ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
in a Christian marriage
Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
in a Christian marriage
genuineoriginal
New member
That is not true no matter how much you have been taught to believe it.
The foundations of the marriage contract is the conjugal rights and progeny.
Anything that affects conjugal rights (forced sex or withholding sex) is a violation of the contract.
It was properly addressed by the law for many centuries.
It is a matter of contract law, not criminal law.
"The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract".
Sir Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown, 1736
Sir Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown, 1736
genuineoriginal
New member
In any marriage.
genuineoriginal
New member
Two wrong opinions do not make a right opinion.
Any criminalization of sex within a marriage is wrong, no matter what you want to believe.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh wow, you quote from an article from 1736? Yeah, women had soooooo many rights back then didn't they?
:freak:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Lawfully, the act of forcing another person into sexual intercourse is rape no matter what. Consensual sex within a marriage is absolutely fine but rape isn't, period.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
genuineoriginal
New member
The marriage contract makes all sex within the marriage consensual.
Therefore, there is no rape at all in a marriage.
Two things liberals can't handle:
- Common sense
- Truth
genuineoriginal
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, according to your "logic", there's no possible case of rape within any marriage. Gotcha.
You are an absolute moron and I'll gladly take a ban over the point.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
lain:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I agree with you and the spirit of your post, but I find "withholding sex within the marriage without cause is wrong" problematic.
"Without cause" is subjective, because what the husband sees as without cause, the wife very well may see (and with good reason) as cause, and that goes right to the heart of the whole matter.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
The idea that "all sex within the marriage is consensual," and so there can be "no rape at all in a marriage" is vile. But it says a lot about those men who believe it.
No, a marriage liscense and saying vows does not make forced sex, rape, permissible in a marriage. What kind of idiot thinks forcing a woman to have sex against her will is a valid expression of Christ in their life?
That was the last sentence. The first sentence went like this:
Unless you believe that rape can be a moral act I've essentially covered the topic.
I'd say things like: you find out your spouse has contracted an STD or AIDs. Your spouse's idea of sex crosses the line into an area you find indecent or they become physically abusive in the process. That sort of thing.
If either party believes they have cause then sex is off the table and counselling, preferably by a trained professional who is also a Christian, should commence.
No. Any contract of any sort requires both parties consent to the terms of the contract. Ambiguity in terms or expectations can be resolved, but are not automatically read as favoring the first party to complain about performance. Additionally, you can't contract to break the law.
Forced intercourse, rape, would not be something a party could lawfully consent to, because it is a crime. No contract or provision for criminal conduct within the parameters of a contract is permissible and the contract is subject to being voided or blue penciled where the effort is made.
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue, unless you have a lower opinion of conservatives than I do.
If you force your wife to have sex against her will you can be prosecuted for rape. It isn't a matter of subjective valuation, but of law. North Carolina was the last state to ratify the legitimacy of marital rape, in 1993. A handful of states deal with marital rape under different statutory provisions, but where force is involved there is no distinction between raping a stranger and raping a spouse.
I'd agree that any material alteration of the terms of a contract, without agreement, argues for an action for breach of the contract. But it doesn't impact the separate criminal liability, while successful criminal prosecution would definitely impact the terms of divorce in non-community property states.
Rather, it was settled for some time, as was the question of whether or not we could own people and whether or not women could own property and vote. Over time, those egregious abuses of law were stricken and set aside. They were morally and ethically bankrupt notions and have found their proper place on the asheap of history.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It seems you've edited slightly? I started replying then shifted from my phone to my laptop and in between you removed "Then you could just ask me what I think would be with cause..." and I wanted to clarify that I wasn't asking what you yourself thought, because what you thought would be different from every other person's idea of what would be considered with or without cause, which is why I said it was subjective, which is at the center of it all.
What's important is when one person says no, the other person respects their right to say no. And on this, of course we have no disagreement at all.
- Status