Difference between revisions of "Talk:Adultery"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Ruin trust: agree with over-50)
(Ruin trust: The article discusses biblical adultery)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 15:24, 21 April 2007

The Adultery article was unprotected on April 11th by Ed Poor (talk)

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)

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? Personal remark removed
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)