joint chiefs chair says homosexuality is immoral

angelica

RainDog wrote:

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

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

So what was your question again?

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.

Byrnzie

angelica wrote:

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?

Yes.

know1

angelica wrote:

"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?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

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?

I imagine it's because not many people take him seriously.

RainDog

angelica wrote:

"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.

dunkman

i'm still looking for the superhero thread :mad:

RainDog

know1 wrote:

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?

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.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

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.

RainDog

angelica wrote:

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.

Pacomc79

Isn't morality subjective?

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.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

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?

know1

angelica wrote:

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.

hippiemom

know1 wrote:

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?

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.

know1

hippiemom wrote:

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?

hippiemom

know1 wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MT loves the homosexual threads

know1

hippiemom wrote:

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".

RainDog

angelica wrote:

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.

spiral out

know1 wrote:

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.