Real adultery does not include pre-marital sex. That's fornication.
You're not an adulterer, you're a fornicator, and the general had nothing to say about you or your "sins" - likely because he's enjoyed a bit 'a fornication himself.
"fornication: 2. extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: adultery] "
Throughout the dictionary definitions, the words fornication and adultery hinge upon one another, with the connection being sex outside of marriage, whether prior to marriage or within. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When know1 pointed to the fact that the mystical aspect of God's word is not the same as man distorting the mystical aspect, do you agree? It looks like you do agree, which is why I'm confused that you two were arguing this point.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"fornication: 2. extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: adultery] "
Throughout the dictionary definitions, the words fornication and adultery hinge upon one another, with the connection being sex outside of marriage, whether prior to marriage or within. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication
Thanks for looking that up.
So my original question stands? Do any of us adulterers take REAL offense when someone says it is immoral? One person said they do.
This chairman is basically calling the actions of many, many people immoral, so why is it that only the homosexual side of it seems to be offensive?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"fornication: 2. extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: adultery] "
Throughout the dictionary definitions, the words fornication and adultery hinge upon one another, with the connection being sex outside of marriage, whether prior to marriage or within. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication
Not true. While adultery is a type of fornication, the terms are not interchangable. For example, cars, trucks, boats, motorcyles, etc. are all "vehicles." However, the terms are not interchangable with each other or the term vehicle itself. Adulterers are fornicators, but not all fornicators are adulterers.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
So my original question stands? Do any of us adulterers take REAL offense when someone says it is immoral? One person said they do.
This chairman is basically calling the actions of many, many people immoral, so why is it that only the homosexual side of it seems to be offensive?
Still not the same. I bring this up because the general is comparing cheating on your spouse with having gay sex. He leaves out sex between straight single people, likely because he would be offended by someone calling him an immoral fornicator.
Not true. While adultery is a type of fornication, the terms are not interchangable. For example, cars, trucks, boats, motorcyles, etc. are all "vehicles." However, the terms are not interchangable with each other or the term vehicle itself. Adulterers are fornicators, but not all fornicators are adulterers.
I didn't say they were interchangeable, I said in essence that they are connected by the fact that they occur outside of marriage. That fornication and adultery are synonyms is because they are connected by certain traits. It looks to me that the differences in the way you or know1 look at it has to do with how you each process the differences, rather than being about an absolute occuring in the words themselves.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I didn't say they were interchangeable, I said in essence that they are connected by the fact that they occur outside of marriage. That fornication and adultery are synonyms is because they are connected by certain traits. It looks to me that the differences in the way you or know1 look at it has to do with how you each process the differences, rather than being about an absolute occuring in the words themselves.
Of course they're connected, but that doesn't change the fact that adultery requires that someone cheat on his or her spouse.
The general is saying that he has problems with gay sex - that it's comparible to cheating on your spouse. Homosexuals are likely offended by this, because many view cheating as wrong. If the general wanted to make the comparison between gay sex and all pre-marital and extra-marital sex, he would have used a term like fornication.
Don't ask don't tell is essentially ignoring the issue, as sexual orientation clearly has nothing to do with ones ability to serve I'm not really sure his opinion really means anything as it amounts to nothing really. Most people who feel differently will just shrug thier shoulders and say what an idiot he's stupid for even bringing it up.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Of course they're connected, but that doesn't change the fact that adultery requires that someone cheat on his or her spouse.
Maybe. It looks that way based on the dictionary definitions.
I would like to hear know1's backing for why he thinks it occurs as adultery when there is not a spouse involved. know1, is that your personal interpretation, or is that something you've gotten from bible study, or other religious study?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Maybe. It looks that way based on the dictionary definitions.
I would like to hear know1's backing for why he thinks it occurs as adultery when there is not a spouse involved. know1, is that your personal interpretation, or is that something you've gotten from bible study, or other religious study?
The definition that you supplied said that that adultery meant sex outside of marriage - whether prior to or within.
The chairmen used the word "adultery". Therefore, he is saying that lots and lots of people are immoral. So where is the adultery group that is calling for an apology.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So my original question stands? Do any of us adulterers take REAL offense when someone says it is immoral? One person said they do.
This chairman is basically calling the actions of many, many people immoral, so why is it that only the homosexual side of it seems to be offensive?
Adultery, fornication, or whatever you want to call it, is a behavior. Your sexuality is an integral part of who you ARE. They are not comparable. I've never heard of anyone who knew from an early age that they were only attracted to people they're not married to.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Adultery, fornication, or whatever you want to call it, is a behavior. Your sexuality is an integral part of who you ARE. They are not comparable. I've never heard of anyone who knew from an early age that they were only attracted to people they're not married to.
