Talk:Fornication/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Fornication. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Legal Tradition in U.S. and Britain

I am proposing to delete statements to the effect that fornication was tolerated under English and early American common law.

Under "Jurisdictions within the United States of America", it is asserted that fornication was "never viewed as criminal offenses" until "later". This is a strong assertion and the contributer does not offer much support. We all know from The Scarlet Letter that adultery was a serious offense in 17th-century Massachusetts, even in cases where the woman was effectively widowed. From my cursory research, fornication was taken just as seriously; consider one example case in which "Priscilla Wilson, a sixteen-year-old orphan, was convicted of fornication" ("The Regulation of Sex in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts", Else L. Hambleton; printed in "Sex and Sexuality in Early America", Merril D. Smith, p. 89; Google Books: link).

There isn't much earlier Anglo-American legal doctrine than this to appeal to, and this is obviously inconsistent with the statement that "premarital sexual relations were viewed as a matter of private morality". Also consider H. J. Sage in U.S. History I regarding the Massachusetts Bay Colony: "Laws were strict: Crimes included... adultery, fornication, etc. Laws followed commandments and Deuteronomy; they also wrote laws as existed back home."

Lest one think these attitudes applied only in Puritan Massachusetts, I also cite Sex Offenses: Consensual by Katharine B. Silbaugh appearing in "Crime and Justice Vol 4", on prostitution in English common law: "For example, some prostitution statutes are crafted so that solicitation and streetwalking are illegal, but the actual private exchange of sex for money is not mentioned in the law. This reflects the English common law approach to prostitution." Finally from the entry Fornication in "West's Encyclopedia of American Law": "Under the common law, the crime of fornication consisted of unlawful sexual intercourse between an unmarried woman and a man, regardless of his marital status. If the woman was married, the crime was adultery."

I certainly can accept that formal legal codification of morality laws (e.g. against fornication) did not happen immediately, but it doesn't follow that behavior was previously tolerated under common law or community standards. I must challenge anyone backing this view to demonstrate that there was a time and place in early Anglo-U.S. history when fornication was "viewed as a matter of private morality" (e.g. not subject to sanction), or in English society since "time immemorial" (1189 CE). Regarding the source cited in the article, I am not able to find any reference to "Jim Thompson, The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 49, No. 4" on any website other than reproductions of this self-same Wikipedia article.

My sense is that there was an upswing of busybody morality in the recognizable past (perhaps the Second Great Awakening?) but that the point will have to be made less strongly. To place my criticism in context, I am specifically addressing edits made by user "Freo Fan" on 4 July 2007. 98.234.144.252 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Moral issues (fornication, adultery, absence from church, failure to baptise children &c) were dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts. These still exist but now only for clerical discipline, church property disputes and the like. Derbyadhag (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fornication

Fornication From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Premarital sex)

This is so wrong in so many ways...

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 !

I think it would help to add specific dates and time periods to the section on Laws that goes over the history of fornication/anti-fornication laws. Otherwise, it's extremely vague, saying "historically this happened" and "then they eventually were repealed." When? I may do some research on this and add something, but I wanted to bring it up.

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Strongly disagree. Towsonu2003 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, I get you. In that case, should we merge fornication into extramarital sex too? A J Hay 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Kasreyn 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Discussion (after 10/22/06)

I have already merged the information on premarital sex to fornication so the premarital sex article is simply duplicate information. Since fornication and premarital sex both share the same definition, I feel they should be merged. Fornication has more information so it makes sense to simply redirect premarital sex there. If later someone wants to merge fornication to extramarital sex or a section under sexual intercourse then they can suggest that for future action. All this gibberish about secret political agendas and bad connotations means nothing to me. I think the best and simplest option is merge premarital sex to fornication. Pbarnes 07:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this duplication. Since the term "fornication" is a religious term, could we put put religious perspectives (including related historical stuff) here, and leave the secular/legal perspectives (including their historical stuff) in the Premarital Sex article? The articles can cross-link, but should not repeat the same content. 69.136.236.196 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Now that you mention it, it kinda is... ^^ Kasreyn 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. Then how about Sex without marriage? Kasreyn 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Maybe it's acceptable in your state, but where I've been living it's used exclusively as a derogatory term, kinda like it was "the other F word". I'd be pretty offended if you were ever to use this word about anybody that I know.

