Matthew 5:27-28. You have heard it said you shall not commit adultery but I will tell you that everyone who gazed at a women to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This Bible verse was absolutely used as a tool to shame young men for masturbation. Don't tell me that the things that I heard at youth group didn't actually happen or were not common place.

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

javajaws said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation and it should be the only valid reason for divorce.

---

So you believe a person should have to stay married to a physically or verbally abusive spouse. Spreadsheet updated.

---

This is dumb and dishonest.

If you beat your spouse you go to jail.

The definition of divorce is separation.

---

it's not dishonest. i have been in evangelical churches that believed divorce was not biblically justified in cases of physical abuse.

---

Lies.

---

not lies. here is an excerpt from a bible study the church i'm currently attending went through this year in all small groups. keeping in mind this study was written by the church staff

---

Divorce is separation:
A separation between things that were once connected or associated.

I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation

Put down the meth, dude.

Malibu2 said:

---

Matthew 5:27-28. You have heard it said you shall not commit adultery but I will tell you that everyone who gazed at a women to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This Bible verse was absolutely used as a tool to shame young men for masturbation. Don't tell me that the things that I heard at youth group didn't actually happen or were not common place.

---

That may be, but wasn't it more commonly the `Onan' passage and argument? That seems to be the one you have in mind.

In absolute agreement with this guy especially his comments about sex.

You got to pay the troll toll to see the boys hole

TxAgPreacher said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

javajaws said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

I am of the opinion that adultery should be punishable by a minimum of 1 year in prison for every violation and it should be the only valid reason for divorce.

---

So you believe a person should have to stay married to a physically or verbally abusive spouse. Spreadsheet updated.

---

This is dumb and dishonest.

If you beat your spouse you go to jail.

The definition of divorce is separation.

---

it's not dishonest. i have been in evangelical churches that believed divorce was not biblically justified in cases of physical abuse.

---

Lies.

---

not lies. here is an excerpt from a bible study the church i'm currently attending went through this year in all small groups. keeping in mind this study was written by the church staff

---

Divorce is separation:
A separation between things that were once connected or associated.

---

Legally speaking in terms of marriage, which is the discussion at hand, NO IT ISN'T.

A divorce legally dissolves a marriage. A separation separates two spouses' property and debts, but the marriage remains. Stop conflating the two.

RE the original issue above, under OP's idiotic rules BlackGold is right, and beating the **** out of your spouse would not be grounds for divorce because it isn't adultery. End of story. Just because jail might separate the spouses for awhile, THEY'RE STILL ****ING MARRIED.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

I bet OP and his ilk have some particularly juicy search histories.

This is all just a shame-fetish at this point, I'm convinced.

---

always, you can't stand that people might not be as ugly or as degenerate as you are. You have to pretend like their wives or cheating on them, or they're having affairs on the side.

Arachnophobe huh? You must secretly want to bang spiders.

---

I love how they instantly go to "if you are against this kind of behavior then you must secretly do it or engage in it yourself." They cannot fathom a person having morality based upon faith in God.

---

You are no Christian

MookieBlaylock said:

---

You got to pay the troll toll to see the boys hole

---

Day man
Master of the night man

Solid trolling by OP. Read this after the newborn woke me for milk time.

Lots of idiots falling for this crap. Just ignore

Showed my mistress this thread when I woke up next to her. She was devastated at the thought of it.

Why stop there? No fault divorce is not a permissible form of divorce in the Bible, thus anyone who engages in it and then begins a relationship with another person is committing Biblical adultery. The punishment for this is death. So we should stone millions of Americans.

Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.

fixer said:

---

Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.

---

It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

fixer said:

---

Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.

---

It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?

---

I need a definition of success here. I claim ignorance on the notion that adultery laws were working.

How is "working" defined and measured?

fixer said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

fixer said:

---

Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.

---

It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?

---

I need a definition of success here. I claim ignorance on the notion that adultery laws were working.

How is "working" defined and measured?

---

They were prosecuted as crimes and the adulterer got nothing in divorce. The laws went away when states adopted the terrible no fault divorce policy.

OPs wife was bred by the milkman.

Spreadsheet updated

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

fixer said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

fixer said:

---

Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.

---

It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?

---

I need a definition of success here. I claim ignorance on the notion that adultery laws were working.

How is "working" defined and measured?

---

They were prosecuted as crimes and the adulterer got nothing in divorce. The laws went away when states adopted the terrible no fault divorce policy.

---

Ok that is a description of how the law worked and changed over time.

Did rates of adultery change?

And is there anything that can somewhat clearly indicate that the rate of adultery increased exclusively because of removal of adultery laws... as opposed to something else?

I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.

The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?

What a staggeringly bad idea.

aggiedent said:

---

I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.

The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?

What a staggeringly bad idea.

---

My friend this is the same kind of nonsense that folks on some of the other people use claiming that being conservative hurts recruiting.

What is the point of winning elections if you can't do conservative stuff? We are always in some "don't rock the boat" mentality which at best let's us hold ground for a while and at worst lose key social battles and institutions.

I know why this thread was created, we on the social right are always accused of only caring about gay issues and not straight ones. Could not be further from the truth.

Jesus needs to thin his herd some…..they're off the reservation again.

aggiedent said:

---

I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.

The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?

What a staggeringly bad idea.

---

These are the parasites that infect republicans every time they get a movement going. We have to actively dissociate ourselves with them before the media declares that they are the face of the republican party.

You know what is funny about these posts, everyone on our side is being civil cordial and trying to argue our spot.

Everyone else is insinuating we are adulterers, our wives are cheating on us, our children aren't are own, etc etc.

