Why is divorce never allowed?

[Delicate]

FOC: Wow... is that it?
Not a single refutation to ANYTHING I posted......just a ''youre wrong and Im not'' thing?

My appologies Follower- I see where you're coming from. I edited that post. I was referring to the 'divorce / remarriage issue' being the point of interest (saying if anyone was really interested in the d/r issue.....) I DO appologize, sir.

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC: Wow... is that it?
Not a single refutation to ANYTHING I posted......just a ''youre wrong and Im not'' thing?

My appologies Follower- I see where you're coming from. I edited that post. I was referring to the 'divorce / remarriage issue' being the point of interest (saying if anyone was really interested in the d/r issue.....) I DO appologize, sir.

No need for an apology sister.

 

[follower of Christ]

Well, thank you Follower for not letting me down. I came expecting your twisted accusations, and sure enough....

Quote: (From FOC)

In those cases where the husband who has just taken a wife found that his wife was not a virgin, Moses authorized divorcement.

Where is there an argument here? No one refutes this. Jesus said in those cases, if you divorce- you stay celebate, or be reconciled.

Uh sorry, but that guy is using Moses words on divorce, stating that they were a permission to divorce a NONvirgin.
That is an outright lie.
Moses had already issued the punishment for that crime 2 chapters before.
Moses words on divorce werent about a NONvirgin, they were blanketly covering NONsexual issues (as those were covered already)

So the argument is that the man in that site is making a connection where none exists.
Readers, please see my last post on page 5 to refresh on this.

Yes the readers of these threads are VERY intellegent- I don't have to do their thinking for them. They can read, they can think, they can hear from God...

That they can.

Again, not necessary. People can do their own thinking.

then why do you link to websites on this topic ?

I wouldn't call it unrefuted, Follower. You are very passionate about your stand. However, I sense alot of bitterness in your posts.

You sense relentless persistance that has studied this to its conclusion.
You see bitterness as most do when someone continually shows them in error.
We are called to guard the faith....the truth.

I've read other threads you've posted at, so I know you've had a very bitter pill to swallow in your lifetime (and I speak with compassion).
I pray, with all sincerety, that you lay your bitterness aside- then the truth won't be so clouded. You are an intellegent man, Follower. I admonish you to work past the bitterness and live up to your full potential.

If this is sincere, thanks. I intend on spending the rest of my days for His cause.

If its not, then please lay aside the emotionalistic distraction.

Either way, do as I believe the rules state and deal with the topic, not the poster, please..........thanks.

I sincerely bless you, and pray you prosper, as your soul prospers.

Well bless you too sis.
Im not against you at all.
Just these doctrines that present a partial distorted truth.

 

[Delicate]

Well bless you too sis.
Im not against you at all.

Thank you, Follower...

 

[follower of Christ]

Well bless you too sis.
Im not against you at all.

Thank you, Follower...

Youre very welcome sis.
I know in here our words come off as being harsh sometimes, but I want you to know if you knew me in person you wouldnt think that about me at all.

I have dear friends who believe the same way you do, I dont treat them any differently than any of my other friends.
We do have to avoid this particular topic tho, and I find that sad sometimes.

I know it sounds as if Im bitter, that has been pointed out to me a few times on other sites.
Ive tried to alter the way I word things, but most of the time it doesnt matter.

if I say something with that folks disagree with and I put a smiley, Im told Im using the smileys in a sarcastic manner and I get warned.

If I just state things without the smileys, Im told Im being harsh or am bitter and usually end up getting warned.

I was just banned from Crosswalk.coms forums because a moderator didnt like what I was saying, as well as the bluntness, so he pulled a fast one on me and I ended up getting banned.

Lets assume you and I see eye to eye on every issue for a second....have you noticed that on all of these ''christian'' forums on the web that people are permitted to come in and teach ANY ungodly doctrine they want, not matter how blaspemous and heretical it may be, and as long as they hide themselves in sheeps clothing (in their mannerisms) they dont get warned or anything??

