Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[glorydaz]

How very unoriginal....

You reap what you sow, Bybee. Your own words come back to haunt you, and the idea originated with God...not me.

 

[ClimateSanity]

much like your memory

Ageism is ugly.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Genesis 19:5 "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

What does it mean to "know them?"

It means that they wanted to fornicate with them.
The Law God gave deals with that as a separate offense than rape.

Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

Your confusion comes the modern teaching that all non-consensual sex should be called "rape".

i believe they planned to introduce themselves and chat them up, get to know them, maybe buy them a beer and talk football

Uh, no.

 

[ok doser]

Ageism is ugly.

it's ok

i'm old! :banana:

Uh, no.

awww

 

[genuineoriginal]

Show us in the bible where a man can force his wife to have sex when she doesn't want to.

Show me in the Bible where anyone even hints that a husband can rape his wife.

(Is it just me, or are we both asking for the same thing?)

That forcing a person to have sex against their will is an absolute wrong.

That thinking comes from relative morality, not from the Bible.

Yes. Because it is not at all a Christian thing to do. Look at this verse

1 Corinthians 7:4New International Version (NIV)
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

This verse is used by been to justify forcing their wives to have sex. Yet the verse says that the husband does not have authority over his own body, his wife does. So if a wife exercises her God given authority to tell her husband no and he ignores her and forces her to have sex, what would you call it?

You missed a couple of verses.

1 Corinthians 7:2-6 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 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. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.​

The verses, when not taken out of context like you have done, are saying that Paul's recommendation is that husbands are to give their wives what the wife needs and wives are to give their husbands what the husband needs in order to assist the other in keeping the sex within the marriage.
Paul did not command this, but did point out that intentionally withholding sex from your spouse is defrauding them.

Do you have anything else that supports your view that a husband should force his wife to have sex?

If a crime has truly been committed, then I support charging the husband, or wife, with a crime.

I suppose that your equivocation is the real heart of the matter.
Has a crime truly been committed?
Not according to this common law definition of rape that has been used in English speaking countries since the beginning of the English language until 1970.
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

Everything. You [...] keep claiming that there is no rape in a Christian marriage because the woman has no authority of her own body.

Either you know you are deliberately lying, or you are too stupid to continue participating in this discussion.
Which is it?

OD's exact words were that he raped his wife. He claimed to rape her. That is an actionable claim.

ok doser repeatedly claimed that according to the current DoJ definition of rape, him having a couple glasses of wine at dinner before having sex with his wife meant he was unable to consent to the sex, therefore his wife raped him according to the DoJ.

Anything he said about being raped is only in context with that claim, and is not actionable.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The victim of a rape bears no, literally no responsibility for the act of the rapist, who is wholly and singularly responsible for that particular sin and will answer for it absent grace.

Yes, that has been mentioned many times by glorydaz and ok doser, among others.

The other side, which only a few are willing to admit, is the rapist bears literally no responsibility for the actions of the women that act the harlot, because those women are wholly and singularly responsible for that particular sin and will answer for it absent grace.

It is a coincidence that some women that act the harlot are also raped?

Some say the two events are connected, others say that the women bear no responsibility for their own actions if they happen to get raped.

:idunno:

 

[genuineoriginal]

What is marriage fraud?

In family law, marriage fraud is lying to the person you are marrying about your willingness to have children or sex with them, and the remedy is an annulment — it’s as if the marriage never existed. In other areas of law, it’s marrying to get a particular benefit — a tax break, immigration status, health insurance, social security benefits, military benefits, even a gym membership.​

Then what has been described is not marriage fraud.

Staying married to obtain a financial benefit fits the definition of fraud whether or not it's recognized under law as a fraudulent act. It is the moral equivalent of getting married to obtain insurance benefits.

No, the definition is quite clear that it is the act of getting married to get a particular benefit that is considered marriage fraud.

Remaining married to keep those benefits does not fit the definition.

