Answering old threads thread

[Idolater]

This lady.

This guy.

These people and others like them can shut the argument about abortion, just them existing. That's the whole argument.

These two in the womb are some of the most vulnerable human organisms known to man in countries permitting abortion. One is the result of a violent rape. The other has no arms and legs.

In what world would either of these people have no defense against being aborted?

You can't argue something like, "Well it wasn't them yet!" Then who was it? Permitting abortion permits murdering these people. These wonderful people!

 

[JudgeRightly]

So if she is breaching the contract you take her to court, for divorce.

I would hope they seek counseling before seeking divorce.

You don't rape her.

Stolen concept fallacy.

Again, they are "one flesh." They belong to each other. Each spouse has a right to their partner's body.

You cannot rape your own flesh, and you cannot violate what is yours, and both spouses gave consent the moment they said "I do" and sealed it with a kiss, before God and everyone.

 

[Skeeter]

I would hope they seek counseling before seeking divorce.

I would seek counseling before forcing sex on a wife.

Stolen concept fallacy.

Again, they are "one flesh." They belong to each other. Each spouse has a right to their partner's body.

You cannot rape your own flesh, and you cannot violate what is yours, and both spouses gave consent the moment they said "I do" and sealed it with a kiss, before God and everyone.

Your religion has less of a hold on legal concepts modernly. If I find myself on a jury where the facts show a husband has forced sex on his wife, I will have absolutely no pause in delivering a guilty finding on a rape charge.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your religion has less of a hold on legal concepts modernly.

The Bible has a better hold on ACTUAL morality than any modern legal system.

If I find myself on a jury where the facts show a husband has forced sex on his wife, I will have absolutely no pause in delivering a guilty finding on a rape charge.

People like you complain when Christians say that two men shouldn't do abominable things with each other, saying the government should stay out of what happens in the bedroom, but then say the government should prosecute a man for having sex with his wife.

The hypocrisy!

 

[Skeeter]

People like you complain when Christians say that two men shouldn't do abominable things with each other, saying the government should stay out of what happens in the bedroom, but then say the government should prosecute a man for having sex with his wife.

Hypocrite!

I am consistent across the board: forced/non-consensual sex is immoral and warrants decades of prison time. You afford special privileges to married men. You applaud non-consensual sex in some scenarios but abhor consensual sex in other scenarios. That seems really warped to me.

 

[Idolater]

I am consistent across the board: forced/nonsensical sex is immoral and warrants decades of prison time. You afford special privileges to married men. You applaud non-consensual sex in some scenarios but abhor consensual sex in other scenarios. That seems really warped to me.

That's because underneath it all, you really do believe in human rights Skeeter!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am consistent across the board: forced/nonsensical sex is immoral and warrants decades of prison time.

The wife gave her consent when she married the man.

Therefore it IS NOT RAPE, by definition.

You afford special privileges to married men.

And married women.

Their marriage contract wasn't just between them, it was with God, and every other person on the planet, saying that the two belong to each other, and no one else can violate their marriage.

You applaud non-consensual sex in some scenarios

Except there IS consent. It was given at the altar.

but abhor consensual sex in other scenarios.

Because such behavior is an abomination.

That seems really warped to me.

What's ACTUALLY warped is saying that a man cannot rightfully have sex with his wife, who gave her consent already, while saying that two men can rightfully violate each other, so long as they give their consent.

 

[Idolater]

I would hope they seek counseling before seeking divorce.

As @Skeeter said, if you're going to seek counseling do it before raping her.

Stolen concept fallacy.

Again, they are "one flesh." They belong to each other. Each spouse has a right to their partner's body.

Sure, and this is why unjustified withholding and frigidity is a sin.

You cannot rape your own flesh, and you cannot violate what is yours, and both spouses gave consent the moment they said "I do" and sealed it with a kiss, before God and everyone.

If your wife has just delivered your new child, and her doctors say to avoid conjugal relations for a while, so that she can heal and recover, but you . . . fill in the blank, against her; is that rape? And if it's not rape, then what do you call it? Is it sin?

If a man's wife without justification, just out of stubbornness or because she's on a power trip or whatever other dreadful and childish reason you can think of, simply declines to engage in the marital act, then he first simply reverts to celibacy and exercises patience, and if she still resists and he cannot bear it, then he should sue her for divorce.

And then maintain celibacy and not marry another.

 

[Skeeter]

The wife gave her consent when she married the man.

Therefore it IS NOT RAPE, by definition.

Sex on demand is not usually a part of the vows given. This is the worse kind of all-or-none thinking and it can truly lead to immoral results.

And married women.

Their marriage contract wasn't just between them, it was with God, and every other person on the planet, saying that the two belong to each other, and no one else can violate their marriage.

Maybe within your church. But, even different Christian denominations view this differently.

Except there IS consent. It was given at the altar.

No. it was not. God would never treat his children as sexual objects or remove someone's agency of their own body in a blanket fashion.

Because such behavior is an abomination.

Forcing sex on someone who is unwilling at that moment is vile and sociopathic no matter the rationale.

What's ACTUALLY warped is saying that a man cannot rightfully have sex with his wife, who gave her consent already, while saying that two men can rightfully violate each other, so long as they give their consent.

This is where we differ completely. You have iron age thinking in the age of computers. Congrats on your achievement.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As @Skeeter said, if you're going to seek counseling do it before raping her.

By definition, it would not be rape. That's my point.

If your wife has just delivered your new child, and her doctors say to avoid conjugal relations for a while, so that she can heal and recover, but you . . . fill in the blank, against her; is that rape? And if it's not rape, then what do you call it? Is it sin?

