involve such "group think." I don't expect others to agree with me, and if 20 million Canadians decide that adultery is no longer an issue for them, what influence would that have on my opinion? As a libertarian, I expect everyone will make their own decisions about this--nor would I expect people to adjust their lives to suit my opinions and beliefs.

Bryanc: Where did I bring theism into the equation?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ? So am I.


Accounting fraud?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Bryanc: Where did I bring theism into the equation?


You didn't. You just said adultery was the ultimate immoral act that was also legal. I vaguely recall that you're a theist (I apologize if this is incorrect, but it's not really important for the sake of the point I'm trying to make), and brought up the abortion issue as an alternative legal action that you might consider to be more morally repugnant than adultery.

I'm not a theist, and I'm pro-choice, but I certainly find abortion much more morally disturbing than adultery, and I thought you might agree.

Similarly, I think we'd both agree that there are plenty of things that go on in the world that are legal, but that are also morally reprehensible. We might not agree on what specific activities are the most morally repugnant, but the point is that there are lots of bad things that are perfectly legal, and which I think most of us would agree are a lot worse than adulterous relationships. So I think you'll have to agree that you're either wrong about adultery being the ultimate immoral act that is legal, or you'll have to agree that you're perspective on morality is highly idiosyncratic.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> We might not agree on what specific activities are the most morally repugnant, but the point is that there are lots of bad things that are perfectly legal, and which I think most of us would agree are a lot worse than adulterous relationships. So I think you'll have to agree that you're either wrong about adultery being the ultimate immoral act that is legal, or you'll have to agree that you're perspective on morality is highly idiosyncratic.


Well put. I suspect we'd strongly disagree on the specifics, thus the importance of carefully building laws that, at their root, understand that there is no objective morality instead of, as in the past, trying to interpret morality, that was assumed to be objective, into law. The end result isn't that different in a homogenous culture, but that's not what we are now. We're just finding the best ways to balance how we get along with others, help others and do our own thing when there are very few things that have 99%+ agreement...social contract (Hobbes? I forget).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Well put. I suspect we'd strongly disagree on the specifics, thus the importance of carefully building laws that, at their root, understand that there is no objective morality instead of, as in the past, trying to interpret morality, that was assumed to be objective, into law. The end result isn't that different in a homogenous culture, but that's not what we are now. We're just finding the best ways to balance how we get along with others, help others and do our own thing when there are very few things that have 99%+ agreement...social contract (Hobbes? I forget).


Yes, Hobbes... and then he famously argues from this position for the rule of an ultimate authority, which I could never understand.

I quite enjoy the fact that we have such diametrically opposed views on so many specific issues, and yet remain in violent agreement about the general principles which should govern society.

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

The issue I have with the contract analogy is that can imply that the person with me is there because they are contractually obligated to be there.

I would not like to be someone's obligation.

I actually would prefer to have a marriage/partnership that was easy and simple to leave. That way, I could be more assured that who ever is with me is there because they choose to be there, not because they are obligated to be there.

To me, a committment is strong not if there is a contract to back it up, but if the person committing knows that every day they are free to walk away but chooses not to.

Under that, I don't see cheating so much as breaking a contract as it is choosing to engage in behaviour that the other partner does not like and is free to walk away from.

What's a vow? Words. Actions speak louder than words. I have much more faith in watching someone's behaviour than listening to someone's words.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I actually would prefer to have a marriage/partnership that was easy and simple to leave. That way, I could be more assured that who ever is with me is there because they choose to be there, not because they are obligated to be there.


Excellent point, and nicely put. I had thought of this earlier, but forgot about it.

Fortunately, the modern marriage contract is so easy to get out of, that it's effectively meaningless. Which is one of the reasons I wonder why people bother with it in the first place. Save you're $135 and buy another few bottles of wine for your friends.

cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sonal said:


> What's a vow? Words. Actions speak louder than words. I have much more faith in watching someone's behaviour than listening to someone's words.


I agree. I think multiple forms of contracts, not just one form, should be offered for those who prefer them. None should be an option too (law wasn't clear on this). 

