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

[QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"] I am no troll, if you are 'getting raped in marriage" than you aren't actually being raped, the woman is just trying to get money out of the man. If you get married, you are absolutely 100% for sure supposed to have sex, if not then you shouldn't be married. You idiots thinks I'm trolling? I'm showing the truth. remember when this **** didn't happen, back 40 years ago? Toughen up, jesus society is terrible nowadays.ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think your post assumes too much.. too many factors. I, for one, don't agree with any type of law that tries to judge people's "mindset." Actions are actions. Since your arguments seem to assume so much about human nature, think about this- How often do you really think husbands (or wives) would actually "rape" their spouses if they knew the law wouldn't charge them with that crime? If the law could still charge them with aggravated assault and battery if there were outward signs of physical abuse, but not of rape? You think people would go crazy and start raping their spouse? I don't think so. And if you do think so, what does that say for people's right to create their own laws, if they are such out of control animals? My proposed law is one that would stress the marital obligation to render sex to your spouse (based on the Bible), but wouldn't condone violent rape.

My grounds are that I feel the only place that law should have in interfering in married people's sex lives are if they commit adultery. Then they should be punished because they committed one of the worst acts of disloyalty and perversion.

hartsickdiscipl

Once again.. just because that's how things are done in today's society (and throughout most of history), doesn't mean that it's right. In my eyes, it's not right at all.

90% of rape charges are ****MultiplehandsMa

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

hartsickdiscipl

Hey, feel free to counter mine. I am not sure what your views have been influenced by, but there is no Biblical basis for marital rape, but plenty against it.

In all honesty, I very highly doubt that God will judge kindly those whom rape their wives.

There is nothing in the Bible that, IMO, addresses marital rape. There IS, however.. a scripture that says you must give your spouse sex. You keep saying that the scriptures address marital rape, but IMO the scriptures that you seem to be referring to are far to broad to apply to married people's sexual lives.

There is areas of the Bible addressing violent behavior certainly apply to rape, being that rape is a violent act.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I doubt he's trolling. MultiplehandsMa

Aw so a ban dodger. Such a big man aren't you lol. Enjoy your life when you eventually land yourself in jail :)

I'm on here because my other account got banned, i am not scared of some pathetic interent nerds, trust me. This board is way too easy to get banned from, and I'm leaving anyways. Come to the misc on bb.com when you guys want to stop being beta phaggots and start being real men.MultiplehandsMa

When people post things like this, it keeps proving that most of those opposed to this can't see things clearly from multiple perspectives. It's like you're all locked into this mindset of what society has put out there for us. I can't comprehend that.hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And the case is that laws arent created simply based on something in the Bible. So, your proposition is out of the question.Teenaged

Once again.. just because that's how things are done in today's society (and throughout most of history), doesn't mean that it's right. In my eyes, it's not right at all.

No, my proposition is out of the question in your eyes. Simply because you aren't personally prepared to swallow the ramifications of Biblical law when it comes to marriage, sex, etc..

...MultiplehandsMa

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]When people post things like this, it keeps proving that most of those opposed to this can't see things clearly from multiple perspectives. It's like you're all locked into this mindset of what society has put out there for us. I can't comprehend that.Teenaged

What things about the current system do I enjoy? Things that I definitely couldn't have under a system of Biblical law? Please, tell me about my life that you know so much about.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Once again.. just because that's how things are done in today's society (and throughout most of history), doesn't mean that it's right. In my eyes, it's not right at all.

hartsickdiscipl

No, my proposition is out of the question in your eyes. Simply because you aren't personally prepared to swallow the ramifications of Biblical law when it comes to marriage, sex, etc..

Your argument in support of legalizing rape isn't Biblically backed either. The only thing that I could see you justifying is termination of the marriage contract due to withholding sex. (and/or potential monetary compensation)

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Once again.. just because that's how things are done in today's society (and throughout most of history), doesn't mean that it's right. In my eyes, it's not right at all.

hartsickdiscipl

No, my proposition is out of the question in your eyes. Simply because you aren't personally prepared to swallow the ramifications of Biblical law when it comes to marriage, sex, etc..

