Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
..and that all depends on the definition of "rape"..
If he does so against her will, then it is rape. Pure and simple.
And she should be given assistance to make it easier to do so in such cases.
And prosecute him if he assaulted her. Restraining orders are to prevent further violence. Prosecution is to punish past violence.
That is often up to the abusive husband putting up roadblocks to a quick divorce.
Sometimes different moral systems will lead to the same actions.
How about the decrease in untoward effects -- and usage rates -- where drug laws are relaxed?
I think you're advocating a general repression and intolerance based on the misdeeds of a few, 'bullish', mental defectives. Fix the defectives. Fix the policies and repressive mores that promoted the aggression. Don't punish the innocent.
So in the event of unwanted pregnancy take a morning after pill, if too late for the pill, have the fœtus aborted. Easy-peasy.
I don't think so. The differences are mostly intellectual.
Are you saying that one-nighters are intrinsically harmful or distressing? If they were, why isn't that harm and distress manifested universally, pan-species?
Well, if you were here I could show you some abstracts and ethnographies, but that's hardly practicable. So, again, read some ethnography. Sexual mores and attitudes vary.
That is your modern, politically correct view..
No .. it is about unreasonable laws.
So can a woman refuse to have sex with her husband? What happens if she does and the man forces himself on her?
You are right. It is even worse because of the trust involved.
Laws that allow an abusive husband to bog down the proceedings.
So you don't think a wife has the right to reject a husbands demand for sex? And that if he forces himself against her will it is acceptable?
"...we observe..."
You're making less and less sense here, cowboy. We both agree that there are problems in this regard. You're just reïterating them.
Secondary to internalized social values. Shame from abortion is not hardwired human psychology. In fact, despite evangelical propaganda, post abortion shame and depression are uncommon, even in the US. People feel shame about what they're taught is shameful.
True. Google tells me that Planned Parenthood in the US charges ~$580. But most people have insurance or medicaid, and, of course, in most civilized countries it's free or very inexpensive. Nor are complications common. Of course, if proper precautions were promoted and regularly taken, abortions themselves would be quite rare.
So don't have quick sex, or change your attitude and think things through beforehand, so precaution would be automatic.
No.
Agreed, but sexual repression and puritanical social mores are not among them. They just contribute to the problem.
Hear, hear!
They vary, from time to time and place to place. They're always changing. I consider them mere suggestions.
You're preaching -- or can you back that up with evidence?
The cost of choosing that path can be considerable. The prize offered is pie-in-the-sky, a promise that cannot be made and need not be kept.
I mean that most atheists are agnostic about the existence of generic gods, denying the possibility of only those described in ways that can be ruled out empirically or purely logically because so much has been added tother biographies that they are clearly fictions - something that one cannot say about a god like the deist deity for its lack of described features.
I'll assume that you mean gods and not the Abrahamic deity named or titled God, because if you only mean that one god, your definition would be rejected by all polytheists, for example, and those who speak of God but mean some abstract principle rather than a person running the world and the afterlife and issuing commands for man.
If you think that those who do not believe but have no opinion are essentially the same as those who believe that gods don't exist, then why are you trying to segregate them and exclude the bulk from the category of atheist?
I know what hyperbole is. If you have anything to say about it that you think is relevant to this discussion, make your claim and I'll address it.
You misunderstand what people like me are doing and what motivates us. I just like discussions like this. I haven't ridiculed you despite rejecting faith as a path to truth. I have no interest in subverting your faith even were that possible. You probably depend on it now to order your life and give it meaning, and it would be cruel to pull that rug out from under you. If these discussions threaten your faith and you don't like that, you probably ought to try to view these discussions differently or avoid them.
Sorry that you feel that way, but I see comments like about once a week now - theists interpreting critical analysis of their opinions as a mean-spirited attack. This has been prominent in a few long-lived, Baha'i-centered threads in the last few months.
The same thing I do every day on these threads. I'm not expecting to penetrate a faith-based confirmation bias, so my purpose for doing this must be something else. You might think that it's to troll believers, but if I were interested in that, I'd be trolling the political conservatives. I disagree with you - a faith-based thinker - intellectually, but unlike the MAGA conservatives, I don't consider you immoral. They generate an emotional response from me, which your posting does not elicit, and unlike you, I don't mind how my comments affect them emotionally.