Not sure I totally agree, but that's not my point. My point is that he called adulterers immoral. Shouldn't that offend us just as much as it offends homosexuals to call their acts immoral?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Not sure I totally agree, but that's not my point. My point is that he called adulterers immoral. Shouldn't that offend us just as much as it offends homosexuals to call their acts immoral?
I see a big difference between saying that something you are doing is immoral, and saying that one of the deepest and most immutable parts of your being is immoral. It's the difference between "you did a bad thing" and "you are a bad person." If you did a bad thing, you can stop doing it. If you are simply bad, deep within yourself, then that's the end of that.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I see a big difference between saying that something you are doing is immoral, and saying that one of the deepest and most immutable parts of your being is immoral. It's the difference between "you did a bad thing" and "you are a bad person." If you did a bad thing, you can stop doing it. If you are simply bad, deep within yourself, then that's the end of that.
I can sort of see that as well, but in the article I saw he said homosexual ACTS were immoral just like adulterous ACTS.
The title of this thread could just as well say "Joint Chiefs Chair says Adultery is Immoral".
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Maybe. It looks that way based on the dictionary definitions.
I would like to hear know1's backing for why he thinks it occurs as adultery when there is not a spouse involved. know1, is that your personal interpretation, or is that something you've gotten from bible study, or other religious study?
The bible seems to interchange the terms "fornicator" and "whoremonger" in different translations, but the term adultery usually stands on it's own, often in the same passage or sentence as fornicator or whoremonger.
For example (from BibleGateway):
King James version of Hebrews 13:4:
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
The New American Standard version:
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
There's also Corinthians 6 (New American Standard):
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals....
Now while the God of the Bible clearly believes that all these sins are damnable, He also believes that they are different terms for different actions.
The general either does not believe they are different (unlikely - everyone pretty much knows what's implied by "adultery"), or considers adulterers and homosexuals to be particularly bad.
Yes - I think he would forgive homosexuals and would not condone the death penalty.
He shouldn't be forgiving homosexuals as they have done nothing wrong in the first place.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
The definition that you supplied said that that adultery meant sex outside of marriage - whether prior to or within.
The chairmen used the word "adultery". Therefore, he is saying that lots and lots of people are immoral. So where is the adultery group that is calling for an apology.
The definition she supplied was for fornication, and adultery is a type of fornication. A specific type. The definition she supplied did not say that adultery meant sex outside of marriage, whether prior to or within.
The chairman said that people who cheat on their spouses and homosexuals were immoral. He said nothing about straight unmarried couples having sex.
The definition that you supplied said that that adultery meant sex outside of marriage - whether prior to or within.
The chairmen used the word "adultery". Therefore, he is saying that lots and lots of people are immoral. So where is the adultery group that is calling for an apology.
The problem with this argument is that the definition I provided was a definition for fornication which apparently does not include some of the details that definitions for adultery does. The definitions for adultery, as far as I could see, ALL necessitated there being a marriage that was being violated. ie: it was adultery, because someone in the sexual encounter was violating a current marriage. And trust me, I tried very hard to make RainDog "wrong".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Can't we all just be gay and get along. Talking lisp is the new metrosexual.
Accessorize!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The definition she supplied was for fornication, and adultery is a type of fornication. A specific type. The definition she supplied did not say that adultery meant sex outside of marriage, whether prior to or within.
The chairman said that people who cheat on their spouses and homosexuals were immoral. He said nothing about straight unmarried couples having sex.
Didn't he say homosexual ACTS were immoral?
But, you're all nitpicking on semantics and avoiding the issue or point. There are plenty of definitions of adultery out there that consider pre-marital sex as adultery.
Just to try and get you past that detail, what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The problem with this argument is that the definition I provided was a definition for fornication which apparently does not include some of the details that definitions for adultery does. The definitions for adultery, as far as I could see, ALL necessitated there being a marriage that was being violated. ie: it was adultery, because someone in the sexual encounter was violating a current marriage. And trust me, I tried very hard to make RainDog "wrong".
I've done a quick search. There are plenty of definitions that say sex without marriage is adultery.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But, you're all nitpicking on semantics and avoiding the issue or point. There are plenty of definitions of adultery out there that consider pre-marital sex as adultery.
Just to try and get you past that detail, what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?
I'm not nitpicking on semantics. I'm just replying to your implication that the general was referring to all acts of sex outside of marriage. He wasn't. Most adulterers would consider their actions to be "immoral," hence why they hide it from their spouses. So they wouldn't demand an apology. Most homosexuals don't consider their actions to be immoral in and of themselves, so therefore are demanding an apology. The rest of us fornicators have been left out of the melee.
