Answering old threads thread

[Derf]

Whachootalkinabout Willis

If I can merely make a statement without backing it up with some authoritative source, I can say anything I want, and nobody can convince me otherwise. I am a god. I define reality. Perhaps if Brain could show that he is the ultimate biblical authority, such that Paul has to check in with him before he writes, then he doesn't need to cite any sources. But until that time my word is as good as his, so we can just go back and forth making unsubstantiated statements till we're blue (or yellow in his case) in the face.

 

[ok doser]

If I can merely make a statement without backing it up with some authoritative source, I can say anything I want, and nobody can convince me otherwise. I am a god. I define reality. Perhaps if Brain could show that he is the ultimate biblical authority, such that Paul has to check in with him before he writes, then he doesn't need to cite any sources. But until that time my word is as good as his, so we can just go back and forth making unsubstantiated statements till we're blue (or yellow in his case) in the face.

What is particularly ironic is that in the OP Anna specifically asked for scriptural support. Then when given it she, and others, reject it.
Because not THAT scriptural support, darn it!

 

[Arthur Brain]

My name is Webster. I get to define words however I like.

Derf Webster? Worse names I suppose like Watta Wingnut but hey.

Once again, if you had a clue as to what love and cherishing actually consists of you wouldn't even be 'arguing' with me or defending the repulsive notion of there being no rape but "something else" in marriage.

Hey ho.

 

[ok doser]

My name is Webster.

Okay, so I had to do some research to refresh my memory about Webster and Different Strokes and it led me to a humorous largely unregulated part of Reddit - I'm not going to link to it, but someone basically asked the question ...

Why Would A White Couple Choose To Adopt A Small Negro

... which led to an absolute firefight about White Saviorism, which is apparently a thing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If I can merely make a statement without backing it up with some authoritative source, I can say anything I want, and nobody can convince me otherwise. I am a god. I define reality. Perhaps if Brain could show that he is the ultimate biblical authority, such that Paul has to check in with him before he writes, then he doesn't need to cite any sources. But until that time my word is as good as his, so we can just go back and forth making unsubstantiated statements till we're blue (or yellow in his case) in the face.

The Bible and Paul don't support your position. Clete took this all down several posts ago and whilst I don't agree with him on pretty much most issues, he had you and anyone else bang to rights on this topic who think there's no such thing as rape in a marriage. It's utterly bizarre that it even needs to be stated frankly. Or maybe it's just "something else"...

 

[Derf]

S

The Bible and Paul don't support your position. Clete took this all down several posts ago and whilst I don't agree with him on pretty much most issues, he had you and anyone else bang to rights on this topic who think there's no such thing as rape in a marriage. It's utterly bizarre that it even needs to be stated frankly. Or maybe it's just "something else"...

Oh good. Then Clete probably gave you some bible verses you can pass on to me, right?

 

[Stripe]

Try explaining that to Derf

I explained myself to Fred.

Takeaway No. 1: Brain is a Muppet.

Get some new material anyway...

Why? Because you can't handle reality?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I explained myself to Fred.

Takeaway No. 1: Brain is a Muppet.


Why? Because you can't handle reality?

Always gonna be a compliment coming from the likes of you.

I handle reality just fine thanks. That does of course involve expecting you to post inane drivel like this so hey ho.

 

[Arthur Brain]

S

Oh good. Then Clete probably gave you some bible verses you can pass on to me, right?

Check out his posts that go in express detail, all there. You know how to search right?

 

[Derf]

Check out his posts that go in express detail, all there. You know how to search right?

Do you? Try it here:
Www.blb.org

Or use this more direct link:

1 Corinthians 7 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 Corinthians 7 - Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[Derf]

Check out his posts that go in express detail, all there. You know how to search right?

And Clete does a decent job, much of the time, though he usually errs when he agrees with you. He didn't quote much scripture while he was agreeing with you, so it's pretty much just his opinion, too.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And Clete does a decent job, much of the time, though he usually errs when he agrees with you. He didn't quote much scripture while he was agreeing with you, so it's pretty much just his opinion, too.

He wasn't agreeing with me, he was making his own point and using the scriptures to underline how pathetic it is for anyone to even attempt to justify forcing themselves on their spouse. His exasperation was understandable as was his disgust. If you want to twist scripture itself into supporting the notion that there's no such thing as marital rape then it's on you. It doesn't and considering you can't even define what this "something else" is you've interminably prattled about then that sums it up yet more.

