Answering old threads thread

[Arthur Brain]

First let's apply it as written, to abstaining from sex. If there's no agreement to abstain, then there should be no abstaining. As long as that's followed, there is no occasion for forcing.

Now I'll let you find the Bible verse for your position--that both partners have to agree before sex can commence.

There's no "occasion for forcing" regardless, not if you truly loved and cherished your spouse. That in itself answers your risible latter.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah.

What benefits the most people the most is what's approved as moral in utilitarianism. What benefits the most people the most, when there's only one fertile woman alive but she's a lesbian and refuses to marry a man? Is it to honor her absolute right, and thus the species ends, or is it to rape her so that billions more people get the chance to live, who otherwise wouldn't have? For Skeeter this is easy; you definitely rape her because this is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, it's a 'slam dunk', and a 'no brainer'. Rape isn't just permitted by his utilitarianism in my contrived trolley problem, it's obligated. It would be immoral to not rape the lesbian under Skeeter's utilitarian moral philosophy.

(This is why I don't like utilitarian legal positivism among our judges, which is why I'm a Republican and supported President Trump and will continue to be a Republican just so long as the Democrats----like Skeeter----refuse to acknowledge their wicked theory on rights and laws and morality. It is unabashed wickedness. My trolley problem shows it.)

But what about if she doesn't want to get the vaccine? Does her right against being raped, apply to also a right against getting jabbed in another way? Because getting a shot in the arm isn't the same as rape, for our talk about women's bodily autonomy we really only apply it to rape and abortion, the absolute right against being raped and the absolute right to procure a legal abortion. But it's not the absolute right against getting a tiny needle put in your shoulder. That's curious.

I'll let Skeeter answer this for himself if he chooses to.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Frankly, anyone who claims to love and cherish their spouse while simultaneously claiming that it's okay to force sex on them have no idea what loving and cherishing actually encapsulate. You simply wouldn't want to do that to them.

 

[Idolater]

I'll let Skeeter answer this for himself if he chooses to.

Excellent. @Skeeter

 

[Derf]

There's no "occasion for forcing" regardless, not if you truly loved and cherished your spouse. That in itself answers your risible latter.

Isn't a command a "forcing"? If someone in authority says, "Do this," and you are obliged to obey under threat of punishment of some sort, is that not forced? Like stopping at a stop sign, for instance.

 

[ok doser]

Isn't a command a "forcing"? If someone in authority says, "Do this," and you are obliged to obey under threat of punishment of some sort, is that not forced? Like stopping at a stop sign, for instance.

When the command comes from God, the unGodly refuse it.

 

[glorydaz]

The expectation in a Christian marriage is that the couple will engage in carnal knowledge.

I like the language in the KJV better:

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.


Refusing sex to your spouse is a form of fraud. If continued, the marriage is fraudulent.

Rejected out of hand, as expected

Not rejected. Just insisting scripture be kept in context, and people aren't claiming it's saying what it isn't.

For instance, read further.

1 Cor. 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Is there any suggestion, whatsoever, that a man can force his wife to have sex with him?

Keep looking, boys, you won't find it in God's word.

 

[glorydaz]

When the command comes from God, the unGodly refuse it.

You know, don't you, that God put away His wife rather than force her to do His will?

 

[ok doser]

Not rejected. Just insisting scripture be kept in context, and people aren't claiming it's saying what it isn't.

For instance, read further.

1 Cor. 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Is there any suggestion, whatsoever, that a man can force his wife to have sex with him?

Keep looking, boys, you won't find it in God's word.

Sigh

Keep swinging at that strawman

 

[glorydaz]

Rape NEVER has anything to do with reproduction and rarely ever results in a preganancy. It is a violent act intended to physically control, emotionally humiliate and otherwise psychologically injure the victim. All things that animals are entirely incapable of performing or even conceiving of.

This sort of stupidity angers me to no end! It not only displays an asinine lack of knowledge but a deplorable lack of judgment. It serves to do nothing but diminish the severity of one of the most horrendous crimes that a person is capable of committing against another. You owe every rape victim in the world an apology.

And this is a fact even within a marriage, as well as outside a marriage.
What it engenders will be anger, fear, hate, and loss of respect for any husband who claims he has the right to rape his own wife.

Stop. I don't want to. Ow that hurts. Quit. Get off me. Move your knee. You're hurting me. HELP. STOP. PLEASE. OH GOD.

The LUST OF THE FLESH.

 

[ok doser]

And this is a fact even within a marriage, as well as outside a marriage.
What it engenders will be anger, fear, hate, and loss of respect for any husband who claims he has the right to rape his own wife.

Stop. I don't want to. Ow that hurts. Quit. Get off me. Move your knee. You're hurting me. HELP. STOP. PLEASE. OH GOD.

The LUST OF THE FLESH.

Rape doesn't exist in a Christian marriage

 

[Skeeter]

Got it, though Skeeter seems to be fairly decent, IMO, and I don’t concern myself with the utilitarian stuff.

I don't prescribe to utilitarianism; that is just Idol's characterization. I don't concern myself with idol. She is Ninety percent hot air.

 

[Skeeter]

Rape doesn't exist in a Christian marriage

On a wing and a prayer, they redefined it out of existence? Wonder why.

 

[glorydaz]

The wife gave her consent when she married the man.

Therefore it IS NOT RAPE, by definition.



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.



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



Because such behavior is an abomination.



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.

Consent to be married, loved, cherrished ....not consent to be raped.
You base your argument on a faulty premise.

Does a woman consent to be treated like a whore?
Does a woman consent to be cheated on?
Does she consent to being slapped when dinner is late?

Is she consenting to be forced to have sex when she isn't in the mood, or when her husband has been treating her like crap?

As a member of the body of Christ, I rebuke you, JR.
Change your mind before you get married, or you will be marrying under false pretenses.

Forced sex is never found in any marriage vow ever.
If you can't talk your wife into having sex, you've failed as a husband.

 

[glorydaz]

Rape doesn't exist in a Christian marriage

Liar.

 

[glorydaz]

On a wing and a prayer, they redefined it out of existence? Wonder why.

That called giving themselves permission to sin......wresting scripture from it's place to "prove" it.

 

[glorydaz]

Rape doesn't exist in a Christian marriage

Unless you mean no real Christian would ever FORCE his wife to have sex against her will.

If that's what you mean, then I'll agree with you.

 

[Idolater]

... Constitutional precedent defines a human being as starting at birth -- not prior. ... Currently it is the moment of birth where legal right's attach. ... A human individual starts at birth. This is an established legal fact. ...

This same argument didn't, shouldn't and wouldn't work with slavery Skeeter, why would or should it work with abortion?

 

[ok doser]

Unless you mean no real Christian would ever FORCE his wife to have sex against her will.

If that's what you mean, then I'll agree with you.

I can't begin to describe to you how boring it is having to deal with yours and rusha's and the bananahead's misandry

In no Christian marriage will a spouse deny their partner

 

[ok doser]

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Refusing sex to your spouse is a form of fraud. If continued, the marriage is fraudulent.