Do you believe fornication should be illegal?

seeking.IAM said:

Mom always said, "Idle hands are the devil's workshop." I reckon if we keep them fornicators busy at hard labor they'll be too tired to be thinkin' about fornicatin' anymore. You may be onto something.

Of course, there is a lot of fornicatin' going on in prisons, so we might just be sentencing them to utopia. There is that.

Click to expand...

Surely something like Narkina V from Andor could effectively prevent fornication in the penal colonies.

RileyG said:

I agree. I think the sexual revolution of the 60s has done our society much harm, but how can such law be enforced? What about those under 18?

Click to expand...

I already explained how the law could enforced, seriously, in my otherwise semi-satirical* post preceding the last one, You can harness AI technology, which we have, to monitor sound coming from people’s houses, which can be monitored by aiming lasers at their windows and affixing motion sensors to their rooftop ventillation. Throw in pervasive CCTV and you have the high tech solution.

Alternately just do what the DDR did and make 1/4th of the population informants.

*The term from the Jargon File as maintained by Eric S. Raymond is “Haha, only serious”, a common view among systems programmers and UNIX developers (which was historically my day job before this illness made even sitting at a workstation, even a vintage Sun Sparcstation running the latest OpenBSD operating system, an exercise in torture. My presence with you now is a product of wireless keyboards).

As an aside, I think I got chatgpt 4 to do an improved image of the propaganda poster for my proposed utopian society, so for your collective enjoyment:




Now I think I might well derive some enjoyment from living in such a futuristic society, but I imagine other members of the forum would find such a brave new world where sex is limited to the married and those who violate the law turned into slave labor to be more of a dystopia. However given my relative lack of sympathy for adulterers, it is pleasurable to imagine what could be accomplished if they were put to a more productive use for the rest of us.

Arcangl86 said:

Have you never been to a single's bar?

Click to expand...

Don't confuse the art of seduction with solicitation for sex.

The Liturgist said:

I fear you are missing the point. By my guess, there are easily fifty million adulterers and other sexual perverts in the United States; considering our total population of of something over 331 million. Why settle for an incarceration rate of only 0.7% when you can have a full 15%, sentenced to a lifetime of hard labour, of service to the state and the people? We could, with such a labor force, build infrastructure and public works on a scale unseen since the Roman Empire. Liberated from the workforce, we could quintuple the size of our military forces every three years, ensuring complete national security, while those citizens who abstained from sexual immorality would live in the very gardens of a technological and social utopia.

View attachment 341010​

All of this can be ours if we simply start taking sexual deviance seriously.

Click to expand...

Lol. That picture at the end summed it up nicely. But I'm still not quite sure how to take these posts...

Some of the posts in this thread make me grieve a little bit for the church. Even applying the general label of "adulterer" to an entire group of people, and not recognizing any other part of their identity seems so contrary to the doctrine of Christ. It seems like your defining an entire person's life by one act, and not seeing any other part of who the person is. Thanks to God that He doesn't view all of us in that way, because we would all be doomed.

JohnB445 said:

Yes or No.

Looking for a discussion here, where Christians share their views on the matter. Some things to note are.
1. How will this benefit society?

Click to expand...

It won’t.

JohnB445 said:

2. Is this something God would want?

Click to expand...

No.

JohnB445 said:

3. What risks will be eliminated?

Click to expand...

None.

MarkSB said:

Lol. That picture at the end summed it up nicely. But I'm still not quite sure how to take these posts...

Some of the posts in this thread make me grieve a little bit for the church. Even applying the general label of "adulterer" to an entire group of people, and not recognizing any other part of their identity seems so contrary to the doctrine of Christ. It seems like your defining an entire person's life by one act, and not seeing any other part of who the person is. Thanks to God that He doesn't view all of us in that way, because we would all be doomed.

Click to expand...

God will forgive adulterers who repent, like any other sin. No one is denying that.

However, the state can and should punish adultery in order to re-prioritize the integrity of the nuclear family.

The Liturgist said:

However, the state can and should punish adultery in order to re-prioritize the integrity of the nuclear family.

Click to expand...

How should the state punish them?

Could we just maybe do a hefty fine or maybe make them wear a scarlett "A" instead of locking them up at taxpayers expense? Maybe put them all in a stiffer IRS tax bracket? Maybe? Anything but jail, please.

seeking.IAM said:

Could we just maybe do a hefty fine or maybe make them wear a scarlett "A" instead of locking them up at taxpayers expense? Maybe put them all in a stiffer IRS tax bracket? Maybe? Anything but jail, please.

Click to expand...

So you're anti-jail? Cool. But this thread isn't about jail or taxpayer money or libertarianism. Maybe start a thread on that topic if it's where your head is.

zippy2006 said:

But this thread isn't about jail or taxpayer money or libertarianism. Maybe start a thread on that topic if it's where your head is.

Click to expand...

It's about making fornication illegal. Illegalities result in punishments. So, how do you recommend punishing them? What are the consequences to be?

seeking.IAM said:

It's about making fornication illegal. Illegalities result in punishments. So, how do you recommend punishing them? What are the consequences to be?

Click to expand...

