Talk:Adultery

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
Conservlogo.png

Contents

Discussion

I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?
What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --Ed Poor 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans
I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.
And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --Ed Poor 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Ruin trust

Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. RSchlafly 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Gender Bias

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --Ed Poor 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. RSchlafly 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. RSchlafly 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.
I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of love which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.
As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.
Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --Ed Poor 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. RSchlafly 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. RSchlafly 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--Jack 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

RShlalfy - I'm back. However, I'm not 'he', I'm 'she'. And I have a question for you. Given that I am a 50-something year old Conservative Christian woman, whose husband had an 'unnatural' relationship with another woman, for which I subsequently divorced him, I'm interested to know this: since, according to your definition, what my husband did was NOT adultery, perhaps you could provide me with a term for it? Certainly the court agreed with me that it was adultery, but since you're obviously so knowledgeable about these things, I wonder what you'd call it? 50something, 10.40am, PST, 4/22/07

Did the court find that he committed the crime of adultery? What state do you live? Most states don't care about such things. RSchlafly 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the limits of my patience RSchalfy. Yes, the court found him guilty of adultery. Yes, every other reference book I have ever consulted considers it adultery. You alone, you Rock of Ages, you Sage of Our Nation, seem to be the only one with your head stuck in the sand. You look ridiculous RSchalfy. Might I ask what age you are? And finally, again I repeat my question - was what my husband did not adultery? 50something.

Was he sentenced for the adultery? Was he punished in some other way? Was the other woman married? What state was it? I live in California, where no one ever gets found guilty of adultery. RSchlafly 15:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What age are you? I've given you enough information. And anyway, my business is not the point here. Adultery is committed by both men and women, and the article should state that. Your position is utterly ridiculous. 50something

Oh, oh, this is brilliant. You just lokced the page, didn't you?! AHHAHAHHAH this just proves what an utter farce this site is. You just popped back the definition that suits you, despite it being absurd, and locked the page. If that doesn't say everything about this pointless, ego-driven site, I don't know what does. 50something

I can't believe it - you also removed my own perfectly good reference, The Catholic Encyclodia reference. You asked for a reference, I provided one. It didn't suit your view, so you removed it. Here's another one, from Christian Answers.: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html. Your definition here makes it the nly place I can find such a definition on the internet. 50something

So now, you and you alone continue to edit the article, despite the page being locked? So, this entire site isn't a community encyclopedia, but is instead basically an essay, written entirely by you? On what basis do you think this makes your "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" a useful resource? Why don't you just call it "The Schalfly Brother's View of The World"? 50something

Yes, I locked the page to stop your repeated false edits. If you tell me more about your husband's situation, then perhaps I can find the definition in the law that was applied to him.
It sounds to me as if you are using this article to justify walking out on your marriage. RSchlafly 16:28, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now you're telling me that I was the one who was wrong? You're brilliant, I'm coming around to liking your perverted logic. Yes, when I walked in on my preacher husband with his trashy girlfriend in her fishnet stockings, I was the one who was in the wrong, yes? OK, I'm very sorry, I should have tried harder, I wish I'd had your number when I needed counselling.

So how do you respond to either of these references I provided (which you've removed, before locking the page):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

Finally, since you refuse to provide me with any information about you, you ask me for such personal details and make such slander? In my day young pups like you would get a good thrashing for speaking to your elders - and a woman of Faith - like this. 50something

RSchlafley, your comments here are disgusting. Whatever Leviticus has to to say about adultery, modern law AND common usage applies it to both husbands and wives. Personally insulting a woman because she was the victim --not the perpetrator -- of adultery is especially contemptible. --PF Fox 16:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for those kind words of support PF Fox. At least some here want to establish a safe, kind, loving Christian community. Freaks like RScahalfy (and a few others) do Christ's work no good, no good at all. And the immaturity! I now realise why Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource - just one look at the wonderfully fair and balanced page for Adultery there tells you it is written by people who care about ALL views, not just their own bigoted little guttersniping. I have no good words to say about my experience here, I'm sorry to say - as this is much more like what I thought would be my 'natural' community. How disappointing. 50something
I should perhaps tell you that I'm not a Christian, but that I do know that RSchlafly's views are not typical of Christians. Most of the Christians I know are kind enough and well-informed enough to grasp the difference between the Old Testament definition of "adultery" and the manner in which the word is used and applied today, both legally and in everyday conversation. I'm very sorry if your experience here opened any wounds and caused you pain. --PF Fox 17:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Catholic Encyclopedia

