No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Idolater]

So... who wrote that table of contents, and why do you trust them?

"I buy a Bible, and the books are in the table of contents, and all the Bibles I have have the same table of contents, except that my Catholic Bibles have seven more books than the non-Catholic Bibles."

And - how do you know those other seven books aren't divinely inspired Scripture?

I never said that I knew that.

 

[WizardofOz]

And doing it all outside of marriage is harmful to any children that come from that, not to mention that it's disobeying God.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

Without the marriage, there's no foundational commitment to one another.

Sure, one can be committed to their lover. But there's no guarantee.

The marriage is the cement that keeps it together, because of the vows that are exchanged.

In essence, the people who shack up together, raise a family, all without getting married, are raising their fists at God, saying "I know better than you," and in the process, they destroy their own lives, the lives of their children, their grandchildren, and so on.

And in addition to that, the government (who rightly regulates marriages) is the one to enforce those vows.

Without the government's intervention (especially where divorce is a result), there's no third party to oversee that the couple keeps their promises (and in the case of divorce, no neutral third party to oversee the division of assets and children between the spouses, and to enforce any violations of the final decision).

If you're going to pick and choose which posts you'll respond to and which you'll outright ignore, I'll dismiss attempting a conversation with you as a waste of time and move on to other posters. :wave:

 

[WizardofOz]

Not where I come from

But, it's certainly possible and many more would attempt it rather than risk execution (or risk watching their spouse executed) if they cheat on their spouse (or if they are cheated on). Let's say they have kids together - 'oh sorry, kids. Momma is going to be executed because she got drunk at a work function and made the fatal mistake of cheating. I don't want her to be executed either but it's the law. You can go live with grandma and grandpa now as I can't raise you without help'.

it's possible, I suppose

Seems more likely to me that rates of adultery would drop, those who did marry would have stronger, long-lasting relationships and the losers who thought they could have it all, including the occasional fling would be mocked, scorned and shunned

Yes, adultery rates would go down (everyone would be more careful and not talk openly about cheating or being cheated on) as would marriage rates.

The rate of fornication would skyrocket. Next to no one would bother with actual marriage.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You think men are the ones being executed for adultery in Iran or Somalia? It's a tool used to oppress women. The vast majority of executions for adultery are carried out against females.

Do you find that strange given the absolute control men have over women in these countries?

This is special pleading.

You're ignoring the FACT that both women AND men are executed for adultery.

You think the United States has a lot in common with Iran or Somalia? Hence my moon comment. This is about as apples to oranges an example as you could offer.

Both the US and Somalia have marriage in common, and laws against adultery (even if unenforced in America) in common, marriage rates.

We're comparing each country based on those three things.

Again, you made the argument that if America would put to death those convicted of adultery, marriage rates would plummet to near zero.

Ok doser countered with evidence to the contrary, providing two examples of countries that put to death those convicted of adultery, and pointed out that, despite the abuse of the laws, they put both men and women to death for adultery.

You (and Arthur) keep trying to make this just about the women, when marriage involves both men and women, and adultery can be committed by both men and women.

:liberals:
Since we do not currently do so, how could it be?

You're the one who provided the graph. Why don't you tell us?

Passing such would only help to put the nail further into the coffin on the institution as we know it in this country.

"The institution"?

What in the world are you talking about?

The government?

Our government is corrupt beyond repair.

Our legal system?

Corrupt beyond repair.

Another nail in either coffins would be a good thing.

And there would be far fewer marriages. Agreed?

That's not what the evidence shows. So no.

I agree that it is possible for the marriage rate to drop for a bit if we were to implement a law against adultery. But even if it did not, the marriage rate would, in fact skyrocket, because the law is the great teacher, and good laws keep the criminals in check.

 

[ok doser]

btw WoO, I'm posting from work on my horrible handheld thing, and so won't respond fully until tonight when I get home to my lappy
[MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION]

 

[WizardofOz]

:yawn:

 

[JudgeRightly]

When is the last time someone was executed for adultery in the United States?

I don't know, and I'm not sure if it's just my Google-fu not being good enough to find it, but I cannot seem to find any record of when the last execution was specifically for adultery.

Which means either one of three things:

That it's been too long since anyone has been executed for adultery, which has resulted in the current rates for divorce rising.

Or...

That there is no record of such.

