Answering old threads thread

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Yes, but if the only evidence is semen (no bruises, for example), you're back to one. And "consensual" seems to come and go in some circles, like if a girl doesn't want to keep her baby in a state where "rape and incest" are excuses to kill the baby.
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.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Disagree [/QUOTE

That is your issue, not mine.

[QUOTE Agree except where the "rapist" is her husband--with no proof of non-consent, except just her word after the fact, it's a single witness case. Marriage is consent, at least to some level, so semen is expected.

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.
 

Derf

Well-known member
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.
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
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.
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.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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).

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.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Typical. Since it’s highly unlikely that *you*, due to your gender, will ever be raped or brutalized
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
... women should always be wary of marriage.
men and women should both be wary of entering into a marriage with a person who is not in Christ
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
By the male *rationale* being used by men as an excuse to rape their wives, the door has been left wide open for wives to do things they know will harm or irritate their ape-boy.

I refer to it as the “Hey Mickey” treatment …
 

Derf

Well-known member
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.
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
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.
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
He does know men do not have the right to rape their wives. Isn’t that something you agree with?
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
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'm a bit surprised you would call God's Old and New Testament standard of multiple witnesses a satanic thing.)
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
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. - Deuteronomy 17:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6&version=NKJV

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. - Deuteronomy 19:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15&version=NKJV

But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ - Matthew 18:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:16&version=NKJV

This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” - 2 Corinthians 13:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians13:1&version=NKJV

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. - 1 Timothy 5:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy5:19&version=NKJV

Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. - Hebrews 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews10:28&version=NKJV

Two or three witnesses is God's standard.
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? :rolleyes:

Now, trot yourself in a courtroom anywhere in this country and claim any of God's laws hold sway.
 

glorydaz

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.
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
One of the popular ways pedophiles rape kids is marrying a single mother, the more kids the better. Perfect disguise. All they have to do is lie through their teeth unendingly to everybody, all to avoid getting caught, so they can keep on raping kids. Not hard for them since lying is their native tongue and they would even murder at the drop of a hat if that's what it took to continue their cover of deception so they can keep raping kids.
Yep, and yet there is all this silly squabbling about a "godly" man forcing his wife to have sex. :mad:

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
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.


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.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Great, I appreciate the kindergarten lesson concerning witnesses.

You're welcome.

However, God's law and God's standards hold NO sway in this kingdom on EARTH at this time.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

Now, trot yourself in a courtroom anywhere in this country and claim any of God's laws hold sway.

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:
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
He does know men do not have the right to rape their wives. Isn’t that something you agree with?
His utilitarian moral philosophy answers the following wrongly:

I hate trolley problems. But I think that in this case we can imagine one that's actually easy. Imagine there are two people [presumably fertile] man and [presumably fertile] wife, and no one else, and if they don't multiply then well that's it for the human race.

But the wife resists and is uninterested.

Should the man override his wife's decision?

If not, what about when she's getting on in years and is nearing the end of her natural fertility?

An even easier trolley problem here would be a single woman and ten men, all presumably fertile, but the woman is uninterested in marrying any of them. Should her right against being raped be broken, in order to ensure the survival of the species? If she doesn't comply, and is not forced, then mankind goes extinct.

I say that in both cases, the answer is dead easy, and that this is what an absolute right looks like, this is what we mean by an absolute right. Even if it means the end of mankind (iow no matter the consequences), she still unilaterally reserves her natural moral right against being raped, end of story. And in these trolley problems, it's the end of mankind as well. Oh well----that's what makes it an absolute right.

And oh yeah, us men protecting this right of theirs is what makes them powerful. It is their power, and it exists because we honor and preserve it. If ever we violate it, we have not only taken their power from them, which is theft, but we also have become violent criminals, in certain circumstances deserving of execution, and we are also subject to being killed or maimed by the victim or by anybody else nearby in any attempt we make to rape.

A moral regime has laws against rape, and an immoral one doesn't.
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.
 
Top