Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[Rusha]

But by this reasoning, a woman cannot change her mind. Nor can she agree to some intimacy without agreeing to any and all intimacy. Because if she does allow for any intimacy, she will not be able to "contradict" herself by limiting that intimacy in any way for fear of "confusing" the man, and thereby giving him the right to do as he pleases.

This is why the whole idea of placing the onus on the woman, for the man's behavior, is simply wrong, and unworkable.

:BRAVO:

 

[ClimateSanity]

But by this reasoning, a woman cannot change her mind. Nor can she agree to some intimacy without agreeing to any and all intimacy. Because if she does allow for any intimacy, she will not be able to "contradict" herself by limiting that intimacy in any way for fear of "confusing" the man, and thereby giving him the right to do as he pleases.

This is why the whole idea of placing the onus on the woman, for the man's behavior, is simply wrong, and unworkable.

Right over your head. It was claimed that the phrase against your will was the same as the phrase without consent were the same. I was making the case that they weren't.

 

[ok doser]

But by this reasoning, a woman cannot change her mind. Nor can she agree to some intimacy without agreeing to any and all intimacy. Because if she does allow for any intimacy, she will not be able to "contradict" herself by limiting that intimacy in any way for fear of "confusing" the man, and thereby giving him the right to do as he pleases.

This is why the whole idea of placing the onus on the woman, for the man's behavior, is simply wrong, and unworkable.

inserting the state between that which God has brought together, what God has made one is simply wrong and unwrokable

 

[ClimateSanity]

inserting the state between that which God has brought together, what God has made one is simply wrong and unwrokable

It certainly doesn't Wrok

 

[ok doser]

It certainly doesn't Wrok

:darwinsm:


i'm gonna leave it - i like it as "wrok" :thumb:

 

[bybee]

I am relying on thousands of years of common law for the historical definition of rape.

Since when has the 1960s been considered the dark ages?

Since you crawled out?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since you crawled out?

25 years ago I found this passage in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?​

Since that time, I have looked at the law written in the Torah (first five books of the Bible, also known as the books of Moses and the Pentateuch).

I have compared the laws God gave to His people against the laws that we have in the United States and tried to understand why God would give those laws and whether they were superior to the laws we have.

My conclusion is that the laws given by God are designed to ensure a stable society with a culture that will preserve it for thousands of years, but the current laws in the United States are designed to destroy the society within 200 years.

The current laws in the United States have completely redefined the classic definitions of crimes that have been preserved since the first century through Roman common law and British common law into the common law of the individual States of the United States.

Those classic definitions of crimes and the culture that supported them provided for a stable society.

We no longer have that in the United States.

 

[Rusha]

What should the wife do if husband refuses many times?

Since he didn't answer, I will. Raping him or physically abusing him would be out of the question.

IF such a problem cannot be fixed, the couple shouldn't be married.

There is something *else* going on. Whether it is abuse, adultery, hostile living environment, drug or alcoholic usage, etc.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since he didn't answer, I will. Raping him or physically abusing him would be out of the question.

IF such a problem cannot be fixed, the couple shouldn't be married.

So, why are you in favor of escalating the problem with criminal charges so it reaches the point where it is virtually impossible to fix?

 

[PureX]

Right over your head. It was claimed that the phrase against your will was the same as the phrase without consent were the same. I was making the case that they weren't.

There is no difference. If willingness is expressed, consent is implied. If unwillingness is expressed, consent is not implied. And if neither is expressed, then consent is neither expressed nor implied.

The man's "confusion" is not the woman's responsibility. The man's desire is not the woman's responsibility. And if he is in any way confused, then he does not have consent.

 

[ok doser]

There is no difference.

then why did they change it?

 

[Rusha]

There is no difference. If willingness is expressed, consent is implied. If unwillingness is expressed, consent is not implied. And if neither is expressed, then consent is neither expressed nor implied.

The man's "confusion" is not the woman's responsibility. The man's desire is not the woman's responsibility. And if he is in any way confused, then he has not been given consent.

I don't really believe this is a matter of confusion though, do you? IMO, this comes down to an entitlement that some boys are either raised with OR develop all on their own.

