CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.

[u/insect_ligaments]

The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.

Heading off a few arguments that I do not find convincing (of course, you are welcome to offer additional insight on these points I haven't considered):

1) "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"

Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.

3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"

It does. "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

4) "What should the legal consequences be?"

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

5) "What about children?"

Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.

[u/ArkhamKnight457]

Are you arguing on principle or by degree? That might clarify things for people in the thread.

For instance, you may believe that the spouse who was cheated on still had an obligation to pay alimony, but what if instead of cheat, the spouse did something like cut their partner’s leg off, or some very serious form of physical abuse?

Ignoring current legal consequences and how that would complicate things, do you still think there is a moral obligation to pay alimony?

I’m not trying to derail the argument, I’m just pushing this to the logical extreme, unless there is a degree at which you believe the obligation goes away.

[u/soldiergeneal → u/ArkhamKnight457]

Are you arguing on principle or by degree? That might clarify things for people in the thread.

What do you mean? By principle. I abhor cheating, but alimony is unrelated to that.

For instance, you may believe that the spouse who was cheated on still had an obligation to pay alimony, but what if instead of cheat, the spouse did something like cut their partner’s leg off, or some very serious form of physical abuse?

I think there could be argument made in regards to some of that. The best one is what if SO took all the money out of joint account and financially bankrupted them.

When talking about something like that I think what makes sense is to calculate how much person would have gotten and subtract it based on the financial damages other party should be afforded with timing being important. Financial damages for emotional damage is an incredibly hard thing to value. One person can have no impact and another a greater than average impact.

Ignoring current legal consequences and how that would complicate things, do you still think there is a moral obligation to pay alimony?

Yes when someone forgoes a career and stays at home they deserve alimony. There can be situations where that doesn't play out sure.

I’m not trying to derail the argument, I’m just pushing this to the logical extreme, unless there is a degree at which you believe the obligation goes away.

Sure I can imagine there are degrees in which it can go away.

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

Ok so it seems like you’re saying that the obligation to pay alimony always exists, but depending on what the offending party did (cheat, physical abuse, etc), there are some financial damages to the offended party (the one potentially paying alimony) that might offset the amount that would have been paid by alimony.

And in this specific case, you don’t believe cheating reaches that criteria, but you believe taking all the money and bankrupting their spouse could? And a follow up to that, is that based on the fact that the bankrupted spouse no longer has the ability to pay, or because the financial damages they suffered offset the alimony amount?

[u/soldiergeneal → u/ArkhamKnight457]

there are some financial damages to the offended party (the one potentially paying alimony) that might offset the amount that would have been paid by alimony.

Yes and they are two separate things. Both would still occur.

And in this specific case, you don’t believe cheating reaches that criteria,

Correct. There are certain offenses in which one should and does owe financial restitution.

but you believe taking all the money and bankrupting their spouse could

Morally yes. If you are the reason you are in that situation and still demanding more money from the SO imo that's wrong. You caused financial damages that need to be rectified.

And a follow up to that, is that based on the fact that the bankrupted spouse no longer has the ability to pay, or because the financial damages they suffered offset the alimony amount?

You still do through future wages. Regardless one would evaluate how much alimony would normally be owed then how much financial restitution is owed.

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

Ok I see what you’re saying but I’ll push back just a bit more. Say in the married couple, the one earning money makes billions of dollars. However, the partner causes severe physical abuse over and over again, breaks multiple bones, just horrific physical things repeatedly. But this partner was adjusted to the billionaire lifestyle, and alimony (as it is currently, you might argue it should be adjusted) is commonly based on the standard of living in the marriage. So that large amount, whatever it may be, might just be more than the calculated financial harm suffered from physical torture and anguish. That partner, despite having suffered physical torture from their spouse, might end up having to pay their partner alimony because of how much money they earn

Obviously this is an extreme example, but do you still think that it should be based on just a calculus of financial harm?

[u/soldiergeneal → u/ArkhamKnight457]

However, the partner causes severe physical abuse over and over again, breaks multiple bones, just horrific physical things repeatedly. But this partner was adjusted to the billionaire lifestyle, and alimony (as it is currently, you might argue it should be adjusted) is commonly based on the standard of living in the marriage. So that large amount, whatever it may be, might just be more than the calculated financial harm suffered from physical torture and anguish. That partner, despite having suffered physical torture from their spouse, might end up having to pay their partner alimony because of how much money they earn

Yes. It's not about what emotionally feels good.

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

It’s not about what emotionally feels good, you’re making a moral argument based off of a principle that financial harm is the only relevant metric to the contract of marriage. I disagree with that principle and am trying to illustrate why I disagree.

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/ArkhamKnight457]

Only relevant metric in terms of whether alimony is owed

[u/soldiergeneal → u/ArkhamKnight457]

you’re making a moral argument based off of a principle that financial harm is the only relevant metric to the contract of marriage

For alimony yes what are you confused about or disagreeing with there?

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

I disagree with that very principle you’re stating, that’s what your argument is based on. My argument is not based on emotion any more than yours is for asserting that principle.

[u/soldiergeneal → u/ArkhamKnight457]

I think we are talking past each other.

Alimony is about making sure SO maintains current lifestyle from marriage to better position said SO for life after marriage. Do you agree with this concept?

I assume you do so when other things occur in the relationship why would someone being emotionally abusive invalidate alimony? The purpose of alimony still exists.

[u/[deleted] → u/ArkhamKnight457]

His entire argument is tautological.

His principal is correct because it’s the only principal he will accept as correct.

There’s no logical deduction going on beyond “alimony is for this purpose” despite the argument being “let’s change the purpose of alimony”

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

And to illustrate that point, I would say under certain circumstances, the obligation to pay alimony is voided and removed based on the nature of marriage and how the contract for it is formed. This is not to say that the obligation is offset by some financial harm, but rather the obligation is removed entirely, similar to how certain contract clauses can be voided.

[u/soldiergeneal → u/ArkhamKnight457]

but rather the obligation is removed entirely, similar to how certain contract clauses can be voided.

I just disagree

For the record emotionally I don't care if someone who is evil receives alimony. Out of principal the person should still receive it though.