Cheating on your partner.. is it as wrong as people make it out to be

[Jb]

I think people who get into relationships need to have a punitive damage clause. Say for example the person who cheated loses an arm. This type of thing would probably only be practical for marriages though.

There is something clearly wrong with your line of thinking. First you say anyone who cheats should be killed. Now, marriages should have a damage clause? Seriously? You really think people should receive bodily harm or forfeit their right to live for cheating? None of those at all are appropriate "punishments" for cheating. Why can't you just leave the person? Is that not an option in your mind?

[BJPalmer85]

If you kill someone, but you don't fell guilty about it; did you really kill them?

I think people who get into relationships need to have a punitive damage clause. Say for example the person who cheated loses an arm. This type of thing would probably only be practical for marriages though.

That already exists but most people call domestic violence...and it is frowned upon (to put it lightly)

There is something clearly wrong with your line of thinking. First you say anyone who cheats should be killed. Now, marriages should have a damage clause? Seriously? You really think people should receive bodily harm or forfeit their right to live for cheating? None of those at all are appropriate "punishments" for cheating. Why can't you just leave the person? Is that not an option in your mind?

Like Jb said, just leave them. Domestic violence isn't a laughing matter or something to be taken lightly.

B

[marioguy]

That already exists but most people call domestic violence...and it is frowned upon (to put it lightly)

Like Jb said, just leave them. Domestic violence isn't a laughing matter or something to be taken lightly.

B

I wasn't talking about domestic violence. I'm talking about something legal where the punishment would come from the law and not the spouse.

There is something clearly wrong with your line of thinking. First you say anyone who cheats should be killed. Now, marriages should have a damage clause? Seriously? You really think people should receive bodily harm or forfeit their right to live for cheating? None of those at all are appropriate "punishments" for cheating. Why can't you just leave the person? Is that not an option in your mind?

Punitive marriage clauses can only increase the worth of the marriage. They should be strictly optional for people who feel like they deserve to not be cheated on.

[Jb]

Punitive marriage clauses can only increase the worth of the marriage. They should be strictly optional for people who feel like they deserve to not be cheated on.

No, not at all. The only thing that can increase the worth in a marriage is how much each person puts into it. No one feels like they deserves to be cheated on so both parties would assume neither would do it. There's no need for that clause. If one cheats, leave them. Simple as that. It's not worth cutting off their arm or some other idiotic measure to stay faithful to someone you clearly don't have feelings for anymore. A clause like that is bordering insanity, even if both parties consented.

[BJPalmer85]

I wasn't talking about domestic violence. I'm talking about something legal where the punishment would come from the law and not the spouse.

That is insane. That is **** they did 100's of years ago to cheating spouses. I would like to think that society has advanced enough past that. Plus it gets the government involved even more in our private lives, which I am not a fan of.

No, not at all. The only thing that can increase the worth in a marriage is how much each person puts into it. No one feels like they deserves to be cheated on so both parties would assume neither would do it. There's no need for that clause. If one cheats, leave them. Simple as that. It's not worth cutting off their arm or some other idiotic measure to stay faithful to someone you clearly don't have feelings for anymore. A clause like that is bordering insanity, even if both parties consented.

agreed!

B

[marioguy]

That is insane. That is **** they did 100's of years ago to cheating spouses. I would like to think that society has advanced enough past that. Plus it gets the government involved even more in our private lives, which I am not a fan of.

Well, it would be the couple's own choice if they want the government to punish them if one of them cheated.

[Jb]

Well, it would be the couple's own choice if they want the government to punish them if one of them cheated.

If this is the case, then they shouldn't be a couple in the first place. Anyone who needs a clause like that during marriage clearly doesn't trust their partner, or self very well. That shouldn't be getting married anyway.

[marioguy]

If this is the case, then they shouldn't be a couple in the first place. Anyone who needs a clause like that during marriage clearly doesn't trust their partner, or self very well. That shouldn't be getting married anyway.

If you trusted your partner and yourself there would be no reason not to get the clause.

[BJPalmer85]

If you trusted your partner and yourself there would be no reason not to get the clause.

No, its the other way around. If you trusted your partner then you should have no need for any kind of clause like that.

The same can be said about a prenup, if you trust your partner and have faith in your relationship, than you have no need for one.

B

[marioguy]

No, its the other way around. If you trusted your partner then you should have no need for any kind of clause like that.

The same can be said about a prenup, if you trust your partner and have faith in your relationship, than you have no need for one.

B

Not getting a prenup is idiotic thoiugh. It's like not getting insurance.

[BJPalmer85]

Not getting a prenup is idiotic thoiugh. It's like not getting insurance.

it is also starting your marriage off by saying "hey, when this thing goes wrong, i want to make sure my **** is still mine"

B

[7 tyranitars]

it is also starting your marriage off by saying "hey, when this thing goes wrong, i want to make sure my **** is still mine"

B

And while you didn't you lose half your money and the custody of your kinds, and guese what you also have to pay your ex money!

[BJPalmer85]

And while you didn't you lose half your money and the custody of your kinds, and guese what you also have to pay your ex money!

My point is, it seems like you are setting the marriage up for failure and already expecting it to go wrong. call me old fashioned i guess

B

[GhostAnime]

Well statistically speaking, you'd be dumb not to get a pre-nup. That idea is only old-fashioned because divorce was literally a sin.

[marioguy]

Well statistically speaking, you'd be dumb not to get a pre-nup. That idea is only old-fashioned because divorce was literally a sin.

If divorce was once a sin, it will always be a sin. I'm just glad that BJPalmer compared my idea with a prenup.

[Ludwig]

If divorce was once a sin, it will always be a sin. I'm just glad that BJPalmer compared my idea with a prenup.

It's not a sin in England. That changed when England left the catholic church.

[marioguy]

It's not a sin in England. That changed when England left the catholic church.

People can't all willy nilly change what their religion says.

[Ludwig]

People can't all willy nilly change what their religion says.

That English king seemed to manage quite fine.

[GhostAnime]

Can we not argue about this side thing and just understand that I used sin as a cultural thing

[iFi Salamander]

Can we not argue about this side thing and just understand that I used sin as a cultural thing

Well you referenced anything relevant to religion on the internet. That was pretty much the end of any of any decent conversation ever.

I think people who get into relationships need to have a punitive damage clause. Say for example the person who cheated loses an arm. This type of thing would probably only be practical for marriages though.

Oh hi Bri, I didn't know you had an account on serebii.