The same standard is used during discussion on unplanned pregnancies. When is the last time you have seen men taken to task for not remaining abstinent?

 

[ok doser]

There is no difference. If willingness is expressed, consent is implied. If unwillingness is expressed, consent is not implied. And if neither is expressed, then consent is neither expressed nor implied.

The man's "confusion" is not the woman's responsibility. The man's desire is not the woman's responsibility. And if he is in any way confused, then he does not have consent.

define "consent"

 

[PureX]

I don't really believe this is a matter of confusion though, do you? IMO, this comes down to an entitlement that some boys are either raised with OR develop all on their own.

I am certain that there are plenty of times when the man is unsure of the woman's willingness. When he believes he is being given mixed messages (and he probably is). But none of this excuses him from taking responsibility for his own lust. If he is confused, he certainly does not have consent. And without it, he does not have the right to pursue his lust simply because he feels it.

My point is that the rule for men is: "when in doubt, STOP".

The rule is not: "keep going until it's made absolutely clear in every possible way that you must stop".

The same standard is used during discussion on unplanned pregnancies. When is the last time you have seen men taken to task for not remaining abstinent?

I agree with this in principal, but what you're proposing simply is not natural. Adult human beings are programmed to want to have sexual intercourse with each other. And no religion, law, social propaganda, or threat is going to stop them. We will have sex with each other, and that's that.

But we do have built into us, some sense of propriety and restraint. And we can use that to help set some guidelines that we should be able to follow regarding our sexual relations. And placing all the responsibility on the female would be just plain stupid, as the male is generally the aggressor, is stronger and more forceful, and is the less discriminating. So just simple logic dictates that it is the male that should bear the greater responsibility for restraint, not the female.

Yet this is not how our society views it. And partly this is because the male drive to "spread the seed" is powerful, but mostly it's because we still live in a male-dominated society. That may be changing, slowly, but it has not become anywhere near equal, yet. Far from it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

25 years ago I found this passage in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?​

Since that time, I have looked at the law written in the Torah (first five books of the Bible, also known as the books of Moses and the Pentateuch).

I have compared the laws God gave to His people against the laws that we have in the United States and tried to understand why God would give those laws and whether they were superior to the laws we have.

My conclusion is that the laws given by God are designed to ensure a stable society with a culture that will preserve it for thousands of years, but the current laws in the United States are designed to destroy the society within 200 years.

The current laws in the United States have completely redefined the classic definitions of crimes that have been preserved since the first century through Roman common law and British common law into the common law of the individual States of the United States.

Those classic definitions of crimes and the culture that supported them provided for a stable society.

We no longer have that in the United States.

This is exactly what happened in America. In the process of fixing societal ills that the country had early on, they got the idea the founding laws of this were the origin of those ills. That was the justification for turning them upside down. That opened Pandora's box and set the stage for the complete destruction of society. This makes it easier to put the people under ever greater control of the state.

 

[elohiym]

inserting the state between that which God has brought together, what God has made one is simply wrong and unwrokable

You are wrong.

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

 

[ok doser]

You are wrong.

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

do you respect the "governing authorities" that legalized the murder of children?

would you have respected the "governing authorities" in Germany in 1940?

when the US government dictates that Christian churches "marry" homosexuals, will you respect that?

 

[elohiym]

do you respect the "governing authorities" that legalized the murder of children?

would you have respected the "governing authorities" in Germany in 1940?

You are comparing a government doing evil (murder) to a government trying to prevent evil (eliminating a license to rape).

The Romans were persecuting Christians when Paul wrote his epistle, no?

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

 

[egyptianmuslim]

What should the wife do if husband refuses many times?

Goinig to frigidity is an easy thing for women. but not to men I. think that giving sex is a duty of marriage and should be given as possible.

 

[ok doser]

You are comparing a government doing evil (murder) to a government trying to prevent evil (eliminating a license to rape).

The Romans were persecuting Christians when Paul wrote his epistle, no?

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

so you would have helped the nazis load the jews into the rail cars?

good to know :thumb: