Talk:Fornication

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haikupoet (talk | contribs) at 07:48, 2 December 2006 (→‎"Fornication?"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggestions

To expand this into a more encyclopedic treatment, we might want to discuss the history of fornication and anti-fornication laws and customs in greater detail. Unfortunately I'm not qualified to write such a treatise. However, I'm sure there is enough material out there for it.216.240.40.165 19:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In many Muslim countries, fornication is a felony, and may be very severely punished. See Islamic Law.
This is wrong and sterotypical,except Saudia Arabia, the laws are rarely ever enforced. Removed.
the fact that it's rarely enforced verifies it's the current law regardless. Don't be PC

::: N_J, States: It is what it has always been since the commandment,that sex outside of marriage is fornication. We hear and we obey the Commandment/Laws of The God of Abraham, Ishmael,Issac and Jacob concerning it, or we do not; it is your choice !

Merge

This discussion is about the merge between premarital sex and fornication, although it has been suggested that both of these be merged into extramarital sex or the section under sexual morality and legality in Sexual Intercourse. What are your opinions?

Below are archived opinions and on the bottom is a place for your comments:

Archieve

Should this be merged with Pre-marital sex? At the moment this is the more complete treatment; but having it here encourages people to link to it as fornication, (see, e.g., Roman Catholic Church) and in most contexts this would seem to me to be a POV term. TSP 12:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

  • Agree. WP should not play host to loaded religious-POV terminology. Note that Premarital sex now redirects to Sex without marriage, which is itself more appropriate. All this material should go there. "Fornication" is a POV term which carries religious opprobrium towards extra-marital sex. "Pre-marital sex" itself carries an unspoken assumption that marriage will eventually occur. Sex without marriage is better. Kasreyn 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we should sort this out soon, and I'm gonna lay the cards out as I see them. Currently, it seems like the point of this article is to explain (or head towards explaining) the religious aspect of sex without marriage, and how that affects laws: sexual norm seems to deal with the culture, Religion and Sexuality seems to be a good overview of the religious side of things. Fornication probably does carry a negative connotation, but it's also a buzzword that gets used a lot more, and now is the first time I've heard the phrase "sex without marriage" (what's the better policy??). Also, sex without marriage doesn't cover adultery, but then there is a separate article there. A J Hay 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been casually working on the fornication article for some time, and I'd (hesitantly) claim that that article is more extensive than both of these articles. Perhaps these articles should merge into fornication??

Disagree

  • Strongly disagree. Whether or not we, having certain political views, dislike the political views towards sexuality as they are spoken about by other people, has no bearing on whether or not people actually speak about them in those terms. Fornication is real, it's a political topic, and it deserves explication as such, in as neutral terms as possible on wikipedia. the approach that Kasreyn advocates both here and at Talk:Premarital sex is roughly equivalent to the ancient egyptian practice of deleting the names of your political opponents from public records. It is an overtly political act, it politicizes the articles, and is therefore wholly inappropriate given wikipedia rules.JFQ 02:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am talking about a reorganization and recategorization of information under a title I feel is more culturally neutral. I really don't get where you're getting the notion that I'm trying to censor anything. Let me make it crystal clear: if the change I am proposing is enacted, absolutely no information will be lost - only rearranged. I personally feel the articles are already politicized by using titles containing loaded and culture-specific terms. Kasreyn 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree. Fornication is a very culture-specific term, not to mention loaded with value judgements. It derives from the specific name of a sin in Christian dogma; its widespread usage in society is due solely to the great popularity of Chrisitianity in Western society. This does not make "fornication" the most encyclopedic or appropriate term for the issue under discussion.
  • I disagree strongly, premarital sex being a major topic of conversation on the US political landscape warrants having it as a separate article. Being aware that there are other wikipedians whose political agendas make them dislike the fact that such language is used, in fact such language IS used and therefore warrants an article of it's own. By trying to replace existing terminology with neologisms of your own divising you are building your own political views into articles which is an obvious violation of wikipedia policy. There is no such thing as "extramarital sex" discussed anywhere in the literature of sexology that I can find, and it seems to be a topic that exists solely on wikipedia. Furthermore, Fornication, being an important topic also widely discussed in many cultures, ought to have it's own article, but i'll take that matter up on the other page.JFQ 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps a separate article should be created for pre-marital teenage sex? I don't see a need to merge the existing article into another one. Spartacusprime 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree. Towsonu2003 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

