2 edits
Originally posted by FMFthis does nothing to answer the question and is simply another stupid and blatant attempt to make debate personal and will be ignored. the question is and I repeat it here for the third time, how does refusing to take a moral stance on an issue condone that issue.
Would you also take no moral stance on adults raping children? If you didn't or couldn't bring yourself to do it, what would that mean about your moral compass?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf she is persuaded through seduction or such like, then it would be consensual. If she is persuaded by the threat of violence, then it is rape. We are discussing rape, robbie, not the seduction of reluctant brides.
Right, so if a wife is unwilling to engage in sexual activity but against her will she acquiesces reluctantly being persuaded by her husband does this also constitute rape?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you believe there is 'middle ground' ~ i.e. a belief that it is neither moral or immoral ~ when it comes to rape?
No i want you to explain the question that you have been asked, that being and i repeat it here, [b]how does taking no moral stance on an issue condone it , see if your self righteous windbaggery can compute that.[/b]
Originally posted by FMFtry and keep your knickers on FMF,
If she is persuaded through seduction or such like, then it would be consensual. If she is persuaded by the threat of violence, then it is rape. We are discussing rape, robbie, not the seduction of reluctant brides.
therefore for the matter to be construed as rape, force must be used? therefore even if someone engages in sexual activity against there will it may not be considered rape for rape depends upon whether force or threat of violence was used and consent is not the issue.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMarital rape is the crime of forcing a wife to submit to sexual intercourse against her will.
try and keep your knickers on FMF,
therefore for the matter to be construed as rape, force must be used? therefore even if someone engages in sexual activity against there will it may not be considered rape for rape depends upon whether force or threat of violence was used and consent is not the issue.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFthis is the third time that you simply ignored my text, tell us how it is possible to remain morally detached and at the same time condone an act as was asserted by your droog friend who has also been unable to answer the question.
You are refusing to address my point blank responses.
surprise surprise, as soon as you take away the ability to make debate personal he is like a fish out of water floundering and thrashing about the forum floor.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy would you want to remain "morally detached" about men raping women? For what purpose? Is not rape an act that a Christian like you can simply condemn without getting into rhetorical contortions?
this is the third time that you simply ignored my text, tell us how it is possible to remain morally detached and at the same time condone an act as was asserted by your droog friend who has also been unable to answer the question.
surprise surprise, as soon as you take the ability to make debate personal he is like a fish out of water floundering and thrashing about the forum floor.
Originally posted by FMFTell us how it is possible to remain morally detached and at the same time condone an act - fourth time asking, possibly fifth
Why would you want to remain "morally detached" about men raping women? For what purpose? Is not rape an act that a Christian like you can simply condemn without getting into rhetorical contortions?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot at all. Coercion through violence and coercion through the threat of violence are the same in the commission of a crime. Either way, it's rape. If it takes place in a marriage, it is marital rape.
but thats not what you have said, you have stated that coercion by threat of violence must be present. are you now revising your definition?