If children are brought into it, automatic obligations should ensue, as children are vulnerable and the responsibility of their parents. It gets more complicated with the option of giving up to adoption, abortion or misdeeds with regards to birth control measures, but the principle is, more importantly, more workable than the current system. 

Let consenting adults choose how they relate to each other, understanding that they lose some of that choice if they bring children into the world. Then it isn't just about them anymore.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MasterBlaster said:


> A lifetime happy commitment is possible although rare.


I think most people find the divorce statistics quite sad, but you're right, the fact is most of us are not likely to find anyone we want to spend more than a decade or two with on a full-time basis. Our current cultural and legal conventions makes this biological inevitability far more expensive, painful, stressful and damaging than it needs to be.

I certainly consider myself one of the lucky ones... I've been happily 'pair-bonded' for about a quarter of a century now. Certainly there's been more than just luck involved, but anyone who manages to find someone they're able to spend that kind of time with has got to consider themselves pretty fortunate.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Let consenting adults choose how they relate to each other, understanding that they lose some of that choice if they bring children into the world. Then it isn't just about them anymore.


:clap: 

What I truly would like to understand is why so many people think we need to have laws that dictate how and with whom others should be having sex.

The title of this thread expresses a concept that is almost oxymoronic. Cheating implies the existence of rules, and the rules of any given relationship are going to be unique to that relationship. So there can't be any generic rules of 'marriage' and consequently there can't be any generic form of 'cheating.'

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Cheating implies the existence of rules, and the rules of any given relationship are going to be unique to that relationship.


MF and Sonal had a good discussion on this. There are rules, as marriage is currently recognised, so cheating does exist, although it is unclear what the ordinal rank is of the rules. Note: not secular law, but ceremony; verbal contracts do matter, as well as reasonably accepted common assumptions. For example, a reasonable member of society entering into a _serious_ relationship would need to clarify whether or not it is "open" instead of assuming open and waiting to learn otherwise. 

All in all, quite a good thread. Funny too! That's been happening around ehmac a lot the past week. I don't know why that's the case, but I like it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Fortunately, the modern marriage contract is so easy to get out of, that it's effectively meaningless. Which is one of the reasons I wonder why people bother with it in the first place. Save you're $135 and buy another few bottles of wine for your friends.


Not the mention the $447 in filing fees should you divorce. 

Though I quibble: from a strictly legal point of view, yes, it's easy to dissolve a marriage. The actual mechanics of getting two people to get it done and over with, however...

I'm still big on the wedding though. The wedding is fun. 

I am actually on the fence about whether or not I would get married again. 

To me, the marriage ceremony is largely about standing up in front of the people who are important to you and declaring "I choose this person to be my family."

I suppose you can do that without actually getting married, but the act of doing this can be very powerful, and confirming this declaration under the law further empowers that act.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Not the mention the $447 in filing fees should you divorce.


Good point... I didn't know about that.



> I'm still big on the wedding though. The wedding is fun.


Whatever turns your crank... personally, I find wedding excruciating... I'd rather chew foil, but I certainly don't want to spoil anyone's fun.



> To me, the marriage ceremony is largely about standing up in front of the people who are important to you and declaring "I choose this person to be my family."
> 
> I suppose you can do that without actually getting married, but the act of doing this can be very powerful, and confirming this declaration under the law further empowers that act.


I understand and respect your take on this, but I find this sort of thing quite uncomfortably exhibitionist. It certainly should not be required of those who are more private about their personal relationships.

My partner and I have taken a lot of heat over the years about the lack of a wedding. I know several couples who've thrown big parties to celebrate their relationships, and I find them similarly vulgar, but I realize that's just me. Most people seem to like this sort of stuff. I suppose it's like emotional pornography.

I should add that I can't stand graduation ceremonies, baptisms, funerals or any other traditional ceremony either. So maybe I'm just weird that way.

Cheers


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

marriage is grand... divorce cost me 5



back in the early 90's while on tour, i saw this written on a band room wall, almost pee'd my pants reading it..

"Eating aint Cheating"


----------