This article has been vanda<--graagh-->lised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50something (talk)

So the Washington Post trumps the Book of Leviticus, [1] is that the argument? RobS 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [2], and Christian Answers [3], both of which agree with me. 50something

Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the Washington Post, and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? RobS 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? 50something

OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? RobS 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. Karajou 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
We should continue at Talk:Adultery. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. RobS 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

My view

50something's edit was on the money: adultery is bad news for anyone practicing it, and what she included in this edit happens to agree with what the Bible says about it. Now, since this is Conservapedia, and according to Andy this site has to uphold traditional family values, I strongly insist that this subject be expanded to describe what adultery means, what constitutes it (any sex outside marriage), and what should be done to prevent it. 50something is trying to do just that, and she should be given credit and thanks for it.

So, let's everyone calm down and work on making this article as good as it can possibly be. Karajou 17:00, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

How does the text, "Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart..." conflict with 50something's claim the mainspace is not gender neutral? RobS 17:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Both man and woman are fully capable of comitting adultery. When the woman was dragged before Jesus in John ch. 8, where was the man at? Only she was accused of adultery, and Jesus was told the proper method of taking care of someone who commited adultery was by stoning. Now what was Jesus' response?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Think about that here. Karajou 17:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I put something like that into the article. [4] --Ed Poor 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

(a) The version RSchlafly wrote is unambiguous and does not make a "gender bias" claim; (b) the 1911 encyclopdia cite is a Wiki mirror, so I'm not sure we can keep it, especially in this arrticle. RobS 18:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, what is the purpose of adultery as pertaining to this article? Is it a "man-thing" only? A "woman-thing"? Or are both parties guilty when practicing it? Karajou 18:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I could be wrong in mis-reading the article, but I felt, based on 50something's statements vs RSchlafly's, that the article as it stood was leaning toward the man being "not guilty" in adultery. When I quoted the Bible account of Jesus above, some authorities, as well as pastors (and myself) cite the possibility that Jesus knew they were also being one-sided with the woman only being the one guilty of adultery (and Jesus would have known everything!). And since Jesus boiled adultery down to even thinking about it, it stands to reason that every sexual act outside of the marriage bond between husband and wife constitutes adultery. So, my suggestion would be to arrange the article as to Old Testament/New Testament descriptions of what constitutes adultery, modern laws in force, and anything else...which what I think 50something was trying to do in the first place.

Toward avoiding double standards

Gentlemen: What seems unclear is what Roger Schlafly meant by "Biblical adultery."

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, adultery is an intimate relation between two people, either one of whom is married to someone else.

The HIBD goes on to say that in the Old Testament, adultery was understood in the context of a man having an intimate relationship with another man's wife, and the man involved had committed an offense against the woman's husband.

In the New Testament, three things changed:

  1. Adultery was a matter of lustful intent and did not require an actual act. See Matthew 5:28-30 (NASB).
  2. Very clearly, adultery is definable as unfaithfulness on the part of either the husband or the wife. Paul, for example, states that a man ought to have one wife only, and even that a man having gone through more than one wife (for reasons other than bereavement) disqualifies himself from serving in the clergy.
  3. Divorce was now an offense just as grave as adultery.

I suggest that the article address OT and NT law on the subject, in addition to citing legal precedents in American and British family law.--TerryHTalk 18:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of fomenting sectarian strife, I will second this. Unless Mr. Schlafly has a strong objection, this information should be incorporated - particularly the definition provided by the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. --Ed Poor 18:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Here is the full MLA-style reference:

