Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
CherubRam
New member
If a relationship has reached the end, then no is no. But like a woman you keep changing the subject.
Right off hand? I don't know. Ultimately, this requires a determination of prudence on the part of the spouse. "If I get pregnant, I could die" strikes me as a pretty good reason to say "no" if the woman is in the fertile period of her cycle.
Otherwise? I really don't know. "I don't feel like it" or "I'm tired" or "I have a headache" certainly isn't enough, though. We are talking about an obligation of justice. We are literally talking about a debt that has to be paid. For the woman to say "no," there has to be a very good reason for it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ya know, there's other ways to sexually satisfy your spouse that don't run the risk of pregnancy
CherubRam
New member
I do not disagree.
All of which are forbidden by the Natural Law and merit Hell.
genuineoriginal
New member
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a marriage and a non-sexual relationship.
The defining characteristics of a marriage start with a sexual relationship and offspring and include inlaws.
The spouses in a marriage also have a non-sexual relationship with each other, but that non-sexual relationship is not a defining characteristic of a marriage.
The defining characteristics of a non-sexual relationship are communication, shared values, and shared life experiences.
The non-sexual relationship in the marriage can fail, which almost always leads to the failure of the marriage.
Without the sexual relationship, there is no marriage.
That's all a bunch of nonsense. Women take control of marriage through withholding sex, and crying 'rape' to one's husband is just as dubious and self-centered.
I don't hear you speaking about this morbid control, which is by definition rape, as 'to seize'. The marriage, you see, is two made in the flesh, but god forbid if she divorces and gets something less than a genuine prospective in which the man is downgraded to being her supporter and stepping stone on to the next.
Men are left with virtually no control of their marriages, and it's caused a growing rate of men to simply not marry. Who wants to sign up for their own destruction? And now we're on the subject of 'marital rape' instead of this virtual raping of marriage that women commit all the time?
No, I have this here Bible and it states that the husband is the head of the wife and that her body is not automated by her self. It's there, in the scriptures.
If anyone has a twisted attitude about anything, it is most certainly those like you who will ALWAYS side with the woman, who will ALWAYS perpetuate the madness of what is thrown on men, and ALWAYS coerce men into believing they are to just deal with the monstrosities of women.
The fact is that a woman cannot be raped by her husband. She can simply refuse and yet be inconvenienced. A man is going to go to prison for having sex with his wife when she doesn't want to? I'd like you to go ask Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, or any other one of them what they think of 'marital rape' and I bet you they'd laugh in your face.
Men need some sort of credit, and the Bible is happy to oblige being that it can't seem to found anywhere else.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, we are well aware of your belief that no marriage should be safe from the militant feminist agenda.
Further good reasons for saying "no" to one's spouse:
1. The couple cannot responsibly care for another child, and the woman is fertile.
2. One of the spouses commit adultery on his spouse with his spouse's family member (in particular, mother, father, brother, sister, etc.). In this case, the offended spouse may demand sexual intercourse, but the offending spouse may never demand it again.
1. The couple cannot responsibly care for another child, and the woman is fertile.
2. One of the spouses commit adultery on his spouse with his spouse's family member (in particular, mother, father, brother, sister, etc.). In this case, the offended spouse may demand sexual intercourse, but the offending spouse may never demand it again.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
my bible doesn't have a whole lot to say about "natural law"
besides, i'm a scientist - the only natural laws i recognize have to do with gravity and ionization coefficients - stuff like that
the philosophy nonsense is just so much mental bubblegum as far as i'm concerned :idunno:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4537961&postcount=742
So you were just being totally disobedient of Jesus' command to not repay evil for evil, whilst highlighting the need for others to obey what you believe the scripture says about women? Thanks for admitting this.
That's certainly obvious.
Well, I will pick some actual medical examples.
Just gave birth and healing from an episiotomy/or c-section
Pregnant with high blood pressure and on the verge of toxemia
Physically ill
my bible doesn't have a whole lot to say about "natural law"
"For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another" (Romans 2:14-15).
genuineoriginal
New member
Don't forget that the feminists believe that the woman can remove consent after the fact.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if you believe what anna did to genuineoriginal last night was evil, have fun trying to convince her of that :idunno:
scripture says what it says :idunno:
which one did you have in mind?
All of these are excellent reasons for saying "no." "Having sex would put me in serious physical danger" is a very good reason. In fact, if the husband is aware of this, he shouldn't be asking in the first place.
Depends. What kind of illness are we talking? The wife has the common cold? If the husband is cool with possibly catching it, I'm thinking that it's probably fair game.
genuineoriginal
New member
FTFY
IF pregnancy is an issue, and the couple really wishes to have sexual relations, they would have medical options.
I would agree that ANY adultery would be a valid reason to refuse ... though IMO, it's more practical to leave. A cheating spouse is not a good example for children to grow up with.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
which would indicate that the gentiles know in their hearts the law that was given to the jews
can you show where in the law that was given to the jews it was forbidden to sexually satisfy your spouse in a way that doesn't run the risk of pregnancy?
- Status