Life is short, defile your marriage bed, no one will ever know


“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

– Hebrews 13:4

Unless you’ve been living under a rock you have undoubtedly heard about Ashley Madison and the Ashley Madison hacking scandal by now. Without beating this story up more than it already has been, I would like to point out something that really surprised me about the whole thing and that is, almost none of the women in the Ashley Madison database ever used the site.

Got that husbands? Of the site’s over 30 million users, only 14 percent were women and many of those accounts were fake.

Got that husbands? Do you get the fact that the “guarantee” of sinful sex with a woman who isn’t your wife was based on lies and deception?

It’s easy, the site implied. No one will find out, the site led you to believe. “Life is short, have an affair,” was the site’s overt and outright dishonest appeal to your lustful desires.

Got that husbands? Do you get how sin and lust cloud judgement, distort thinking; and makes lies seem believable? Do you get how nothing other than the, nearly impossible to believe if you think about it, promise of immoral sex with attractive young strangers caused millions of men to voluntarily give their credit card numbers and personal information to people they didn’t even know just because they ran a website that essentially sold sexual sin and deceit?

Do you get that the Darling Scarlet’s of Ashley Madison were mostly a ruse?


Think about that for a minute men.

Think about that as you read what a journalist learned when she entered the disturbing world of online infidelity.

There’s something about the anonymity of the internet that gives certain men word vomit, and I planned to use that to my advantage.

I corresponded with 24 (vaguely literate) men over three days, all of whom had cheated before.

Twenty-two were married, and the remaining two were single but preferred dating married women because they were “less drama” and “not as much work” respectively.

Nineteen had children, with four telling me their full names and ages, unprompted.

Sixteen of them were over 40, which is significant because my profile states I’m 24 – the age I was in my pictures.

And one of them sent me his entire life story, including his office phone number.

With three clicks, I found his real age, his grandchildrens’ Facebook profiles and his wife’s business.

I didn’t find a magic formula that determines who will cheat when and why. People are too unpredictable for that.

However, in conversations with these 24 men, I did find four reasons that came up repeatedly.


The writer went on to say that in three days she “met” hundreds of men who were willing to throw away their marriage vows and now wonders how it’s possible to trust anyone when it’s possible that your life partner could be sitting across the table from you and smiling while secretly sending dirty pictures to girls online.

Again, wow!

One young lady, one fake profile, three days, and hundreds of men including a man in his 60s who said: “My wife is a wonderful companion, but I want someone I cannot stop thinking about.”

Husbands of every age should wonder how they would feel If their wives said: “My husband is wonderful but I want a younger hotter man I can have indiscriminate sex with behind his back.”

We hear about the sanctity of marriage, God’s plan for marriage, and the sacred covenant of marriage all the time when same sex marriage is discussed but Ashley Madison has given me over 30 millon reasons to step back and wonder if we, as a society, value this sacred covenant much at all.

Sadly, the only reason Ashley Madison is in the news at all is because it got hacked and personal customer information was stolen when the real news should be why society has devolved to the point where Ashley Madison could have existed in the first place.

Dear Lord,

I lift up husbands to you! May your Holy Spirit redeem and transform our minds and our hearts, reconciling them to you! I pray that your peace, your wisdom, and your love reminds us daily of the promises we made to our wives on the altar and gives us power over sinful temptation and lies from the evil one.

In Jesus name,


Categories: Christianity, Misc.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

40 replies

  1. “…Ashley Madison has given me over 30 millon reasons to step back and wonder if we, as a society, value this sacred covenant much at all.”

    Of course we don’t – not as a society. The recent rush to redefine marriage was further proof. As was no-fault divorce. As usual, the biggest losers in the loss of monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage as an ideal will be children. Sad to watch it happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Very sad to watch it happen. I was shocked to learn how many members this site had, shocked further to learn most of it was lies. Guess that’s what happens when the Father of Lies has free reign in our lives.

