ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's why the old law was better. It didn't rely on consent, it relied on willingness. And unwillingness could be demonstrated by evidence of resistance.
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
No, marriage does not give consent to rape, bullying, physical violence, etc.
Love and honor does not include rape. Like filthy child molesters, rapists understand that leaving no marks helps to conceal the evidence.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Derf
Well-known member
Physical violence should leave evidence, and therefore would be prosecutable. Bullying is usually something others might witness. Rape that includes penetration against an unmarried person leaves sexual residue (semen, or tearing of the hymen if a virgin), but sexual residue is expected for a married woman.
The only evidence, especially if someone is intent on not leaving evidence, is the act itself, which is expected (and encouraged) in a marriage. Therefore either marital rape doesn't exist (my position), or it isn't really prosecutable (your position's logical endpoint).
Derf
Well-known member
I'm not sure I understand the difference, but I agree with your premise. The other thing the old laws relied on was a criminalization of adultery, most fornication, or any sex outside of marriage.
Typical. Since it’s highly unlikely that *you*, due to your gender, will ever be raped or brutalized, I will just dismiss your ignorance and male entitlement as … just that. Intent and harm isn’t always easy to prove.
Example, raping ape of a husband is allergic to nuts.
“Sorry officer, who knew? He seemed depressed!”
“We didn’t realize the bologna was bad. He had to have that sandwich.”
“WHAT? He ran out of insulin!”
No marks. No proof.
Thank you for endorsing the fact that women should always be wary of marriage.
He does know men do not have the right to rape their wives. Isn’t that something you agree with?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I was sexually molested as a child by a family member. Turns out an awful lot of people of my gender endure that as well.
have I mentioned lately that you are a horrible person?
Praying for God to release you from the grip of the demons that control you
men and women should both be wary of entering into a marriage with a person who is not in Christ
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Derf
Well-known member
Well, there you go, then. All males should just be ignored, which actually proves my point--for justice, a single witness isn't sufficient. Your examples might be valid cases of lack of sufficient proof, but they don't negate the need for sufficient proof before convicting someone of what we both agree should be a capital crime.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, anyone who espouses that there's no such thing as marital rape is clearly clueless or..."something else"...
I wouldn't go so far as to say women should always be wary of marriage though, more wary as to who they might entertain being married to...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sad thing is, some of these nutballs don't even think there's such a thing as rape in a marriage anyway. If a husband wants sex and his wife doesn't then eh, if he carries on regardless then no foul. It's his right.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You enjoy falsely accusing me....simply because you don't have enough spiritual understanding to hear clearly what was said?
You don't even know what the New Testament is.
If you did, you'd know that witnesses will not be needed in that day.
And, this absurd comment, "So you would take the word of one spouse against the other, and apply the death penalty, all based on one person's testimony?" I wouldn't apply to death penalty to any rapist. Try really hard not to read things into my comments that are not there.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Great, I appreciate the kindergarten lesson concerning witnesses.
However, God's law and God's standards hold NO sway in this kingdom on EARTH at this time.
Are you so blind that you think the world would look like this if God was in control?
Now, trot yourself in a courtroom anywhere in this country and claim any of God's laws hold sway.
glorydaz
Well-known member
When in fact, it's the opposite. The husband, by forcing himself on his wife, has freed her from the marriage.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, and yet there is all this silly squabbling about a "godly" man forcing his wife to have sex.
Was our Lord able to abstain from sex when He walked among us?
Can a man locked up in a Japanese prison camp live without having sex?
Is that junk that important that one's cherished wife must be forced?
And this stuff we're hearing from professing Christians?????????
Derf
Well-known member
1Cor 7:5 Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it's for the purposes of prayer and fasting - but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it.
You're welcome.
And?
As Christians, we are to UPHOLD God's standard, not let it be pushed by the wayside by the wicked, and CERTAINLY not be apathetic as Christians and just give up because "God's law/standards hold no sway on earth currently." Apathy is a sin.
Are you so blind that you think the world would look like this if God was in control?
I think the world would look a lot better if Christians would step up and promote God's laws in the face of the wicked.
Plenty of Anti-abortionists have done just that, telling the wicked, yes, in the courtrooms, that what they're doing goes against God and His laws, and I, among others, am not afraid of doing what Paul says:
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
And here are such people doing just that:
Spoiler
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
His utilitarian moral philosophy answers the following wrongly:
His utilitarianism believes in rights so long as believing in rights gives his utilitarian calculator the right answer. As soon as his calculus tells him rights are no longer the utilitarian optimum, then rights go out the window, it's the same for all utilitarians, and it is just as simple as that for them. Their morality is truly decayed. Nazis think like this.
The right answer, the American answer and the Catholic answer, is that women all possess the inalienable right to veto the continued survival of a species that would justify raping her under any condition----even the extinction of the species. That's her choice. And it is absolute. Nobody has the right for any reason to rape her, even if her disinterest means the end of mankind. She has that power. She is an autocrat in that regard. That's what her absolute right means.