perfectblue 11:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ditto, it's cringingly judgemental and old-fashioned. The word definitely has religious finger-pointing connotations. extra-marital sex would be fine. Redirect? Totnesmartin 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't think that anyone disputes that "Porneia" can have something to do with sex. Consider a religious source: The New Testament Greek Lexicon:

1. illicit sexual intercourse

adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

2. metaph. the worship of idols

of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
KJV (26) - fornication, 26;
NAS (25) - fornication, 4; fornications, 2; immoralities, 1; immorality, 16; sexual immorality, 1; unchastity, 1;

So, most greek theologians would probably say that it means "immorality" generally, but is used in the large proportion of biblical versions in the context of "fornication".

Here, another reference, [1] says "In the New Testament we see the word "Porneia" used several times by the authors. It can be found in the original texts from which the Testament is derived up to twenty-six times. The agreement on the translation of this word, which is the modern English root of pornography, is as wide as the translators involved."

If you read carefully, it essentially makes a case that Porneia had a primary definition of idolatry, and that later after idolatry was wiped out, came to be used to mean "Terrible sexual sin". Because of this confusion, it is correctly interpreted (generally) as "immorality" because it includes both definitions.

The reason that this the wikipedia text has not been referenced is probably because this is fairly common knowledge, like a great bulk of the other "facts" in the article that are not referenced, because they are taken as common knowledge too. Since it seems to be controversial, perhaps a reference is in order.

Which references should we give for it, do you think?

Atom 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, several things in your list of references stand out here. First, all of them more or less acknowledge that porneia has a sexual connotation, and does not refer to immorality (or whatever) in general, so that clearly needs to be changed. Another point is that there's a difference between religious language and standard language -- I'd really like to hear what a classicist has to say about the matter, since there's a very good chance the NT Greek usage of the word might be somewhat loaded compared to standard Koine Greek. I think we need to include both classical and Christian references, since Christian sources are by definition biased. So I'd say your sources are acceptable as far as it goes (the sentence must be rewritten though), but a classical POV is definitely called for. Haikupoet 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the delineation between Protestantism and Catholicism, this is probably because the viewpoints on sexuality are so vastly different, even though both Christian. A large proportion of protestants engage in fornication, even if they disparage it within their church, seeing it as basically, perhaps sinful, perhaps not, but between themselves and god. Catholicism views it as a grave and mortal sin, and because of this, Catholics are more secretive about practicing fornication. My guess/opinion is that basically 90% of all U.S./U.K. adults over the age of 25 have engaged in fornication, regardless of their religious preference. Because Catholicism is more rigid and dogmatic, catholics tend to be less hypocritical than protestants, which have a broader view of their relationships with God. Keep in mind that these are only my opinions, based on my personal experienced and not something that I am stating as fact, or generalizing. Regardless of the spectrum of views on the subject, there seems to be an obvious stark difference regarding sexuality (in practice) by Catholics versus Protestants. One can argue that (in theory) they have the same theological roots, but that isn't the point.

Atom 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever was looking for a citation, I would like to point out that Strong's Greek Dictionary defines Pornea as "harlotry (indcluding adultery and incest)". Emperor001 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern Progressive View

I'm afraid this section sounds like original research. Are there any denominations or preachers that could be quoted as supporting such a view?--Folksong 05:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to CNN article

I suggest a removal of the link to the CNN article covering the recent guttmacher institute "study" on premartial sex. Here is why: The Guttmacher institute claimed to have obtained the data from it's study from the 82-02 Federal NSFG surveys. Putting aside the sample problems with using these as a data-source (The surveys are self-reporting, over 21% of the survey sample refused to answer all the questions, and men were not even used in the surveys until 2002), the data from the surveys do not match the claims of the guttmacher institute.

Anyone can see the NSFG data results on the CDC website:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf

Follow me here. The Guttmacher institute made a categorical statement "95% of people have premartial sex."