      God bless,



    • An aside from Ashley Madison for a second…
      My parents split up when I was 8 and I’m tired of people talking about my demographic as if we are some sort of victims. It’s patronising and it’s wrong. Do you have any idea what it is like to live in a house with two people who scream at each other every day about money, how long one spends out of the house and who got the bathroom floor wet?
      My current partner is a divorcee. After a change in circumstances her husband started stealing her money (not technically true, as they were married, but he was taking huge amounts of money to go on 4 day drug and alcohol benders… money he wasn’t earning because he wasn’t working), neglected all house hold responsibilities (including neglecting their pets) and stopped showing her any affection. Was she, in her mid-20s, meant to accept that as the way her life was going to pan out from that moment?
      Relationships aren’t even fully tested before a marriage. A mortgage changes nearly everything. So do kids. This changes dynamics and pressures. That’s the real test…
      Divorce is a good thing. People change and just because people are compatible in their early 20s doesn’t mean they will be all the way into their late 70s and beyond. It’s great when they do, but there is no reason they should be able to.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Allallt – It’s neither “patronising” nor wrong to urge society to uphold lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage as an Ideal. You’re free to disagree, to not be married, to live by what you think is a better idea.

        I would point out that your experience pretty much supports what James & I have said. We’re contending that society doesn’t value marriage as a sacred covenant. Obviously you don’t, your parents didn’t, and your partner’s ex didn’t either.

        I contended that the biggest losers of such marital breakdown and dysfunction are children. You bear witness to this by pointing out how horrible it was to grow up in a high conflict, dysfunctional home, (although it sounds as though your parents suffered loss as well.)

        Yes, of course we can both come up with examples of bad marriages. But the solution to this is not to disparage the crucial societal institution of marriage, to redefine it, or to give up on it. All of these things only serve to deteriorate the institution as an ideal. Hetero sex still produces offspring, and it is still best that children be raised in a loving home by the 2 parents who produced them. If you don’t feel you can commit to a marriage, I would urge you to get yourself sterilized so that you don’t accidentally bring a child into a non-committal situation. You can always adopt if you eventually find yourself in a situation that is good for raising a child. You don’t bring a child into the world as “a marriage test.”


        • What I said is patronising is calling me and people like me victims. I much prefer my childhood with my parents separated than together! I would have been a “victim” if I continued to be brought up in a household where the adults scream at each other: that was the situation that made me cry and not want to go home. I didn’t feel secure at home until they separated and lived in different houses. So yes, it is both patronising and wrong to characterise my demographic as victims.

          The other thing I said, that I’m not sure you fully get, is that people change. Children change a person; mortgages change a person; money troubles and career troubles change a person. When a person changes the dynamic in their relationship changes and it isn’t difficult for people to go from love to hatred of one another. Asking people to endure through that, forever, and miss out on falling in love with another person, isn’t a mature decision. And demanding it with spooky words like “sacred” isn’t progressing the conversation. (Not to mention that because marriage is not inherently religious isn’t not inherently “sacred” either.)

          I find it interesting that “hetero” is such an important element of marriage to you. Your love, as a heterosexual person, is valid. But another person’s love, because they are homosexual, is not valid. That’s discriminatory and doesn’t seem to serve any function other than confirming to a narrowly-read Christian definition of marriage. But Christianity doesn’t own marriage; the earliest recorded marriage ceremonies pre-date the Bible.

          As far as I can see, the point of marriage is primarily as a declaration of love. I cannot see the utility in sullying that declaration with exclusionary ideas like only allowing heterosexuals into the club. Love is meant to be inclusive.

          When it comes to raising children, I have only observed it from the outside. It seems to be true that loving household produce more well-balanced children, but there is not suggestion that sexuality of the parents is a significant variable here. If a “loving home” is your goal, then divorce is a very real tool; people can fall out of love; it can happen in a way that no one predicted before children arrived and they got that promotion at work and the mortgage anchors them to one place… Love, for all it’s power when it is present, isn’t always eternal. To fostering a loving home, we need to recognise that fact.

          When it comes to what does, empirically, raise the most balanced children, how discriminatory are you willing to be? Households with benefits-only income tend to have less productive and more poorly adjusted children; are you going to protect their marriages and children? Houseshold with a parent with a personality disorder or addiction tend to produce less productive children with a lower sense of responsibility. (We can talk about outliers all we want, but the general trend is there.) Are you willing to start protesting marriages and pregnancies, and suggesting sterilisation for these people as well?


          • I think you’re misunderstanding me. I never called you a victim. I just don’t know how to uphold marriage as a societal ideal without you ending up feeling that way. Having said that, you may have preferred a childhood with your warring parents separated, but I think you have to admit that living with parents who loved each other would have been even better. I think it’s safe to say that’s what pretty much every kid wants.

