Not sure that constitutes a discussion. You're just talking to yourself. I'm not even sure anyone is listening...

...Can we just not?

It's a bit like saying jam needs butter to make good toast. Neither can succeed without the other, there's always tacit cooperation by the great majority of non-wingnuts.

Why are religious leaders so often so completely whacked!

What is it you wanted us to discuss? this guy sounds completely fucked up.

Maybe ... But its not just women; children and men want other men to protect them too. That is why we have the Police, and Military Forces. Duh!

Play more diplomacy imo :p

What the fuck are you talking about?

I'd prefer this thread just died, but when you confuse bb you should evaluate your position.

@littleitaly, it is not just men who work in the police and military forces.

Why do you feel the need to give the oxygen of publicity to this asshole's medieval views?

Doug Wilson is a woman-hating bigot who needs to shut the fuck up.

Discussion complete.

An answer to the original poster. Look up David Lynn Harris on google. That woman got it sorted - no soft femininity there!

http://murderpedia.org/female.H/h/harris-clara.htm

Well presumably Pastor Wilson would condone Clara Harris' actions.

The Bible says that adultery is a sin, and Pastor Wilson says that the only way to protect women from being sinned against is through the use of physical force.

Leave the Bible and the 'sin' word our of it; what is your view of the morality of adultery? We can go from there.

@ Fulhamish: My view of the morality of adultery?

Ok, well, I have no interest in the institution of marriage, for starters.

However I am a great believer in honesty. I believe that people should be honest with each other in their relationships, and I believe that violating someone's trust, when you have actively contributed to that trust, is a moral offence.

Good to see common ground there Jamiet. I think that you will surprised how much common ground exists between atheist and theist ( if we put our anti-theist friends to one side). I have always wondered why this might be and which world-view might better explain these instincts/impulses on right and wrong.

Do you agree with Jamie's definition of adultery? Just checking.

Is adultery wrong? Yes, absolutely (and I pick that last word with care).

Clearly this Dog Wilson blighter has never met the fire breathing MemSahib, Her Indoors, a woman like many of her gender quite capable of emasculating most men foolish enough to incur her wrath simpy by using the savage and sharp side of her tongue, the poor plumber who defiled her kitchen, a big burly chap, fled in terror after twenty minutes of Her Indoors at about half power never came back and never sent me a bill.

Umm, just which side are the anti theist, is it near a lightning conductor ?

Oops a typo....which side have you put those wascally anti theists ?, twy saying "which side are the anti theists ? " with a lisp

"Is adultery wrong? Yes, absolutely (and I pick that last word with care)."

i guess that depends on your perspective; if you look at things from a purely biological point of view, and take the selfish gene by Dawkins for your understanding of biology - then whatever is the most effective strategy for propagating your genes (for genes to propagate themselves) is right.

This means cheating when it helps better propagate genes, and there are likely genes which result in less monogamous pair bonding among humans.

If on the other hand you consider 'wrong'-ness from a social constructive perspective then it is a construct which serves a function. And you must ask yourself what is the social function of defining something as 'wrong'. We can see that it has something to do with promoting a healthy society, and perpetuating the social norms of that society - so lying and cheating are considered implicit evils by most social norms.

If adultery does not involve lying, as in an open relationship or a polyamorous relationship then it fails to transgress this social norm. (instead the relationship itself is defining new social norms, and thus constructs a new meaning for the participants.)

I think lying to your partner or spouse is wrong because you are betraying their trust. A loving relationship is (almost always) founded on the basis that the people in the relationship trust each other. If the parties to the relationship have agreed only to have sex with each other, and no-one else, then for one of them to dishonestly sleep with another person is a violation of that agreement.

It is wrong to violate agreements that we have freely entered into, because it undermines the whole basis on which such agreements is made.

I do not need to define such a thing as "adultery". "Dishonesty" and "breach of trust" are good enough terms.

Cheating on your partner is wrong, in the same way that borrowing £200 from your partner because you told her you needed it to help your dying mother, and then spending it on fancy shoes instead, would be wrong.

In terms of what orathaic just said, in an open relationship, sleeping with other people than your partner is not "wrong" because it does not violate trust or break your agreement with your partner.

That said, in most open relationships I've encountered, there is a general agreement that the partners will be honest about who else they are sleeping with. So if Krellin and bo_sox are in an open relationship, and Krellin sleeps with Ghug - if bo_sox later asks "Did you sleep with Ghug?" for Krellin to answer "no I did not" would be a violation of trust and would be a form of cheating.

Well that's just a silly example, because if I got my hands on that delicious little ghugster, I *assure* you there wouldn't be a wink of sleepytime...heh heh....Smack that ass, baby!!

Krellin, did you stay awake with Ghug??

In the hypothetical, and to be specific...I didn't let him sleep...but surely he was exhausted.

I need someone to protect me from that little hot potato. I just lose control around him.

Does anyone here actually follow the Darwinian self-propagation sense of morality to all conclusions? That seems to have implications that go against what the vast majority would consider wrong.

Darwin/evolution say absolutely nothing about morality.