The notion that a divorced woman should have to wait until her ol' man inserts his penis into another woman's vagina before she is free to pursue another suitor is completely ridiculous. Now Jesus said, "If a man even looks at a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery". The johnson has been taken out of the equation here. According the the Bible, it's not about the cock-a-doodle-do.
Wise guy Jesus was smart enough and spiritual enough to know that it isn't the slapping together of body parts that annuls a relationship. It's all about the heart attitude, baby. What if you use a thick enough condom and don't actually 'touch' the partner? Is that considered sex or just a rather deep rubber gloved handshake?
Sheeesh, rubbing uglies allows a righteous marriage annulment and then allowable remarriage? pfft. Of course, even if you can't find the loopholes for remarrying before an ex does the hippidy dippity with someone else, you can always ask for forgiveness for your 'mistake' and move on.
Oh and I love the ten virgins story - The five wise and five unwise virgins who had lamp issues - the dude ends up with FIVE wives! A New Testament justification of polygamy!
Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV) - There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
I saw a documentary on National Geographic channel about a sexually promiscuous tribe who really don't seem to have a problem with sex outside of marriage. They marry but they also share the love around and don't 'seem' to have a problem with it. What I am asking is, is that immoral? No one gets hurt and it's just a fact of life for them. I guess I am again asking, is it the rule itself that has labelled it as immoral? If the rule was never there then would it be wrong? If we were raised in a culture where adultery was acceptable for both men and women, would it still be immoral?