Well I suggested, half seriously,* that they be used as a labor force where those such as doctors, lawyers, accountants etc, would serve the poor according to their professional qualifications, whereas engineers, construction workers, farmers and so on would be tasked with infrastructure and food production projects, so as to meet the needs of punishment, deterrence and social justice simultaneously by taking those who have acted as home-wreckers and those who have cheated on their spouses and require them to spend a few years serving others as just punishment for their selfishness.


*perhaps more accurately using the concept known to advanced computer programmers as “hhos” (for ha ha only serious), which is well defined in the Jargon File maintained by my friend Eric S. Raymond. The Jargon File

The Liturgist said:

God will forgive adulterers who repent, like any other sin. No one is denying that.

However, the state can and should punish adultery in order to re-prioritize the integrity of the nuclear family.

Click to expand...

The bible says again and again that righteousness comes only from the Spirit of God. Families are best maintained when their members willingly follow God and abide by His word. It's not something that you can force people into with the threat of punishment or through the use of human laws.

MarkSB said:

The bible says again and again that righteousness comes only from the Spirit of God. Families are best maintained when their members willingly follow God and abide by His word. It's not something that you can force people into with the threat of punishment or through the use of human laws.

Click to expand...

I am not disputing that at all.

Our founding fathers encouraged morality but did not enforce it by law. That is the best we can do. The big problem right now is that we have a party that has lost all morality that is forcing immorality on the population. They do not ever encourage good morality. So this problem is a leadership problem in terms of encouraging the right morality. Seems like the only thing they do is attack Christian morality. Yet I'm not one to believe in forcing morality. It's like making a false convert and not many Christians want that.

Though there is one thing that could be banned that is useless to society and does more harm then good and that is pornography. I think the filters reword that but its the P word industry. America doesn't need that or strip bars. There is a strip bar not far from where I live and it used to be a very nice high class restaurant that provided jobs for the community. Now its a den of colke dealers and women strung out on drugs. So the P industry and strip bars can go and America will be a better country without it.

Some of you have been talking about abortion which I think is a touchy issue. I don't even like to talk about it here because people report everyone who disagrees with abortion and so the topic is basically banned from the site. However, I hold to the Trump position for a good reason and I'll explain that and then leave it at that.
Trump's position on abortion is that after six weeks abortion is banned except in cases of rape and live of the mother. I find that policy acceptable and a good compromise. To completely ban abortion is political suicide since no Candidate has ever won a Republican primary running on complete and total ban on abortion. Unfortunately we live in a society that has many unbelievers now and trying to force our Christian beliefs on that will only cause a ton more friction where we don't need it. I am personally pro-life and opposed to abortion. But this idea that we can force our Christian values on a population that is no longer Christian just doesn't sit well with me. Its sad anyone has to speak this way but here we are. So the Trump position is the best position because it allows us to save the country and move forward instead of backwards. Without that forward move to progress we cannot ever hope to encourage stronger morality in the future.

We'd have to define "fornication". Typically, it is better translated "sexual immorality". Then we have to determine what constitutes "sexual immorality". Not all "sexual immorality" involves another. And some forms of "sexual immorality", according to older Christian traditions, can be committed by husband and wife.

Some might argue that "fornication" should be strictly defined as coitus between two unmarried adults. What constitutes a "marriage"? Must it be licensed by the civil government? Some Christian churches recognize the covenant of marriage as being distinct from the civil union licensed as marriage. These churches are typically more fundamentalist or they are separationists like the Quakers. Some old school Quakers have a tradition wherein a couple can marry within their community privately without the union being licensed with the government. The couple drafts their marriage covenant and work out their legalities through powers of attorney and wills. In states that still recognize "Common Law Marriage" these marriages become legally binding. In states that do not recognize Common Law Marriage these unions are not legally binding. After the legalization of gay marriage some Baptist churches in Texas decided to advise their parishioners not to seek civil marriage licenses. These churches have chosen to recognize Christian marriage as distinctly separate from civil marriage.

The point is, this gets complicated real fast. I think it's best to leave issues like these alone. Sometimes I wonder if it was a good idea to have the government involved at all. Since government largely took over marriage, we've seen divorce rates sky rocket as the government has made divorce more lucrative than staying together and working things out in many cases. Not to mention, the government has redefined the institution.

Marriage used to be a private contract (written or verbal) recognized under common law. We might want to reconsider the entire framework of "civil marriage" and opt for private marriage contracts in addition to civil marriage contracts. Those wanting a civil union could get one, while those who desire a private marital arrangement might opt for a private marriage contract. Here's an article explaining one way this might work...


Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?
Partnerships Could Be Tailored to Fit
January 22, 2006
By COLIN P.A. JONES

Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?: Partnerships Could Be Tailored to Fit | Colin P.A. Jones

A fundamental problem with marriage is that it only comes in one size. As a legal relationship, matrimony is a monopoly product supplied by the government. At the same time, however, as a personal relationship, the institution has unique, personal importance to those who partake of it. To...

www.independent.org

​

Fornication is already a sin, isnt that enough?

Before insisting on Christian laws, shouldn't we outlaw the worship of other gods?
After all that's the first commandment of the 10 commandments.
Then we can get into what version of Christianity we want to enforce.

The Liturgist said:

I am not disputing that at all.

Click to expand...

So one might ask - What are your goals then?

If the segment of the church that wants to use government to force Christian morals on unbelievers came to the realization that this is not God's will, the church (and dare I say the country and the world) would be much better off for it.

Questions like this make me love our Constitution even more.