Yet if we follow the Link to the NSFG data:, we find that 15.2% of ever-married women surveyed had their first sexual intercourse after marriage. Further, we find that 22.2% of the unmarried women never have had sex. Both of these numbers reveal the 95% claim in the OP to be nothing more than a bold-faced, completely fabricated lie. These are the numbers from which the guttmacher institute claimed to have got it's data. Yet these numbers are not anywhere close to 95%. They lied. Pure and simple. No way around it.

As such, the link to the bogus "study" should be removed. Ghostmonkey57 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I reviewed the CDC "Fertitility, Family Planning and reporoductive health of U.S. women" study and data, and it seems like an oustanding study, very well done and credible. I do note that it is a very cmplex study, and indicates (not proves) a wide variety of trends.

I agree that it would be hard from data I saw to suggest anything meaningful about pre-marital sex, except within the context of a number of other factors. To suggest that "95% of people have premarital sex" would not seem to be indicated by this study. There are other data that could potentially useful for this article however. Also, you try to suggest that we should not use this study, or other similar studies

innacurate edit

Fornication is sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. A married man and an unmarried woman is a special case of that. Two unmarried people is the primary example. A married woman and a married or unmarried man is adultery unless she iss married to that man. That is hisrotically the way that adultery was considered. It seems unfair and sexist because it is, base don curret values. But, it is nevertheless the case. As women gained rights, people changed their views on this, and laws in carious states changed to indicate their definition to be balanced. But that is a recent tredn in the past 50 years, and there are still sttates that have the older, more conventional definition. Less than half the states even have laws against adultery any more. And Lawrence v. Texas (arguablly) makes fornication and adultery unconstitutional. A few states have already overturned their adultery law based on that, and others eventually will as it is tested in court.

Regardless, fornication is a general term, and means sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other (regardless of whether they are married to others or not). Atom 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While discussing,...

Basilica Ulpia, Trajan Forum, Ulpia , owned by Fendi clan,

"Rome's Hidden Empire", "Cities of the Underworld", History Channel, said that while huge events would occur on the stadia stages, smaller events, sexual prostitution, would occur under the arches,... & that fornic is arch, not fornix & archway.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 08:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

synonym?

My google results are "57,400" f/ porneia, & porneia w/ fornication is "13,000"; are they synonymous?

fornic ;
fornix of brain ;
fornix vaginae ;
vaginal fornix ?

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

* Formic is an adjective describing ants [not "aunt s"].

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Should these redirect here, or elsewhere?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 05:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To 219ִ106ִ188ִ244

I noticed that you are continually adding an interlanguage link to ja:密通. Consensus is not yet reached on whether ja:密通 refers to fornication only in Edo period (which I support) or fornication in general (which you support).

I provided relevant sources on ja:密通 and am ready to discuss this topic on its discussion page.

Please try to achieve consensus first. And the argument being what 密通 is or is not and not what fornication is or is not, there is no point adding unnecessary edit history to this page. 70.53.193.128 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)(竹田)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When you edit in enwp, talk in enwp. If there is any existing page in jawp that is to be linked from :en:Fornication, it is ja:密通. It's not ja:婚前交渉 — your intention. I insist ja:密通 or NEVER.

DO NOT revert my edit, before the consensus is achieved. The definition of ja:密通 had been just equal to that of fornication. Nobody but you changed the definition of ja:密通 without any consensus. --219ִ106ִ188ִ244 23:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let's make it clear that I'm not saying at this point that this article should be linked to ja:婚前交渉.

> I insist ja:密通 or NEVER.

The statement 'NEVER' doesn't make sense as there's always the possibility that a new article that corresponds better to this article will appear. So your statement can be translated as "ja:密通 or NONE". And I'd say NONE (at least for the moment.)

> The definition of ja:密通 had been just equal to that of fornication. Nobody but you changed the definition of ja:密通 without any consensus.

It's a fact that I changed the definition of 密通, but I don't see any problem with that.

There has been no argument (there wasn't even a talk page) on that article.
I made the changes while providing relevent sources.
The article is not protected and open to everyone, including you.
I urged you to refer to it.

Yet you made no edits on it since my last modification on 14th, while you were making edits elsewhere. The only logical conclusion I can get is that you are not opposed to my changes.

> DO NOT revert my edit, before the consensus is achieved.

