Is having sex outside of your marriage partner a crime?

https://tenor.com/view/ba-dum-tuss-jokes-gotcha-burn-ouch-gif-5645546

Only if you do it right.

Heyooo

"Sin" or "jihad" when used honestly reflect a personal ethical conflict. As used above, what utter fraud and bigotry based bull fucking shit.

Pedophilia per se is NEVER legitimately criminal. It's a psych condition that in some minority of cases may drive molestation, but usually not. When politically classified in criminal codes, that reflects fraud based on bigotry and pushing hot buttons of deranged mental midgets.

Age of consent laws reflecting homophobic prejudices or lawyer bright lines of majority, rather than human developmental norms for 17 to be median age of first consensual partner sex (which means half of normal teens are younger), amount to civil and human rights violations, or conspiracy therein (Federal felonies 18 USC 241 & 242 in US law, were it possible to enforce that against politicians, preachers, judges, and related conspirators).

Civil and human rights law necessarily protect extreme boundaries of conduct that isn't legitimately criminal, or that reflects controversial issues of conflicting social values. That necessarily protects some practices hate cults try to oppress others over merely due to fraudulent abuse of cult dogma, and other practices that may be emotionally or otherwise unhealthy, but don't harm victims. Much of the above discussion reflects people who are grossly functionally illiterate in those issues, or trying to rationalize devious frauds that are meant to oppress rights of others.

> Is having sex outside of your marriage partner a crime?
@Malachi
Is marriage itself a crime, along with marriage laws, either:

1) when codified in laws that try to fraudulently legitimatize human slave trade and sex trafficking (eg, when used to treat a daughter as property of a father sold or transferred to a husband)?

2) when used as an excuse for bigotry based "adultery" laws whose origins are based in treatment of wives as chattel, and adultery as akin to milking a neighbor's cow, or borrowing his lawn mower, without permission of the owner?

3) when defined as structural bigotry, that favors prejudices or rituals of some religions or cultures, to the oppression or subjugation of others (as all binary and non-open marriage laws do)?

Dr. James Dobson of the Focus on the Family scam, a NARTH member and promoter among other issues, claimed behind the scenes of his radio shows production to be entitled to "throw stones" as he claims to have accomplished "being without sin". That would seem to be fraud by someone with gross misunderstanding or self-delusions about the meaning of parables and metaphor in his own bible.

http://churchofallworlds.org/content/node/145

Sin dogma doesn't exist for most people of the world, for the above reasons recognized even in sin dogma adherents' own bible, were those adherents more inclined to do honest study.

Tim (aka Oberon) Zell's Ravenheart chosen family was a colorful group.

> I bet Jesus likes tentacle porn.
@m.miller

Since when did His Tentacled Holiness have enough dance card openings for more partners?

I never knew that Jeezus dude was a Pastafarian?

I hear they both have creation myth stories, albeit quite different themes?

> Some people would like to see pedophiles get away with their crimes if that means they can get away with their own, lesser, crimes.
>
> Isn’t this EXACTLY how many people justify terrible behavior?
>
> Young men and women are burning down buildings. They know that’s wrong, but in their mind it’s LESS WRONG than police brutality
@JPMcGlone

I doubt most felons perpetrating B&E's or arson are quite that refined in their pent up outrage overload process, nor apply that kind of "less wrong" rationale among those who are.

Some (noting I get 10's of thousands of global raw news media and scanner feeds, plus sometimes check street streamers) are clearly criminals by intent, interested in robbery or destruction, and subverting more ethical goals of actual protesters against political, judicial, and police (as front line mercenary thugs) institutionalized felony civil rights crimes. Funding sources and political/judicial conspirators behind Blue Wall Gang police felons aren't getting the attention they deserve, being run out of safe, comfortable lifestyles.

Others are strategic, in ways where use of fires are tactically useful for "if it bleeds, it leads" media attention, which is strategically necessary to elevate issues of severe oppression. That's well documented in PoliSci theory and global examples of pushing corrupt police, or judicial systems, to take on messy legal standards they try to ignore. There's also the Overton Window, aka Shaping the Middle" polisci philosophy and practice, whose use can be important to extend the spectrum beyond what's sought, in systems that ignore civil rights standards and pander to political marketing, and may need to be pushed and threatened to deal with legal obligations, even if by practices disdained by those doing them out of functional necessity in sick and broken systems.

https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow

In that last case, it's largely the idiots who television ratings consultants tell clients they need to pander towards, and the culture of encouraging predatory corporate marketing excesses that have destroyed traditional journalism ethics, who drive the functional need for TV "spectaculars". Yes, Europe has a term for it, that the USA hasn't yet matured enough to address honestly.