            For some reason you assume I’m promoting discrimination. You assume I think homosexual love is “not valid.” You assume I think divorce is always bad. I haven’t said any of that. I’m simply saying that society needs the ideal of hetero, lifelong, monogamous marriage in order to flourish. To a great extent this is because hetero sex often produces children, and gay sex never does. It makes perfect sense for the government to incentivize hetero marriage because government has an interest in seeing hetero couples raise the children they produce. If couples fail to do this on a large scale, the costs to society are enormous. The incentivizing of hetero marriage is simply one, lame, inefficient inducement to encourage couples to commit to one another and raise their offspring. It’s a basic organizing principle.

            For this reason, if you want to point to a marriage ceremony pre-dating the Bible, you will not find a gay marriage ceremony. Procreation is not the sole reason for sex and marriage but it is certainly an inextricable part of their purpose.

            Furthermore, I don’t blame you for this, but I think your view of parenting is skewed. There is a great deal of data to suggest that children do best when raised by their married biological parents in a low conflict home. It’s not simply about “two loving parents.” It’s about a mom and a dad – a male and a female. Each brings something unique to a child’s identity that the other can’t bring. Of course gay people are just as capable of being loving parents as anyone else. However, every gay union will by definition lack either a mom or a dad. I’m not saying a pluralistic culture like ours should forbid this, but neither do I have to pretend or agree that a loving gay union benefits society in the same way that a loving hetero marriage does.

            Finally, I find your statement “love is meant to be inclusive” to be misleading. Of course gays can love each other as intensely as heteros. What is at issue is the definition of marriage:
            If one aspect of traditional marriage can be changed, than all other aspects can be changed as well. There is simply no reasoning that would redefine marriage to include gays, but would forbid “equal treatment” to 2 biological sisters who want to enjoy a lifelong union, or a father and his consenting adult daughter who want to be married. You have to decide if you favor FULL marriage equality, or if you favor marriage equality for gays only, and then why you would support such discrimination.

            I’ve still never heard a rational answer to this.


            • Perhaps you didn’t call me a victim. Perhaps I am being far too liberal in my interpretation when you referred to that demographic–that of children whose parents have split up–as “the biggest losers” and caught up in “dysfunction”. It’s actually damned difficult to paraphrase your description of my demographic without using the word victim. But fine, perhaps I’m stretching.
              Perhaps you haven’t said that divorce is bad or that homosexual love isn’t valid. Perhaps my interpretation of you describing marriage as “monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong” and that is it “[s]ad to watch” any attempts to modernise or alter that definition. Maybe to ask “society to uphold lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage as an Ideal” in no way suggests divorce and gay marriage are not ideal.

              As for the government having good reason to offer an incentive to heterosexual marriage to help support the off-spring of that marriage: so what? How does gay marriage challenge that? The gay community doesn’t want to enter into a heterosexual marriage at all, so it has no effect on heterosexual marriages and their children to allow gay marriage. One thing gay marriage does allow, with respect to raising children, is for more recognised dual-income houses (or single-income and stay at home parents houses) to adopt. And adoptive parents are something we need. (Not that I think tax-exemption is a valid dimension to an argument about whether other types of marriage should be permitted; you’re throwing a red herring into the conversation.)

              “Procreation is not the sole reason for sex and marriage but it is certainly an inextricable part of their purpose”
              False. My grandma was married, had a sexual relationship with her husband and discovered she is (and was) infertile. Procreation was entirely removed from her sex life and her marriage and neither is any less valid: procreation is entirely extricable from both sex and marriage.

              “There is a great deal of data to suggest that children do best when raised by their married biological parents in a low conflict home… It’s about a mom and a dad – a male and a female”
              (a) Please present this evidence. I’m aware you don’t explicitly say there is evidence that a male and female parent is needed, but if that isn’t your suggestion then it’s a moot point; if all you’re talking about is low-conflict, then I agree. And if low-conflict cannot be sustained: divorce. That’s all I’m saying. (b) Marriage is never, and never can be, a guarantee of a low-conflict relationship. This is true even if the relationship was conflict free right up until pregnancy; the decisions that have to be made at that point are the kind of frictions they have not faced yet and there is no way of knowing if they’ll be insurmountable. Houses, mortgages, giving up a career, moving to a better school’s catchment. Post-natal questions about disciple and values and principles: they’ve always respected their differences, but what to teach the kids about all this? (c) There is no suggestion that gay couples would create a higher-conflict environment, so they should be equally entitled to raise children, which (according to your logic) gives them equal rights to marriage.
              “… but neither do I have to pretend or agree that a loving gay union benefits society in the same way that a loving hetero marriage does.”
              No, you do not have to pretend this is true. Neither do you have to pretend it is false. But if you want to block efforts to create marriage equality you must either argue it is false: that a gay marriage is of less benefit. But that doesn’t even matter: benefit to society isn’t a variable here. We’re talking about personal circumstance.

