Say Anything Blog

So, just when is Bill Clinton moving to NH?

I take the view that adultery can also be an affair of the heart. Gender, sex, and the like play no part in order for there to be adultery.

Dennis Prager said that coitus between a man and a woman is the only thing sacred about sexual contact. He said he was fine with his children engaging in all forms of sexual contact (heavy petting, oral sex, etc) as long as they didn’t have intercourse. It seems that this line of logic is involved with the courts perspective. Since a man doesn’t have a vagina, having relations with him doesn’t constitute “real” intercourse.

I think this definition is absurd. For me, it is a simple contractual matter. A person, when he or she marries, gives their spouse free and clear title on his or her sexuality. Any use of that sexuality with another person is a violation of the other spouse’s possession and ownership of the husband or wife’s sexuality.

I listen to Dennis Prager regularly and very much doubt that he would have said that.  Could you provide a citation?

Regardless, state laws have no bearing on morality.  Just because the state of NH does not consider anything outside of heterosexual sexual intercourse to be adultery does not make those other acts moral.  Personally, I would broaden the definition of adultery, but I don’t live in NH, so I don’t care how they define it up there.

A person, when he or she marries, gives their spouse free and clear title on his or her sexuality.

Guess again.  You might speak to any number of men who are in prison for “raping” their wives.  It’s a feminist thing.  There are no binding commitments on the woman in marriage.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Kbiel,

Dennis did say it on a show regarding sex and what parents ought to advise their children in their young adult years. I will try to find the citation, but you could always just call Dennis and ask him about it.

I believe that marriage and adultery should be legally defined in a practical fashion that includes all possible breaking of the marriage commitment in regards to expressed sexual relations. Ironically, morality ties into legality because the issue isn’t whether a person can legally commit adultery but whether they owe the injured spouse for breaking the marriage commitment. It always makes me laugh that there is more protections for business relationships and rights than there is for marriage. Just as I don’t have the right to take my friends car and give it to a bum, a married person doesn’t have the right engage in intercourse with someone other than his or her spouse without stealing back something he or she gave to someone else. It is not an issue of morality but agreement/contract.

Sorry, but the burden is not on me to prove your assertion right or wrong.  Bring the evidence or drop the assertion.  It doesn’t seem to be in character for a man who is an observant Jew and social conservative who speaks often for traditional values.

Guess again.  You might speak to any number of men who are in prison for “raping” their wives.  It’s a feminist thing.  There are no binding commitments on the woman in marriage.

Most ownership rights have limits on them. Just because I own my home does not mean I have the right to start a waste collection business on my property. In the same way, even if a husband has a right to relations with his wife (because she married him and that part of marriage is not in small print) does not mean he has the right to abuse/coerce his wife. Just as society intrudes on a private property ownership, society can also intrude into the relationships of individuals.

A husband who has a wife that won’t have sex with him should be able to boot his wife for nonperformance Is it legal for business partners to use coercive force on a nonperforming partner? I would hold that a wife who breaks her commitment to her husband to provide a reasonable amount sexual relations owes her husband for lost time, emotional distress, undue hardship, etc, etc.

Your mistake is to equate the marriage contract with an “ownership agreement”, since it is nothing of the kind for the man.  She owns his finances, though.  All children of the marriage are also his financial obligation, even if she got another guy to fertilize her.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Dennis Prager said,

There is, one could say, a continuum of wrong which goes from premarital sex, to celibacy, to adultery, and on to homosexuality, incest, and bestiality.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml

Sorry having trouble finding the citation you want. This is the problem with radio shows. But notice that the Apostle Paul falls further down the moral continuum of sexuality than Paris Hilton. Bummer. Dennis is a smart guy but he is not immune to some absurdity. I was upset when I heard what he said. I like you, thought it was inconsistant. I don’t think I can find a written or recorded comment related to his principle in the area I cited in my first post.

Robert,

A contract doesn’t have to be in writing in order to exist. It is just not enforcable. Well some of it is, you can screw the guy with assumed power in the relationship. As if men are in control of their marriages.

Dennis Prager said,

Much consensual adult behavior that Judeo-Christian values would prohibit is unholy rather than immoral. For example, non-marital sex between consenting adults violates the Judeo-Christian code of holiness, but not necessarily its code of morality (if there were coercion or trickery, it would, of course, be immoral). The only holy sex in Judeo-Christian religions is between a husband and wife. All other sex is unholy. But not necessarily immoral.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/06/14/we_are_not_just_animals_judeo-christian_values_part_xv

This goes against the both the old testament and new testament. If it is not immoral why is a women required to marry the man she sleeps with or stay celibate? Those restrictions were not a holiness requirement, they were a moral requirement. Although this doesn’t address the issue of foreplay before marriage being good in the mind of Dennis Prager, it does show that he views full blown premarital intercourse as moral yet not holy. Foreplay before marriage is neither immoral nor unholy according to Dennis. You don’t have to believe me but he said it. If I find it, I will post it. Dennis’s view of sex and sexuality is not a traditional moral perspective by any means.