What is chrisitianity coming to when people can teach horrible lies and thats ok as long as they do it with a smile on their faces?

Anyway, Id bet you and I agree on FAR more than we disagree on sister, Id bet my life on it.

 

[Delicate]

Follower, your last post does show that internet communication isn't always effective. It's really difficult to adequately show voice inflection, not to mention the complete lack of body language that accounts for more than half of communication. Good points.

Anyway, Id bet you and I agree on FAR more than we disagree on sister, Id bet my life on it.

In light of the fact that I've only known you in the d/r realm, that's probably true. : Like you though, I stand unmoved in my understanding of d/r.

God bless you with a great Sunday!

 

[follower of Christ]

In light of the fact that I've only known you in the d/r realm, that's probably true. : Like you though, I stand unmoved in my understanding of d/r.

God bless you with a great Sunday!

I have to admit I did move a bit.
Over the last few weeks of discussing this issue here and abroad Ive been able to take more scriptures into account over thier being brought up by someone here and there.
I actually came into this topic a lot less adamant on certain points than I have grown to be.

For instance, I keep stating that whoredom has always broken Gods marital covenant before, but the studying Ive had to do to find answers to a few points caused me to study things to a depth that I hadnt done before.
So now not only do I believe that whoredom has always breached the covenant, but I understand the reason WHY a lot clearer now.

Another reason why I love these forums.
They are better than taking any study courses in my opinoin.

 

[follower of Christ]

Yet another absurd conclusion made by yet another of the anti-remarriage group.

http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/remarriage5.html


Go down to "spousal abuse''

Surely, men as loving as Jesus and Paul would not have wanted or intended that an abused wife was required to endure such suffering. Surely, such compassionate men would have wanted to remove the wife from this most unjust, physical harm.

Or would they?.....

This writer actaully pushes the idea that an abused wife is to stay with her man giving all sorts of scripture that has NOTHING to do with the marital covenant to tell some young battered woman she needs to stay with her dog and let him beat her so God will approve of her.

This clown uses passages applying to christians VS the unsaved world and tries to parallel them to Gods holy union of marriage.
Our ''suffering" should be at the hands if the unjust and the abominable........NOT each other and surely NOT one to whom we entered into Gods holiest of unions.

These are the types Id like to see stand before God on that day.
That may sound unforgiving, and maybe it is.
Just as some are unforgiving towards that sweet 22 year old girl who has to leave her animal and ends up remarrying 10 years later to a good, christian man.


It seems this chap is completely oblivious to the fact that both Jesus AND Moses were PROTECTING an innocent wife in Deut 24 and Matt/Mark.

I get so tired of seeing people claim to have the "spirit'' of things, then clearly spout out the ''letter'' ( that which agrees with thier views) so adamantly
that its plain to see that they wouldnt know the ''spirit'' of the law if it was biting them about the head and neck.



Sorry, Im ranting, but this guy just really ticks me off.
I dont think he knows the first thing about the 'spirit' of Gods word.

Nor a thing about.........".... but God has called us to peace "
(1Co 7:15 EMTV)

 

[follower of Christ]

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

1 Cor.7:1 It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1 Cor.7:7-8 For I [Paul] would that all men were even as I myself. ... It is good for them if they abide even as I.

If you marry, don't touch her! That's what the bible says. In fact, abandon your wife for God, and you will receive everlasting life in Heaven! AMEN!

I just noticed this one.
Very good point ErikSalaan..... your verse definetly shows why we MUST take all scripture together to understand the context and see what is meant.

If one took the passage you quoted literally without understanding context throughout the whole bible, they could surely set themselves up for a world of hurt later for unjustly deserting a spouse ''in Gods name''.
Kind of like what Paul was correcting in Corinth ;)
(possibly not understanding this passage is what made those in Corinth start leaving unsaved spouses to begin with)


All relevant scripture IN context and with harmony to give the clear picture of what is being taught.

Your passage proves that we MUST balance one verse with the rest.

