Originally posted by FMFI have taken no moral and neutral position on marital rape, its another loaded question, my neutral position is with regard to my stance in debate, not with marital rape.
Why then do you take "a morally and intellectually neutral position" on marital rape?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf a husband forces his wife to submit to sexual intercourse against her will, what "consent" are you referring to?
Rape by definition is coercing someone
against their will to engage in sexual activity, if they have already
consented how could it be construed as rape, logically and by
definition. This was purely an intellectual position made on the
definition of rape.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you do recognize and condemn marital rape after all, even after saying you were "maintaining a neutral stance" on men raping their wives only 5-6 pages ago?
I have taken no moral and neutral position on marital rape, its another loaded question, my neutral position is with regard to my stance in debate, not with marital rape.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour position seems to be changing - rather clumsily - and you are not being clear. What "consent" is it you think a wife - who is being forced to have sexual intercourse against her will - has given to her husband to do that to her?
I have made my position clear i will not do so again and again.
Originally posted by FMFmy neutrality is based on my position in debate not on the actually morality of rape. I don't think anyone has a problem understanding that rape is immoral.
So you do recognize and condemn marital rape after all, even after saying you were "maintaining a neutral stance" on men raping their wives only 5-6 pages ago?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said you take "a morally and intellectually neutral position" on marital rape... and now you say "I have taken no moral and neutral position on marital rape". You are contradicting yourself.
I have taken no moral and neutral position on marital rape, its another loaded question, my neutral position is with regard to my stance in debate, not with marital rape.
Originally posted by FMFIts clear to me and rather well crafted if I do say so myself, your vain attempts to extract some leverage are of course par for the course for someone like you. I repeat my stance is clear, the wording unambiguous and the sentiments well expressed. If you cannot understand the import of the text then i cannot help you. I will also be answering no more of your tedious questions, my position is crystal clear.
Your position seems to be changing - rather clumsily - and you are not being clear. What "consent" is it you think a wife - who is being forced to have sexual intercourse against her will - has given to her husband to do that to her?
Originally posted by FMFno its you who has assumed that my neutrality was on the morality of rape. my neutrality was based on my position within this debate. I don't see why i should be subject to your assumptions.
You said you take "a morally and intellectually neutral position" on marital rape... and now you say "I have taken no moral and neutral position on marital rape". You are contradicting yourself.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour stance in the debate seems to pivot around the nature or meaning of the word "consent".
my neutral position is with regard to my stance in debate, not with marital rape.
On page one of this thread you were quoted as saying "when one enters a marital union in full knowledge of the above and takes a vow to uphold these christian principles then "consent" has already been given to yield ones body to that of ones partner. The implications of this appear to me that no so called 'marital rape' can therefore take place."
Sop the key question is: if the husband forces his wife to submit to sexual intercourse against her will, what "consent" are you referring to?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI have explained my position and will not do so again and again and again. The matter is clear and settled in my mind, its good enough for me, now if you have quite finished slobbering and drooling, I have things I need to do.
Your stance in the debate seems to pivot around the nature or meaning of the word [b]"consent".
On page one of this thread you were quoted as saying "when one enters a marital union in full knowledge of the above and takes a vow to uphold these christian principles then "consent" has already been given to yield ones body to that of ones partner. T ...[text shortened]... fe to submit to sexual intercourse against her will, what "consent" are you referring to?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobierobbie carrobie: you still cannot understand a morally and intellectually neutral position and insist still on making matters personal.
no its you who has assumed that my neutrality was on the morality of rape. my neutrality was based on my position within this debate. I don't see why i should be subject to your assumptions.
FMF: Why would anyone have a "a morally and intellectually neutral position" on men raping their wives?
robbie carrobie: "Did Sweden take a neutral stance during the second world war? why was that do you think? for the principle of neutrality is well known and understood."
And to Proper Knob, the topic being marital rape: robbie carrobie: "you do not understand the principle of neutrality? seriously?