Dasa and the thought police

Originally posted by FMF
I think it is a reference to the notion of monogamous union written a couple of thousand years ago. I do not believe it can in any way be used to alter the definition of rape or to characterize an act of rape within marriage as not being rape because of some sort of post-dated ongoing "consent".

here is what the scripture actually says,

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

its more than a simple reference to monogamous union for it mentions ceding authority over ones won body. The argument that I found which WAS NOT my personal perspective, let me repeat that, WHICH WAS NOT MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE was that some people were using this to challenge the definition of rape. In my researches i even found some Christian organisations as i recall who had challenged it in court and I wanted in a detached manner to discuss it, but it was seized upon by the likes of you and Duchess64 to make copious amounts of slime because you either little understood the arguments or did not want to understand them because it suited your purpose better to make slimey insinuations. Why are you so slimey?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here is what the scripture actually says,

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

its more than a simple reference to monogamous union for it mentions ceding authority over ones won body.

I think the notion of the husband's "authority" over his wife's body is an old fashioned way of referring to him being her one and only - i.e. monogamous relationship. I do not believe this Bible verse in any way affects the definition of rape or allows an act of rape within marriage to be deemed 'not rape'. Surely you agree with me?

Originally posted by FMF
I think the notion of the husband's "authority" over his wife's body is an old fashioned way of referring to him being her one and only - i.e. monogamous relationship. I do not believe this Bible verse in any way affects the definition of rape or allows an act of rape within marriage to be deemed 'not rape'. Surely you agree with me?

it does not simply mention a husbands authority over his wifes body, lets see if you can read it with an unbiased mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it does not simply mention a husbands authority over his wifes body, lets see if you can read it with an unbiased mind.

Indeed, so it cannot in any shape, way or form, be used to turn what is a rape into 'not a rape'. A man cannot force his wife to have sex against her will without being guilty of rape. What is your own view on this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it does not simply mention a husbands authority over his wifes body, lets see if you can read it with an unbiased mind.

In what way do you think 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 is pertinent to the issue of marital rape?

Originally posted by FMF
Indeed, so it cannot in any shape, way or form, be used to turn what is a rape into 'not a rape'. A man cannot force his wife to have sex against her will without being guilty of rape. What is your own view on this?

No you are still failing to grasp it and seem to be having trouble understanding that it relates to both wife and husband thus your rather blatant bias.

Anyhow the argument is, that if both parties agree to and adhere to this principle then no rape could ever occur. why not? because the husband or wife will go to their spouse and desire sex and even if their spouse is not particularly feeling like it will cede authority over their own bodies for the benefit of their partner. In other words in principle there would never be a forcing of the other party and if there was never any forcing then there could never be rape, because rape by definition is coercing someone through the use of force to engage in a sexual activity against their will.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The argument that I found which WAS NOT my personal perspective, let me repeat that, WHICH WAS NOT MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE was that some people were using this to challenge the definition of rape.

So what is your personal perspective? On a debate and discussion forum where we are discussing marital rape, why on earth are you hiding your views behind reiterations of other people's views?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Anyhow the argument is, that if both parties agree to and adhere to this principle then no rape could ever occur. why not? because the husband or wife will go to their spouse and desire sex and even if they are not feeling like it with cede authority over their own bodies for the benefit of their partner. In other words in principle there would never be a forcing of the other party and if there was never any forcing then there could never be rape, because rape by definition is coercing someone through the use of force to engage in a sexual activity against their will.

We are talking about marital rape where the woman is forced to have sex against her will. Unless you can explicitly connect 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 to the issue of men raping their wives, then you citing this Bible verse is a red herring.

Originally posted by FMF
So what is your personal perspective? On a debate and discussion forum where we are discussing marital rape, why on earth are you hiding your views behind reiterations of other people's views?

I have no personal perspective and I am uninterested in discussing any. I am interested in rational objective debate. The idea that I am hiding my views is quite ludicrous.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In other words in principle there would never be a forcing of the other party and if there was never any forcing then there could never be rape, because rape by definition is coercing someone through the use of force to engage in a sexual activity against their will.

So your stance has shifted from marital rape is "not logically possible" to marital rape "is logically possible". Is that fair to say?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Anyhow the argument is, that if both parties agree to and adhere to this principle then no rape could ever occur. why not? because the husband or wife will go to their spouse and desire sex and even if they are not feeling like it with cede authority over their own bodies for the benefit of their partner. In other words in principle there would never be a fo ...[text shortened]... 7:4-5 to the issue of men raping their wives, then you citing this Bible verse is a red herring.

No its not a red herring it formed the basis of the entire argument that was proffered.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no personal perspective and I am, uninterested in discussing any. I am interested in rational objective debate. The idea that I am hiding my views is quite ludicrous.

You are keeping your views on rape secret which is the same as hiding them.

Originally posted by FMF
So your stance has shifted from marital rape is "not logically possible" to marital rape "[b]is logically possible". Is that fair to say?[/b]

Again why you feel the necessity to ascribe values to people is known only to you. The argument is an objective one and I would be pleased if you discussed it objectively.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not a red herring it formed the basis of the entire argument that was proffered.

1 Corinthians 7:4-5 is about consensual sex and not about rape. Quoting the verse is a red herring.

Originally posted by FMF
You are keeping your views on rape secret which is the same as hiding them.

No I am simply not prepared to discuss them with you.