How do you feel about spousal rape as a legal issue?

My poll is about the issue of spousal rape. My personal opinion is this- If you're married to someone, you shouldn't be able to accuse them of raping you. Of assault and battery, yes.. but not of forcing sex on you. I don't think that it's "ok" or "right" to force anyone to have sex with you.. but I don't think it should be a legal issue when 2 people are married. I think any sexual issues need to be handled between the husband and wife. Divorce is always an option. I also think there's a major "he said, she said" issue in cases like this, since anyone could accuse their spouse of rape, and physical evidence would do little to no good.. since the 2 people would be intimate with each other on a regular basis anyways (one would think). I'm sure that I will scare some people with this idea, but I really don't care. What I want is your opinion.

I'm confused what the difference between the first two options is. In what case of rape is evidence not relevant?

EDIT: And the fourth option for that matter; these seem to be responding more about the practical methods by which rape may be proven than about the legal status of spousal rape. :?

I'm confused what the difference between the first two options is. In what case of rape is evidence not relevant?

GabuEx

Either option means yes.. but the first one is meant to represent a situation where no obvious signs of a struggle are present, but one spouse says there was a rape, while the other disagrees.

I'm confused what the difference between the first two options is. In what case of rape is evidence not relevant?

GabuEx

The second part must have evidence of a physical struggle. Probably means physical restraint along with lack of consent instead of just lack of consent alone.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm confused what the difference between the first two options is. In what case of rape is evidence not relevant?

hartsickdiscipl

Either option means yes.. but the first one is meant to represent a situation where no obvious signs of a struggle are present, but one spouse says there was a rape, while the other disagrees.

Well what are the standards by which non-spousal rape is determined? I don't see why spousal rape would be determined any differently.

Lots of gray areas and I would tend to agree with you TC, however I do not like the possible idea of an abusive spouse taking sexual advantage of the other, like 'Sleep with me or I'll knock your teeth out', because clearly the relationship is broken. So saying one spouse can NEVER "rape" another doesn't sit quite right because I think they can. Sex isn't a part of all marriages anyway, but that gets into more gray area... tricky stuff.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm confused what the difference between the first two options is. In what case of rape is evidence not relevant?

GabuEx

Either option means yes.. but the first one is meant to represent a situation where no obvious signs of a struggle are present, but one spouse says there was a rape, while the other disagrees.

Well what are the standards by which non-spousal rape is determined? I don't see why spousal rape would be determined any differently.

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Either option means yes.. but the first one is meant to represent a situation where no obvious signs of a struggle are present, but one spouse says there was a rape, while the other disagrees.

hartsickdiscipl

Well what are the standards by which non-spousal rape is determined? I don't see why spousal rape would be determined any differently.

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

...I'm not sure how this answers the question posed. :?

Lots of gray areas and I would tend to agree with you TC, however I do not like the possible idea of an abusive spouse taking sexual advantage of the other, like 'Sleep with me or I'll knock your teeth out', because clearly the relationship is broken. So saying one spouse can NEVER "rape" another doesn't sit quite right because I think they can. Sex isn't a part of all marriages anyway, but that gets into more gray area... tricky stuff.

binpink

I would say that if someone knocks their spouses' teeth out because they won't sleep with them, they can be accused of assault and battery.. but not rape.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well what are the standards by which non-spousal rape is determined? I don't see why spousal rape would be determined any differently.

GabuEx

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

...I'm not sure how this answers the question posed. :?

Can you please rephrase the question?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

hartsickdiscipl

...I'm not sure how this answers the question posed. :?

Can you please rephrase the question?

I asked how the question of whether rape occurred in general is answered, and why that method of answering it is inapplicable to spousal rape.

I would say that if someone knocks their spouses' teeth out because they won't sleep with them, they can be accused of assault and battery.. but not rape.

hartsickdiscipl

Even if they still force sex on them afterwards?
Or if they just threaten physical harm before forcing sex?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I would say that if someone knocks their spouses' teeth out because they won't sleep with them, they can be accused of assault and battery.. but not rape.

binpink

Even if they still force sex on them afterwards?
Or if they just threaten physical harm before forcing sex?

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

...I'm not sure how this answers the question posed. :?

GabuEx

Can you please rephrase the question?

I asked how the question of whether rape occurred in general is answered, and why that method of answering it is inapplicable to spousal rape.

How would you determine whether or not rape occurred between 2 people who are married, and probably have sex all the time? The only way I can see is by either taking one person's word over another, or by outward signs of physical violence (injuries).

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

hartsickdiscipl

I get what you're saying and it does make sense to me. But it's too broad of a brush for me to paint with. Physical abuse doesn't always accompany a rape.

How would you determine whether or not rape occurred between 2 people who are married, and probably have sex all the time? The only way I can see is by either taking one person's word over another, or by outward signs of physical violence (injuries).

hartsickdiscipl

How would you determine whether or not rape occurred between two people who are not married, but who nonetheless are in a relationship? Despite obvious difficulties, courts do so. I don't see what difference marriage specifically makes.

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I would say that if someone knocks their spouses' teeth out because they won't sleep with them, they can be accused of assault and battery.. but not rape.

hartsickdiscipl

Even if they still force sex on them afterwards?
Or if they just threaten physical harm before forcing sex?

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

Do you believe that a husband is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he wants it?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

binpink

I get what you're saying and it does make sense to me. But it's too broad of a brush for me to paint with. Physical abuse doesn't always accompany a rape.

Then I think if there aren't outward signs of physical abuse, you can't charge them with assualt or battery.. and rape would be off-limits as a charge, since it was your spouse (in my world). In that case, no charges would be filed at all.

Rape of any kind is bad. Spousal rape is no different.

If your wife doesn't want to have sex, she does not have to have it. In a marriage both person's feelings should be considered.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="binpink"]

Even if they still force sex on them afterwards?
Or if they just threaten physical harm before forcing sex?

GabuEx

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

Do you believe that a husband is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he wants it?

More or less, yes.. and vice-versa. I think that it would make alot of people view marriage differently. You wouldn't have as many people so willing to marry people for financial gain, or to gain access to their country, or to get tax breaks.

Remember, this is all from a legal point of view. I'm not saying that I think it's right to force sex on anyone. I'm just saying that once you're married, the rape card should be out the window, IMO.

Rape of any kind is bad. Spousal rape is no different.

If your wife doesn't want to have sex, she does not have to have it. In a marriage both person's feelings should be considered.

DJ-Lafleur

Yes, they should be considered.. but that doesn't mean it needs to be a legal issue. I respect your opinion though.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

hartsickdiscipl

Do you believe that a husband is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he wants it?

More or less, yes.. and vice-versa. I think that it would make alot of people view marriage differently. You wouldn't have as many people so willing to marry people for financial gain, or to gain access to their country, or to get tax breaks.

Remember, this is all from a legal point of view. I'm not saying that I think it's right to force sex on anyone. I'm just saying that once you're married, the rape card should be out the window, IMO.

Then let's play Devil's Advocate for a second.

According to your interpretation of the contract of marriage, the husband is legally entitled to sex. One who is legally entitled to something through a contract may approach a court of law to receive judgment and have the court compel the defending party to provide the plaintiff with what is legally owed. Therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying here is that any husband whose wife does not wish to have sex may petition a court of law to receive the sex that he is legally owed by his wife, and that she may be punished by a court of law and forced to submit to her husband under the weight of the law if she does not have sex with him whenever he asks.

Are you comfortable with this implication behind what you are saying?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Do you believe that a husband is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he wants it?

GabuEx

More or less, yes.. and vice-versa. I think that it would make alot of people view marriage differently. You wouldn't have as many people so willing to marry people for financial gain, or to gain access to their country, or to get tax breaks.

Remember, this is all from a legal point of view. I'm not saying that I think it's right to force sex on anyone. I'm just saying that once you're married, the rape card should be out the window, IMO.

Then let's play Devil's Advocate for a second.

According to your interpretation of the contract of marriage, the husband is legally entitled to sex. One who is legally entitled to something through a contract may approach a court of law to receive judgment and have the court compel the defending party to provide the plaintiff with what is legally owed. Therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying here is that any husband whose wife does not wish to have sex may petition a court of law to receive the sex that he is legally owed by his wife, and that she may be punished by a court of law and forced to submit to her husband under the weight of the law if she does not have sex with him whenever he asks.

Are you comfortable with this implication behind what you are saying?

Negative. Taking spousal rape out of the legal arena does not mean that a husband or wife would automatically be able to take their spouse to court in order to "get sex." Although I would consider "not putting out" to be a very legit reason for a divorce.

I believe that rape is rape. But there are so many grey areas with this concept...

I know rape victims. And they are scarred for the rest of their life.