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And again, just because in your eyes its not right at all, doesnt mean it isnt. There are several examples that laws based on the Bible would be absurd and against human rights even, that prove that the way things are currently carried out is perfectly fine, if not the exact way we should all wish they are carried out. If you are willing to let that part of the Bible affect the law, then you should hold no objection for any part of the Bible to affect the law. In summary, your proposition is out of the question.coolbeans90

No, my proposition is out of the question in your eyes. Simply because you aren't personally prepared to swallow the ramifications of Biblical law when it comes to marriage, sex, etc..

Your argument in support of legalizing rape isn't legally backed either. The only thing that I could see you justifying is termination of the marriage contract due to withholding sex. (and/or potential monetary compensation)

Nobody said that my argument is legally backed. Of course it isn't :roll:. That's the whole point of this thread.

[QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"]...Teenaged

BTW, my father is co-captain of the SWAT team for the next county over, and i am also training to be a SWAT team officer. I know the law better than your whole family does.MultiplehandsMa

You know what? I believe you, I seriously do. We all agree some problems in the legal system, but you know what, I would never marry a girl like that. And what if Koby Bryant did something wrong?

I know the law better than your whole family doesMultiplehandsMa

U mad?MultiplehandsMa

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"] I'm on here because my other account got banned, i am not scared of some pathetic interent nerds, trust me. This board is way too easy to get banned from, and I'm leaving anyways. Come to the misc on bb.com when you guys want to stop being beta phaggots and start being real men.MultiplehandsMa

So, I suppose that amongst the people you law enforcement officers bring to justice would be marital rapists. Good to know.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"] I'm on here because my other account got banned, i am not scared of some pathetic interent nerds, trust me. This board is way too easy to get banned from, and I'm leaving anyways. Come to the misc on bb.com when you guys want to stop being beta phaggots and start being real men.MultiplehandsMa

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And again, just because in your eyes its not right at all, doesnt mean it isnt. There are several examples that laws based on the Bible would be absurd and against human rights even, that prove that the way things are currently carried out is perfectly fine, if not the exact way we should all wish they are carried out. If you are willing to let that part of the Bible affect the law, then you should hold no objection for any part of the Bible to affect the law. In summary, your proposition is out of the question.Teenaged

No, my proposition is out of the question in your eyes. Simply because you aren't personally prepared to swallow the ramifications of Biblical law when it comes to marriage, sex, etc..

For starters, yes.. I would be just fine adhering to Biblical law. Secondly, you're wrong in saying that I have to prove anything. Why would you think that? Just because someone wants to change a current law to more closely match the way things may have been done in the past, such as in the Bible, doesn't mean that you have to use all of the old laws. You're jumping to WAY too many conclusions here. Such absolutist thinking.

hmm...I think that non-consentual sex is against the law and should be regardless of marital status.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No, my proposition is out of the question in your eyes. Simply because you aren't personally prepared to swallow the ramifications of Biblical law when it comes to marriage, sex, etc..

hartsickdiscipl

Your argument in support of legalizing rape isn't legally backed either. The only thing that I could see you justifying is termination of the marriage contract due to withholding sex. (and/or potential monetary compensation)

Nobody said that my argument is legally backed. Of course it isn't :roll:. That's the whole point of this thread.

I misstated myself. I meant to write "Biblically."

[QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"] U mad?Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]When people post things like this, it keeps proving that most of those opposed to this can't see things clearly from multiple perspectives. It's like you're all locked into this mindset of what society has put out there for us. I can't comprehend that.hartsickdiscipl

What things about the current system do I enjoy? Things that I definitely couldn't have under a system of Biblical law? Please, tell me about my life that you know so much about.

[QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"] U mad?Teenaged

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Your argument in support of legalizing rape isn't legally backed either. The only thing that I could see you justifying is termination of the marriage contract due to withholding sex. (and/or potential monetary compensation)

coolbeans90

Nobody said that my argument is legally backed. Of course it isn't :roll:. That's the whole point of this thread.

I misstated myself. I meant to write "Biblically."

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

I wish the ban dodger wouldn't characterize me as a beta *******; I am 100% alpha *******xaos

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I disagree. We're not going to agree on this point. I can't just take her word after she's willingly had sex with this person hundreds of times. That's like asking a convicted felon if they robbed a bank. They say no, I didn't.. but you know that he's robbed 50 banks before. Do you believe him?

hartsickdiscipl

I don't give two ****s if you agree or not, that's the way it works. There is no obligation for sex in marriage, if she said no that means no and the same parameters that apply for normal rape apply for spusal rape, period.

You didn't answer my question. How do you take that person's word for it when they've had sex with that individual hundreds if not thousands of times during the marriage?

Scenario A:John Q goes out tonight, slips a woman a roofie (spelling, I know), takes her back to his place, and has sex with her while she is in a semi-conscious state.

Scenario B: Mr. F one night in bed turns to Mrs. F, asks her if she wants to fornicate, and when she says no pins her to the bed and has sex with her.

Now say in both of these scenarios the next day the woman goes to the police, tells them of the rape, and presses charges. When it gets to court both men plead not guilty, that the women never said no. When asked about the signs of restraint on the women's wrists both men answer that it was a fetish thing. John Q says he heard from a friend that she was into that kind of thing, and that on the night in question she specifically asked for that. Mr. F says that Mrs. F was into that kind of thing and routinely asked for it in the past. There is no difference between these two scenarios, the men are both wrong, they are both rapists, and despite no concrete "proof" of rape they both deserve to go to jail for what they did.

For starters, yes.. I would be just fine adhering to Biblical law. Secondly, you're wrong in saying that I have to prove anything. Why would you think that? Just because someone wants to change a current law to more closely match the way things may have been done in the past, such as in the Bible, doesn't mean that you have to use all of the old laws. You're jumping to WAY too many conclusions here. Such absolutist thinking.hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="MultiplehandsMa"] U mad?MultiplehandsMa

This thread is irritating, I hope the mods delete it before someone with sense self-destructs irl after seeing the ignorance of 18 year old hipsters.MultiplehandsMa

It does hold dangerous information against God.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Nobody said that my argument is legally backed. Of course it isn't :roll:. That's the whole point of this thread.

hartsickdiscipl

I misstated myself. I meant to write "Biblically."

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

Just curious, are you one of the posters who rants against islamic theocracies, because I find the tendency of some religious fundamentalists to rail against Islam under the guise of preventing the spread of theocracies while at the same time proposing a Christian theocracy quite amusing.

Anywys, we're not a theocracy, we're a secular society that is supposed to treat all creeds equally under the law. That means we don't base legislation on a singular relgious text.

This thread is irritating, I hope the mods delete it before someone with sense self-destructs irl after seeing the ignorance of 18 year old hipsters.MultiplehandsMa

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]For starters, yes.. I would be just fine adhering to Biblical law. Secondly, you're wrong in saying that I have to prove anything. Why would you think that? Just because someone wants to change a current law to more closely match the way things may have been done in the past, such as in the Bible, doesn't mean that you have to use all of the old laws. You're jumping to WAY too many conclusions here. Such absolutist thinking.Teenaged

You do of course realize that our current laws are based on a collection of interpretations of ancient laws, right? They come from multiple sources, including the Bible. Your logic is very flawed in this matter from everything that I can see.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I misstated myself. I meant to write "Biblically."

theone86

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

Just curious, are you one of the posters who rants against islamic theocracies, because I find the tendency of some religious fundamentalists to rail against Islam under the guise of preventing the spread of theocracies while at the same time proposing a Christian theocracy quite amusing.

Anywys, we're not a theocracy, we're a secular society that is supposed to treat all creeds equally under the law. That means we don't base legislation on a singular relgious text.

Give me any example of when I've EVER ranted against Islamic theocracies. I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Nobody said that my argument is legally backed. Of course it isn't :roll:. That's the whole point of this thread.

hartsickdiscipl

I misstated myself. I meant to write "Biblically."

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

It said nothing at all about legally allowing rape within marriage. Just because it may have been allowed by certain cultures in ancient times does not mean that they were allowed by God. Men sinned then too. Moving along, marital rape is a Biblically unjustified exercise of violent behavior which the dispute causing which can and should be handled other ways, but I'll leave that be for now. Since there is no evidence one way or the other, by your own admission, then having an opposition to criminalizing under a Biblical basis is absurd. There are practical and moral concerns not covered by the Bible which people legitimately argue to criminalize marital rape for which you do not have a basis to oppose from your current frame of argument.

Just stating that you are no older than 18, most definitely white, most definitely a liberal pos, most likely a vegan, no more than 6 feet tall, no more than 150 pounds, don't lift, might go to community college, hate to work, and probably still live with your mommy. people like you are ridiculous.MultiplehandsMa

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]For starters, yes.. I would be just fine adhering to Biblical law. Secondly, you're wrong in saying that I have to prove anything. Why would you think that? Just because someone wants to change a current law to more closely match the way things may have been done in the past, such as in the Bible, doesn't mean that you have to use all of the old laws. You're jumping to WAY too many conclusions here. Such absolutist thinking.hartsickdiscipl

You do of course realize that our current laws are based on a collection of interpretations of ancient laws, right? They come from multiple sources, including the Bible. Your logic is very flawed in this matter from everything that I can see.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I misstated myself. I meant to write "Biblically."

coolbeans90

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

It said nothing at all about legally allowing rape within marriage. Just because it may have been allowed by certain cultures in ancient times does not mean that they were allowed by God. Men sinned then too. Moving along, marital rape is a Biblically unjustified exercise of violent behavior which the dispute causing which can and should be handled other ways, but I'll leave that be for now. Since there is no evidence one way or the other, by your own admission, then having an opposition to criminalizing under a Biblical basis is absurd. There are practical and moral concerns not covered by the Bible which people legitimately argue to criminalize marital rape for which you do not have a basis to oppose from your current frame of argument.

I most certainly do have a basis to oppose it from my frame of reference. When I see that a law was not put in place, I have no law to follow. Because of that, I err on the side of allowing a spouse to extract the marital due however they see fit. In most cases, there will be no need to force sex, of course.

Just stating that you are no older than 18, most definitely white, most definitely a liberal pos, most likely a vegan, no more than 6 feet tall, no more than 150 pounds, don't lift, might go to community college, hate to work, and probably still live with your mommy. people like you are ridiculous.MultiplehandsMa

And that makes you some ninja keyboard warrior? I doubt you could handle yourself in a fight. You get PO'd easy.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]In order for your proposition to not be out of the question then the Bible has to be proven as a book which AS A WHOLE is suitable to create laws. If even a part of it is not suitable then you have doubted its authoritative power and then the same proceedure easily follows for every part of the book. So yes in order for your proposition to not be out of the question you have to prove that the Bible is suitable in its entirety for the formation of laws. If you cant, that means that you just picked a part of the Bible that you liked and proposed for it to affect law, by saying its in the Bible. Then your qualification statement is hypocriticial because it is based on the presupposed fact that the Bible *is* suitable to affect laws in its entirety. If it isnt, then I use logic against it that suprassed the "its in the Bible" claim.Teenaged

You do of course realize that our current laws are based on a collection of interpretations of ancient laws, right? They come from multiple sources, including the Bible. Your logic is very flawed in this matter from everything that I can see.

It seems to me that by your logic, our whole legal system should be thrown out, because we didn't get all the rules from one place. Therefore, because we didn't, and they are not part of a single, original code of law taken as a whole, it has no basis, right? Isn't that what you said about my references to using part of Biblical law, but not the whole thing?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

hartsickdiscipl

It said nothing at all about legally allowing rape within marriage. Just because it may have been allowed by certain cultures in ancient times does not mean that they were allowed by God. Men sinned then too. Moving along, marital rape is a Biblically unjustified exercise of violent behavior which the dispute causing which can and should be handled other ways, but I'll leave that be for now. Since there is no evidence one way or the other, by your own admission, then having an opposition to criminalizing under a Biblical basis is absurd. There are practical and moral concerns not covered by the Bible which people legitimately argue to criminalize marital rape for which you do not have a basis to oppose from your current frame of argument.

I most certainly do have a basis to oppose it from my frame of reference. When I see that a law was not put in place, I have no law to follow. Because of that, I err on the side of allowing a spouse to extract the marital due however they see fit. In most cases, there will be no need to force sex, of course.

There isn't a Biblical basis for not allowing marital rape to be outlawed according to anything you have posted so far.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

As we know, the Bible allowed many "liberties" to husbands in ancient times. That being said, I see no evidence that would prove one way or the other. The only evidence at all is the scriptural directive to render the marital due of sex to your spouse.

hartsickdiscipl

Just curious, are you one of the posters who rants against islamic theocracies, because I find the tendency of some religious fundamentalists to rail against Islam under the guise of preventing the spread of theocracies while at the same time proposing a Christian theocracy quite amusing.

Anywys, we're not a theocracy, we're a secular society that is supposed to treat all creeds equally under the law. That means we don't base legislation on a singular relgious text.

Give me any example of when I've EVER ranted against Islamic theocracies. I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

That's why I asked instead of just accusing.