You cannot make orders without good reasons, which I don't think you have. And FYI there is an official policy on English WP that illustrates how we should act in a consensus-building process. According to that, when the edit you made is reverted and you disagree with it, you are urged to take it to the talk page.

> When you edit in enwp, talk in enwp.

I repeat : the argument being what 密通 is or is not and not what fornication is or is not, there is no point adding unnecessary edit history to this page.

Add to that, there's no point for us Japanese speakers to talk here in English. We both can't be our best (I'm saying this mainly for your own benefit) and we can discuss EXACTLY THE SAME TOPIC on the talk page of 密通 as to whether it should be linked to this article. As you know very well, there are tons of bots that make unilateral interlanguage links bilateral, so whether you link this article to that article or the other way around is only a matter of time.70.53.193.128 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)（竹田)

POV and biased article

There is an overriding focus on Islam and claims made about Muslim countries. Needs a serious cleanup and serious sources and removal of bias. Khorshid (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! There obviously were refeernces to other religions that have been removed. They can probably be found in the history and reverted.Jemiljan (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the comments regarding Islam. The article is about fornication, not religion. The existing reference to sexuality and religion covers the Islam material and also covery many other religious views for people interested in that. Atom (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adultery

The definition of Adultery has changed over time. The first, and primary definition has always been a man having sex with a married woman (who is not her husband). This is still the definition for some cultures and religions. Later the definition has expanded to be gender neutral in some places. In the U.S. Adultery is no longer illegal -- however the previous laws were varied across the spectrum with some states (even today) saying that it was a man having intercorse with a married woman. In other states, it says that any married spouse having sex with someone other that their marriage partner. In others, only if a partner of either had sex without the consent of their partner. As this is an article on Fornication (not Adultery) we could just remove the adultery part altogether, and let people read the adultery article if they want to know about that? Atom (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! It appears that the references to Christianity and Judaisn were removed. Those may be in the history and reverted.Jemiljan (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this article called "premarital sex"?

From the article: "Fornication, or simple fornication, is a term which refers to voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other." That is "premarital sex", which is NPOV (sex before marriage, no judging done by using this term. Fornication on the other hand is a pejorative term (the meaning of which isn't really well defined anyway). So why use "fornication" instead of the more neutral, non-judging "premarital sex"? I think the article should be moved--93.196.46.47 (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I think the only reason premarital sex is notable is because of some people objecting to it. This has been encoded in laws for centuries, under the name "fornication." Thus I think it fits that we use this title for this article (compare, for example, the buggery article). If you insist, we could note that some people who see nothing wrong with premarital sex consider the term pejorative, or that others who oppose premarital sex use it pejoratively. Personally, I have no general objection to premarital sex, but I don't consider the term "fornication" to be pejorative. Blackworm (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article could be called by either term. Apparently whomever created the article decided that fornication was appropriate. The terms "premarital sex" and

"pre-marital sex" both redirect to this article. If I had created the article I think I would have done it the same way. Fornication is the older term, although still used, and "premarital sex" the newer term. Also, the term fornicaton is slightly broader in scope. (If two people have sex, and one or both of them have beenmarried previously, but are now not married, is it still pre-marital sex? Debatable, but it certainly is fornication. Also, I do not see the term fornication as pejorative. IMO fornication is the better name for the article. Atom (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Conversation

Contrary to the comment in footnote 4, "criminal conversation" is not a euphemism for anything. It is a legal term that describes the civil claim that a husband has when another man has sexual intercourse with his wife.

John Paul Parks (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD candidate?

This reads more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. Should it be nominated for deletion? PiCo (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

culture wars

This needs to be cited.

"In recent years, premarital sex has become a politically divisive issue in the United States, The debate about abstinence-only sex education has brought the issue of premarital sex to the forefront of what conservative politicians call the "Culture Wars." Kellenwright (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Against massachusettts law

I don't know whether this is noteworthy or not, but fornication is explicitly illegal in Massachusetts. See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-18.htm (Mass. General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 18) which states:

 Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

I bring this up only because the article mentions that US law doesn't generally make this illegal between consenting persons over the age of consent, so it seems like a notable exception. Of course, I know nothing about laws and thought it would be best for someone more knowledgable to decide whether it was noteworthy or not. Asmor (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why no Bahrain?