              It’s fun that you bring up incest. I suppose it’s inevitable that someone will eventually make a slippery-slope statement (I’m not disappointed, if anything I’m just happy you didn’t mention bestiality). Now, we already have incest laws that deal with your questions completely separately from marriage definitions (definitions that do not explicitly mention genders — that’s all cultural and inferred from religious texts). Some of those incest laws would forbid parents from marrying children because of the power dynamic between them: even if the child is of majority, establishing sincere consent and weeding out coercion is near impossible (I imagine, although I don’t know, this law would extend to include uncles and aunts. Similar laws and precedents also exist for siblings, with the elder being the accountable one is cases of sexual relationships). So, we have a self-contained set of laws that aren’t about equality, but the reasonableness of consent, that deal with the issue pretty well.


              • Allallt – I would ask that you read my wording a bit more carefully, as you continue to misstate much of what I’ve said. Please allow me back off a bit and clarify the big picture.

                I favor pluralism and freedom, as do most Christians I know. We like the Constitution and the rule of law. The “marriage equality” debate is not about the right of gays to love whomever they want. Gays were free to love and commit to whomever they wanted, and even to adopt and raise children, well before the SCOTUS arbitrarily redefined marriage for everyone. The debate has been about the REDEFINITION and STATE RECOGNITION of same sex marriage.

                Bearing that in mind, hopefully my comment about the government incentivizing hetero marriage makes more sense. There is a clear government interest in encouraging lifelong, monogamous, hetero marriage and it ultimately has to do with the well being of children. Obviously, it is in the government’s interest to see the next generation grow up to be contributing, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. A large body of research confirms that kids raised by their biological mom and dad have a statistically better chance of doing this. You can easily Google this.

                By contrast, gay unions do not benefit society in the same way, since they are never intrinsically procreative. That’s just the shape of biological reality. I applaud gay couples I know of who adopt and sacrificially raise kids, and I wouldn’t favor forbidding this. But no, it’s less than ideal since such unions lack either a mom or a dad. That’s not to say they can’t do some good.

                And no, procreation is not “entirely extricable” from heterosexual sex and marriage as a general concept. Of course we can all name specific examples of sterile or elderly married couples, but it’s bizarre to attempt to argue that procreation is not an inextricable part of hetero sex and marriage throughout human history. It’s why we even have abortion-on-demand; unwanted pregnancies keep happening because of hetero sex.

                Most of all I would like for you to answer the questions in my final paragraph: Are you for FULL marriage equality or not? This is not even hypothetical. Please read some of the case studies presented on this Full Marriage Equality site before answering. You will find examples of consenting, adult, loving couples; both gay and straight, who are not hurting anyone, and who want to be married. Now that marriage has been redefined, what possible reasoning would prevent these people from being included as well:

                The answer you gave is inadequate. Consent isn’t an issue at all, as the case studies will show. And we very recently had laws against gay marriage, but as we have seen, that wasn’t sufficient reason to forbid “equal treatment” for gays. In fact, all the gay arguments apply to incestuous and polyamorous couples.


                • I’ll say it all again. But this is the last time.
                  (1) Marriage is not about procreation.
                  i My grandma was infertile and that did not lessen her marriage or her sex life.
                  ii You saying that procreation is inextricable from marriage is insulting to all “sterile… married couples”.
                  iii Married couples are free to, and increasingly do, choose to be childfree. Their marriages are not lesser marriages either.
                  (2) If gay couples cannot have children, then there are no children to worry about.
                  i All the research in the world saying biological parents tend to do a better job of raising children is completely moot, because there are no children to consider.
                  ii As we have seen from (1), this does not invalidate a marriage and so should not block a right, either.
                  (3) Recognising gay couples increases the number of people who can adopt.
                  i You may not think adoption is ideal, but they can only adopt from a children’s home.
                  (4) The law is quite clear on consent, and incest is not as a non-consensual act
                  i The parent is always assumed to have potentially coercive position.
                  ii A sibling is also assumed to have a coercive position
                  iii The attraction to family members one has been separated from since childhood is the only place where consent can be reasonably assumed, and I struggle to see the problem in letting them marry. (Granting certain precautions being taken to deal with the increased risk of child defects.)
                  iv I see no problem with polyamorous marriages, so long as coherent laws can be written up about the nature of child-access and property.

