Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 125:
Line 125: + +
→My view
: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? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:14, 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? [[User:Karajou|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 Biblaccount 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.