 

[Brighty]

Silent Observer

Dear Delicate,

Thank you for the message of truth concerning divorce. I am most impressed with the patience and evidence of Godliness you have shown in the face of such constant bombardment from those who seem to plug their ears to what you say. Such kindness makes your message even more believable, IMHO.

Brighty

 

[Brighty]

By the Way,

There is a link to some great audio teachings at http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdreform2.htm that can be either downloaded or streamed. Just click on the link that says: "New - Sermons on marriage, divorce and remarriage by Rev. Stephen Wilcox." There are also teachings by Dr. Webb and radio interviews on the subject.

Good listening over the Thankgiving weekend!

Brighty

 

[Delicate]

Thank you Brighty, for the information regarding available messages at marriagedivorce.com. I've listened and find them most helpful in focusing on the truth of God's Word as it relates to the d/r issue.

And thank you for the very kind words. Blessings to you!

 

[follower of Christ]

...

 

[follower of Christ]

Re: Silent Observer

Dear Delicate,

Thank you for the message of truth concerning divorce. I am most impressed with the patience and evidence of Godliness you have shown in the face of such constant bombardment from those who seem to plug their ears to what you say. Such kindness makes your message even more believable, IMHO.

Brighty

When ones theories have been shredded by scripture, custom and historical fact and still they refuse to accept what is said, Id say you have mistaken the person who is actually plugging their ears.

Not even the word ''fornication'' supports your doctrine now that Ive taken the time to actually look at it.
It says nothing about ''UNmarried'' folks, but only that the two committing the act are not married to EACH OTHER.


Gotta love the truth ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

Heh....Ive been duped and didnt realize it till today.

Ive been listening to this whole ''fornication'' thing for so long that I just assumed folks were being honest with me without checking the definition of the english word myself.

It turns out Ive been decieved.

Many have told me that ''fornication'' is sex between UNmarried people.

Here is the real definition...

Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

THIS definition of the word is precisely what scripture presents....a peron who has sex with someone they ARENT married to....aka ''harlotry'' or ''illicit sex''

It says not a single word about their being UNmarried.
The definition doesnt even make the claim.

It simply states that these two folks are not married to EACH OTHER and thus committing ''fornication''.

So I go and check the 1828 websters dictionary...

FORNICA'TION, n. [L. fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

2. Adultery. Matt. 5.

3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.

4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19.

Huh...imagine that.
In 1828 ''fornication'' INCLUDED adultery right in the clear definition.
Guess that shoots all sorts of holes in the doctrines of anyone using the english ''fornication'' instead of the greek "porneia'' (which is even more All-inclusive as it includes bestiality as well)


From this point on I check the REAL facts involved with every single assertion made.

Fornication is NOT PREmarital sex alone.
It is ANY person who has sex with someone that they arent married to.

that is what porneia states and what our ''fornication'' says plainly.


This definition makes fornication fit perfectly in Act 15..

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:20 KJV)

"abstain from having sex with someone youre not married to''


and even fits perfectly with the dreaded 1 cor 7:2

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:2 KJV)


"nevertheless.. to avoid having sex with someone youre NOT married to, let every man have his own wife............."


And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 19:9 KJV)

"Whoever shall put away his wife, except she has had sex with someone shes not married to, and remarries commits adultery"


Fits perfectly without this deceitful line of fornication meaming UNmarried people which is clearly out of context with Acts 15 among other passages.




.

 

[Delicate]

Foc said: Gotta love the truth

OK- let's examine what it means to 'love the truth'
Jesus called HIMSELF the truth (Jhn 14:6). HIS TRUTH on the mdr issue:

Matt. 19:9- Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication (betrothal custom of Jews, scholars agree) and shall marry another, commits adultry.

Mrk. 10:11-12- whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultry. vs12- and if a woman puts away her husband and is married to another, she commits adultry.

Lk. 16:18- whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultry. And whoever marries her that is put away, commits adultry.

The golden word in FOC's quote is 'love'. Jesus (who IS truth) taught that He understands our love for Him BY OUR OBEDIENCE.

