Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chastity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Can we agree on a standard?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is it '''all''' sexual relationships, or just illicit ones? In other words, can't a married couple be "chaste" if they "cleave only unto each other"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:41, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | Is it '''all''' sexual relationships, or just illicit ones? In other words, can't a married couple be "chaste" if they "cleave only unto each other"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:41, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:I think you're right. That's the difference between chastity and celibacy. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:52, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | :I think you're right. That's the difference between chastity and celibacy. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:52, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::The problem is that both words have ambiguous meanings: they can each by used in a narrow or broad sense. Perhaps we should come to an editorial consensus on how these words should be used at Conservapedia. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I propose that [[celibacy]] be used primarily to mean "abstaining from all sexual relations" whether it's a priest taking a vow or a couple just cooling it for a while. Then [[chastity]] could be definition 1 a from Merriam-Webster: "abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse". [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::There are other words, often used ambiguously. Perhaps we could make a list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 00:11, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:11, August 30, 2009
Is it all sexual relationships, or just illicit ones? In other words, can't a married couple be "chaste" if they "cleave only unto each other"? --Ed Poor Talk 23:41, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
- I think you're right. That's the difference between chastity and celibacy. DouglasA 23:52, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
- The problem is that both words have ambiguous meanings: they can each by used in a narrow or broad sense. Perhaps we should come to an editorial consensus on how these words should be used at Conservapedia.