It Doesn't Pay to Cheat in Michigan
I love this idea, but I have a feeling that it will only turn people into better liars. Interesting experiment, though. If this thing went national, imagine all the politicians who would go to the slammer! Private investigation would become the hot new career choice.
I'm trying to think of a clever phrase that they could run on the digital highway signs during times of the year when spouses are likely to cheat. You know, like, "Click it or Ticket." How about "Cheat on Spouse and Go to Big House"? I think that's too long and corny. What would Kina Freelya say?
I don't think this thing has much steam, unfortunately. I mean, Bush has been such a lousy president, he has people pining for the old days when we had a philandering, albeit capable, president. Clinton glamorized adultery in a weird way. So did Johnny Damon.
I'm trying to think of a clever phrase that they could run on the digital highway signs during times of the year when spouses are likely to cheat. You know, like, "Click it or Ticket." How about "Cheat on Spouse and Go to Big House"? I think that's too long and corny. What would Kina Freelya say?
I don't think this thing has much steam, unfortunately. I mean, Bush has been such a lousy president, he has people pining for the old days when we had a philandering, albeit capable, president. Clinton glamorized adultery in a weird way. So did Johnny Damon.
Labels: Interesting News Clips
posted by Kim at
3:56 AM
2 Comments:
I'm down with cheaters being punished, but I don't like the motivation behind this--"Oh, you're breaking the law, so you should be punished." Instead of the way more important "You're breaking someone's HEART so you should be punished."
It's just like when people don't do things because it's "against their religion." So the reason they don't, say, kill people, is NOT because THEY think it would be wrong and horrible, but because it breaks a rule. They'd worry more about what their deity thinks of them than the feelings of the family of the person they killed.
Also, does it hurt a person more when they get cheated on a year into a marriage which came after a year of dating, than if they get cheated on in the eighth year of a non-marriage relationship? My point being, again, this idea only has to do with being punished for breaking a law, not for hurting the person you supposedly are in love with. And the cheater in the second case would get no punishment, because they happened to not get documentation of their union.
So, to sum up, in my opinion: Cheaters of all types should be punished--even if it's just through karma. Motivation behind Michigan's idea: kinda wishy washy.
The law is there to keep people moral. Religion was made up to keep people moral. Same thing. I personally don't care what the motivation is, as long as people stop doing things they know are wrong and hurtful to others.
I don't think that the Michigan law will happen. There will be a lot of folks screaming, "Well, what's next then? Will I go to jail for watching porn in my own home? Is that considered cheating, too? My wife and I are swingers. Will we both go to jail?"
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home