Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What circumstances would be acceptable as you obviously don't think it's not acceptable for all?
:AMR:
Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
What circumstances would be acceptable as you obviously don't think it's not acceptable for all?
:AMR:
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, the criminal offense of "rape" never included any form of sex between two married people until the definition of rape was changed in the 1960s.
You probably believe that it is impossible for the "flying spaghetti monster" to appear above New York City and destroy the Empire State Building.
Should I assume that you must be okay with it when it does happen?
Or, should I be rational and assume that you would be very upset with it happening?
I am speaking out against the evil that you are supporting.
I have repeatedly stated that it is not okay.
I have also repeatedly stated that criminalizing that act by redefining rape laws to include sex between a husband and his wife does greater harm to society than decriminalizing the act.
I also believe that criminalizing drug abuse is also more harmful than decriminalizing drug abuse.
I am not advocating for the decriminalization of rape committed by a man against someone who is not his spouse.
My arguments are not about the morality of the husband forcing his wife to have sex.
There are no moral arguments that can support that act.
My arguments are about the damage done to society by criminalizing the act.
Are you aware of all the things that happen in America when someone is charged with rape (even if never convicted)?
The accusation alone can destroy a man's life.
Just because of the accusation he will be forced to register as a sex offender for life, with all the restrictions in places to live, jobs he can hold, and ability to even visit his children.
Our current rape culture (created by feminists) makes him guilty even if proven innocent.
Do you know what the rule of thumb is? Where it came from? That was fully permissible within marriage for a long long time. Is it a good think that the rule of thumb is no longer legal?
I'll answer that as soon as you tell me if you have stopped beating your wife. Same principle.
How is me saying that rape is wrong in all situations evil?
So close
And yet so far.
I agree.
There is no damage to society nor to the institution of marriage by allowing those that are raped to file charges. I believe that it actually sanctifies the institution of marriage to say as a society that marriage does not convey the right to sexually abuse your spouse.
The problem is that the law is wrong to force registration without a conviction. That law is wrong and should be changed. That in no way changes my position that married spouses should have protection against being raped.
genuineoriginal
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Don't think that's a topic that's gonna fly here...
genuineoriginal
New member
You are claiming that your normal practice is to accuse someone of the worst first and not accept anything less?
It is evil when you apply the criminal offense of rape to sex between a husband and a wife.
There is grievous damage caused to the institution of marriage by extending rape charges to be filed against a spouse.
This in turn causes irreparable damage to the society.
I agree that marriage does not convey the right to sexually abuse your spouse by forcing your spouse to have sex or by withholding sex from your spouse.
I think that GO's example is rather contrived. The difference lies in the intent. If the intent is to initiate a mutually enjoyable encounter, that does not rise to the definition of rape.
genuineoriginal
New member
I put my response inside of spoiler tags because it appeared to be on the border of what could be acceptable on this forum, but thought you deserved an honest answer to your question.
The issue of what constitutes consent is a big one when you start defining rape as sex without consent.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Agreed.
genuineoriginal
New member
Aren't you the person that says "that rape is wrong in all situations"
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, without getting into the details I doubt many husbands are going to complain or cry foul on the score...I agree with CM's response.
You said that rape cannot happen in a marriage. You opened with the worst and then try to blame it on me.
Marriage DOES NOT convey the right to rape to rape your spouse. Rape is not a sex act, it is an act of control and should never be tolerated.
What damage does it cause to protect somebody from being raped? Your implication is that rape in a marriage benefits the marriage and society. Please explain those benefits.
Then why do use words that are tantamount to supporting rape within a marriage?
Paul teaches us the withholding sex is okay for a while but goes on to say that such a situation should be only for short periods of time before they come back together in the marriage bed. I am in qualified agreement with you. However, there is a large difference between withholding sex and forcing sex on an un-consenting spouse.
When it is actually rape. The situation you describe is not rape.
genuineoriginal
New member
Why? Because it is the woman forcing the man to have sex without consent instead of the other way around?
Reverse the genders in the situation I described and tell me you still don't consider it to be rape.
Because of intent. The wife is not trying to force something on her husband, she is trying to initiate a shared act. You do understand that intent is a key part in determining whether a crime has occurred, right?
genuineoriginal
New member
It can't.
No, the only thing I am blaming on you are your actual statements.
You have consistently blamed me for your own ideas about what I think even when I have clarified that I do not agree with the acts you are trying to claim I support.
Since rape cannot happen in a marriage, you are arguing about an event that cannot happen.
Of course it is.
The very definition of rape states that it is a sex act.
With that feminist redefinition of rape, anything you don't want to tolerate can be called rape.
No, I did not imply that rape in marriage benefits the marriage nor the society.
I have stated quite clearly that the criminalization of sex between spouses is harmful to the institution of marriage and that anything that harms the institution of marriage will end up with the destruction of society because of the role of the institution of marriage as the foundation for society.
You are looking for benefits where none exist and are ignoring the damages that are a direct result of the ideals you support.
I don't.
There is not as large of a difference as you believe.
Forcing the spouse to have sex and forcing the spouse to go without sex are both ways of trying to control the marriage by abusing the sex act.
The government should stay out of this power struggle between spouses instead of criminalizing one and not the other.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
no Christian man and Christian woman in a Christian marriage
I don't care what non-believers do
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It can and it does.
If you don't like what I have said I suggest you look back at your own words. I am only repeating what I hear you saying.
Rape can and does happen within marriages.
Of course it is.
The very definition of rape states that it is a sex act.
With that feminist redefinition of rape, anything you don't want to tolerate can be called rape.[/quote] This is a red herring. Rape is rape. Interviews with rapists indicate that they are doing it for control, not for sex.
They are not criminalizing sex between spouses in a marriage. They are acknowledging that criminal acts can and do occur within marriages. The law is catching up with reality.
- Status