Michael Fink. "Entry on Adultery." The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003 (ISBN 0805428364). pp. 30-31. --TerryHTalk 19:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What exactly is the info to be incorporated? The article already addresses OT and NT law on adultery. Is something incorrect? 50something cited the Catholic Encyclopedia [5], but that article confirms that in the Ten Commandments, "adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery". The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary apparently says the same thing. I realize that some people are ideologically opposed to "double standards", but it is important to explain accurately just what was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. RSchlafly 19:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you sure about that, Roger? I hold the HIBD in my hand, and as I read it, adultery means any illicit activity if either partner is currently married to someone else.
Besides: who said anything about not explaining what was commonly meant in the OT? All I'm saying is that the term adultery is fairly broad and has more than one meaning.
As an example of what I mean, and what I suggest, I recommend my articles on sin and Sin (Fundamentalism). As you can see, I discuss the concept "sin" in the Biblical sense and in the broader philosophical context.--TerryHTalk 19:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interpretation of the New Testament by Christian author Joe Beam:

In the New Testament anyone married to one person but sleeping with another committed adultery. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [6]

I don't mean to start (or prolong) an argument. I'm a guest here. But there is an interesting discussion on the differences between OT and NT standards here. --Ed Poor 20:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

That article says, "In the Old Testament, 'adultery' properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery." It also mentions that the NT reiterates the OT commandment against adultery in Mark 10:19 and Romans 13:9. RSchlafly 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
It's not certain anything "changed" in the New Testament; adultry was always considered wrong and evil, even prior to Moses and the Ten Commandments. Genesis 39:7-9 (prior to Exodus & Deutornomy) states,
7...his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife...9... thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? [7] RobS 21:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Modern law

The article says that adultery is punishable under "modern law". Is this the case throughout the US anymore? DanH 21:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

The cited Wash Post article says that a Virginia lawyer got a misdemeanor conviction, and had to do 20 hours of community service. Such punishments are extremely rare and mild. For most practical purposes, adultery is now legal. RSchlafly 21:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Under criminal law, there is nothing federal banning adultery. I would expect some states still have criminal laws against adultery on the books, but they are very rarely enforced. The consequences under civil law can be much greater though - adultery is grounds for very unpleasant divorce proceedings, and the non-adulterer member will likely be given the bulk of the financial assets, custody of the children, etc. The adulterer will come out worst both due to formal legislation intended to punish adultery, and the natural distrust of the court. I dont know what effect covenant marriage would have on this. - BornAgainBrit.
Wow. Community service instead of stoning. J. Vernon McGee said, "If we took everyone to the edge of town and stoned em, the rock piles would be so high you couldn't get on the freeway." RobS 13:20, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Changing times

The way I always heard it was that Judaism was updated by the Gospel of Christ, so it's probably safe to say that the "male exemption" of the Old Testament was in force then.

But does it still apply to the people of God in modern times? --Ed Poor 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I just don't see where a male exemption occurs (KJV); can you be more specific? RobS 21:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Me neither, but I've been brainwashed by feminists. You might ask RSchlafly. --Ed Poor 21:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't call it a "male exemption". A man who has sexual intercourse with another man's wife was guilty of adultery. RSchlafly 21:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
But what about a married man who had relations with an umarried woman? Any adultery there? --Jtl 21:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes; unfaithfulness is adultry, be it carnel or spiritual. RobS 21:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see RSchlafly's answer to that one. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 21:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
That is not prohibited under the Ten Commandments, or under California law. Yes, many people disapprove, call it adultery, and consider it immoral. RSchlafly 21:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you have the KJV cite on this? RobS 21:51, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Rschlafly, the bible also defines blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, and fornication as capital crimes. The article on Capital punishment here makes a distinction between how capital offenses are defined today and how they were defined in Biblical times. Do you feel that article should be corrected so that "crimes" like blasphemy, sabbath breaking, and disobedience to one's parents should simply be listed as crimes warranting execution with no mention of the modern western conception of capital crimes? --PF Fox 11:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Are my sourced factual edits not welcome?

Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? (See here) WhatIsG0ing0n 06:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Your version has only 2 sources, and they don't support your edits. Eg, the Biblical definition is wrong as explained about and by the source in your version. RSchlafly 11:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Historical/Cultural Bias