Lilyanne46

Yes, I agree that rape is horrible. I too know a couple of rape victims. They were not raped by their husbands, though. I think that once you marry someone, it should be accepted that you need to be intimate with them on a regular basis (as regular as they want). If you don't want that, don't marry them. If you feel that you can't trust the person enough that you think they might try to force sex out of you, don't marry them. If you find that they are trying to force sex out of you, or have after you've married them.. divorce them.

Negative. Taking spousal rape out of the legal arena does not mean that a husband or wife would automatically be able to take their spouse to court in order to "get sex." Although I would consider "not putting out" to be a very legit reason for a divorce.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes, yes it would. As I said, the very nature of a contract entitles one to take legal action on the other party to receive what they are owed if that party does not fulfill their stated obligations under that contract. Therefore, if marriage is a contract, and if a part of that contract stipulates that either party is entitled - as you say - to receive sex from the other party whenever he or she demands it, then one who does not provide the other with sex when he or she demands it is in breach of contract, and the other party is therefore entitled to petition a court of law to receive with legal weight behind the judgment that which he is owed from the party in breach of contract. And therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying is that a husband whose wife will not give him sex may petition a court to force his wife to give him the sex that he is owed under the terms of the contract.

This is nothing more than a necessary corollary to what you are proposing. If you do not believe that this is an acceptable corollary to put in place, then your only course of action is to rethink what you are saying; you cannot both affirm your initial claim as acceptable while refusing to affirm a necessary corollary of it as acceptable.

You're saying rape goes out the window when you're married? Rape is forced sex. You're okay with a man being able to force his wife to have sex and legally get away with it?

Yes, yes it would. As I said, the very nature of a contract entitles one to take legal action on the other party to receive what they are owed if that party does not fulfill their stated obligations under that contract. Therefore, if marriage is a contract, and if a part of that contract stipulates that either party is entitled - as you say - to receive sex from the other party whenever he or she demands it, then one who does not provide the other with sex when he or she demands it is in breach of contract, and the other party is therefore entitled to petition a court of law to receive with legal weight behind the judgment that which he is owed from the party in breach of contract. And therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying is that a husband whose wife will not give him sex may petition a court to force his wife to give him the sex that he is owed under the terms of the contract.

This is nothing more than a necessary corollary to what you are proposing. If you do not believe that this is an acceptable corollary to put in place, then your only course of action is to rethink what you are saying; you cannot both affirm your initial claim as acceptable while refusing to affirm a necessary corollary of it as acceptable.

GabuEx

The contract doesn't specify how often said 'sex' must be had. So how would you determine when a partner is 'late' for payment?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Lilyanne46"]

I believe that rape is rape. But there are so many grey areas with this concept...

I know rape victims. And they are scarred for the rest of their life.

Lilyanne46

Yes, I agree that rape is horrible. I too know a couple of rape victims. They were not raped by their husbands, though. I think that once you marry someone, it should be accepted that you need to be intimate with them on a regular basis (as regular as they want). If you don't want that, don't marry them. If you feel that you can't trust the person enough that you think they might try to force sex out of you, don't marry them. If you find that they are trying to force sex out of you, or have after you've married them.. divorce them.

One of the rape victims I know was in a marriage. Intimacy on a regular basis, I sort of disagree with. Now, I'm not saying you said that one needs sex to love someone, but I don't think you do. What if someone was asexual, but their spouse was not? Sure, asexuals have sex then and there, but if they don't want to have it, they don't. And the spouse should not force them. If they do force you, then I think it's rape. Because rape is forced sex, and rape is rape. I take these topics seriously because I know people have developed mental illnesses (even put in mental hospitals) because of rape.

If an "asexual" wants sex, then they're not asexual.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, yes it would. As I said, the very nature of a contract entitles one to take legal action on the other party to receive what they are owed if that party does not fulfill their stated obligations under that contract. Therefore, if marriage is a contract, and if a part of that contract stipulates that either party is entitled - as you say - to receive sex from the other party whenever he or she demands it, then one who does not provide the other with sex when he or she demands it is in breach of contract, and the other party is therefore entitled to petition a court of law to receive with legal weight behind the judgment that which he is owed from the party in breach of contract. And therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying is that a husband whose wife will not give him sex may petition a court to force his wife to give him the sex that he is owed under the terms of the contract.

This is nothing more than a necessary corollary to what you are proposing. If you do not believe that this is an acceptable corollary to put in place, then your only course of action is to rethink what you are saying; you cannot both affirm your initial claim as acceptable while refusing to affirm a necessary corollary of it as acceptable.