Well then share them with us, please. I am looking to understand your interpretation and what it is based on. I'm not at all saying it is invalid.
Well maybe I'm wrong. Here was one I saw that could be interpreted two ways (from Wikipedia): Minnesota defines adultery as: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery"
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?
but people who have pre-marital sex havent been a part of a shunned society made to feel worthless and dirty. Homosexuals have and so therefore the general's comments cause concern as he is subjecting his views upon an already battered and frowned upon homosexual community. The majority of people have pre-marital sex... but nobody in the last century has been subjected to prison for it*
* although someone will google that and produce a story about a fucking tribe in the amazon or something :rolleyes:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Well maybe I'm wrong. Here was one I saw that could be interpreted two ways (from Wikipedia): Minnesota defines adultery as: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery"
The "whether married or not" part refers to the OTHER person in the equation--other than the first person who IS married. Seriously dude, I was arguing for your side only because it looked promising at the beginning, until I realized I didn't have a leg to stand on.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
"fornication: 2. extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: adultery] "
Throughout the dictionary definitions, the words fornication and adultery hinge upon one another, with the connection being sex outside of marriage, whether prior to marriage or within.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes.
Thanks for looking that up.
So my original question stands? Do any of us adulterers take REAL offense when someone says it is immoral? One person said they do.
This chairman is basically calling the actions of many, many people immoral, so why is it that only the homosexual side of it seems to be offensive?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I imagine it's because not many people take him seriously.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The general is saying that he has problems with gay sex - that it's comparible to cheating on your spouse. Homosexuals are likely offended by this, because many view cheating as wrong. If the general wanted to make the comparison between gay sex and all pre-marital and extra-marital sex, he would have used a term like fornication.
Don't ask don't tell is essentially ignoring the issue, as sexual orientation clearly has nothing to do with ones ability to serve I'm not really sure his opinion really means anything as it amounts to nothing really. Most people who feel differently will just shrug thier shoulders and say what an idiot he's stupid for even bringing it up.
I would like to hear know1's backing for why he thinks it occurs as adultery when there is not a spouse involved. know1, is that your personal interpretation, or is that something you've gotten from bible study, or other religious study?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The definition that you supplied said that that adultery meant sex outside of marriage - whether prior to or within.
The chairmen used the word "adultery". Therefore, he is saying that lots and lots of people are immoral. So where is the adultery group that is calling for an apology.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Not sure I totally agree, but that's not my point. My point is that he called adulterers immoral. Shouldn't that offend us just as much as it offends homosexuals to call their acts immoral?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I can sort of see that as well, but in the article I saw he said homosexual ACTS were immoral just like adulterous ACTS.
The title of this thread could just as well say "Joint Chiefs Chair says Adultery is Immoral".
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
For example (from BibleGateway):
King James version of Hebrews 13:4:
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
The New American Standard version:
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
There's also Corinthians 6 (New American Standard):
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals....
Now while the God of the Bible clearly believes that all these sins are damnable, He also believes that they are different terms for different actions.
The general either does not believe they are different (unlikely - everyone pretty much knows what's implied by "adultery"), or considers adulterers and homosexuals to be particularly bad.
He shouldn't be forgiving homosexuals as they have done nothing wrong in the first place.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
The chairman said that people who cheat on their spouses and homosexuals were immoral. He said nothing about straight unmarried couples having sex.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Accessorize!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Didn't he say homosexual ACTS were immoral?
But, you're all nitpicking on semantics and avoiding the issue or point. There are plenty of definitions of adultery out there that consider pre-marital sex as adultery.
Just to try and get you past that detail, what if the general had specifically said that pre-marital sex was immoral. Would that offend anyone who has done that?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I've done a quick search. There are plenty of definitions that say sex without marriage is adultery.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not nitpicking on semantics. I'm just replying to your implication that the general was referring to all acts of sex outside of marriage. He wasn't. Most adulterers would consider their actions to be "immoral," hence why they hide it from their spouses. So they wouldn't demand an apology. Most homosexuals don't consider their actions to be immoral in and of themselves, so therefore are demanding an apology. The rest of us fornicators have been left out of the melee.
Well maybe I'm wrong. Here was one I saw that could be interpreted two ways (from Wikipedia): Minnesota defines adultery as: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery"
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
but people who have pre-marital sex havent been a part of a shunned society made to feel worthless and dirty. Homosexuals have and so therefore the general's comments cause concern as he is subjecting his views upon an already battered and frowned upon homosexual community. The majority of people have pre-marital sex... but nobody in the last century has been subjected to prison for it*
* although someone will google that and produce a story about a fucking tribe in the amazon or something :rolleyes:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!