I’ve always rejected the notion that if something is ostensibly “for” some particular purpose, then it’s immoral to use it for something else. After all, flowers are “for” attracting insects for pollination, so therefore it’s immoral to use them for decoration?
I think I’m around (4,-7), ticks Strongly Disagree.
As it is though, I think this question is of only limited usefulness. It seems to me that one’s position on the vertical axis shouldn’t reflect views of morality, but should reflect the views of how the government and morality are related (someone who ticks strongly agree but believes that it should not be a concern hadled by the government should be just as low on the social axis as someone who ticks strongly disagree). A better propositon, I think, would be along the lines of “Because sex outside of marriage is immoral, public money should be used to combat it.”
Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
(Good god - I seem to be of a mind with the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela).
Strongly disagree. Sex as “immoral” (inside or outside marriage) is a human construct that derives from patriarchalism and its desire to manipulate and control the lowlier and weaker.
the one that reads:
"You shall not commit adultery. "
which is further elaborated on by Jesus in the book of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 27-28:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
So going by jesus’ definition adultery is not only hacving sex with a married person, it’s lusting after someone who you are not married to.
Like I said, an almost unobtainable goal, but stray thoughts when looking at an attractive person of either sex is one thing, acting on those thoughts is quite another.
I’m skeptical: can anyone confirm what the word was that Jesus used instead of “woman”? I rather strongly suspect it’s a word that means “married woman,” given how ancient languages distinguished between married and unmarried females.
In any case, even if you’re correct, Jesus’s admonition only applies to heterosexual males and lesbians: it does not censure straight women and gay males who look at a man to desire him. If you’re going to read a passage literally, you may as well read it literally.
Daniel
I’m not sure that I understand your inclusion of these actions. To my knowledge, there are plenty of married people who commit rapes and molestations. Not to mention, I’m sure, to a lesser degree, your latter two scenarios. I don’t see how matrimony would preclude this.
I should’ve responded to this as well. According to the passage you quote, they’re NOT two different things: they’re the same thing. Jesus doesn’t, if I recall correctly, go on to say, “Naturally, committing adultery in your heart isn’t as big a deal as committing it in real life”: he treats them as identical.
Daniel
In Christianity, the Greek word is pornoia or close to it, and refers to “sexual sin”. This is generally thought to include fornication. Matthew 15:17 and Mark 7:21. Old Testament is Deuternomy 22:23-27, although that refers to engaged women. Also Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
The Bible doesn’t talk about male promiscuity nearly as much as female, and it seems to have been pretty much taken for granted that every woman past menarche would be married. Thus most of the prohibitions lump adultery and premarital sex together.
Did you need cites from the Qur’an? It is The Children of Israel, 17.32, The Distinction, 25:68, and some others. I can do some searches for Buddhism if you need it.
Regards,
Shodan
Generally thought to include fornication by whom?
Some of these verses:
Matthew 15:17–I think you mean 15:19. 15:17 says, “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?” Unless it’s a bizarre prohibition against oral sex, I ain’t seeing it. 15:19 says, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” All of these EXCEPT for “sexual immorality” are crimes with unwilling victims. If you interpret “sexual immorality” to encompass sexual assault, pederasty, and the like, it’s in keeping with the pattern of offenses in the verse; if you interpret it as swingin’ singles, it breaks the verse’s pattern.
Mark 7:21, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,” is the same thing.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21, " 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you." This one, vicious as it is, seems to support your case: it suggests that the punishment for a woman’s getting married when she’s not a virgin is death. However, it specifically mentions her having done so “while still in her father’s house,” specifically says that THIS is the disgraceful thing she has done. Presumably if she just went off to college and fooled around, there wouldn’t be an issue. (Admittedly this wasn’t a common social arrangement in Biblical times; however, I’m not the one trying to apply Biblical social arrangements to modern times).
I’m not going to worry about prohibitions for engaged people, because I agree that cheating on your fiance(e) is immoral.
Daniel
My inclination after simply reading the statement is to “disagree”. However, **
Shodan** makes some good points, as usual, and I may “agree” next time I take the test.
Strongly disagree.
Sex is a morally neutral act in itself. There are circumstances where it can result in harm to others or involve betrayal but if the partners are willing adults and there is no deception or betrayal of others then there is no rational argument for “immorality” other than appeals to superstition and the authority of magical beings.
Incidentally, the Hebrew Bible does not say that men have to be monogomous. Solomon had many wives and concubines and men with “barren” wives are intructed to impregnate their servants.
Paul did advise that deacons in the church should have only one wife but did not make this injunction universal.
The Song of Solomon endorses oral sex. It contains poetic decriptions of both fellatio and cunnilingus.
Maybe. But the statement doesn’t just say sex. It specifies sex outside of marriage. Is that a morally neutral act in itself?
It’s “gunh”, which refers to “a woman of any age, whether a virgin, married, or a widow”, according to Strong’s Concordance (the Strong’s number of the word is 1135).
Regards,
Shodan
Sage Rat (1.15, -1.35)
Assuming we are discussing pre-marital sex and such, strongly disagree. Cheating on your wife though, would be an “agree”–not strong because it may be a case where the other partner in the relationship has become something loathesome, the marriage is essentially over as it is, or things along those lines.
I do think that a large percentage of pre-marital sex and such is done more for ones own pleasure than as a pair (or more 
), but I doubt most people do this to belittle their partner or such.
I do disagree with the ranking system of the compass though. For instance, answering Strongly Agree to “All authority should be questioned” could mean anything from anarchist to a believer in scientific inquiry.
Of course.
Huh? I can see where this is true if you’re not married, but if you’re married, then having a sex with another person has, in almost all cases, moral consequences.
Matthew 15:17-19 - my bad.
The story is Jesus teaching about kosher foods and the Jewish ceremonial law in general. Thus verse 17 refers to Jesus lifting the stricture on keeping kosher in foods, and goes on to generalize the point to say what really “defiles” a man, or makes him unclean - not ritual violations, but actual moral transgressions.
Really? How do “evil thoughts” constitute a sin with unwilling victims?
Also notice that both adultery (moicheia) and porneia are mentioned as two distinct sins, both equally “defiling” and forbidden.
This is too silly to bother with, and unworthy of you.
Regards,
Shodan
“Sexual immorality” in Matthew 15:19 in Latin is adulteria and fornicationes. Adulteria is attested very strongly in Quintillian, Velleius Paterculus, Catullus, Pliny, and Jerome. It simply means adultery. Fornicationes is a much later word, used primarily in ecclesiastical sources. It fairly straightforwardly means “whoredom.”
In Greek, Shodan is right, the word is porneia. This sometimes refers to prostitution (specifically male) and more generally, fornication and unchastity.
Latin definitions are from Lewis and Short, Greek from Liddell and Scott.
Hope this helps.
Jerome uses the same two words in Mark 7:21.
As for the Greek word for woman, gyne^, whether it means “spouse” or simply “woman” depends on context. It has very strong attestations for both throughout the classical and postclassical period.
[QUOTE=Really? How do “evil thoughts” constitute a sin with unwilling victims?[/quote]
Fair point. I’d say that evil thoughts tend to lead to evil actions: swingin’ singles don’t tend to lead to evil actions. Thus, evil thoughts are more tied into the theme of “doing things that hurt other people is defiling” than fornicatoin does.
Indeed–but there is sexual wickedness that’s not included under adultery. I listed specific examples, including sexual assault and pederasty. There’s no reason from this passage alone to suppose that fornication is included.
Again, I’m not the one who wants to apply ancient social codes to modern living situations; my reason for mentioning this is to demonstrate how silly such an attempt is.
The Deuteronomy passage has two major components:
- It suggests torturing a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night. I’m almost certain that you do not think we should pay any heed to this part of the passage.
- It suggests that a woman disgraces Israel by being promiscuous while within her father’s house. This seems to be the part that you’re concerned with–but you’re generalizing it to say that she can’t move out and be supporting herself and be promiscuous.
I believe that’s incorrect generalization. Our social structure is different now, and a woman is perfectly capable of supporting herself. That wasn’t the case back then, and a woman who slept around while within her father’s house risked never finding a husband and therefore being a permanent drain on her father’s coffers. Her promiscuity had a real and negative impact on her family.
Since that’s no longer the case, I’m not sure this passage is relevant.
Daniel