Or, that I am simply not able to find it.

Why do you feel that the "overall marriage rate would drop for a bit"?

I personally don't.

If you read what I said again:

And it might lead to a few people not marrying,

I was simply, for the sake of the discussion, allowing for the possibility of such, seeing as it wouldn't really affect my position at all.

If you're going to pick and choose which posts you'll respond to and which you'll outright ignore, I'll dismiss attempting a conversation with you as a waste of time and move on to other posters. :wave:

Apologies, I completely missed it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And doing it all outside of marriage is harmful to any children that come from that, not to mention that it's disobeying God.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

Without the marriage, there's no foundational commitment to one another.

Sure, one can be committed to their lover. But there's no guarantee.

The marriage is the cement that keeps it together, because of the vows that are exchanged.

In essence, the people who shack up together, raise a family, all without getting married, are raising their fists at God, saying "I know better than you," and in the process, they destroy their own lives, the lives of their children, their grandchildren, and so on.

And in addition to that, the government (who rightly regulates marriages) is the one to enforce those vows.

Without the government's intervention (especially where divorce is a result), there's no third party to oversee that the couple keeps their promises (and in the case of divorce, no neutral third party to oversee the division of assets and children between the spouses, and to enforce any violations of the final decision).

There's no guarantee that any relationship works out and there's plenty of marriages that break down beyond repair even without infidelity being part. There's plenty of non married couples with children who have very stable relationships who aren't harming themselves or their children and they're not unmarried to "shake their fists at God" or some such. That's just you projecting your own beliefs onto other people. There's plenty of married people who have committed relationships as well so this is no way a criticism of marriage itself but rather that of implementing a law that has no place in modern society. Wiz is absolutely right. If you were to introduce a law like that in the present day then there's only one result, a reduction in the rate of people getting married. Most people don't want society governed by "religious" laws and all you'd have succeeded in is encouraging people not to bother getting married. Ironic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But there's no guarantee.

There's no guarantee

:think:

that any relationship works out

There's a far better chance of the relationship working out when A) there's a foundational commitment, marriage, in place, and B) when there's a deterrent in place against breaking that foundational commitment.

and there's plenty of marriages that break down beyond repair even without infidelity being part.

Sure. And that's caused by the government simply having "no-fault" divorces as a way out.

It's currently too easy for a married couple to say "I give up on trying to maintain this relationship," instead of "Our relationship is failing, is there anything I can do to strengthen it."

There's plenty of non married couples with children who have very stable relationships who aren't harming themselves or their children

This is both begging the question and special pleading. Begging the question, because you're assuming that they aren't harming themselves or their children (something you need to prove), and special pleading, because you're ignoring all the non-married couples with and without children who do not have stable relationships and/or ARE harming themselves and their children.

Studies have shown that children who grow up without both parents in the home and/or in a married relationship are worse off then children who grow up with both parents in the home and married.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/when-it-comes-to-child-well-being-is-one-parent-the-same-as-two

and they're not unmarried to "shake their fists at God" or some such.

That's what they're doing, whether that's their intent or not.

That's just you projecting your own beliefs onto other people.

God said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

By doing otherwise, couples disobey God, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

There's plenty of married people who have committed relationships

As I said above, sure, people can be in committed relationships.

But there's no foundation for it.

It's like trying to build a house upon sand, rather than rock.

And I'm sure you remember what Jesus said about that:

[JESUS]“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 7:24-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:24-27&version=NKJV

as well so this is no way a criticism of marriage itself

By making the argument that men and women don't need to get married to raise a family, you inherently make marriage out as being unnecessary.

but rather that of implementing a law that has no place in modern society.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Wiz is absolutely right.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If you were to introduce a law like that in the present day then there's only one result, a reduction in the rate of people getting married.

The evidence says otherwise.

Two modern countries (even with corruption in their enforcement of laws) have the death penalty for adultery, and their marriage rates have not fallen to zero.

OUR country, on the other hand, has all but abolished the death penalty for adultery, and our divorce rates have skyrocketed, our marriage rates have gone down, and it's caused more murders by enraged spouses.