  • I'd say "extra-marital sex" would be more clinically accurate, but that's just me. One way or another, we do not need an article on "Fornication". Kasreyn 08:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this article appears to have a good comprehensive coverage of the topic (compared to others in this category), I also do not like the article title. Fornication has a derogatory connotation, yet not all religions view it as immoral. Moving to a more neutral title like Extramarital sex would help make the article better. Implementing the merge proposal would also remove some redundancy, as this article is covering both pre-marital sex and adultery. So I support the merge. Lyrl 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've argued before, the very best possible name would be "extramarital sex", as this would cover all sexual relations undergone outside of marriage. "Pre" marital sex carries the assumption that marriage will eventually be arrived at, which is not the case for those who do not wish to, or are legally barred from (gays), marrying. I remain highly interested to hear any rebuttals or criticisms from others of these ideas. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get you. In that case, should we merge fornication into extramarital sex too? A J Hay 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Kasreyn 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the merge into extramarital sex. Pre-marital means before marriage. But the argument for this article is not about all sex before marriage - it is about sex amoung unmarried teenagers. The topic does not fit the title. I believe merging into extramarital sex would encourage a more thorough coverage of the topic than leaving the article in its current state. If the subsection in extramarital sex becomes large, it can always be split off later. To repeat, though, I support the current merge proposal on the current article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 14:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (after 10/22/06)


Please post your comments here.

Disputed Section

Christian Biblical View

Mainstream Christianity accepts civil marriage by the Church as marriage although this view is never presented in the Bible. The most commonly used Biblical definition of marriage is presented in Genesis 2:24 in which "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". This verse is quoted 4 times in the New Testament: two quotes are attributed to Jesus (Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:8) and two are attributed to Paul (1 Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31). Paul explains the significance of sexual immorality by telling us, "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.'" (1 Corinthians 6:15). In quoting Genesis 2:24, Paul is referring to sexual intercourse with a prostitute as marriage. If Paul is correct, premarital sex is philosophically impossible because sexual intercourse is one form of marriage therefore the technical phrasing is simply "marital sex".

Historically, Christian churches were not involved in marriage prior to the middle ages and weddings were considered family and community affairs. "The role of the clergy at a medieval wedding was simply to bless the couple. It wasn't official church policy until the council of Trent in the 15th century that a third party (i.e., a priest), as opposed to the couple themselves, was responsible for performing the wedding."[1] It is unclear when the first forms of weddings originated but it reasonable to believe that many of the first generation (i.e. Seth, Enos, Cainan...) did not become married through any type of ceremony.

The Bible describes sexual immorality as a sin but the word translated from the Greek as sexual immorality, "porneia", is often mistranslated as fornication because the definition steam much farther than premarital sex. The Church's acceptance of waiting until civil marriage for sex is good because causes man and women to only have sex when they are prepared to become one until death separates them. After marriage, "they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matt 19:6). In other words, once man and women become one, they must remain faithful to each other until death. Unfortunately, though, the Church does not realize the significance of sexual intercourse and because of this many Christian feel having sex before committing to remain faithful to there partner is no worse than drinking alcohol because they simply don't see the Biblical backing to the Church's view.

Haikupoet believes that this section is in violation of wikipedia's rule "No original research". I argue that this is publish work straight from the Bible. If you believe this view is not Biblical (according to the Christian Bible) please refute the view here. Pbarnes 03:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not believe the Bible can be considered a reliable primary source, since it is possible to take the same text and come up with vastly different interpretations. It is probably more productive to cite the work of a broad base of Christian commentators to show the spectrum of opinion within Christianity rather than to simply state "this is what the Bible says" -- the Bible, despite many Christians' protestations to the contrary, is not a particularly straightforward book, being the work of multiple authors and editors over a period of at least a millennium and a half and embodying several related but quite distinct cultural traditions. Haikupoet 04:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved the disputed section out of the article on to the talk page. I do not believe the section to be appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:NOT an apologetics site), but it seems reasonable to give it a home for the time being. Incidentally, the section title is completely inappropriate for what has been written. Haikupoet 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

It is incorrect to say "Hinduism" prohibits fornication. There is nothing in the Scriptures (the Vedas and the Bhagvad Geetha) to suggest this. Indian society in general (whether Hindu, Christian, Parsi, or Muslim) frowns upon pre-marital sex.

"Arguments Against Fornication" Section

I have deleted this section. Not only did blatantly violate Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE) but was also written in first person and factually incorrect throughout. :bloodofox: 02:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have edited it and let other have a chance to look at it:haiauphixu:
There really wasn't anything in that section that either wasn't already in there somewhere or completely POV and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. No point in keeping it. Haikupoet 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I think this article, toghether with Zina (Arabic) and Extra-marital relations articles, could be merged in a single wider-range article about Extramarital sex activities. --MaGioZal 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree. This has been discussed before here, as you can see above, without clear consensus. Additionally, I would suggest merging pre-marital sex into extramarital sex. A telling point is that the sexual relations of those who are legally barred from marrying (such as, in many countries, homosexuals) cannot be described as "pre-marital", and should not be described as "fornication" (which is an implied value judgment anyway and thus not NPOV). Kasreyn 04:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for this, I really am, but the talk about merging fornication makes me giggle. I realise I'm not helping at all, it's just it struck me as incredibly funny. HalfShadow 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, it kinda is... ^^ Kasreyn 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree -- I made some comments to this effect on Talk:Extramarital sex, but I'll reiterate here, since I have a few comments to make on this article. I don't think all these can be folded into one article, as they don't all describe precisely the same category. The general category is Extramarital sex, which describes any sex activity between two people who are not married to each other. Fornication and Premarital sex refer to more or less the same thing, sex between people who are not married period, a subset of the wider category. Adultery is another subset, in which case one or both parties is married (and, some argue, the married person or people's partner(s) do not consent, but that's a debate for another time). Zina (Arabic) appears to be a term of art in Islamic jurisprudence that has its own context separate from a consensus definition of extramarital sex. Fornication and Premarital sex should be merged, with the content going under the more dispassionate main title of Premarital sex and with the somewhat loaded title Fornication as a redirect; I'd be WP:BOLD and do it myself, except that a title swap is quite nontrivial and I'm not sure consensus would agree with me doing it anyway. Haikupoet 06:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would we cover the sexual relations of those who either are barred from, or have no intention of, marrying? Neither of those is "premarital", because marriage is not in their future. "Extramarital" covers all the things you described as well as those who cannot or will not marry. Kasreyn 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in modern society, there are many people who choose not to marry, but will be life partners, often having children together without the need or nuisance of marriage. I don't feel that "extra-marital" fits, as current usage isort of implies people who are married having sex outside of their marriage. Atom 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. Then how about Sex without marriage? Kasreyn 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here we speak of merge
different topics are they both
disagree I vote
The biggest issue here for me is that the term "fornication" entered english as a biblical term, not used elsewhere. The term "extra-marital" and "pre-marital" reinforce social rules that somehow sex has something to do with marriage. In our more modern society we now realize that sexuality and marriage are completely different topics. The religious rules that previously bound everyone no longer do, and adherence is optional. For these reasons, I see "fornication" that implies a violation of some rule as a religious topic all of its own. "Pre-marital sex", "marital sex", "extra-marital" and "adultery" are anachronistic terms that could easily be part of the sexual intercourse article. Atom 15:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fornication?"

Isn't calling this category "fornication" a bit like an article on African Americans under the name "niggers" or an article about lesbians under the name "Dykes"? The term "fornication" is only used by bigots, and it's deplorable that Wikipedia would further such a term. Ken 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't think so. Fornication is not a neutral word, but it's not obscene or overly derogatory either. I'd say it falls under the category of term of art more than slur or insult. And it doesn't even remotely compare with the N-word ("dyke" isn't that bad, though not everyone can use it with impunity). Haikupoet 07:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Greek Porneia

Someone is continually reinserting an assertion about the meaning of the word, that it translates "more accurately" as "immorality" rather than "fornication". This seems to be etymologically nonsensical, since porn-" is specifically sexual in connotation; would whoever keeps restoring that line please provide a citation rather than blindly readding it? (Also, something that went unnoticed for some time -- Catholicism and Protestantism are both Christian, and the combination of both is still less than the sum total of all Christianity. There was no reason to break them out into separate sections, and that has now been undone.) Haikupoet 07:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ History of Wedding Traditions - http://www.koco.com/wedding/2399764/detail.html.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fornication&oldid=91555784"