==Catholic Encyclopedia==
*''Discussion moved from'' [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Adultery]]
This article has been vandalised 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. {{Unsigned|50something}}
:So the ''Washington Post'' trumps the Book of Leviticus, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122101&oldid=122095] is that the argument? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 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. [[User:RSchlafly|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." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:20, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Changing times==
::::Yes; unfaithfulness is adultry, be it carnel or spiritual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd like to see RSchlafly's answer to that one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]</sup> 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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you have the KJV cite on this? [[User:RobS|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? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
== Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? ==
Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&oldid=122016 here])
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|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? [[User:RSchlafly|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? --[[User:PF Fox|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. --[[User:PF Fox|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Who is Bloslooper? [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:TrueGrit|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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 [[User:50something|50something]] 04:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
: No reference is obfuscated. If you find an error, please point it out. [[User:RSchlafly|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. [[User:50something|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)