Disobeying the doctor's orders isn't a sin. Stupidity itself is not a sin.

If a man's wife without justification, just out of stubbornness or because she's on a power trip or whatever other dreadful and childish reason you can think of, simply declines to engage in the marital act, then he first simply reverts to celibacy and exercises patience, and if she still resists and he cannot bear it, then he should sue her for divorce.

He would have grounds to do so. But that shouldn't be the solution.

And then maintain celibacy and not marry another.

If it got to that point, there is nothing wrong with finding someone else to marry.

The point, however, is to not get to that point.

Sex on demand is not usually a part of the vows given.

Uh, yeah, it is.

"I, (name), take you (name), to be my lawfully wedded (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part."

Withholding sexual gratification from your partner is a violation of the above.

This is the worse kind of all-or-none thinking and it can truly lead to immoral results.

Says the guy who rejects the One from whom morality proceeds from.

No. it was not. God would never treat his children as sexual objects or remove someone's agency of their own body in a blanket fashion.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

Forcing sex on someone who is unwilling at that moment

Yet who gave their consent beforehand?

is vile and sociopathic no matter the rationale.

Not in the context of marriage, it isn't.

This is where we differ completely. You have iron age thinking in the age of computers. Congrats on your achievement.

Ad hominem.

 

[Skeeter]

"I, (name), take you (name), to be my lawfully wedded (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part."

Sorry. No way. These words are not specific enough. You do not by definition love and cherish anyone who you force intercourse on.

 

[Rusha]

I already described one way--withholding food.

Interesting. You do not see the difference in a *man* sexually forcing himself on his wife vs a woman not feeding her husband?

One is violent. The other is passive. Rape VS “pour yourself a bowl of cereal”.

 

[glorydaz]

Am I actually reading here that men own their wives and have a right to rape them if they don't consent to sex?

What a total CROCK.

How about we use our brains?

Can you force someone to love you?
Does God force us to love Him?
Does God force us to have faith in Him?

This is a totally UNGODLY claim that men have the right to take what is not willingly given.
Yep, it's a total CROCK.

That man needs to set his affections on things above....not on that which grows between his legs.
Better yet, show his wife his love for her is greater than his love for his own for himself.

 

[ok doser]

Am I actually reading here that men own their wives

Men own their wives
Women own their husbands

and have a right to rape them

that is a term that has no meaning in a Christian marriage

if they don't consent to sex?

Consent was given by both when they were joined as one before God.

 

[glorydaz]

Men own their wives
Women own their husbands

that is a term that has no meaning in a Christian marriage

Consent was given by both when they were joined as one before God.

Gotta love these preachers of the law.

No, Doser, you're dead wrong on this one.
In fact, I'm shocked to see such evil being perpetrated on this board.

 

[ok doser]

Gotta love these preachers of the law.

No, Doser, you're dead wrong on this one.
In fact, I'm shocked to see such evil being perpetrated on this board.

In a Christian marriage between a husband and a wife both indwelt with the Holy Spirit, joined as one before God, there is no role for interference from others whether they be civil authorities or gossipy neighbors.

 

[glorydaz]

In a Christian marriage between a husband and a wife both indwelt with the Holy Spirit, joined as one before God, there is no role for interference from others whether they be civil authorities or gossipy neighbors.

Well, I'm quite sure the Holy Spirit sees the horror of what's going on when a man forces his wife....against her will...to have sex.
I can assure you it would griever Him.
And, that man should be expecting some severe chastening from God.

Other than that....your post makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[glorydaz]

Alright men, you're to nourish and cherish your wife the way you do your own body. Do you like the idea of being raped YOURSELF?

Eph. 5
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Am I actually reading here that men own their wives and have a right to rape them if they don't consent to sex?

What a total CROCK.

How about we use our brains?

Can you force someone to love you?
Does God force us to love Him?
Does God force us to have faith in Him?

This is a totally UNGODLY claim that men have the right to take what is not willingly given.
Yep, it's a total CROCK.

That man needs to set his affections on things above....not on that which grows between his legs.

Yep. Perverted Christian guys bent and amped by dominance are no more moral than a silly faggot.

 

[Arthur Brain]

My wife (assuming I was married) does in fact "belong" to me. She is, in fact, my wife. She is not someone else's wife. She is not an unmarried woman.



No one ever suggested it was as such.



If a man, who is designed to be more sexually active than women, marries a woman, who then refuses to satisfy her husband's needs for sex, she is abandoning her duties as a wife. She is at fault.

She is denying his flesh, despite being made one with him, both literally and figuratively.

He has the right to take what is his, and that includes sexual gratification from his wife, who belongs to him.



Then she should have never married her husband to begin with.

Marriage is a contractual agreement between a man and a woman.



Barring forced marriages, it was her will to become one with him in marriage. She already gave her consent. Ergo, he's not a rapist for taking what is, by definition, and by law, his.



if it were actually a violation, then you'd probably have a point. But since it isn't, it just sounds like whining on your part.



Oh boo hoo, Arty's having a tantrum.

Well, duh, of course she'd be your wife just as much as you would be her husband.

Where exactly are you getting this notion that a man is designed to be more sexually active than a woman from? If a wife has no desire for sex then a loving husband would respect that. If she continually has no interest in conjugating then there's a sign that there's a problem within the relationship. No excuse for the husband to be thinking he's entitled to sex or to force it upon her. None whatsoever, period. To do so is rape which is inexcusable and any man who thinks he is a right to sexual gratification with an unwilling spouse has no business having one in the first place.

"Whining"? Hardly. Just pointing out what really is obvious to normal folk. Sorry if that smarts for you.

Well nah, not sorry.