John 14: 15-21 (Focusing on vs 21) He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, is he that loveth Me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and manifest Myself to him.

To look at what JESUS said, and deny what is clearly spoken, would appear to be an act of open rebellion because Jesus IS CLEAR- remarriage after divorce to one other than the original covenant spouse IS ADULTRY- period! Of course, the FLESH hates to hear that! To continue on in rebellion is to mock the blood of Him who gives power to walk in newness of life and obedience.

Jesus has shown HIS truth- nothing more needs to be put to debate- only embraced with willful obedience! To do otherwise is to bring His blood into open mockery- I will not be part of that! Nor will I encourage further debate that does (as well as propagating destructive error).

Consider Him. . .Jesus suffered far more than we have against temptation, and trials. Consider HIS EXAMPLE- embrace HIS WORD. He offers power to do what HE commands. Our burden IS light in Him.

Blessings in Him!
Matthew 16:24

 

[follower of Christ]

Foc said: Gotta love the truth

OK- let's examine what it means to 'love the truth'
Jesus called HIMSELF the truth (Jhn 14:6). HIS TRUTH on the mdr issue:

Matt. 19:9- Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication (betrothal custom of Jews, scholars agree) and shall marry another, commits adultry.

This is an outright LIE, delicate.
There are a great many scholars who state that this exception is about any kind of sexual sin..including adultery.

Not even the english ''fornication'' can save this doctrine now.

HIS truth states ''porneia''
over and over again you have been proven WRONG that porneia is restricted to the betrothal period...it is not...nor is there ANY indication ANYWHERE that it is, by Jesus OR His chosen apostles

*IF* it is ONLY pertaining to the betrothal period....then PROVE IT !!!!!.... or please stop wasting our time posting this same material over and over.


The FACT is there is not a single reason to believe that Jesus was not including ALL of the cases of sexual sin by a wife in Deut 22......none at all....and was also including all the other sexual sins, such as bestiality, that the word ''porneia'' (rendered as fornication in english) includes.

Mrk. 10:11-12- whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultry. vs12- and if a woman puts away her husband and is married to another, she commits adultry.

Lk. 16:18- whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultry. And whoever marries her that is put away, commits adultry.

EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION.....(SEX WITH SOMEONE YOUR NOT MARRIED TO)

You DO know what an 'exception' is, dont you delicate?
Any clue what it is to make an ''exception" ?

Why not spend a couple days researching the MEANING of that word before you come back and make yet another meaningless post....please.

The FACT is that there is not a single thing you can offer that shows that Jesus was ONLY refering to unlawful sex during the betrothal period


What is funny is the debate Im in currently on another site.....
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... id=344#344

Why is it that you people of this doctrine have so many different, conflicting views on the details ?

I know why, because this doctrine is FALSE !
If it werent you all could agree on more than you do...which is only that divorce/remarriage is sin.

One of you says divorce is not a sin, remarriage is...another says divorce is the sin.
Another states that fornication is PREmarital sex.....another that it is unlawful BETROTHAL sex....some of your doctrine even agree that fornication DOES mean adultery after consummation and DOES permit divorce....just not remarriage.

Some have to redefine the bible by saying that divorce doesnt end a marriage ever...Some state that there are TWO kinds of divorce.

..some state that ''one flesh'' is merely living with a spouse...not sex, while other INSIST that ''one flesh'' IS sex and that makes the marriage..that the two are CONTRACTED in marriage means nothing (aka VOWS dont have to be kept, obviously)

This doctrine has become so varying and asinine, its no wonder christianity as a whole sees it for the silliness that it is.

God HATES divorce, that is a FACT.
He also understands that WE cannot control the actions of a spouse.
His marriage covenant is NOt unconditional....pre or post consummation....that FACT is proven by our Lords words ''except''

The golden word in FOC's quote is 'love'. Jesus (who IS truth) taught that He understands our love for Him BY OUR OBEDIENCE.