Most people don't want society governed by "religious" laws

Argumentum ad populum.

and all you'd have succeeded in is encouraging people not to bother getting married. Ironic.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arthur. And in fact, the evidence shows the opposite of your claim, that marriages are longer lasting, and that there is hardly any adultery, and that there is hardly any divorce, and that the marriage rate has not dropped to nearly zero.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you're going to pick and choose which posts you'll respond to and which you'll outright ignore, I'll dismiss attempting a conversation with you as a waste of time and move on to other posters. :wave:

I don't know, and I'm not sure if it's just my Google-fu not being good enough to find it, but I cannot seem to find any record of when the last execution was specifically for adultery.

Which means either one of three things:

That it's been too long since anyone has been executed for adultery, which has resulted in the current rates for divorce rising.

Or...

That there is no record of such.

Or, that I am simply not able to find it.



I personally don't.

If you read what I said again:



I was simply, for the sake of the discussion, allowing for the possibility of such, seeing as it wouldn't really affect my position at all.



Apologies, I completely missed it.

To be honest, I think a better question is "When did we begin to abolish the death penalty for adultery, and did it have any effect on marriage and divorce rates, and murder rates.

A prediction: If being convicted of adultery results in execution, then the law is a deterrent against adultery, and thus there would hardly be any adultery, so by removing that deterrent, adultery should become more and more common. Therefore, the data should show that adultery rates climb after abolishing laws against and punishments for adultery.

Another prediction based on my position: The divorce rate would go up after "no-fault divorce" is instituted.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is special pleading.

You're ignoring the FACT that both women AND men are executed for adultery.

You're ignoring the fact that in countries like these the laws favour men far above women. Sure, there are men who have been executed but what percentage in relation to women? Bear in mind that the thirteen year old girl murdered for "adultery" had been raped and instead of the men responsible for raping a minor it was this child that was stoned to death instead of them.

Both the US and Somalia have marriage in common, and laws against adultery (even if unenforced in America) in common, marriage rates.

We're comparing each country based on those three things.

Again, you made the argument that if America would put to death those convicted of adultery, marriage rates would plummet to near zero.

Ok doser countered with evidence to the contrary, providing two examples of countries that put to death those convicted of adultery, and pointed out that, despite the abuse of the laws, they put both men and women to death for adultery.

As above, how many men are executed for such in relation to women? Or girls? There's no way a child would have been stoned to death for adultery in America but rather her rapists would (hopefully) have been brought to account.

You (and Arthur) keep trying to make this just about the women, when marriage involves both men and women, and adultery can be committed by both men and women.

You keep missing the point that those countries that have such laws have ones that overwhelmingly favour men.

That's not what the evidence shows. So no.

I agree that it is possible for the marriage rate to drop for a bit if we were to implement a law against adultery. But even if it did not, the marriage rate would, in fact skyrocket, because the law is the great teacher, and good laws keep the criminals in check.

What on earth kind of logic do you have to support how bringing in such a law would make the marriage rate skyrocket? That's absolutely absurd.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're ignoring the fact that in countries like these the laws favour men far above women. Sure, there are men who have been executed but what percentage in relation to women?

Perhaps you could provide the statistics yourself, seeing as it's your position that you're defending...

Ya know, "onus probandi" and all...

Bear in mind that the thirteen year old girl murdered for "adultery" had been raped and instead of the men responsible for raping a minor it was this child that was stoned to death instead of them.

Which is abuse of one law and breaking of another. :idunno:

As above, how many men are executed for such in relation to women? Or girls?

"Onus probandi" is yours, not mine, because you need to defend your own position.

There's no way a child would have been stoned to death for adultery in America but rather her rapists would (hopefully) have been brought to account.

"There's no way a child would have been [murdered] in America"

Argument from incredulity.

And the above happens every day hundreds of times a day in America.

"There's no way [a girl's rapist] would not have been brought to account"

Again, argument from incredulity

There are plenty of rapists in America who, everyday, walk free along the streets of this country.

You keep missing the point that those countries that have such laws have ones that overwhelmingly favour men.

And you keep failing to show how that is at all relevant to whether adultery should be a capital crime or not.

What on earth kind of logic do you have to support how bringing in such a law would make the marriage rate skyrocket?

One that tells people who are shacking up that if they are caught fornicating, they will be forced to marry.

People would, for the most part, stop shacking up with one another, and either marry, so that they have the option to divorce if necessary (only in the case of sexual immorality), or they would break off their relationship with the person.

I'd say it would bring the marriage rate back up to what it was prior to getting rid of the laws against adultery and the punishments for.

That's absolutely absurd.

Ab absurdo, AKA appeal to ridicule, a logical fallacy.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:think:
There's a far better chance of the relationship working out when A) there's a foundational commitment, marriage, in place, and B) when there's a deterrent in place against breaking that foundational commitment.

Not if the commitment is sincere. If you need a deterrent in order to stay committed to someone there's nothing genuine about that.

Sure. And that's caused by the government simply having "no-fault" divorces as a way out.

It's currently too easy for a married couple to say "I give up on trying to maintain this relationship," instead of "Our relationship is failing, is there anything I can do to strengthen it."

Right, because most couples just want to pack things in during a tough patch...lain:

This is both begging the question and special pleading. Begging the question, because you're assuming that they aren't harming themselves or their children (something you need to prove), and special pleading, because you're ignoring all the non-married couples with and without children who do not have stable relationships and/or ARE harming themselves and their children.

Studies have shown that children who grow up without both parents in the home and/or in a married relationship are worse off then children who grow up with both parents in the home and married.

Two people who are committed to each other and any offspring they have are just that, married or otherwise. Marriage itself doesn't magically produce stable families.

That's what they're doing, whether that's their intent or not.

No, that's just you projecting your own religious beliefs again. If you raise your fist at someone it's a deliberate act, not an unknowing one.

God said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

By doing otherwise, couples disobey God, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

As above.

As I said above, sure, people can be in committed relationships.

But there's no foundation for it.

It's like trying to build a house upon sand, rather than rock.

And I'm sure you remember what Jesus said about that:

[JESUS]“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 7:24-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:24-27&version=NKJV

Sure there is. If you need a marriage certificate or a public church ceremony or a lawful threat of execution etc to underline your commitment to another person then that in some ways makes such a commitment less sincere.

By making the argument that men and women don't need to get married to raise a family, you inherently make marriage out as being unnecessary.

I'm not arguing against marriage as should have been obvious. I'm arguing against "religious" laws that would kill people for adultery, no matter what it would seem.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Common sense and logic makes it so.

The evidence says otherwise.

Two modern countries (even with corruption in their enforcement of laws) have the death penalty for adultery, and their marriage rates have not fallen to zero.

All addressed prior by Wiz and myself.

OUR country, on the other hand, has all but abolished the death penalty for adultery, and our divorce rates have skyrocketed, our marriage rates have gone down, and it's caused more murders by enraged spouses.

And you think that by implementing a law that executes people for adultery is going to make the national marriage rate skyrocket? Yeah, that makes total sense...

:rain:

Argumentum ad populum.

It's fact. There's no way this type of hyper zealotry would ever be tolerated let alone implemented.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arthur. And in fact, the evidence shows the opposite of your claim, that marriages are longer lasting, and that there is hardly any adultery, and that there is hardly any divorce, and that the marriage rate has not dropped to nearly zero.

As above and before.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Perhaps you could provide the statistics yourself, seeing as it's your position that you're defending...

Ya know, "onus probandi" and all...

Are you kidding me? You think people are making stuff up about how women are treat in these places and what rights they have? Give me a break and do some googling.

Which is abuse of one law and breaking of another. :idunno:

"Abuse of one law"? No, just barbarism.

"Onus probandi" is yours, not mine, because you need to defend your own position.

Are you honestly so ignorant as to think that women in these countries have anything approaching the same rights as men? Seriously? This is news to you? How else do you suppose a thirteen year old girl gets stoned to death JR??!

"There's no way a child would have been [murdered] in America"

Argument from incredulity.

And the above happens every day hundreds of times a day in America.

"There's no way [a girl's rapist] would not have been brought to account"

Again, argument from incredulity

There are plenty of rapists in America who, everyday, walk free along the streets of this country.

Hey, don't change my words JR, I said that there's no way a child would be stoned to death for adultery in America and that's true, so no incredulity at all. I also didn't say that any rapist would not be brought to account either. Too many get away with it. So again, don't change my words.

And you keep failing to show how that is at all relevant to whether adultery should be a capital crime or not.

Outside of religious zealotry there's no reason why it should be a capital crime. It's not like you're objective enough to see reasoning outside of that anyway is there? Or is there?

One that tells people who are shacking up that if they are caught fornicating, they will be forced to marry.

People would, for the most part, stop shacking up with one another, and either marry, so that they have the option to divorce if necessary (only in the case of sexual immorality), or they would break off their relationship with the person.

I'd say it would bring the marriage rate back up to what it was prior to getting rid of the laws against adultery and the punishments for.

Ah, was waiting for that. If people don't marry then catch them in the act and then force them to marry instead. A veritable recipe for healthy relationships, stable and happy families across the board.

:cloud9:

Honestly, your arguments are reminiscent of some episodes of The twilight zone and the outer limits...

Ab absurdo, AKA appeal to ridicule, a logical fallacy.

There's no logic to it.

A: No death penalty for a marriage that breaks up with infidelity as part

B: Death penalty for a marriage that breaks up with infidelity as part

As a sort of comparison (if you can distinguish the meaning) it's like going for a job where the criteria is exactly the same for each but one offers a competitive salary and bonuses whereas the other offers minimum wage and the sack within two months if you refuse to work overtime.

Which one offers the incentive? Just to clarify in case it wasn't obvious, the above example isn't saying that adultery is a "perk".

An honest and committed relationship doesn't involve or require either coercion or threats from an outside source regardless.

 

[annabenedetti]

Bump for [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION]

Love does not require violence to discipline children.



Children aren't evil, and trying to beat evil out of them is sadistic.



You don't know what you're talking about.



So how do you feel about wife spanking?

My position on wife spanking
While I do not support all the methods prescribed by Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD) movement (a group that advocates for wife spanking and other physical discipline toward wives) I do not think wife spanking by itself is sinful. I do not practice this myself at this time with my wife. But I do know some godly Christian couples that use this in their marriage with the wife’s consent. I have written an entire article on this subject that you can read “Does the Bible allow a husband to spank his wife?

biblicalgenderroles. com​

 

[glassjester]

I never said that I knew that.

Ok. And the obvious question this raises is - how do you know the books that are in your Bible are divinely inspired?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not if the commitment is sincere.

This is, basically, an appeal to emotion.

The fact is, emotions change over time.

The marriage vows and the government enforcing those vows ensure that the family is as stable as possible.

In other words, "sincerity" is not an absolute.

Hence the need for a third party, namely, the government, to enforce the commitment.

If you need a deterrent in order to stay committed to someone there's nothing genuine about that.

The deterrent is for the wicked. Not for the innocent. You keep making that error.

If one stays committed, then the law isn't for them.

If they commit, and then go back on their word, the law is for that person.

The law isn't there to make people righteous. It's to condemn wrongdoing.

Right, because most couples just want to pack things in during a tough patch...lain:

God said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

The word used translated as "be joined" in the NKJV is the word dabaq, which means:

Strong's h1692 - Lexical: דָּבַק - Transliteration: dabaq - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: daw-bak' - Definition: cling. - Origin: A primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. Cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit. - Usage: abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take. - Translated as (count): cleaves (6), cleave (5), cleaved (4), and cleave (2), And cleaved (2), and followed hard (2), and to cleave (2), shall keep (2), abide (1), And followed hard on (1), and overtook (1), and pursued hard (1), and shall cleave (1), and they overtook (1), and they shall cleave (1), and to stick (1), are joined together (1), cleave fast together (1), cleave you (1), followed hard (1), follows hard (1), For he cleaved (1), has cleaved (1), have I caused to cleave (1), he cleaved (1), I have stuck (1), overtake me (1), overtook them (1), shall cleave (1), shall follow close (1), shall stick (1), so she kept fast (1), that you may cleave (1), there shall cleave (1), They are joined (1), to him shall you cleave (1), you shall keep fast (1).

So yes, a husband and wife are expected to "pack things in during a tough patch."

Who are you, one who claims to be a Christian, to challenge God on that?

Two people who are committed to each other and any offspring they have are just that, married or otherwise.

House built upon a rock vs house built upon sand, respectively.

Marriage itself doesn't magically produce stable families.

Moving the goalposts.

I said "the most stable." Not "guaranteed stability."

No, that's just you projecting your own religious beliefs again.

Rather, it's stating truth found in the Bible.

God says that if someone is not for Him, then they are against Him.

If you raise your fist at someone it's a deliberate act, not an unknowing one.

Agreed.

And since God knows better than you, and Jesus is God, and Jesus said:

[JESUS]He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.[/JESUS] - Matthew 12:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew12:30&version=NKJV

AND

But Jesus said to him, [JESUS]“Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”[/JESUS] - Luke 9:50 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke9:50&version=NKJV

[JESUS]For he who is not against us is on our side.[/JESUS] - Mark 9:40 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark9:40&version=NKJV

Then you should agree that there are only people who reject God or who are on His side.

As above.

Sure there is. If you need a marriage certificate

The Bible says a man should give a woman a certificate of divorce when he divorces her.

That inherently implies that there should be some regulation in marriage.

or a public church ceremony

Why do you think that I think such is necessary?

Because I don't. Which makes this portion of your argument a straw man.

or a lawful threat of execution

Which is to deter those who would commit adultery.

The law is not made for the righteous, but for the wicked.

Just like a lawful threat of execution is to deter those who would commit murder from doing so.

etc to underline your commitment to another person then that in some ways makes such a commitment less sincere.

Why would it?

Let's put it another way:

Why would a law making murder a capital crime make loving one's neighbor less sincere?

I'm not arguing against marriage as should have been obvious.

And yet you constantly defend NOT getting married, which by definition, is the OPPOSITE of getting married, which puts you in opposition to God, who says that a man should cling to HIS WIFE.

I'm arguing against "religious"

The law against adultery is not "religious" in nature. It's based in absolute morality. It is absolutely wrong to cheat on your spouse.

A "religious" law would be "do not eat meat sacrificed to idols, because it's unclean."

laws that would kill people for adultery, no matter what it would seem.

So, in other words, you are in opposition to God, who says "put the adulterer and adulteress to death."

Good to know.

Oh, and guess what, He demanded that Israel, to whom He gave that law, enforce it against foreigners (non-citizens) in their land.

Common sense

"Appeal to common sense" is a logical fallacy, as you've been told before.

and logic makes it so.

Sorry, but logic says that if there are two countries that have adultery as a capital crime, and they both do not have marriage rates falling to near zero, then implementing such a law in another country should not inherently see it's marriage rate fall to near zero.

All addressed prior by Wiz and myself.

And so here we are, me and doser addressing your arguments, which you have refused to progress from.

Care to advance the conversation beyond what you've tried to assert repeatedly?

And you think that by implementing a law that executes people for adultery is going to make the national marriage rate skyrocket? Yeah, that makes total sense...

:rain:

At the very least, it won't plummet to near zero, as you and Wiz keep asserting.

It's fact.

Doesn't make the position any more valid.

It's an appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy.

Meaning the position is inherently invalid in this discussion of what is right and wrong.

There's no way this type of hyper zealotry would ever be tolerated let alone implemented.

Again, appeal to incredulity, and appeal to ridicule.

As above and before.

:blabla:

 

[ok doser]

So how do you feel about wife spanking?

for a wife who acts like a child?

sounds like great idea! :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

You think men are the ones being executed for adultery in Iran or Somalia?

yes, that's what i found when i googled it - i believe i provided links

in both iran and somalia, men and women were being executed for adultery

It's a tool used to oppress women. The vast majority of executions for adultery are carried out against females.

cite?

You think the United States has a lot in common with Iran or Somalia?

enough to make the comparison - in all three countries we're dealing with human beings who have similar feelings, emotions and similar reasons for marrying

Hence my moon comment. This is about as apples to oranges an example as you could offer.

it's because they're brown people isn't it?

racist

:liberals:
Since we do not currently do so, how could it be?

ok, so we have a problem with marriage rates already in this country, for reasons unconnected*** with societal control of adultery

Passing such would only help to put the nail further into the coffin on the institution as we know it in this country.

i disagree (hence the ***) - i believe the drop in marriage rates is directly tied to the abandonment by society of controlling moral behavior, including adultery

... fewer marriages would fail

And there would be far fewer marriages. Agreed?

there would certainly be fewer second marriages and third marriages and fourth marriages....

 

[ok doser]

Ok doser countered with evidence to the contrary, providing two examples of countries that put to death those convicted of adultery...

the only two modern countries


nobody seems to want to talk about the fact that capital punishment for adultery was the law for ancient israel, and seemed to be effective at controlling adultery, not destroying the institution of marriage