Should shooting or stabbing someone be illegal if they don't die. Fuck yes. Should I screw my secretary? No. Should the government put me in federal prison for it? Fuck no.
And yes, it's quite obvious that deep down you are severely discontent with your existence and seething with hatred. So was the heretic who is your namesake.
I was gonna agree but some interesting conversation happening here. More people wanting to sleep around while married than I would have expected, and even more who seem to think if it's private between 2 people it would have no societal effects. Very surprising.
if it's private between 2 people it would have no societal effects
The issue isn't "societal effects". Absolutely everything has such effects. The issue is the purported "authority" of the "state", really of governors since the "state" is a mere idea, and its power over free-born human beings
No, it's not wrong, and it's not an assumption. Yes, human beings are free born, made in the image and likeness of God, having individual consciousness, intellect and free agency given to them by their creator. They are not yours by right to control.
Nope. We should seriously reform divorce law and boost protections for men in the court system though. A lot of these women whore around, lie, cheat, and initiate divorces because they know they'll come out ahead.
This is a tough one. I know for certain the sanctity of marriage is not taken seriously enough, and it has had disastrous social consequences. This would be a good step towards making marriage a serious thing again. And no, you should NOT sleep with your secretary if you're married...
Mostly commenting because the "government stay out of my bedroom" people are misguided, and I'm sick of hearing that excuse now that everything has a damn rainbow on it. Government is, and has an interest, in being involved in certain aspects of your private life. Pedophilia is one of them. But also, the polygamy/polyamory nonsense is another. "What does it matter what goes on in someone's bedroom in private?"
Well, it matters when that behavior spreads, in private, far enough that it then spills out into the public. And now we have debauchery like the half-naked leather clad men paraded around young children in Pride parades, and Trans Story time in libraries across the country, and people marrying inanimate objects like sex robots. Look at all the gender-swapping LGBT nonsense too - I could argue fairly well it started with legalizing gay marriage.
So anyway... SOMETHING needs to be done to help society re-recognize marriage between a man and a woman as the positive, stabilizing element that it is. Kids with a mother and father do better. Society with intact nuclear homes do better. Single motherhood is not the ideal. Fatherless homes are not ideal.
One hesitation I have is fairly random though, and it's arranged/coerced marriages, and the couple then migrates in to the U.S. Arguably the arraigned may want to sleep around, but that's still bad for society as a whole, and arguably they should get divorced first.
And now we have debauchery like the half-naked leather clad men paraded around young children in Pride parades, and Trans Story time in libraries across the country, and people marrying inanimate objects like sex robots.
All protected by the power of central government, the same one it's being suggested by the puritans ought to regulate adultery.
In the absence of such power, if local communities didn't want half-naked leather clad men parading through their cities, they could throw them out.
This one is a pretty good point. I'll need to think on that a bit, though I would disagree with classifying those who are pro-regulating adultery as puritans. It's possible to be kinky & raunchy as hell but still be against adultery.
What if it's an asshole? What if it's porn? What if it's masterbation w/ is also wrong by some religions. We have freedom of religion but not if it's adultery in one religion/denomination?
Hard to prove penis in vagina. Technically lust is adultery according to the Bible. This moves way too into thought policing. What if they are not married and have sex with other people? In God's eyes that's adultery but what if I'm an atheist? Do you litigate your religion on me? It's not as simple as p in v
You're a fucking idiot. When you're considering public policy, you don't resort to ad hominem attacks. You look at the merit of the policy itself you fool
I thought something similar, but thinking hard on it, sleeping around does not actually to anything to help fix the specific domestic victimhood or spousal abuse problem. You could say tangentially it does, maybe, if the sleeping around gets the new partner to help you escape your current situation. But that's a huge stretch, and the cause/effect relationship is more on the new partner helping you, not the sleeping around part.
Stronger legal remedies or social programs to help those in forced marriages or abusive situations might be better.
But normalizing sleeping around just because your husband beats you? Nah. It's not a solution.
Nothing is stopping you starting a community that expels its members for committing adultery. Of course the authority of central government with which you're so besotted is stopping you from entering into contracts with them under which membership of the community would entail consenting to criminal punishments if found guilty of adultery.
Lack of morality is more a lack of religion in general. Governments are already trying to insert themselves into families health, education, finances, work and now even their fricken grocery shopping. They can damn well stay out of marriages.