There is no excuse for anyone to rape their spouse and that's what it is when a husband forces himself on his wife. Rape, simple as. Those who do and even try to justify it are truly pathetic.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you? Try it here:
Www.blb.org

Or use this more direct link:

1 Corinthians 7 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 Corinthians 7 - Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

www.blueletterbible.org

Which of course doesn't justify the notion that a spouse has the right to force themselves on their partner.

 

[Stripe]

Which of course doesn't justify the notion that a spouse has the right to force themselves on their partner.

You can't make things up for people to believe and pretend that you are a useful part of a conversation.

You contribute nothing but spam.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You can't make things up for people to believe and pretend that you are a useful part of a conversation.

You contribute nothing but spam.

The irony would be funny if it wasn't so tediously predictable.

Not only am I not making things up for people to believe, they actually believe them without any additional aid from me. Some folk actually think that it's not rape if a husband forces himself on his wife as evidenced throughout here. Kinda why there's been so much discussion on it.

Now, if you're just gonna do the same boring ole Stripe trope rubbish then crack on with it and I'll just wait for something of substance to address from someone else ta.

 

[Idolater]

Found it, Derf. Basically as soon as anyone who has taken perpetual vows marries or attempts to marry, they are 'ipso facto' dismissed from their institution. It doesn't even require anything official, sounds like, and they don't make a criminal case about it, so I guess the 'marriage loophole' is kind of 'baked in' to the Church's institutions' perpetual vows (of celibacy in this case). So AMR (of happy memory) would have simply been dismissed from the Jesuits (I believe) upon seeking to marry the love of his life. I don't know what the bishops did to religious priests like Martin Luther in the 1500s though, if they sought or attempted or got married. Maybe they did make a criminal case out of it?

Whoops @Derf I found something new. In another canon, the law is if one who has taken perpetual vows tries to marry in the Catholic Church that they aren't allowed to do it. So there is a penalty and it's a serious one. Basically what it means is, if someone like AMR (of happy memory) or Martin Luther, who had taken perpetual vows, married their sweetheart, then they would have to do it outside the Catholic Church, which doesn't automatically excommunicate them formally, but they would not be licitly able to receive Holy Communion since their marriage would not be valid. They would be living in adultery and would be in the same state as Catholics who divorce and then marry another without having their first marriage annulled.

I would think that at some point the bishops would say, well we have a procedure (explicit in the canon law) to find a prior marriage null, surely we might have a procedure for finding a prior perpetual vow null also. But I haven't found that in the canons yet. Maybe it doesn't exist, and maybe the bishops are all things considered right in not having a formal procedure for recognizing former perpetual vows as null, due to similar reasons that a prior marriage might be found to be null also. Maybe it's expedient, and that they're following the variety of Old Testament accounts of different sacred vows taken by folks in the OT, that certain times this kind of unforgiving rigor is the best option. idk, but you've got me curious

 

[Derf]

Which of course doesn't justify the notion that a spouse has the right to force themselves on their partner.

Never said it did. But even if it happens, it's not rape.

Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces her to file rape charges because she wasn't feeling up to sex that day. What should the judge's verdict be, and what should be the punishment, if he's found guilty?

 

[ok doser]

Never said it did. But even if it happens, it's not rape.

Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces her to file rape charges because she wasn't feeling up to sex that day. What should the judge's verdict be, and what should be the punishment, if he's found guilty?

She was willing on Wednesday after having been brutally raped on Tuesday?

 

[Derf]

She was willing on Wednesday after having been brutally raped on Tuesday?

All we know is that she wasn't willing on Tuesday--no one ever said it had to be brutal--just unwanted.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Never said it did. But even if it happens, it's not rape.

Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces her to file rape charges because she wasn't feeling up to sex that day. What should the judge's verdict be, and what should be the punishment, if he's found guilty?

Yes, it is rape, there's no other word for it and you certainly haven't found one still being stuck with "something else".

Your scenario is lame as anything frankly. Do you honesty think that loving married couples have sex on set days or something? If the wife complained to a friend that her supposedly loving and cherishing husband had forced her into sex against her will then her friend would be right to call it rape. Proving something like that in court isn't easy as others have mentioned already but its still rape regardless. If it could be proved then the verdict should be guilty of rape and the wretch of a husband be lobbed in jail.