At the same time, from what I've seen, entire police departments deserve under Constitutional law to be summarily exterminated, not just defunded, even if also in socially needed roles. Those criminal factions riding the coat tails of actual protesters, and some of the protesters gone wild, deserve to be shot on sight while perpetrating felonies, even if businesses being invaded are rarely inclined to use that lawful defensive force (police instead have an obligation to try to protect criminals they arrest, but in reality are scared off from some of the worst events lately, that have to be very traumatic for well intentioned cops).

A fair number of those rioters perpetrating serious felony destruction of neighborhoods, may rationalize warranted destruction of institutional systems, without consideration that in some cities, whole infrastructure of support businesses and employers were never rebuilt after prior riots from the 1960's and since. That hurts many in the very communities and families they claim to be advocating for.

Due to Overton Window, the perceived threats and destruction caused by the serious violent felons, can in some cases enable diplomatic negotiations between peaceful protest leaders, and existing political systems. That can be either by arm's length synergy, or covert arrangements.

There are cases where peaceful can work... I've made phone calls or visits to officials, and laid out civil rights or other law they're violating, and asked if they're aware of that, or willing to comply. If they seem hesitant, I've been known to ask if doing the right thing legally matters, or if not, if the impact on local budgets and voters of $4 million in legal costs to them, and paying for a group I represent to sue their asses and generate press releases for a few years, including paying legal costs to be sued and not just their own, matters to them?

Sometimes, that enables local victims to go in and resolve problems amicably, playing the carrot role, but with corrupt officials knowing a big stick is lingering nearby. Other cases, that doesn't work, and if courts offer functional process, they may be used. But, lawyers are generally arrogant and insane, and when judicial process does not exist in functional forms, other tactics need consideration, where massive, chronic epidemics of civil rights crimes evade enforcement to stop them.

Not much sex in the sex topic..... How about:

https://youtu.be/j8ZF_R_j0OY

@LokiV I enjoy your contributions. But you may want to scale them down a bit. I prefer dialogue over essay.

@LokiV ‘sin or jihad when used honestly reflect a personal ethical conflict’ - in what way are the two similar?

> @LokiV ‘sin or jihad when used honestly reflect a personal ethical conflict’ - in what way are the two similar?
@StoneCold316

If you study the way sin dogma and rituals are used by Catholics and Muslims, and focus on the peaceful, non-militant majorities of each who don't draw the press of violent nutjobs, it's clear they're functional equivalents between Abrahamic paths.

Not so much, when "go into your closet and pray" is twisted into go out and prey by applying limited scope dogma to others for whom it's irrelevant, or Jihad as a similar charge as Doctrine of Discovery being an excuse for wars and invasions, versus a twisted translation of a shamanic style duty of care for the world around you. (Cultural anthropology of language is generally not treated as intrinsic to honest understanding of historic religious meaning, by abusive predators.)

I see. I would say sin is an act deemed immoral by god. Jihad is ‘struggle’ - both against your baser instincts (which can incite to sin), and the doctrine of when to physically commit in your struggle to a holy war.

I can see the Christian meaning of sin having parallels with jihad as Christianity assumes you are born with sin, but it’s debatable whether that proposes we fight sin - usually it just means believe that Jesus died for your sins on the cross and you are free of sin.

in response to @Malachi 's question from earlier, I don't think adultery ought be punishable by law. No matter how many contracts are signed, I don't think one can legally enforce where people's genitals go.

Is it a "moral crime?" If it entails lying, absolutely. If both parties consent, no. I don't acknowledge crimes against God as legitimate.

> in response to @Malachi 's question from earlier, I don't think adultery ought be punishable by law.
> I don't acknowledge crimes against God as legitimate.
@BobbyMack

What is "adultery"?

A New Hampshire court around 15 years ago held that an ex-wife to be could not have "committed adultery", as it accurately interpreted state statutes that were based on marriage as slave trade and sex trafficking, given a false face. That court failed to find the larger body of that law unConstitutional and void.

If "adultery" is defined as sex outside of marriage, versus the more specific historic use of one man's chattel without permission, what is "marriage" and how can it possibly meet civil or human rights law constraints to require officiants who may be clergy and not require non-discrimination criteria for government, or even after court overturn of mixed sex discrimination, what about poly's, singles by choice, and other geometries?

Under UCMJ (US military law), do troops have an obligation to defend against government bad actors imposing religious prejudices by government, whether civil, or military itself including subordinate parts of UCMJ?