I think Bahrain also has laws against fornication and adultery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.40.89.216 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I created a rewrite for this article, taking out the information from the research paper written regarding the Society of Friends (Quakers). At some point, another interested party may wish to restore the information on the Quaker position in a way that does not infringe on copyright, but I don't have the time to do this right now. --NDSteve10 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I second the move of taking out the information about the Quakers in that it is only tangentially related to the topic of fornication. A copyright concern could be negligible if one were to argue the Swarthmore article is educational and therefore fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.8.90 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Who knew?

Who knew that someone could learn so much about fornication just from searching for "what does Californication mean?"? and the the politics attached within the Wiki. Jeydo (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Map

There's a US map of adultery laws from 1996, not sure if an NGO has reliable international data about which countries have laws on the books about adultery or premarital sex.

A few other issues have maps about international laws

-- Aronzak (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Very long section on Christianity

The Christian section is very long. Time for section spinoff as a new article, with a summary and link here? LaraMagasin (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fornication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006080935/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SameSexPartnership_DocComm-English.doc to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/wp-content/uploads%2F2014/04/SameSexPartnership_DocComm-English.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Prince William/Kate Middleton Cohabitation Part?

Living together does not necessarily suggest premarital sex/fornication.

At least remove the picture, the picture is unnecessary and does not fit well for a "Fornication" article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fornication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fornication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fornication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014173535/http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/03/17/whether-its-gay-or-straight-sex-outside-marriage-is-wrong-archbishop-justin-welby/ to http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/03/17/whether-its-gay-or-straight-sex-outside-marriage-is-wrong-archbishop-justin-welby/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/himalayanacademy/sacredhinduliterature/lws/lws_ch-10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Age of Consent = Weasel Words

The article says, "Ethical issues arising from sexual relations between consenting heterosexuals who have reached the age of consent . . . ." But the article does not say consent to what? Consent to fornicate? Consent to a marriage contract? Consent before a priest and become married? The section seems to be addressing the history of fornication in Western civilization. But is it not well known that infant marriages were arranged in Western Europe; i.e., a contract to marry children at some age, which was consented to by the parents, not the children? So we have weasel words both in that "consent" is not defined as to who is consenting to what, neither is it clear to what is the consent? Western civilization has considered fornication a sin. No one at any age was ethically allowed to consent to fornication. I suppose that the age of consent to a marriage contract have varied greatly in Western Europe and the USA over the years. And the age of fulfilling such contract also have varied. So I am not sure exactly what the one (not readily accessible?) source claims, but one may rightly doubt that it is reliable, as not by a competent historian, or that perhaps the writer is not following the source precisely. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fornication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20150311120239/http://web.campbell.edu/faculty/vandergriffk/ethics_sexuality.html to http://web.campbell.edu/faculty/vandergriffk/ethics_sexuality.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Factual error

"1611 King James Version, the first English translation of the Christian Bible ..." There are several earlier English Translations. If the writer intended that the 1611 Bible was the first to use "fornication" for "porneia" both the Bishops Bible, 1568, and Geneva Bible, 1587 use "fornication". However, the error does not detract from the point being made, but a better rendition may be that "the earliest English translations of the New Testament used the term "fornication" ... etc.
(Tyndale (1526): fornicacion; Coverdale (1535): fornicacio; Douay-Rheims (1609): fornication)