You aren't very good at this "logic" thing, are you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Some of us realize his intent was to provoke rape victims with his comments

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid, you make this comment.

Those of us that are not stupid realize his intent is to provoke Political Correct Stepford Wives and Ken Dolls into actually using their brains and thinking about the issue instead of having some knee-jerk reaction and spewing hatred across the forum.

 

[ok doser]

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid, you make this comment.

:darwinsm:

:thumb:

 

[ok doser]

Then what has been described is not marriage fraud.

doesn't matter to elo

according to elo:

It is the moral equivalent of getting married to obtain insurance benefits.

...because....reasons


eta: caught it before you edited

 

[elohiym]

Then what has been described is not marriage fraud.

In principle, it is.

If you were his wife's employer, would you object to him keeping insurance benefits while he was legally separated from his wife?

Would you object to him keeping her insurance benefits after he divorced her?

 

[ok doser]

... the women that act the harlot... are wholly and singularly responsible for that particular sin and will answer for it absent grace.

but we can't say that because Job was perfect! (town) and baring an ankle is my right as a woman! (artie)

 

[ok doser]

In principle, it is.

because you say so?

If you were his wife's employer, would you object to him keeping insurance benefits while he was legally separated from his wife?

my wife's employer was aware of it and allowed it

Would you object to him keeping her insurance benefits after he divorced her?

that would be illegal

 

[genuineoriginal]

doesn't matter to elo

according to elo:


...because....reasons

He thinks it is so because he said it is so.

eta: caught it before you edited

We both saw the same thing.

 

[elohiym]

No, the definition is quite clear that it is the act of getting married to get a particular benefit that is considered marriage fraud.

Remaining married to keep those benefits does not fit the definition.

We are basically discussing the morality of obtaining the benefit after the marriage is essentially dissolved (legal separation), where he claims there is no chance of reconciliation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In principle, it is.

If you were his wife's employer, would you object to him keeping insurance benefits while he was legally separated from his wife?

Of course not.
Only a heartless moron would object to that.
As long as they are merely legally separated, there is a chance for them to reconcile.
They are not divorced, so the marriage is still a fact of law.

Would you object to him keeping her insurance benefits after he divorced her?

Why should I?
Employers pay a share for the employee's portion of the insurance, but the employee has to pay a steep premium to include a spouse.
Since the money is not coming from the employer, the employer shouldn't care whether the employee is paying that extra premium.

 

[elohiym]

my wife's employer was aware of it and allowed it

That's her employer's choice, I guess.

that would be illegal

So illegal if you are divorced, but not illegal if you are essentially divorced (legal separation)? Interesting.

And her employer would suddenly cancel your insurance if you were divorced? That could speak to the character of her employer in a number of ways.

 

[ok doser]

So illegal if you are divorced, but not illegal if you are essentially divorced (legal separation)? Interesting.

they didn't have a category for "essentially divorced"

And her employer would suddenly cancel your insurance if you were divorced?

rather, they would reconfigure her policy to exclude me - it was a family policy with the two of us and our sons on it

That could speak to the character of her employer in a number of ways.

their "character" in what way?

they were a non-profit hospital following guidelines set up in the employee contract and the insurance contract - they weren't free-lancing this

 

[elohiym]

Of course not.
Only a heartless moron would object to that.

Object to an able man paying for his own health insurance? How heartless.

As long as they are merely legally separated, there is a chance for them to reconcile.

Hasn't he claimed they are beyond reconciliation and that he wants to start dating?

They are not divorced, so the marriage is still a fact of law.

Look at you, hanging on now to legal technicalities while ignoring the principles in play.

Why should I?

Because, as ok doser stated, it's illegal. :duh:

 

[ok doser]

Because, as ok doser stated, it's illegal. :duh:

i may have misspoke

it would have violated the terms of the contract as written

we never investigated whether a new contract could have been devised to cover me as a divorced co-parent

might have been possible :idunno: