Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
nah


happy little troll! :banana:



you, on the other hand, appear to be a bitter little troll


bitter little troll makes happy little troll sad :(
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Nick M said:
2 bitter feminazis.....nothing more, nothing less. I think it is funny that he is all you think about. And Donald Trump is your President.
Click to expand...



Right... so you came on a thread where I'm not talking about Trump - to tell me that's all I think about?

:rotfl:

Go jump in a lake, Nick. Anyone who says to bind a child who's resisting a beating is an animal not worth listening to.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Nick M said:
He is undoing the immoral orders like letting grown men in the women's public restroom with my 5 and 9 year old girl. If you had your way, it would continue. You actress.
Click to expand...

Nope... strike three. This thread isn't about transgender bathroom laws either.

It's about whether or not marital rape is scripturally defensible, since there are so-called 'Christians' here who don't believe it's possible to rape your spouse.

Since you seem to be struggling, I'll repost the OP:

annabenedetti said:
Crucible said:
'Marital rape' is a sin due to the sin of the wife. It's the only real conclusion one can come to as far as the Scriptures teach, because by the old standard 'marital rape' is virtually impossible if the woman is submitting to the marriage.

This is in part why female autonomy conflicts with the Christian religion.
Click to expand...

annabenedetti said:
Wow. According to you if a wife is raped by her husband it's her sin.

I'll take my autonomy over your 'Christian religion.'
Click to expand...
genuineoriginal said:
According to the time honored definition of rape, if a husband and wife have sex, it is not rape and according to the Bible there is no sin, either.
Click to expand...

genuineoriginal said:
I am not evading the question, you just appear to be unwilling to accept my answer.

You don't like the fact that the problem is the redefinition of rape to include many things that are not rape.
_____
Women’s long battle to define rape
In the 19th century, state laws around the country defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a woman when achieved by force by a man other than her husband.
. . .
Advocates for women’s rights and racial justice started questioning these views in the mid-19th century, and their efforts helped reshape the meaning of rape in three important ways. First, legal remedies such as laws on criminal seduction and statutory rape made it easier to prosecute coercive but nonviolent sexual relations with acquaintances. African American activists insisted that black women could be victims of rape and that white men should be held accountable for assault. And feminists renamed a range of non-consensual acts, particularly with acquaintances and husbands, as rape.
_____​
Click to expand...



So, genuineoriginal, if you held your wife down and forced yourself on her, you believe you would not be raping her.

YES or NO?

Any other 'Christian' men agree with genuineoriginal and Crucible?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top