                  (I will not move on to discuss solely incest or polyamory until something has been agreed to about gay marriage–between us at least. I want you to remember, you are introducing the slippery-slope fallacy and red herrings of the broader “full marriage equality”, not me. I was only discussing gay marriage. To help us on that path to an agreement, consider the follow questions: what is your objection regarding gay marriage? what is your objection regarding polyamorous marriage?; what is your objection regarding incestuous marriage where consent can be confidently agreed upon?)


                  • Allallt:
                    1) You misunderstand. I’m not saying that infertile or childless marriages are “lesser” marriages. I myself have had a vasectomy. We can’t move forward unless you understand this point. I said “as a GENERAL CONCEPT,” as an institution, procreation always has been and continues to be a part of the reason marriage exists. Because whether we like it or not, hetero sex is procreative for most people. It’s the biological norm. Marriage is the creation of a new, potentially procreative, family unit. In past ages, childlessness was even considered a curse or a misfortune. At times marriage also probably served to ensure paternity.

                    If all you’re saying is that some legitimately married people don’t have children, who would argue with that? Infertile or childless couples don’t harm or change the institution, or change the fact that part of the reason we have a societal institution called marriage is to help ensure that two people who make a baby will raise that baby. By contrast, raising a child out of wedlock always has been, and continues to be, less than ideal. Lifelong, monogamous, hetero marriage simply benefits society in a way that no other type of relationship does, largely because of its procreative aspect.

                    2) & 3) State recognition of SS marriage must necessarily include the right to adopt children. Every adoptive gay couple will by definition lack either a mom or a dad. Therefore gay adoption necessarily entails intentional motherlessness or fatherlessness. This isn’t a judgement; it’s simply a statement of fact. No one has sufficient data yet to know how gay adoption will impact kids. Here’s one opinion:

                    4) It doesn’t sound as though you read the case studies I linked for you if you still think consent is necessarily an issue. These are consensual, non-coercive, adult relationships.

                    Therefore, I have not introduced a “slippery slope fallacy.” A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if there is no rational reason to believe impending events will occur. No one can give me legal reasoning that would accept gay marriage but forbid incestuous or polyamorous marriage. You yourself are already on board with polyamorous marriage. Within a couple of months of the SCOTUS decision a polygamist filed suit for equal treatment.

                    Answering your final 3 questions in detail would take some time, but for starters I can sum it up this way: If one aspect of traditional marriage can be disregarded, (sexual complementarity,) then there is no reason that some, or all, of its other aspects can’t be disregarded as well, (sexual exclusivity, lifelong commitment, biological unrelatedness, adult, etc.) For practical purposes this will obliterate marriage. My greatest concern is toppling of the incest taboo. This would introduce relational possibilities into the sanctity of the family that should not entertained, and once again, children will suffer the most.


                    • (1) That’s a far cry from “inextricably”. But fine; I accept that as a newly articulated position. But it’s a rule based on inconsistency; because heteros normally can procreate, all heteros get this right, regardless of whether they can or want to procreate. Ignoring that it sounds like post facto excuses, it simply doesn’t follow.
                      (3) No evidence = no restrictions.
                      (4) I don’t think you read the legal point: coercion is assumed when one has a naturally authoritative position. Parents and older siblings and aunts/uncles all have naturally authoritative positions.
                      Not only that, but incestuous marriages are traditional! They happened all the time among the aristocracy of England. Abraham married his half sister. The taboo in incest is (surprisingly common).
                      (Touché on putting “adult” in the list of things that may also be destroyed! Clearly consent is simply something you need to do some legal research on. Minors cannot consent to contracts or sex.)
                      I don’t lend credence to things based on tradition. The fact that marriage has a traditional practice–not a definition, mind you; just a practice–is not relevant. Not unless a discussion of the minimum wage can legitimately include discussion on slavery.


                    • And, sorry to go on, but your reasoning would exclude childfree or infertile couples from marriage. You say, repeatedly, that marriage is about raising (ones own biological) children. This is patently false. That’s what I’m saying.


  2. on point. Im single and with all this infedelity going on combined with my own personal battles with lust. I pray that when i do get married that i always find my future wife irresistible. Divorce is a word i have banned from my vocabulary. it is not worth losing your wife and kids. its not worth it! the hunger will never satisfy so dont feed it

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great comment. Divorce should be banned from your vocabulary because, if it’s not, it will always be your plan B.

      I have a friend you said for years: “As soon as this marriage isn’t working for me, I’m out.” Well, guess what? Her marriage is now over and she doesn’t even seem to care.

      I have been married for 25 years and, while neither me or my wife are perfect, it has been something worth fighting for and keeping alive.

      God bless,


      Liked by 2 people

    • Brandon – This is one of the things that concerns me the most about this – that single people will feel hopeless about having a marriage that will work out. In a way I suppose it shouldn’t surprise anyone that 30 million married dudes would want have sex with a younger woman if they could do it without getting caught.

      But the follower of Jesus has an entirely different paradigm of marriage and sex than does the world: Sex is an expression of total unity and “oneness” in marriage. You won’t always find you wife irresistible, and she won’t always find you that way, because sometimes you will be jerks to each other. The difference is that, if you are both committed to being conformed to the image of Jesus, you will fight to maintain your oneness. Ironically, this fight will take the form of humbling yourself and asking forgiveness, and living selflessly toward your wife.

      My wife and I are going on 31 years of marriage after raising 5 kids. It’s amazingly good. Love is awesome. I don’t even know if I could explain the deep-seated joy that comes from my relationship with my wife and adult kids now. It’s surreal to know from experience how good life can be for the taking, and yet see so few in the culture at large attain what they want – a life rich in loving relationship.

      You can do this. You can do it if you find someone who wants the same things you want, in submission to Lordship of Jesus. I battle the same personal battles that you do as a man. I know a lot of other guys who have great marriages as well. It’s not a crap shoot – you decide. May God set you up with a great woman who will make that decision alongside you.

      Grace and peace.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Reblogged this on Getting To Know Christ.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. We are in moral decay, when so many men were looking for fornication (even by internet) with a younger, more attractive woman !!

    Let me share a scripture verse, that changed my outlook totally (maybe 4 years ago, now), about my aging, wrinkling wife, after about 40 years of marriage… Praise the Lord, I have never cheated on my wife… But I was always needling her about her overweight condition… No more !!

    Proverbs 19:14… Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers, But a prudent wife is from the Lord. (NKJV)

    After reading this scripture, my outlook on my wife changed to her being perfect in my sight !! How could any gift from God be anything less than perfect !!

    I hope this testimony of how God’s living and powerful Word changed my life forever, may glorify God by His obvious presence and life changing power in my life !!

    Blessings in Christ, bruce

    P.S. I blog a days writing every year now, on my anniversary (11/27)…sharing how this powerful verse changed my life !!


  5. I must be living under a rock. I have never heard of this woman or the ensuing nonsense.


    • Yes Ark… U must get out from under that rock, and consider the possibility that God’s Word does cut like a two edged sword !!

      Hebrews 4:12… For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (NKJV)



  6. what a statement of our culture….and they don’t even have enough spiritual fortitude to think of their children…no respect for women etc….God has to help us turn this mess around!! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  7. What a disturbing world of infidelity

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I don’t think Ashley Madison is an immoral thing. It’s an economic entity; it’s entirely amoral. The problem is that the market ever existed in the first place. And, ironically, I think the cause of the market is a little more complex.
    Ashley Madison is not promising a loving and nurturing relationship. It is offering just sex. To me, that suggests there are a lot of marriages out there where the people aren’t communicating properly. And there are a lot of reasons why people may not be properly communicating about sex. I’d argue that religion is one of those reasons: it is touted as immoral and not for the purposes of fun, and yet psychology would suggest that it is an important part in forming loving and committed relationships, including the forming of intimacy. Making a taboo out of that is dangerous.
    It’s not just religion. I’d also blame what I call the ‘hyper-Feminists’ (because I hate the term “feminazi”). I don’t mean any disrespect, I am a feminist; but you know the people who call themselves feminists but then hide everything behind “feminist issues”. Those people make sex a taboo as well. They’d have you believe that all sex is rape (and the man is always the aggressor — I won’t get started on the ironic assumptions underlying that).
    I think one of the things we need to to remove the idea that sex is a taboo. We need to be able to talk about sex with our partners, because not getting any (or not getting it properly) is clearly bothering an awful lot of people. An open and frank discussion is probably the best course of action.