Maybe it's such an absurd request, if you aren't trolling, you'd be run out of town. Maybe we are actually being kind in our derision.


Here's my absurd claim:
MDMA and couples therapy (or just MDMA) will resolve a significant amount of divorce and adultery in this country by cresting more empathetic bonds between couples.

Adverse Event said:

---

Maybe it's such an absurd request, if you aren't trolling, you'd be run out of town. Maybe we are actually being kind in our derision.


Here's my absurd claim:
MDMA and couples therapy (or just MDMA) will resolve a significant amount of divorce and adultery in this country by cresting more empathetic bonds between couples.

---

Here's how this normally goes
"Gay marriage should be illegal"
-lol straights have been making a mockery of marriage long before gays
"You're right and that needs to be addressed too, adultery should be criminalized"
-omg you guys are nuts and you're secretly gay, also banging gym owners daughters while your wife is getting reamed by the milkman who is actually the father of your children"

And we are the weird ones

This didn't go so well for you on the other thread did it? Again, you want the Libertarian party, the Republican Party is not and shouldn't be socially liberal, there's a party for that.

Maybe yall should have your own separate system like Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), religious police. Yall can patrol around areas taking care of "issues".

You can have your own uniforms.

Option 1


Option 2


Option 3


Option 4


I like Option 2.

Silian Rail said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.

The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?

What a staggeringly bad idea.

---

My friend this is the same kind of nonsense that folks on some of the other people use claiming that being conservative hurts recruiting.

What is the point of winning elections if you can't do conservative stuff? We are always in some "don't rock the boat" mentality which at best let's us hold ground for a while and at worst lose key social battles and institutions.

I know why this thread was created, we on the social right are always accused of only caring about gay issues and not straight ones. Could not be further from the truth.

---

Indeed, I created this thread solely because idiots always say that we only care about gay issues devaluing marriage when in fact we feel just as strongly about straight issues that do the same thing.

It was purposely done to ensure that the argument that they use against us cannot be used anymore.

Silian Rail said:

---

You know what is funny about these posts, everyone on our side is being civil cordial and trying to argue our spot.

Everyone else is insinuating we are adulterers, our wives are cheating on us, our children aren't are own, etc etc.

---

It's always projection. They don't want this kind of punishment because they are either engaging in the acts themselves or someone they know is actively doing it.

They cannot fathom that someone feels so strongly about morality that they want to make certain harmful behaviors illegal. They want to be able to do anything without consequences.

Silian Rail said:

---

This didn't go so well for you on the other thread did it? Again, you want the Libertarian party, the Republican Party is not and shouldn't be socially liberal, there's a party for that.

---

124 stars and lots of other posters in that thread say otherwise.

Adverse Event said:

---

Maybe it's such an absurd request, if you aren't trolling, you'd be run out of town. Maybe we are actually being kind in our derision.


Here's my absurd claim:
MDMA and couples therapy (or just MDMA) will resolve a significant amount of divorce and adultery in this country by cresting more empathetic bonds between couples.

---

You may be on to something with mdma. I wouldn't do it but it could definitely help many couples.

I am not against the use of drugs in a controlled setting for medical or therapy scenario. I think when it comes to making a marriage work in a monogamous situation then all options that don't involve other people sexually should be on the table.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

fixer said:

---

Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.

---

It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?

---

I'll give you a thoughtful response. It's page 11 and you are doing good work here; I respect your posting history; and I have some respect for the " theocratic fascist " positions, especially in 2022.

My issue is not, repeat , not against promotion of traditional marriage.

I think a modern re-implementation of adultery laws not only brings unintended consequences but also could in long run further disincentivize marriage. Quite simply I view this as a marriage red flag law.

Humans are deceptive. They also change over time. People hide the bad parts of themselves to incentivize other humans to interact with them. ( this is also why I view social media is on the whole a corrosive institution).

One avenue or result of human interaction is a relationship that society calls marriage.

With time the marriage can grow stronger or weaker. Deceptive people ultimately slip up and their baggage spills out all over the place. This may happen in 3 months, or 3 years. A major life changing event can also trigger a change in a person that is so substantial that the other party barely recognizes them.

In either case jealousy and insecurity can or will run the relationship.

The inevitable next step is a malevolent act of accusing the other person of adultery based on the weakest of evidence.

Next thing you know you are dealing with police at your door and a court case. You'll have the state so far up your ass that it is now making the decisions in your marriage.

(You are likely no stranger to men's scoreboard in family law situations.... )

What is the result?

You may or may not do the 1 year in jail. But what you won't ever do is entertain the idea of getting married, ever.

Adultery laws are a landmine field for men but also a non trivial number of women who get entangled with a jealous man.

This is especially the case in 2022 ( vs 1980).

Insecurity, jealousy, poor self esteem are rampant and fueled by bad upbringing but also psychological impact of overconsumption of social media ( where female anti social behavior can be wildly outsized vs male anti social behavior).

I simply see no possible way this gets implemented well enough that you wouldn't have an amber heard vs Johnny depp situation every day.

aggiedent said:

---

I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.

The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?

What a staggeringly bad idea.

---

Dobbs was a MASSIVE victory for originalists and pro lifers. However, religious authoritarians (a term meant specifically for individuals that think their religion should be codified and become the standard for all) also claim the victory and have come out of the wood work trying to strike while the iron is hot. They think all of society has been turned back 50 years because Dobbs overturned terrible precedent.

To a certain extent, I applaud their ideological consistency and their principal driven stance. However, they are a tone deaf and impractical people.