04 Oct 15
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not a loaded question, far from it. It's the crux of the issue, and your flippant reply reveals all.
Another transparent loaded question, try free bird seed noobster or rolling boulders down ravines, I'm good and I'm gone.
Try again.
You appear to be saying that on the day of a women's wedding she makes a vow surrendering the authority of her body over to her husband. Therefore she gives consent, with respect to 'sexual expression', for the rest of their married lives. If at any point on from the marriage vows the husband forcibly has sex with her against her will it can't be construed as rape because consent was given on the day the couple with married. Therefore it stands to reason that you appear to be arguing that Christian marriage vows allow a husband to forcibly have sex with his wife with impunity.
A thoroughly grotesque proposition if ever there was one. Why don't you go and try this with your wife and let us know how it went on.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause I don't think that the "consent" explicit in marriage vows gives men a 24 hours a day, seven days a week, entitlement to sex even if it is against their wives' will at the particular moment of his choosing. I don't think that is what "consent" means. Not at all. I think - if that is your definition of "consent" - then it is a mere fig leaf for the kind of marital rape that is so prevalent in India and elsewhere.
I note that you have failed to answer why if consent has been given it can be construed as rape
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieForcibly having sex with ones wife against her will is surely the pinnacle of self and self gratification?
I am finding your incessant questions once again rather tedious and knowing as i do that you are not mannerly enough to desist i am taking my leave at present. I note that you have failed to answer why if consent has been given it can be construed as rape and have failed to understand the real import of the christian principle to yield authority ove ...[text shortened]... s truly beautiful and vastly superior to ideas with emphasis on the self and self gratification.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobWho knows, perhaps some other Christians from this community will be along soon to endorse robbie's take on Christianity and Christian wives having to submit to sex against their will.
Therefore it stands to reason that you appear to be arguing that Christian marriage vows allow a husband to forcibly have sex with his wife with impunity.
04 Oct 15
1 edit
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. 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?
[you] have failed to understand the real import of the christian principle to yield authority over ones body and put the interests of ones partner ahead of oneself.
04 Oct 15
sonship, Suzianne, lemon lime, and anyone else here who has intimated that they do not believe I was ever a Christian in the past, when I got married I held what I saw as being firm Christian convictions ~ made my vows to my wife before the Christian God figure I believed in at the time ~ and spent most of a decade as a Christian married man.
I reject robbie's assertions here about what "Christian principle" is when it comes to (what I, then and now, see as) marital rape.
If I am wrong, and he is right that according to "Christian principle" marital rape cannot exist, then you can - if you want to - chalk up this 'error' on my part as evidence that I was never a Christian.
Forcing my wife to submit to sexual intercourse against her will was never an exercise of ."Christian principle" that I engaged in when I was a Christian.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by Proper Knobthis is so transparently loaded it is an insult to any ones intelligence,
Bump for Robert -
I see, so Christian marriage vows allow a man to forcibly have sex with his spouse against her will. This is what you are saying?
I see, so Christian marriage vows allow a man to forcibly have sex with his spouse against her will.
It is based on a pure assumption, the assumption being that Christian marriage vows allow a man to forcibly have sex with his spouse. Nowhere has this been intimated or stated, its a pure loaded question, as blatant and transparent as can be and is reminiscent of the type of low down yella belly snakism that has marred profitable discussion. All loaded questions which assume a value that has not been expressed will be ignored for what they are, the reflection of blatant and transparent duchebaggery.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you seriously saying that marriage to a person means it is OK for them to rape you?
If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape, by definition, which part of that you are having trouble dealing with I cannot say.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn the post I replied to:
If you can find where i have stated this please produce it now. If you cannot then why are you trying to state that I have?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape, by definition, which part of that you are having trouble dealing with I cannot say.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat does the term 'rape' mean to you?
this is so transparently loaded it is an insult to any ones intelligence,
I see, so Christian marriage vows allow a man to forcibly have sex with his spouse against her will.
It is based on a pure assumption, the assumption being that Christian marriage vows allow a man to forcibly have sex with his spouse. Nowhere has this been intimated o ...[text shortened]... essed will be ignored for what they are, the reflection of blatant and transparent duchebaggery.
04 Oct 15
4 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterthat does not say and here i quote your words,
In the post I replied to:
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape, by definition, which part of that you are having trouble dealing with I cannot say.[/b]
that marriage to a person means it is OK for them to rape you?
so we shall ask you once again, where have i stated that its ok to rape anyone. Second time asking and you will be made to either retract your assertion and make an apology for it or produce evidence that i have stated that its ok to rape someone. So where is it? the citation that you cite says nothing about it being ok to rape anyone. If you will not produce it or cannot produce it then i am alerting your posts for defamation of character and slanderous intent. So where have I stated that its ok to rape anyone.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen please explain what you meant because that's exactly how it reads and you are not coming up with an alternate explaination.
that does not say and here i quote your words,
that marriage to a person means it is OK for them to rape you?
so we shall ask you once again, where have i stated that its ok to rape anyone. Second time asking and you will be made to either retract your assertion and make an apology for it or produce evidence that i have stated that its ok to r ...[text shortened]... efamation of character and slanderous intent. So where have I stated that its ok to rape anyone.
Are you...?
04 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterMy statement is self explanatory and needs no further explanation, you need to explain how you managed to take,
Then please explain what you meant because that's exactly how it reads and you are not coming up with an alternate explaination.
Are you...?
If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape, by definition
into,
you think its ok to rape people
So how did you do it, can you explain your thought process for us.