That was a response to, "I don't base my moral behavior on law." I also don't base my moral values on law. If something is both illegal and immoral (or vice versa) to me, that's coincidence, because my values are derived endogenously, and the laws are received. My reasons for not running a red light in America now are all practical - I don't want a ticket, I don't want to die, and I don't want to terrify other drivers. But at 6AM in my village, when trying to make a left turn onto a highway at a long light, if there's no cross traffic or cop in sight, I treat the light like a stop sign and make my turn when it's clear, and don't consider it immoral. You might disagree.
If she refuses he can "chastise" her, remember?
I'm a retired physician and dealt with that attitude frequently. I would see patients who said that they wanted their prescriptions reduced in number. I explained that the optimal med list is one where the patient does worse if any is removed, and cannot be made better by adding any more meds, either. The optimal regimen is that which is as simple as possible without sacrificing efficacy. That maxim doesn't tell what that optimal medication list is, just how to tell if we've found it: one less med - maybe the estrogen - and the hot flashes return, and one more med produces no benefit even if it does no harm.
Correct. But no method that forbids intercourse is acceptable to most young people, and when unwanted pregnancy occurs, we have abortion available, so it need not be 100% effective. I understand that you consider that immoral, but most people don't, and if society makes abortion available to them, many will avail themselves of that option. It's the society the majority wants to live in.
That was in reaction to, "I'm sure the Taliban's treatment of women as perpetual children or even livestock seems wise to them, as well." I think the comment is apt and the comparison fair. Are you saying that these men in the Taliban exercise self-control? Not by Western standards.
What you call promiscuity pretty much defined my unmarried life and that of all of the sexually mature males I knew, many of whom I am still in contact with. We weren't unhappy then and we don't regret disregarding Christian mores.
Anti-choice Christians and their shaming of women wanting abortion are responsible for the bulk of that. In my experience, the usual feeling ranges from indifference to regret that the procedure was necessary. I don't know how many of the women I know or have met have had abortions, but none have ever expressed regret that they chose it.
Probably more than before if the American church can completely recriminalize abortion using the American government. Humanists would suggest that we should strive for fewer unwanted children, not more.
It's a simple definition in American law and probably the same one in the UK. It's nonconsensual sex with a human being, where only consent from an adult is recognized as consent for this purpose.
They don't. They want him prosecuted if he rapes her or otherwise physically abuses her.
You'll need to do better than an ad lapidem fallacy if you wish to persuade. I don't see a relevant difference there. Being a wife and being raped at home by a husband isn't significantly different from being raped in a park by a stranger. Or maybe you think the wife deserves less protection because she has married him.
Is that what your Urantia Book predicts?
You are entitled to your opinion.
See previous post about marriage.
IMOP activist atheist who put so much effort into trashing religion and undermining faith are evil people. The true live and let live atheist dont join religious forums to form a committee of critics.
I don't know of anybody opposed to others getting married except the those who object to interracial or same-sex marriage. What the humanist says is that people need not be legally married to form households, raise children, or to engage in intimate relationships, and I agree. I have been married and monogamous most of my adult life, but don't mind that others prefer other arrangements. Absent a religion telling me what I should value, why would I?
Which previous post about marriage? The immediately previous post was about rape. Is it too difficult to write a sentence that answers me, even if you think you've already written it somewhere else?
Of course you think that. You find faith good and holy and precious, and critics of it malicious. Humanistic, critical thinkers who identify as Abrahamic monotheists yet contradict creationists, for example, aren't hated as much as atheistic humanists. They're seen as misguided, but good people if they hold a god belief. But atheists with exactly the same opinions are considered evil, as you illustrate. We're accustomed to that, and don't take it seriously or personally. The religious with their devils and demons frequently like to frame challenges to their beliefs in such terms.
True live and let live atheist? That's not a part of the definition of atheist. Of course you prefer the kind of atheist with nothing to say, but most are critical thinkers, and what you are seeing is critical thinking from people who love knowledge (philosophers, literally) and love truth, but not the fervently believed, unfalsifiable intuitions that the religious (and others) often call knowledge and truth.
No. It's a comfortable and happy worldview once one has assimilated it. For you, it's doom and gloom, because you're expecting more. You're like the guy who loaned money and is angry that it wasn't returned. I'm the guy who understands that money loaned is often money never seen again. I can't be disappointed.
That's what a Higgs particle is.
Yes!
A man may be enculturated into jealousy, and to the untraveled or ethnologically unsophisticated, it's indistinguishable from a natural reaction.
Always?
Agreed -- following "nature" almost never results in civilized behavior.