The article at present concentrates too much on adultery as it was defined around the Mediterranean a couple of millennia ago. Social mores have evolved a little bit since then, being codified in various law codes and settled in common usage. For instance, we no longer curse suspected adulteresses with dirty holy water (Numbers 5). The introductory paragraph should address the phenomenon of adultery as it exists within the USA (see the site logo) and move the Greek, Israelite, Hammurabian, etc. adultery rules to a section on history, or sources of adultery traditions if you prefer.--All Fish Welcome 07:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The article says that adultery isn't punished under the law anymore. Hardly ever, anyway. I don't know about the Hammurabian rules. Yes, the article does have a bias towards the Judeo-Christian traditional definition. Isn't that what the reader expects? RSchlafly 11:53, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
So why not apply Biblical law in the article on Capital Punishment instead of segregating it into a separate section? --PF Fox 12:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
The article on Capital punishment does cite biblical law. I don't think that a separate section for adultery punishment is needed, as there isn't much to say. RSchlafly 13:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It's cited in a separate section. You have been applying the Biblical defniition of adultery as if it were THE definition of adultery today. It isn't, any more than is the Biblical definition of a capital offense. --PF Fox 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

No, different definitions are given, with a source for each. Are you annoyed that the traditional definition is given first? This is a conservative encyclopedia. RSchlafly 15:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Who is Bloslooper? RobS 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
It should be defined as a breach of faith, in whatever context, marital or spiritual. The scripture is probably the best source for this. A discussion of penalties, then and now, is really a different matter, and could go under a seperate subhead. RobS 13:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Categorization

I would like to propose removal of this subject from the category of "Sociology" on grounds that it does not contain anything related to the study. However, if the protecting sysop feels that it should stay here, please allow me to make some additions that make it relevant to the category. Be warned though, that such an edit would include the perspective that a group of functionalists has regarding the benefits of adultery, and it's role in strengthening marriage. If you ask why that fits, it is because it is a valid (though highly controversial) sociological perspective. In addition, to lump adultery into sociology, is to accept that it, and marriage, are therefore social constructs. If marriage is a social construct, then there will be far reaching consequences for the interpretation of marriage. --TrueGrit 23:13, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Misinformation and Opinion in the References

I'm on record as absolutely detesting this article, all of Conservapedia, and the locking of this page by those who choose to create an 'Encyclopedia' based upon the views of one ignorant individual. The fact that you even dare to use the phrase 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia' is hysterically funny - I doubt there is a single trustworthy article on the entire site.

Specifically, this time, I wish to complain about the devious and biased way that references #2 & #3 which I provided, both of which say that adultery is gender neutral, have been tucked in at the end of the 'reference' which is not actually a reference, but a piece of opinionated polemic, which clearly suggest that those references would in fact say the opposite. While I and others are now utterly unable to edit this article to correct this deliberately misleading reference, perhaps the sysops might see fit to fix this glaring nonsense. -50something

I don't know what is bugging you, but if you find an error, please tell us. It appears that your complaint is that the Bible is not gender neutral. I can't help you with that. RSchlafly 20:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
You see, this is typical. You don't really care about the opinions of others, and you don't really read anyone's criticisms of your article. You'll notice that I have not mentioned gender-neutrality itself. I am merely suggesting that you remove the editorialising from the References, and also that you DO NOT pre-empt references that have one opinion with exactly the opposite opinion. Specifically, the two references I provided state that:

"Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another."

and

"ADULTERY (from Lat. adulterium), the sexual intercourse of a married person with another than the offender's husband or wife."

Including these references at the end of a sentence that states: "Eg, Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 describe adultery as between a man and another man's wife" is CLEARLY deliberate misinformation and misleading.

You are right; I don't care about your opinion. That last quoted sentence is correct, and the references confirm it. RSchlafly 22:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So you are suggesting that not only are you prepared to deliberately obfuscate a reference, but that you are All Knowing? Infallible? That's a pretty high stool you're setting yourself up on there Mr. R.Schalfy 50something 04:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

No reference is obfuscated. If you find an error, please point it out. RSchlafly 11:51, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talking to you is like banging my head against a brick wall. I have pointed out the problem in the Reference section, and yes, they are obfuscated. References should be let stand or fall on their own - right now, these two references are tagged on the end of a deliberately misleading piece of editorial. I am asking for the two references to be let stand on their own. They DO NOT support the editorial the precedes them. 50something 12:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that your problem is that you are only reading the first sentence of each of the references. If you read on, you will find that the references back up what the article says. RSchlafly 13:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Formatting

Your formatting is wrong. The first instance of the word "Adultery" should be bolded, as per the Conservapedia style guide. EBrown 19:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools