Posted on 11/20/2012 9:21:01 PM PST by John Leland 1789
Most of today’s citizens don’t want any constraints upon themselves especially in the area of sex; however, whatever government does, God still holds everyone to a very high standard: all sex outside of a marriage relationship is sinful and will be faced one day. Apart from God’s judgment, adultery can result in bastard babies, broken marriages, blasted careers, and baneful diseases.
Adultery seems to be too much pain for so little gain! I wonder if General Patraeus thinks his roll in the hay was worth the destruction of his reputation, career, and maybe his marriage.
God has not rescinded the Old Testament law forbidding adultery. In fact, it was strengthened when Christ commanded, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). He further said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32).”
Apart from the Bible command, there are social reasons to prohibit adultery. One reason is because of paternity of children. If a wife is a cheat, how can a husband be sure that a child born to her is truly his? He should not be financially responsible for another man’s child. He also wants his estate to go to his own not another man’s child. Few sane people would disagree that sexual immorality has driven society to the cusp of the abyss, and it is in the best interest of everyone to have decent, caring, unselfish, and vow-keeping marriages.
Adultery is so serious, it is the only cause God permits as an excuse for breaking up of a marriage. It should be much more difficult to obtain a divorce, thereby forcing couples to solve their problems rather than breaking up a small civilization (the home) because of “irreconcilable differences” or “She’s a bad cook,” or “He keeps me awake with his snoring.”
I think it is astounding that any man would go to bed with a female not his own wife. When a man seeks sex from another woman, he often gets far more than he expected–such as syphilis and gonorrhea or even AIDS.
It is time for each state to reinstate adultery as a crime! Those who glibly say, “You can’t legislate morality” are “know nothings” since every law legislates someone’s morality. And yes, such a law would not be possible to enforce, but it would be a crime for anyone to have unmarried sex. That fact alone would keep some people from crossing the line into law-breaking.
With such a law it would make it easy to prohibit or prosecute those who would promote immorality especially to children, such as the Planned Parenthood pamphlet that was given to school children: “Sex is fun, and joyful…and it comes in all types and styles, all of which are OK. Do what gives pleasure and enjoy what gives pleasure and ask for what gives pleasure. Don’t rob yourself of joy by focusing on old-fashioned ideas about what’s ‘normal’ or ‘nice.’ Just communicate and enjoy.” States should make such jerks criminals for corrupting children and promoting sexual immorality.
Adultery is already an offense in the U.S. military but it is not forbidden by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Adultery is usually prosecuted, if at all, under the General Article that “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.” Prosecution usually depends on the circumstances such as rank, publicity, background, and other considerations.
When General David Patraeus, although retired, admitted to adultery with his female biographer it brought discredit upon the military and himself. The knowledge by the world that he broke his vows to his wife of 35 years produced a loss of confidence in his military and intelligence capabilities. He destroyed his life, his career, and maybe his marriage because of adultery. Maybe a strict prohibition against adultery would have helped the general keep his zipper up. Loss of rank, retirement and brig time might also help with that. The consequences to society from adultery are great enough to add adultery as a crime in each state and use it as a tool against married people who break their marriage vows, unmarried people who live like barnyard animals, and politicians who expose themselves to blackmail by illicit sex.
The status of morality in America is shameful, shameless, and sad and it reinforces Madison’s statement in the Federalist Papers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” We are not angels so some laws are necessary. And to critics who tell us that it is no one’s business what consenting adults do, we say, “Nonsense.” We already have laws restricting what consenting adults can do: drug use, watching child porn, conspiracy to commit crimes, bestiality, sadomasochism, suicide pacts, sodomy (in some states), etc.
Civilized nations have always accepted the Ten Commandments as part of their criminal code and if it should be illegal to steal and kill, why not restore adultery as a crime?
According to Plutarch, Demosthenes declared, “We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act.”
Killing a wife’s lover may be a little extreme but it was legal in Texas until 1974 to kill your wife and her lover if caught in the act of adultery. Many Texas and other state juries would still be reluctant to send a man to jail for “defending his honor” by killing his wife’s lover.
Whatever state governments do, adultery is still sin and making it a crime would label it as harmful to everyone.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from www.thegodhaters.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.
"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow Dr. Boys on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews
Pass it along if you agree!
To be quite blunt, they used to acknowledge you need a husband and bride to raise well adjusted kids.
It was also a check on such behavior for the next generation.
Did it punish the innocent party? Very much so. Did it serve as a check on such activity? Somewhat. Did it look at the reality of human nature? Definitely.
If they reached the age of sixty without attaining a level of trust and communication, then they deserve to end it asexual.
And why are they talking about this? Bad sign there too.
Thank you tax-chick.
Let's say a corrupt cop in a little town sits at an intersection, just waiting. He lets his friends and family blow through the stop sign with impunity. If he doesn't like you or recognize you, he pulls you over and writes you a ticket for running the stop sign even if you came to a complete stop.
Does this make having a stop sign at an intersection is a bad idea?
I wonder if General Patraeus thinks his roll in the hay was worth the destruction of his reputation
You’re welcome. If people disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that’s their business, but I believe it’s my business as a Catholic to explain the teaching accurately, in appropriate situations.
Many commentators, including some of the Bishops, have observed that it’s difficult in our society for people truly to give consent to a sacramental marriage, because they can always have the reservation in mind, “... but I’ll divorce you if ...” you get fat, you get old, you get sick, I don’t get all the sex I want, I develop new interests, etc.
In that sense, a declaration of nullity might recognize that a spouse’s consent to the marriage was conditional, “as long as I get sex when I want it,” and therefore there was no sacramental bond.
my question as always. what happens when one partner won’t offer any sort of sex for years upon years? Divorce? Even the Catholic church allows annulments under such conditions.
I would suggest rephrasing it to “if I don’t get the support when I need it”. Most divorces these days are initiated by women, not the men fwiw.
I believe it’s the duty of the husband to care for his wife and ensure that her needs are met, and the same for the wife. Begging off because, “you have a headache”, isn’t any less hurtful than if the husband were to say, “you’re fat”. The more women who learn this, the happier their marriages.
You have to get over or around the seeming popular, gutter-ized use of the word.
See post number 5 in this thread.
When anyone chooses to be a public figure, their trustworthiness, by default, is judged by their actions.
Any failure of reasonable care for your spouse is a sin against charity and should be repented and corrected. However, no matter what the failure is - and every spouse will fail, often, because we are all sinners - a “marriage vow that has conditions,” stated or unstated, is not a marriage vow. If either spouse says out the outset, “We can get divorced if ...” or “I consider adultery justified when ...”, there is no marriage, period. Also if either spouse says, “We will not have children,” or “We will have only ## children.”
This is simply the definition of Christian matrimony, straight from the Catechism.
More people need to hear these words. Thanks again!
You’re welcome ... I’ll be here all week, please tip your server!
Around 10% of children are born to a father other than the one who is told he is the father.
There can be no annulment of a valid marriage, because an annulment is a finding of nullity, that is, a finding that there never was a valid sacramental bond to begin with. Refusal to have intercourse later on down the line may be a monumental injustice, but it is not grounds for annulment.
(A civil divorce is possible, but this does not imply a right to remarry while the spouse is still living.)
Viagra is perfectly legitimate for the treatment of impotence. Impotence needs therapeutic intervention. It is not grounds for annulment.
BTW the word "bastard" does not exist in canon law. Such a child is just called one's "natural child."
The unreasonable refusal of either spouse to have intercourse, is a sin against marriage. The word “unreasonable” should be considered seriously. Under “normal conditions,” the spouses ought to accommodate each other’s reasonable sexual desires. It goes right along with love, respect, kindness, peace, and justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.