    Other thing that will probably help is partners getting to know each other (the fault here is nearly always, but not exclusively, the husband needing to get to know the wife better). People won’t want to have sex regularly if they don’t feel intimate with you on at least some level (sex isn’t the only variable in intimacy), so husbands need to get to know their wife and understand what excites them (academically, personally, professionally and sexually) instead of just assuming that sex is some isolated sex-only issue.


    • I actually agree with much of what you wrote here except the part about religion making sex taboo. Sex is a great part of a Christian marriage.


      • Are you referring to Proverbs 3: 27? “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.”
        I don’t know that it is that clear cut (although I’d love it to be). Take 1 Thessalonians 4: 5 “not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God.” (read 1 – 8 for full context). Lust and passion are a part of a great sex life (and I doubt could be considered immoral in a monogamous relationship — or any open and honest relationship, but I digress) but appears to be expressly commanded against here.
        Part of the problem though is not about a well-read Biblical view, but the view of many–including some priests and vicars–that the Bible teaches sex is solely for procreational purposes. (This odd interpretation of the Bible is touted as a part of the anti-Gay propaganda that some like to dabble in, which is why the ‘interpretation’ is so widespread, I would speculate.) This is why I was careful to say “religion” and not name a give book.
        When it comes to sex inside a marriage the Bible is oddly nuanced and broad. Take 1 Peter 3:7 “Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.” It is actually a sin to not at least try to bring your partner to climax (and I thoroughly agree!) (Philippians 2:1 and Ephesians 5:25-27 seem to support this further.)

        However, I intentionally said “religion”. A religion, in this context, is nothing more than an agreed upon interpretation of a given book. And the agreement that sex is for procreation only (even if not scripturally supported) is a common interpretation.

        Nuanced as that point is, I stand by my saying religion is part of the problem… even if (in this case) it is not the good itself.
        (I think a lot of the word’s problems could be solved if we spent a little more time in the bed or kitchen or wherever making sure our partners are fully seen to…)


      • All of that said, it is nice to broadly agree with each other.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Allallt – Ashley Madison is not “amoral.”

      The Ashley Madison site was designed specifically to facilitate extramarital affairs. This means that people who have stood publicly in front of witnesses and vowed their sexual fidelity to another person for life are intentionally seeking to secretly break their vows to that person. That sucks, it hurts people, and it’s immoral.

      You might think such vows are not a good idea, but that’s beside the point.


      • It pandered to a market. The customers are arguably immoral. Ashley Madison is not.


        • ??? That’s like saying sex traffickers who sell minors for sex are pandering to a “market.” It’s not a legitimate “market” and it profits from the lowest and worst impulses that exist in human nature. A company that does this, based on a lying and secrecy, is immoral.

          I’m not sure you realize how thin the veneer of civilization is once the authority of a loving Creator is removed from the picture. People do not naturally gravitate toward goodness and light.

          Liked by 1 person

          • It’s really not. In order to pander to the market of people who want to have sex with minors, the traffickers have to put people into harms way; people who don’t have the capacity to (often) to properly consent to what is being asked of them. The fundamental details of human trafficking make it an invalid analogy for setting up a social network that allows consenting adults to meet in private.


      • Don’t start creating guilt by association. The adulterers are the ones who have committed a wrong. Ashley Madison is merely a social network.


        • It’s not guilt by association; it’s guilt by committing a reprehensible act.

          I’m continuing this because your thought process is interesting to me. What I’m taking issue with is your idea that a company that is designed to profit from the harm of others is blameless, and that it is only the customers that use the company’s toxic service or product that is at fault. They’re both wrong.

          Another example would be the tobacco industry creating, marketing, and selling a product that it knows harms people. Or the abortion industry, selling abortions to desperate people despite the biological fact that a new human life begins at conception. Or the food industry creating and marketing soft drinks and junk food which it knows cannot be classified as beneficial for human consumption. Or the porn industry. People voluntarily flock to consume these products and services, but they all prey on human weakness, and often cause great harm. Human weakness doesn’t excuse the users, but the providers are also certainly to blame.

          The examples I’ve cited are not examples of good services that some people are abusing. The products and services intrinsically cause harm.


  9. Allallt (I have to reply down here, as we’ve run out of reply buttons on our thread.)

    1) No, it’s not a newly articulated position. It’s what I’ve been saying all along. You can see all my posts for yourself.