How about states like Virginia, that have perpetrated religious-political traps and bias, with instant divorces available to those who assert faux-xtian biblical "grounds", often linked to parallel criminal charges (mostly since overturned, relatively recently), but long waiting periods and other obstacles for "no fault" divorce?

Marriage is a contract two people enter into which give them a tax benefit. Legally, there are zero requirements to enter into that contract. The only problem is how costly it is in order to leave it.

> I see. I would say sin is an act deemed immoral by god. Jihad is ‘struggle’ - both against your baser instincts (which can incite to sin), and the doctrine of when to physically commit in your struggle to a holy war.
@StoneCold316
After recognizing any deity constructs as well as derivative dogma as made up bullshit, whether by dead people, oneself, or some cult manipulators, and "original sin" as just theatrical trappings of cult manipulation games, what remains of human functional processes?

That line of thinking is likely difficult for cult believers, but makes it easier to see functional psych routines of some humans, and strip off trappings.

Not sure what that meant honestly - but if you’re still answering how the 2 are similar in effect, you seem to be suggesting both as dogmatic ethical trappings to manipulate human behavior? That’s what I got so far.

> Not sure what that meant honestly
Yep

Sin in Hebrew means to "miss the target." To keep it simple, you might call that target God (as the Israelites and Jews did). In essence, when you sin, you are distancing or separating yourself from God. You are going onto a different path that leads away from (or misses) God.

In contrast, consider the word *repentance*. To repent, in Greek, means literally to *turn around*. To repent is to veer back on the path towards and 'stop missing' the target (God).

It seems to me that other ways of defining sin just seem to complicated. Also, when you try to bring in single and particular situations and appropriate them with the question "is this a sin"? or "Is that a sin?" it doesn't seem to answer the important question, really. Honestly, if you've read the New Testament, it sounds a little....Sadducee like?....on the surface.

Again, sin means to "miss the target" where the target is God. What and who your God is, and what that are both great questions, but they are separate questions. Of course, to have a shared meaning around the word sin in light of the vast variety of beliefs and thoughts that exist is complex... If everyone's definition of sin is as above ^, and everyone 'believes' in their own God, then everyone's realization of sin could be different, and therefore it's relative.

Interesting... Yet, as Nietzche and JP say, beliefs are not what you say, your beliefs are what you do.

Food for thought...

What’s wrong with the ‘universality’ of my definition which I would humbly argue is much simpler - an act decreed/ considered immoral by god. Applies to any faith any god, and as a result you could say leads away from god.

What’s the important question?

> What’s wrong with the ‘universality’ of my definition which I would humbly argue is much simpler - an act decreed/ considered immoral by god. Applies to any faith any god, and as a result you could say leads away from god.
>
> What’s the important question?
@StoneCold316 You don't know what the will of your/a god actually is.

Dude. This is the least substantive word graph ever.

i like sex

Cool

@Malachi I wasn’t claiming to know it either; simply coming up with a definition that can be used universally ( any god and his will, any faith) - as opposed to knowing what that could be.

> Dude. This is the least substantive word graph ever.
@Malachi
I don't even understand why the arrow is there

@StoneCold316 I like your definition.

Thanks. I didn’t understand ‘the important question’ you were referring to

> What’s wrong with the ‘universality’ of my definition which I would humbly argue is much simpler - an act decreed/ considered immoral by god. Applies to any faith any god, and as a result you could say leads away from god.
>
> What’s the important question?
@StoneCold316

That's not universal, as not all lineages within merely the 7 major faith traditions, never mind all religions, use deities, and the Abrahamic notions of sin or similar among them don't exist across other religions.

Consider practice rather than theistic belief based religions; religions whose practices aren't mutually exclusive (eg, Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc), forms of Buddhism that may be non-theistic by irrelevancy rather than hypocritical Western stipulation of deity to then reject, theistic but more akin to any deities as if virtual meditation focus amulets, or paths where deity concepts are more shamanic and treat nature including creatures within it, as pervasive non-entity deity.....

Or "Otherkin".... They're weird. (but perhaps less so than Scientologists, Pentecostals, etc.)

It's interesting how we end up discussing religion on a SEX channel 😂

How many religions exist with zero relationship to sexual choices or practices?

What are the most and least healthy sexual practices related to which religions?

Religions are obsessed with sex. They attempt to guilt-ify everything about it so as to make it impossible to enjoy. Even within the confines of marriage, even when done for the purposes of having children, one will always have to worry about whether or not one is doing it wrong.

What about sex-positive religions, that view sex as a healthy part of nature, or that aren't obsessed with empire building, fueling genocidal armies for a Pope or King, or that treat sex as an inherent part of nature for animals to partake in balance, as with most other things?