John 14: 15-21 (Focusing on vs 21) He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, is he that loveth Me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and manifest Myself to him.


To look at what JESUS said, and deny what is clearly spoken, would appear to be an act of open rebellion because Jesus IS CLEAR- remarriage after divorce to one other than the original covenant spouse IS ADULTRY- period! Of course, the FLESH hates to hear that! To continue on in rebellion is to mock the blood of Him who gives power to walk in newness of life and obedience.

Jesus has shown HIS truth- nothing more needs to be put to debate- only embraced with willful obedience! To do otherwise is to bring His blood into open mockery- I will not be part of that! Nor will I encourage further debate that does (as well as propagating destructive error).

Consider Him. . .Jesus suffered far more than we have against temptation, and trials. Consider HIS EXAMPLE- embrace HIS WORD. He offers power to do what HE commands. Our burden IS light in Him.

and now back to emotionalistic propaganda that offers not a single thing from scripture.

Do you have anything to present sister, or just this false doctrine with no foundation in scripture?

Jesus SAID ''except for fornication''

You accept the exception clause, that is a FACT, based on your posts (not that it matters, even if you rejected it, it doesnt changed FACTS)....so we know you accept Jesus is giving an EXCEPTION to the NORMAL rules of marriage.

What you and your doctrine do (and the greatly varying sub-doctrines with this anti-remarriage teaching) is REFUSE to accept the plain teaching of Jesus when He says ''except''.

All the conflicting teaching by anti-remarriage types, with all their REdefining of terms and and word definitions proves two things....that you all dont have a clue what Jesus is actually stating, and 2; that no matter what proof is shown to you that you will put your fingers in your ears and continue to chant to yourself ''Im right, youre wrong...Im right, your wrong....'' until you pass out of this life and stand before our Lord on that day.

Right or wrong, I hope that each and every one of you who have caused a divorce between 2 of Gods lawfullly married children will be held accountable....as we know you will by the words of scripture.

That sounds harsh, but no more harsh than the cold, callous, evil words that you all have offered to a brother or sister who have been abandoned by some whoring spouse only to find a good, godly spouse later and remarry.

You offer forgiveness to the man who savagely, repeatedly beats and rapes his wife or even his own daughter.... then have the audacity to REdefine what our Lord has conceded and point your stubby little fingers of guilt in the direction of the innocent.

Yes, I DO hope all of you stand accountable for this...and you will....as we all will.


Porneia has been proven, and is proven on my website absolutely, to be ALL sex sin.
EVERY reputable scholar that has ever lived...... christian, jew or secular..... is going to agree that the word 'porneia' includes ALL sexual immorality, by the married AND the unmarried....Scripture backs this fact absolutely.
So at this point YOU are simply refusing to ACCEPT the clear words of our Lord when HE says ''except''....arent you?

It does make me wish I knew ''why'' tho.


*IF* Jesus had clearly STATED that He was ONLY refering to the betrothal period, youd have an arguement....but He didnt.

Youre just going to have to deal with that fact sister.
All youre doing now is continuing to make yourself look like you dont have a clue as to what the truth is.
Using emotionalism to present your arguement doesnt help your cause at all.. It makes you look desperate.

 

[Drew]

Foc said: Gotta love the truth

OK- let's examine what it means to 'love the truth'
Jesus called HIMSELF the truth (Jhn 14:6). HIS TRUTH on the mdr issue:

Matt. 19:9- Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication (betrothal custom of Jews, scholars agree) and shall marry another, commits adultry.

This is an outright LIE, delicate.
There are a great many scholars who state that this exception is about any kind of sexual sin..including adultery.

It is with some degree of trepidation that I enter this fray.....

FOC: If your thesis is correct and we also bring to bear the teaching of Jesus that lustful thoughts constitute adultery, are you not forced into a rather uncomfortably "liberal" position on divorce? Here is why: Any person who "wants out" of a marriage can truthfully assert their spouce has committed the sin of lustful thinking, because all of us married people have lustful thoughts at one time or another (will anyone disagree with me on this)?

It would seem that if the exemption is about any kind of sexual sin, anyone seeking divorce would be able to claim the exemption - who among us has not had lustful thoughts about a person other than their spouse?

I am not claiming to have any answers. However, my sense is that a strictly "technical" approach to this matter (e.g. determining the exact meaning of "porneia") does not work, for reasons such as the one I have given.

 

[follower of Christ]

It is with some degree of trepidation that I enter this fray.....

enter away.

FOC: If your thesis is correct and we also bring to bear the teaching of Jesus that lustful thoughts constitute adultery, are you not forced into a rather uncomfortably "liberal" position on divorce?

Not at all.

Liberal would be allowing for MORE than what Jesus and his chosen apostles have allowed for.
I do not.

Here is why: Any person who "wants out" of a marriage can truthfully assert their spouce has committed the sin of lustful thinking, because all of us married people have lustful thoughts at one time or another (will anyone disagree with me on this)?

And that negates Jesus words ''except'' how exactly?

Im not the one who will Judge man one day, neither are you.
WE are not permitted to judge another by what we believe them to be thinking, are we?
We discern by ACTIONS alone...THAT is our basis.

So youre example is entirely void.
*IF* someone used this as their excuse for divorce, Im quite sure that theyd have some answering to do for it.

Paul didnt have the man in corinth cast out of the church when he was simply lusting after his fathers wife (as he must have done since he ended up having sex with her), but not until he was acting out on it...commiting 'fornication' (sex with someone he WASNT married to) with her.
NOR are we ever told to keep from a brother we ''believe'' to be thinking sinfully.... that is Gods providence.

Paul tells us...

'But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. "
(1Co 5:11-13 KJV)

Nowhere is it stated to try to discern their thoughts and act on what we believe they are thinking.
We act on what they are DOING



It is not our job to determine the every thought of a man, that is Gods alone to do.

OUR job is to discern his actions

What does PORNEIA mean?
One thing for sure...it DOESNT tell us to judge what we believe a spouse to be THINKING.

Porneia is sexual immorality...the ACT of sexual sin.
GOD judges the hearts...WE do not.

WE judge action....

It would seem that if the exemption is about any kind of sexual sin, anyone seeking divorce would be able to claim the exemption - who among us has not had lustful thoughts about a person other than their spouse?

see above.

I am not claiming to have any answers. However, my sense is that a strictly "technical" approach to this matter (e.g. determining the exact meaning of "porneia") does not work, for reasons such as the one I have given.

The exact meaning of porneia includes sexual sin by anyone, married or not... and also aludes to idolatry in Revelation.
Since we are not gods, we cannot discern what is in the heart of a man UNTIL he commits an ACT.

That act is what we deal with.

 

[Drew]

Im not the one who will Judge man one day, neither are you.
WE are not permitted to judge another by what we believe them to be thinking, are we?
We discern by ACTIONS alone...THAT is our basis.

You seem to be arguing that actions are what counts and not thoughts. But this is precisely what Jesus is arguing against in his pronouncement about lusting in the heart. If someone looks on a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery "in his heart".

I want us to be very clear: Lets say Fred is married to Jane and it is a fact that Fred has had lustful thoughts about Sue while married to Jane. Does Jane have biblical grounds to divorce Fred if she becomes aware of this fact? This seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate question.

If you answer "yes", then I will reassert that virtually anyone can claim such grounds because (I claim - you might well disagree) it is a fact that almost every married person has had lustful thoughts about someone other than their spouse. So a "yes" answer really works out to a "everyone has grounds for divorce on the basis of the exemption" position.

If you answer "no", then you seem to be denying that "adultery in the heart" actually counts as porneia. This would seem to be a very difficult position to defend since Jesus seems to go out of his way to equate the thought with the act. You might well claim that thoughts of adultery are not as truly damaging to a marriage as actual acts and are therefore not to be considered as counting under the exemption clause. I think that such a position is highly debatable.

Please tell me if your answer is "yes", "no", or "I don't know".