Agbneill (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Consensus is against merging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge Premarital sex and Fornication. I think that the content in premarital sex is similar to fornication but one goes into more length than the other. Manabimasu (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a rerun of the discussion about merging Extramarital sex and Adultery. That discussion ended with both articles being retained, with the main point being that one was a judgement-neutral term while the other was judgemental and mainly religious orientated. On that basis I would say both articles should be retained, but some of the materials sorted out between the two. Enthusiast01 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No. "Premarital sex" implies that the two people are going to get married, while there is no such implication with "fornication". These two are distinct topics. feminist (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Until the 1950s"Manabimasu (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The lede says it all between two people not married to each other versus people before they are married, neverminding the potential POV issues. Even if one is a subtopic of the other (that is open to debate), that is not worth a merge. Compare that there are separate articles about sexual abstinence, chastity and celibacy. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Support I find the distinction between "before marriage" and "not going to get married" trivial. Both articles are ostensibly about the same content but with minor cultural differences. If one term has more judgemental associations, so be it; that burden can be interpreted by the reader as neither term is ubiquitously offensive. Jamgoodman (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - As per CHAMPION's logic - --John B123 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per Champion and that the article is substantial enough to stand on its own. — Ched : ? — 09:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because the article about premarital sex generally addresses factual statistics and the article about fornication describes various value judgements and perspectives on the issue. These are not the same thing at all and both of the articles currently do a good job of focusing on their particular subject, therefore both articles should stay as they are. --Nicholas0 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Support: Both clearly are interchangeable, and I think some of you here are just splitting hairs and making this a semantics issue. Any couple who commit either fornication or pre-marital sex, by definition, are committing it while they're unmarried; whether they have a desire to marry or not is irrelevant. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paolo and Francesca

We use the picture of Paolo and Francesca as an example of fornication. But I thought Dante was condemning them for adultery? Their article says they were both married to other people when they had their affair. Marnanel (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Impt! Please clarify who are the "manualists"

On 12/07/21 the article referred to "manualists" without explaining who they are. I think it's important to fix this because (at least on that date) the "manualists" are part of the article that critiques the Catholic church. I'm agnostic and would really like to understand this critique and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Dovmiester (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Though I'm unqualified to say much about manualism, I added what I learned from one good looking academic article. I intend it to be a placeholder for the comments of more qualified people, so I'm leaving this up in hopes of attracting y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovmiester (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. My comment was " The manualists upheld manuals of moral theology that delineated "precepts (or norms, or rules of conduct) regarding the morality of a wide range of action"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovmiester (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your claim about Fuchs is not sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute that fornication is not a crime under the common law

According to the revision of 21:28, 25 December 2022‎, regarding the United States, fornication was not a crime under the common law (well it first says it was generally not prosecuted, but confused things further by including the phrase "under the common law", which would be extraneous if it simply wasn't being prosecuted. Then to make a further mess of things, it adds the claim that this position was inherited from the UK.

In these December 2022 edits by User talk:CommonKnowledgeCreator, it is pointed out by a 1785 ruling in Maryland that a 1715 law prohibiting adultery and fornication had been repealed with respect to fornication. This tells us that fornication was a cognizable crime in Maryland until 1715.

Furthermore, since the 1715 repeal of fornication in Maryland did not affect the status of adultery as a crime, we obviously can't treat these as "one and the same" under the law. Note also that we have to be very careful about making generalizations about the common law. "Common law" is not just one thing, it varies by place and time, and while it may be common knowledge that somewhere, as of some date, adultery and/or fornication were common law crimes, it is another thing to say that one or the other were or were not crimes as of some particular point in time in any particular jurisdiction.

Accordingly, I propose to remove the claims that these "common law crimes" were not in force under the common law. Please respond if you have any feedback. Fabrickator (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

See also Fornication as Crime in 18th-Century Massachusetts describing that

during the 18th century, white women became the main targets of fornication charges in the Massachusetts judicial system.

According to Fornication Prosecutions beyond the Mainstream Community and the Role of Community Policing in Early Colonial New England:

... authorities still punished couples for fornication even after they had been married for several months if the birth of their first child revealed prior sin...

This pertains to a case in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1672. Further on in the paper, it is noted that

In England, it is unlikely Thomas Cleark and his wife would have been prosecuted for fornication because they were married at the time of the birth of the child. However, in the colonies, where moral rectitude was at the forefront of public concerns, midwives functioned as de facto authorities [to support charges] of suspected fornication...

indicating that cases of fornication that might have not been pursued in England were nevertheless likely to be pursued in the American colonies. Fabrickator (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Georgia removed from list of states which currently outlaw fornication