Baconbits2004

The contract doesn't specify how often said 'sex' must be had. So how would you determine when a partner is 'late' for payment?

hartsickdiscipl affirmed that both parties are entitled to sex whenever the other person wants it. In other words, if someone wants sex, and you don't give them sex, then you are already late in payment.

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, yes it would. As I said, the very nature of a contract entitles one to take legal action on the other party to receive what they are owed if that party does not fulfill their stated obligations under that contract. Therefore, if marriage is a contract, and if a part of that contract stipulates that either party is entitled - as you say - to receive sex from the other party whenever he or she demands it, then one who does not provide the other with sex when he or she demands it is in breach of contract, and the other party is therefore entitled to petition a court of law to receive with legal weight behind the judgment that which he is owed from the party in breach of contract. And therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying is that a husband whose wife will not give him sex may petition a court to force his wife to give him the sex that he is owed under the terms of the contract.

This is nothing more than a necessary corollary to what you are proposing. If you do not believe that this is an acceptable corollary to put in place, then your only course of action is to rethink what you are saying; you cannot both affirm your initial claim as acceptable while refusing to affirm a necessary corollary of it as acceptable.

GabuEx

The contract doesn't specify how often said 'sex' must be had. So how would you determine when a partner is 'late' for payment?

hartsickdiscipl affirmed that both parties are entitled to sex whenever the other person wants it. In other words, if someone wants sex, and you don't give them sex, then you are already late in payment.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Negative. Taking spousal rape out of the legal arena does not mean that a husband or wife would automatically be able to take their spouse to court in order to "get sex." Although I would consider "not putting out" to be a very legit reason for a divorce.

GabuEx

Yes, yes it would. As I said, the very nature of a contract entitles one to take legal action on the other party to receive what they are owed if that party does not fulfill their stated obligations under that contract. Therefore, if marriage is a contract, and if a part of that contract stipulates that either party is entitled - as you say - to receive sex from the other party whenever he or she demands it, then one who does not provide the other with sex when he or she demands it is in breach of contract, and the other party is therefore entitled to petition a court of law to receive with legal weight behind the judgment that which he is owed from the party in breach of contract. And therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying is that a husband whose wife will not give him sex may petition a court to force his wife to give him the sex that he is owed under the terms of the contract.

This is nothing more than a necessary corollary to what you are proposing. If you do not believe that this is an acceptable corollary to put in place, then your only course of action is to rethink what you are saying; you cannot both affirm your initial claim as acceptable while refusing to affirm a necessary corollary of it as acceptable.

You're really overthinking this Gabu. No.. you don't have to have a legal requirement written in stone for how much sex a spouse is entitled to in order to throw the legal term of "rape" out the window in a marriage.

The idea is simple- Once 2 people are married, they're no longer eligible to accuse the other of rape. They can still accuse each other of assault and battery, which would often go along with a rape. There should be evidence of this, just like in any other rape case. Now, if a spouse is repeatedly sexually abusing their partner in such a way that it leaves no signs of physical abuse, something is awry. Either it isn't rape, or the offending spouse is really good at slipping their spouse the mickey. If that's the case, a divorce is the answer.

It's not that complicated. The idea is that once you're married, you need to work our your sexual problems between each other.

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, yes it would. As I said, the very nature of a contract entitles one to take legal action on the other party to receive what they are owed if that party does not fulfill their stated obligations under that contract. Therefore, if marriage is a contract, and if a part of that contract stipulates that either party is entitled - as you say - to receive sex from the other party whenever he or she demands it, then one who does not provide the other with sex when he or she demands it is in breach of contract, and the other party is therefore entitled to petition a court of law to receive with legal weight behind the judgment that which he is owed from the party in breach of contract. And therefore, a necessary corollary of what you are saying is that a husband whose wife will not give him sex may petition a court to force his wife to give him the sex that he is owed under the terms of the contract.

This is nothing more than a necessary corollary to what you are proposing. If you do not believe that this is an acceptable corollary to put in place, then your only course of action is to rethink what you are saying; you cannot both affirm your initial claim as acceptable while refusing to affirm a necessary corollary of it as acceptable.

GabuEx

The contract doesn't specify how often said 'sex' must be had. So how would you determine when a partner is 'late' for payment?

hartsickdiscipl affirmed that both parties are entitled to sex whenever the other person wants it. In other words, if someone wants sex, and you don't give them sex, then you are already late in payment.