    Similarly, you wrote, “…your reasoning would exclude childfree or infertile couples from marriage. You say, repeatedly, that marriage is about raising (ones own biological) children. This is patently false…”

    Here you do it again – you misstate what I said and then argue against your own misstatement. I’ve argued that procreation is “A PART” of the reason marriage exists. I explicitly said it’s not the only reason. Go back and see for yourself.

    We could look at it this way. You said, “…As far as I can see, the point of marriage is primarily as a declaration of love…”

    I would agree, and I would say love is also an inextricable part of marriage AS A GENERAL CONCEPT. But can you have a marriage without love? Yes. Similarly, can you have a marriage without a commitment to sexual fidelity? Yes. Without monogamy? Yes. Marriage that is not intended to be lifelong in duration? Yes. That is not consensual? Yes. That is not egalitarian? Yes. And so on. The fact that you can find examples of marriages that don’t include one or more aspects of traditional marriage does not prove that those aspects are not a part of marriage AS A GENERAL CONCEPT.

    I contend that you need to argue that procreation is not part of the reason for marriage because you must do so in order to make your case for “marriage equality.”

    3) You wrote “No evidence=no restrictions”
    Insufficient data is not the same as “no evidence.” We have a mountain of evidence on the effects of fatherlessness on kids. We have mountain of evidence on the increased risk of abuse when a non-biological male is in a household with kids. Why would you assume that the data will someday show gays to be any different than anybody else? I think it’s pretty reckless to plunge ahead with arbitrarily redefining marriage, given what we do know.

    Again, the point is for society and the government to hold up hetero, monogamous, lifelong marriage as an ideal; not to forbid or punish non-traditional families is a pluralistic society. This is ultimately about the well-being of children, and thus society. If children were not an essential part of the equation, I would keep my opinions to myself.

    4) I find your consent arguments to be wildly inconsistent. You say, “Parents and older siblings…all have naturally authoritative positions.” Who says? Certainly not according to the case studies I linked. Then you cite historical examples, which essentially support my point. But then historical examples carry no weight with you when it comes to the “minors giving consent” question. A minor is a cultural/legal construct, and therefore subject to change. Many people in America married quite young 150 years ago. Islam has a longstanding and ongoing practice of child marriage. Furthermore, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, as well as gender feminism, openly advocate sexual freedom and autonomy for children.

    The bottom line is that all of this stuff is fluid and changeable if we are only here as a result of mindless, accidental processes, as you believe. You simply need to open your mind to the brave new world of Full Marriage Equality. Though I commend you for being more logically consistent than most materialists I’ve spoken with.


  10. (1) Okay – so if no one part of the definition you’re offering is necessary, what does it matter? Fertility – not a necessary element. It’s just a general concept.
    So, I don’t see how it can be a valid objection.
    (2) If there is any evidence that homosexual parents are actually damaging to children (there isn’t, but if there were) the tolerant thing to do would still be to evaluate each homosexual couple before they adopt. If it were true that homosexual couples were damaging to their adopted children (there isn’t) then we would expect to see a higher legitimate refusal rate after homosexual couples go through the same proceedings as everyone else. That’s what equality looks like: being given the same opportunity.
    You still seem to be comparing adoptive homosexual parents with biological parents, would be a moot comparison even if there were sufficient evidence for you to make the comparison (which there isn’t). The fact that homosexual couples are infertile means they also should be compared to adoptive heterosexual parents.
    If the wellbeing of children is the point (which is a noble goal even if I do think marriage is a clumsy way of looking after it), then what we need is not a traditional/antiquated definition of marriage that excludes pluralism. Instead we need mechanisms by which we can secure households (regardless of marriage).
    (4) You were asking what the legal objections might be to incest, while being consistent about Marriage Equality. Now you’re bemoaning my response for depending on “legal construct”.

    (5) I think I need to reframe my position. My point is that we should extend all rights to all people so long as it is sensible. (“Sensible” covers issues like causing harm, reliable consent and other issues like that.) I see no value in defending antiquated institutions for their own sake or accepting them as sufficient to provide some benefit when they are not the best way to said benefit. What I’m saying in this context is this: “tradition” is not a good defence and you can’t defend marriage for “safeguarding children” as it is inefficient and sometimes detrimental to exactly that goal.



  1. My Article Read (8-30-2015) | My Daily Musing
  2. The Linguistic Laziness of Religion | Allallt in discussion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: