1 edit
Originally posted by FMFdude you started it with your references to misogyny and dragging Christian principles through the mud. . . so shad up a yo face. If you are going to use such references in the debate then i can call you whatever i like in kind.
Surely this topic is too serious for you to be using it for a catchphrase littered comedy routine? We are talking about women being raped here.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy view is that that what you are proposing is a free licence for husbands to rape wives - to force them to have sex against their will - and simply dismissing this view as "relative namby pamby secularism" isn't funny in the way you seem to think it is.
But a Christian has not consented to be a sexual partner they have actually consented to relinquishing authority over their own bodies. You keep trying to view the principle through some kind of relative namby pamby secularism.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would have thought the "Christian principle" that applies when a woman doesn't want sexual intercourse, is that the man abstains, rather than him subjecting his partner to sex that only he wants.
dude you started it with your references to misogyny and dragging Christian principles through the mud. . . so shad up a yo face. If you are going to use such references in the debate then i can call you whatever i like in kind.
How come it is not deemed lustful for a man to have sex with an unwilling partner? If I recall correctly, "lust" is sinful.
Are you absolutely sure the "Christian principle" you have been presenting here is a genuine "Christian principle" and one that is generally accepted and adhered to by Christians?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut surely you can answer a specific question?
again you are failing to either understand or acknowledge, whether intentionally or not that a Christian foregos authority over their own body, so thus talking of exercising a personal prerogative in such a scenario is simply nonsensical.
Sorry i don't do yes or no answers, they are for people that are not interested in reason, are you uninterested in reason? no well stop trying to reduce people to making some type of dichotomy.
Imagine Mrs Outsider and I are living according to Christian principles.
I come home and want to have sex. Mrs Outsider is suffering from flu. So the last thing she wants to do is have sex. She refuses.
If I nonetheless forced myself upon her, would I have committed rape?
Originally posted by FMFyes but i don't care what you think and i don't know anyone that does. Your opinions are nonsense, seriously, they are just pure unadulterated hyper drool. You think they are some kind of substitute for objective reasoning, they have no efficacy and no meaning to anyone but you, they are certainly meaningless to me.
My view is that that what you are proposing is a free licence for husbands to rape wives - to force them to have sex against their will - and simply dismissing this view as "relative namby pamby secularism" isn't funny in the way you seem to think it is.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI have no idea what Mrs Outsider ( and believe me the long suffering lady has my every sympathy) has consented to. I would be more worried that you want to have sex with someone that has flu. seriously dude? really?
But surely you can answer a specific question?
Imagine Mrs Outsider and I are living according to Christian principles.
I come home and want to have sex. Mrs Outsider is suffering from flu. So the last thing she wants to do is have sex. She refuses.
If I nonetheless forced myself upon her, would I have committed rape?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes but i don't care what you think and i don't know anyone that does. Your opinions are nonsense, seriously, they are just pure unadulterated hyper drool. You think they are some kind of substitute for objective reasoning, they have no efficacy and no meaning to anyone but you, they are certainly meaningless to me.
If I had said the same things as you have over the last 24 hours, I'd be a bit rattled too.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThis actually in retrospect is a good point. A Christian wife and husband have agreed relinquish authority over there own bodies, this is a Christian principle. Of course its not to be taken in isolation and like other principles have a bearing. If a husband abides by the principle to love and cherish his wife as he does his own flesh', then he will not demand the so called marital due when sh is either unwilling or unable to consent, for this would be unloving.
But surely you can answer a specific question?
Imagine Mrs Outsider and I are living according to Christian principles.
I come home and want to have sex. Mrs Outsider is suffering from flu. So the last thing she wants to do is have sex. She refuses.
If I nonetheless forced myself upon her, would I have committed rape?
Originally posted by SuzianneAre you willing to put aside your differences with robbie for a moment, and declare that his "Christian perspective" on the non-existence of "marital rape" is indeed a legitimate Christian viewpoint?
Oh great. Another episode of the "FMF and Robbie" show.
I'll skip it thanks, I saw this one already.
Originally posted by FMFrattled? the only thing thats doing any rattling is you yah snake!
[b]yes but i don't care what you think and i don't know anyone that does. Your opinions are nonsense, seriously, they are just pure unadulterated hyper drool. You think they are some kind of substitute for objective reasoning, they have no efficacy and no meaning to anyone but you, they are certainly meaningless to me.
If I had said the same things as you have over the last 24 hours, I'd be a bit rattled too.[/b]