Georgia was removed from the list of states which currently have laws against fornication. This is because the legislation which was cited (O.C.G.A 16-6-8) specifically outlaws public indecency and is not explicitly related to fornication which has to do with the marital status of the individuals involved in the acts. The code itself does not use the word 'fornication', nor does it mention marital status anywhere within the statute. 73.7.38.69 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It would appear that the mention of code section 16-6-8 was a typo and was always intended to be O.C.G.A. 16-6-18, which was in fact titled Fornication. Fabrickator (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hah! When I first searched on this, I read about the two sections 16-6-18 (fornication) and 16-6-19 (adultery) being repealed, but when I went back to look at the page, I realized it was only a bill. Click on the following link to check the current status of the bill (you can also sign up for status updates). Fabrickator (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding now is that the legislative session in Georgia usually goes from January to March or April. So since it hadn't passed as of June 2024, it was already dead and would have to be re-introduced as a totally new bill in a subsequent legislative session. Fabrickator (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Maimonides

Maimonides is not a modern mainstream Bible scholar. Wikipedia listens to mainstream scholars. I'm not saying that Maimonides was wrong, just that his view was bound to his time and place.

Allowing a Medieval rabbi to speak in the name of all Judaism is dubious, at best.

We have:

the authors of the Hebrew Bible;
the authors of the Talmud;
Maimonides;
modern Conservative and Reform Judaism.

They were not necessarily upon the same page in respect to sexual ethics. Who tells us they were not upon the same page? Modern Bible scholars. They are the authorities Wikipedia listens to. Even without considering modern Judaism, those Ancient and Medieval authors were not upon the same page. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Coogan vs. Maimonides

@ZucherBundlech: Being a Roman Catholic is irrelevant: he does not kowtow to Catholic dogma, he is a modern Bible scholar.

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Besides, I have quoted several rabbis who confirm that Coogan is right.

So, yes, there is something you don't know about Wikipedia: Ancient and Medieval scholars may be WP:CITED, but they are not the authorities Wikipedia listens to (see WP:VERECUNDIAM). Wikipedia listens to modern mainstream Bible scholars.

So, the relevance of Maimonides' POV for modern Judaism has to be established by citing modern mainstream Bible scholars, who are experts in that field, regardless of whether they are Jewish. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
— ehrmanblog.org

Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?
— The Historical Jesus. Part I. Professor Bart D. Ehrman. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 4

We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.
— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently

So, faith commitments are irrelevant, only WP:SCHOLARSHIP published at Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, and similar venues is relevant. The POV of mainstream full professors is relevant, the POV of the faithful not so much.

Wikipedia believes Coogan because he was often published at Oxford University Press. And it believes Tigay because his POV was also published at Oxford University Press.

Morals: Just because you are a Jew and I'm not, it does not mean that you have special editing rights about Judaism.

So, now it's Coogan + Tigay + Ruttenberg + Meirowitz + Adelman vs. your own take upon a Medieval writing. See en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_244#Gospel of John for how it worked for someone who thought that Ancient scholars should be preferred to modern Bible professors.

You're asking us to pass a Medieval POV for unvarnished truth, and that's not compliant with WP:NPOV. Maimonides is an authority for Jews, same as St. Augustine is an authority for Catholics. Do Catholics do everything St. Augustine told them to do? Or, at least, pretend to obey all the rules stipulated by him?

The reasoning is as follows: who makes the claim? Answer: Maimonides. Who considers such claim as binding? Answer: Orthodox Jews. Do Reform and Conservative Jews consider it binding? Answer: I'm not so sure about that. Maybe many Jews believe that Maimonides is right—but only so far as his claim concerns women. And, if you wonder, my remark isn't antisemitism; it is feminism. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Shveka and Faust (2020)

The authors to state upfront: "It is a common opinion in recent scholarship that biblical law is lenient in its attitude towards premarital sex." So, I'm not saying that the authors of the study are wrong, just that it seems to be a minority view.

As one scholar pointed out, the evidence is mostly about what urban elites thought and did. There is not much evidence about the rural lower classes. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Evidence is scant, but scholars seem to think that Ancient Judaism was more sex-positive than Ancient Christianity, Medieval Christianity, and Islam. I.e. making babies was slightly more important than marriage. I don't know so much about Medieval Judaism, since they had to comply with despotic demands from Christians and Muslims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

^ History of Wedding Traditions - http://www.koco.com/wedding/2399764/detail.html.

[1] History of Wedding Traditions - http://www.koco.com/wedding/2399764/detail.html.

[1]