So, marital rape is rape. It's a legal and moral violation of another human being and it shouldn't be defended by anyone, within or outside of the Body.
Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's sod parroting another bit of mine.
Anyway, I didn't have to. You did it when you couldn't rebut.
you win again!
go away now
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Obviously, you do not know what 'projection' is
I have, over and over, and just like always- over and over- you will continue to make that statement. You already beat straw men and deliberately misrepresent people's beliefs. Anyone who doesn't agree with your convictions, you try to throw in the hot seat. You and Anna are the epitome of problematic women among men today, who consistently have to wedge man between man to get your little way.
The very fact that being a man makes me subject to you all's frantic remarks as opposed to, let's say, glorydaz, speaks for itself. So shut up about 'gender bias' :wave2:
Nope ... your arguments (which are grossly biased and based solely on gender) have no relevance in a law-abiding society that promotes freedom for ALL. No man or woman EVER have the right to force sex on another human being.
This. Also, his criticizing anyone on definition is just plain funny, given his problems on the point.
Sure it does. God willing it's rare, but just as God's beloved David managed at least one horrible mistake in his moral life, Christians are capable of serious moral lapses. And in the case of marital rape, where many actively attempt to deny culpability.... Now if you're arguing that a husband can't rape his wife, that taking her against her will isn't rape, you're just a garden variety idiot and that's that.
Indeed ... to defend a rapist is to defend the act of rape.
That is not an argument, that is an appeal to authority.
The law said something different not too long ago, as the law is relative.
You laughably base your bias on that of others whom women convinced to change. Therefore, you are basically doing nothing but affirming your own founded notion.
Learn logic, idiot
Indeed ... thank goodness the bad old days are behind us, and the law is equally representative towards ALL.
Indeed ... thank goodness the bad old days are behind us, and the law is equally representative towards ALL.
:rotfl:
Hey, so long as it works for you, why admit otherwise
Some people are more equal than others, with women being the most blatant in society.
And that's why God gave women no authority over morals or leadership
Your response is not an acceptable defense for marital rape ... BTW, the *law* agrees with me. Not you.
Just thought I would remind of you of that.
So what :idunno:
All you're saying is that people fell for feminism and agree with you.
Just thought I would remind of you of that.
Typical smug attitude of a defended woman.
Emancipated people fend for their own, so what does that make you
Let me put it another way- when a man is protected, and starts insulting, what would be the word for it?
You see, you aren't held to the same standard as men, you are expected to be a child. Take it from a male :wave2:
Titus 2:1-5
But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
[MENTION=7966]Rusha[/MENTION] believes those who hold to this aren't real men- real men are slaves to Eve's deceit, which she has shown is the complete opposite of what the passage represents.
But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
[MENTION=7966]Rusha[/MENTION] believes those who hold to this aren't real men- real men are slaves to Eve's deceit, which she has shown is the complete opposite of what the passage represents.
It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact. She gave you the context in that very post. Speaking of actual logical fallacy:
So what should you be saying to the mirror about now?You realize that appealing to history is a logical fallacy, unless the argument is over history.
Learn logic, idiot
So what ...
All am I saying is that ... I AM smug ... because ...
I. Am. Right.
You. Are. Wrong.
The. Law. ..................agrees with ME. Not you.
You can protest and kick and scream all you like, but at the end of the day, husbands will still be prosecuted IF they rape their wives.
So what ...
All am I saying is that ... I AM smug ... because ...
I. Am. Right.
You. Are. Wrong.
The. Law. ..................agrees with ME. Not you.
You can protest and kick and scream all you like, but at the end of the day, husbands will still be prosecuted IF they rape their wives.
I never denied that it was the law, so you're just making things up as you go. Don't worry, nobody will tell you your mistake though- that's one of the privileges you've obtained- the right to be right when you are not.
Kind of like typical relationships. See the pattern?
Now shut up
Correction ... I believe that the person who is cherry-picking and spinning the context of scripture is not a real man. I believe that anyone of the male gender who promotes bursting through a bedroom door in such a way that it injures their spouse ... is not a real man.
It's fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain that I am speaking of ... only those morons who are promoting such.
Clear enough ... or do I need to dumb it down by writing it in crayon on a bright yellow post it so you won't conveniently forget it ... again?
Now shut up
No ... I will not. However, you do have my permission to take your own advice.
- Status