No, my statement was referring to the Biblical concept of the "marital due" regarding sex. I said nothing about an actual legal requirement regarding amount or frequency of sex due.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Lilyanne46"]

One of the rape victims I know was in a marriage. Intimacy on a regular basis, I sort of disagree with. Now, I'm not saying you said that one needs sex to love someone, but I don't think you do. What if someone was asexual, but their spouse was not? Sure, asexuals have sex then and there, but if they don't want to have it, they don't. And the spouse should not force them. If they do force you, then I think it's rape. Because rape is forced sex, and rape is rape. I take these topics seriously because I know people have developed mental illnesses (even put in mental hospitals) because of rape.

Lilyanne46

If an "asexual" wants sex, then they're not asexual.

Not necessarily. Some asexuals do it just to experience it, or get a real reason why they dislike it...

But either way, that's not my point. My point is, rape is rape. Intimacy regularly or not. I was just using the orientation as an example.

I see. I maintain that wanting to experience sex, by definition, means that someone isn't asexual.

I've never liked the term "asexual" anyways. Aren't animals who reproduce on their own called "asexual?" Shouldn't people who don't want to have sex be called "nonsexual," or "antisexual?"

I don't think any household or domestic issues should be involved with the law unless violence is involved.

You're really overthinking this Gabu. No.. you don't have to have a legal requirement written in stone for how much sex a spouse is entitled to in order to throw the legal term of "rape" out the window in a marriage.

The idea is simple- Once 2 people are married, they're no longer eligible to accuse the other of rape. They can still accuse each other of assault and battery, which would often go along with a rape. There should be evidence of this, just like in any other rape case. Now, if a spouse is repeatedly sexually abusing their partner in such a way that it leaves no signs of physical abuse, something is awry. Either it isn't rape, or the offending spouse is really good at slipping their spouse the mickey. If that's the case, a divorce is the answer.

It's not that complicated. The idea is that once you're married, you need to work our your sexual problems between each other.

hartsickdiscipl

But your basis for rape being an inadmissable charge between spouses is that being married confers on both married parties the entitlement of sex whenever one party desires it. As marriage is a contract, that means that one of the points of the contract becomes the furnishing of sex whenever another person wants it. And that in turn means that a failure to furnish said brings one in breach of contract. And one who is in breach of contract can have a judgment brought upon them by a court of law to force them to provide the plaintiff that which the plaintiff is owed under the terms of the contract.

I'm simply pointing out for you the implications of your proposal and how it runs into problems when one recognizes that marriage is a contract and that you are creating an additional term in that contract, whether you know it or not. Nothing more.

Yes, it should be treated as a very serious crime and like all other sorts legal transgressions, should require evidence to substantiate any charges.

hartsickdiscipl affirmed that both parties are entitled to sex whenever the other person wants it. In other words, if someone wants sex, and you don't give them sex, then you are already late in payment.

GabuEx

Hmm, I suppose he 'more or less' did. Carry on then. :P

My poll is about the issue of spousal rape. My personal opinion is this- If you're married to someone, you shouldn't be able to accuse them of raping you. Of assault and battery, yes.. but not of forcing sex on you. I don't think that it's "ok" or "right" to force anyone to have sex with you.. but I don't think it should be a legal issue when 2 people are married. I think any sexual issues need to be handled between the husband and wife. Divorce is always an option. I also think there's a major "he said, she said" issue in cases like this, since anyone could accuse their spouse of rape, and physical evidence would do little to no good.. since the 2 people would be intimate with each other on a regular basis anyways (one would think). I'm sure that I will scare some people with this idea, but I really don't care. What I want is your opinion.

hartsickdiscipl

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

Being married to a person does not legally mean that they have the right to use your body against your will for sexual gratification (and on that note, it sounds like you somehow found an even worse excuse for rape than "she was asking for it!"). The Bible's statements or contents possess no authority or relevance in relation to legal matters, at least in a contextually secular nation. In the case that such a thing occurs and you intend to bring it to a court of law, then you should be allowed to do so. Whatever the problems of evidence and verification are, they are meant to be resolved under the scrutiny of the judiciary.

Here's how I see it.

Let's say a woman gets raped by her boyfriend. The victim has the right to call it rape (and she's correct).

If they were a married couple, the victim should still have the right. Just because you're married does mean the pain, torture and humilation from rape will be less.

So rape in any form should never be excused.