It's late night chit chat I know, but we've got bigger things to deal with right now. There's a coup taking place right before our eyes. But to answer your question, no, government has no place in private matters. Adultery can be addressed in divorce court.
I, personally, think it should.
And I only mention that to preface that I feel even more strongly that this kind of post is inappropriate and divisive.
But you already knew that, and posted it anyways.
That was a bad choice.
Makes me think of Crimes of Passion in legal work. Death for cheating is recognized as reasonable in some cases, to the degree it gets the murderer lessened penalties. It's the legal equivalent of going "Yeah, Yeah that makes sense - she cheated on ya."
Remember, to the one touting the enforcement of morality laws under the name of Martin Luther, that going by the New Testament's definition we'd have to make lusting after a woman a felony punishable by prison time.
Bringing other people in, even if they both agree, is bad for society, and it weakens your marital bond. Gonna have to say that's a hard no - even if they both like it and agree to it. It's not just about them at that point.
Unfortunately, I am no bible expert, and all I could point you towards is some passage in the new testament where Jesus says something like "looking at another woman with lust is adultery against her already in your heart" or something like that. That, and the fact that it is one of the 10 commandments.
However, I point out that using only religious reasoning is not the appropriate way to discuss moral or legal matters. It is useful to a point, but you need more than that. One of Christianity's successes is it's ability to reform over time and adapt to societal changes.
Historically speaking, monogamous societies are more stable. Psychologists and Anthropologists know this - it's not disputed. There's less violence where monogamy is the norm. Adultery serves no positive purpose. As for puritanical sex norms, we were doing pretty good until somewhat recently. And you'll notice, it is the left now imposing new puritanical norms - NOT the religious right. What do you think MeToo is, and all this talk about consent? Remember that YouTube ad where they tried to made asking for consent at every step sexy? That's not a religious right thing.
What about the strict rules about pronouns, and refusing to have sex with a trans woman is bigotry, and all those new rules? That's not the religious right, but it is a form of restrictive sexual puritanism, only it's the non-religious left's version.
Something to think about - all I know is, adultery is in fact bad for society, even if the people involved agree with it.
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
Ok, so I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. You *are * an Antinomian heretic.
all was holy in the marriage bed
The historical context of this is that certain Gnostic sects were declaring the marital act impure, that sex between husband and wife was as bad as fornication. You're clueless if you think this is a license to any kind of sexual act or perversion within marriage.
Romans 14:14 tells us straight out:
Ah, I see. So homo-sodomy, necrophilia, bestiality and paedophilia are not unclean in themselves but only subjectively to the one who regards them as such. You verse-quoters who ignore all historical and textual context, as well as the Patristic tradition of exegesis, are really something else. Re-read Romans 1, dimwit:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I got confused on the Jewish thing too though - maybe it's the phrasing of "just" Jewish? Hinduism regards adultery as sinful as well. Buddhism treats it as negative as well, though maybe not a sin. Those certainly aren't Jewish.
The rest of your original comments made some good points, but I'm with MartinLuther2 here - the Jewish thing comes outta left field. Gives Mein Fuhrer vibes.
Well, the Jews ARE exceptional, aren't they? Higher I.Q. on average, and it's not like they only get to high positions through bribery and coercion. There is some skill & competency there.
But also pump the breaks - I never called you a nazi, and I specifically said it just gives those vibes, while ALSO explaining my confusion about what you said, and admitting you had good points. I clearly have no ill will towards you, but I was confused at why the Jewish thing got brought up, which you still haven't adequately explained. It was confusing for you to drag them in to this, that's all.
No the government can stay out of my personal affairs to include my bedroom.
Should incest be allowed if no children are produced?
Should shooting or stabbing someone be illegal if they don't die. Fuck yes. Should I screw my secretary? No. Should the government put me in federal prison for it? Fuck no.
Should I screw my secretary? No. Should the government put me in federal prison for it? Fuck yes
So any woman can #metoo you into federal prison. Where do I sign up?
Should incest be allowed if no children are produced?
Yes or no?
Yes can't guarantee no child will be produced. Always a chance.
Incest tend to be a underage problem too. Not many 18+ fucking relatives.
Dumb comparison.
Let's say the man has a vasectomy. It's between brother and sister. They are both 20 years old.
Yes or no?
No. Anyway Incest is not a moral issue it's a destructive human behavioure issue.
I don't want a central government to have the power to regulate consensual activity between free agents that doesn't violate fundamental rights.
Is there some part of that you have difficulty understanding?
And yes, it's quite obvious that deep down you are severely discontent with your existence and seething with hatred. So was the heretic who is your namesake.
No, I just don't believe in your fairy tale of "authority".
These karma farming posts should be a felony.
I was gonna agree but some interesting conversation happening here. More people wanting to sleep around while married than I would have expected, and even more who seem to think if it's private between 2 people it would have no societal effects. Very surprising.
The issue isn't "societal effects". Absolutely everything has such effects. The issue is the purported "authority" of the "state", really of governors since the "state" is a mere idea, and its power over free-born human beings
Human beings are not free born. That's a wrong assumption to make.
No, it's not wrong, and it's not an assumption. Yes, human beings are free born, made in the image and likeness of God, having individual consciousness, intellect and free agency given to them by their creator. They are not yours by right to control.
Nope. We should seriously reform divorce law and boost protections for men in the court system though. A lot of these women whore around, lie, cheat, and initiate divorces because they know they'll come out ahead.
Adulterors all have that in common.
This is a tough one. I know for certain the sanctity of marriage is not taken seriously enough, and it has had disastrous social consequences. This would be a good step towards making marriage a serious thing again. And no, you should NOT sleep with your secretary if you're married...
Mostly commenting because the "government stay out of my bedroom" people are misguided, and I'm sick of hearing that excuse now that everything has a damn rainbow on it. Government is, and has an interest, in being involved in certain aspects of your private life. Pedophilia is one of them. But also, the polygamy/polyamory nonsense is another. "What does it matter what goes on in someone's bedroom in private?"
Well, it matters when that behavior spreads, in private, far enough that it then spills out into the public. And now we have debauchery like the half-naked leather clad men paraded around young children in Pride parades, and Trans Story time in libraries across the country, and people marrying inanimate objects like sex robots. Look at all the gender-swapping LGBT nonsense too - I could argue fairly well it started with legalizing gay marriage.
So anyway... SOMETHING needs to be done to help society re-recognize marriage between a man and a woman as the positive, stabilizing element that it is. Kids with a mother and father do better. Society with intact nuclear homes do better. Single motherhood is not the ideal. Fatherless homes are not ideal.
One hesitation I have is fairly random though, and it's arranged/coerced marriages, and the couple then migrates in to the U.S. Arguably the arraigned may want to sleep around, but that's still bad for society as a whole, and arguably they should get divorced first.
All protected by the power of central government, the same one it's being suggested by the puritans ought to regulate adultery.
In the absence of such power, if local communities didn't want half-naked leather clad men parading through their cities, they could throw them out.
This one is a pretty good point. I'll need to think on that a bit, though I would disagree with classifying those who are pro-regulating adultery as puritans. It's possible to be kinky & raunchy as hell but still be against adultery.
So you want the federal government to define adultery?
How hard is it to define? p in v
Dictionary.com just changed it today!
What if it's an asshole? What if it's porn? What if it's masterbation w/ is also wrong by some religions. We have freedom of religion but not if it's adultery in one religion/denomination?
Yes
No
No. It's wrong but it's hard to prove so we'll leave this alone.
Hard to prove penis in vagina. Technically lust is adultery according to the Bible. This moves way too into thought policing. What if they are not married and have sex with other people? In God's eyes that's adultery but what if I'm an atheist? Do you litigate your religion on me? It's not as simple as p in v
Yep its already a misdemeanor but its rarely enforced
You're a fucking idiot. When you're considering public policy, you don't resort to ad hominem attacks. You look at the merit of the policy itself you fool
All the ten commandments should be felonies, yes.
This might be the first thing on TD I've seen get ratio'd. It's not huge right now but congrats on the stupid idea lmao
Absolutely not. People get their fuck on.
So you're an authoritarian. Thanks for letting us know.
Absolutely
Yes. And I'm not. Say hello to my AR-15.
What if the adulterous does it to escape domestic victimhood and spousal abuse?
I thought something similar, but thinking hard on it, sleeping around does not actually to anything to help fix the specific domestic victimhood or spousal abuse problem. You could say tangentially it does, maybe, if the sleeping around gets the new partner to help you escape your current situation. But that's a huge stretch, and the cause/effect relationship is more on the new partner helping you, not the sleeping around part.
Stronger legal remedies or social programs to help those in forced marriages or abusive situations might be better.
But normalizing sleeping around just because your husband beats you? Nah. It's not a solution.
Sometime this kind of promiscuity can be pathologically related to the abuse. We have to understand and not condemn or condone.
People lose their ethical compass because the relation is totally what it should not be.
Wow. Lol
Nothing is stopping you starting a community that expels its members for committing adultery. Of course the authority of central government with which you're so besotted is stopping you from entering into contracts with them under which membership of the community would entail consenting to criminal punishments if found guilty of adultery.
Lack of morality is more a lack of religion in general. Governments are already trying to insert themselves into families health, education, finances, work and now even their fricken grocery shopping. They can damn well stay out of marriages.
It's late night chit chat I know, but we've got bigger things to deal with right now. There's a coup taking place right before our eyes. But to answer your question, no, government has no place in private matters. Adultery can be addressed in divorce court.
We talkin Jill Biden or Melania Trump?
Yes.
I, personally, think it should. And I only mention that to preface that I feel even more strongly that this kind of post is inappropriate and divisive. But you already knew that, and posted it anyways. That was a bad choice.
no, never did, came close, thought about it, dreamed about it, then sat down with my children and said no, but nope, this is between husband and wife.
Death.
But whatever.
Based
Makes me think of Crimes of Passion in legal work. Death for cheating is recognized as reasonable in some cases, to the degree it gets the murderer lessened penalties. It's the legal equivalent of going "Yeah, Yeah that makes sense - she cheated on ya."
Remember, to the one touting the enforcement of morality laws under the name of Martin Luther, that going by the New Testament's definition we'd have to make lusting after a woman a felony punishable by prison time.
Bringing other people in, even if they both agree, is bad for society, and it weakens your marital bond. Gonna have to say that's a hard no - even if they both like it and agree to it. It's not just about them at that point.
"Society" is not a concrete object.
Unfortunately, I am no bible expert, and all I could point you towards is some passage in the new testament where Jesus says something like "looking at another woman with lust is adultery against her already in your heart" or something like that. That, and the fact that it is one of the 10 commandments.
However, I point out that using only religious reasoning is not the appropriate way to discuss moral or legal matters. It is useful to a point, but you need more than that. One of Christianity's successes is it's ability to reform over time and adapt to societal changes.
Historically speaking, monogamous societies are more stable. Psychologists and Anthropologists know this - it's not disputed. There's less violence where monogamy is the norm. Adultery serves no positive purpose. As for puritanical sex norms, we were doing pretty good until somewhat recently. And you'll notice, it is the left now imposing new puritanical norms - NOT the religious right. What do you think MeToo is, and all this talk about consent? Remember that YouTube ad where they tried to made asking for consent at every step sexy? That's not a religious right thing.
What about the strict rules about pronouns, and refusing to have sex with a trans woman is bigotry, and all those new rules? That's not the religious right, but it is a form of restrictive sexual puritanism, only it's the non-religious left's version.
Something to think about - all I know is, adultery is in fact bad for society, even if the people involved agree with it.
In full, please.
Ok, so I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. You *are * an Antinomian heretic.
The historical context of this is that certain Gnostic sects were declaring the marital act impure, that sex between husband and wife was as bad as fornication. You're clueless if you think this is a license to any kind of sexual act or perversion within marriage.
Ah, I see. So homo-sodomy, necrophilia, bestiality and paedophilia are not unclean in themselves but only subjectively to the one who regards them as such. You verse-quoters who ignore all historical and textual context, as well as the Patristic tradition of exegesis, are really something else. Re-read Romans 1, dimwit:
How is this related at all to Jews?
I got confused on the Jewish thing too though - maybe it's the phrasing of "just" Jewish? Hinduism regards adultery as sinful as well. Buddhism treats it as negative as well, though maybe not a sin. Those certainly aren't Jewish.
The rest of your original comments made some good points, but I'm with MartinLuther2 here - the Jewish thing comes outta left field. Gives Mein Fuhrer vibes.
Well, the Jews ARE exceptional, aren't they? Higher I.Q. on average, and it's not like they only get to high positions through bribery and coercion. There is some skill & competency there.
But also pump the breaks - I never called you a nazi, and I specifically said it just gives those vibes, while ALSO explaining my confusion about what you said, and admitting you had good points. I clearly have no ill will towards you, but I was confused at why the Jewish thing got brought up, which you still haven't adequately explained. It was confusing for you to drag them in to this, that's all.