_Redzer_ wrote: » Funny how divorce really shook up the whole "until death do us part" bit, eh? No problems since, even though the meaning of marriage was changed, and rightfully so, to accommodate divorce.
Festus wrote: » If definitions can be changed on a whim then the definition is meaningless. Which is apt.
Festus wrote: » Marriage is still marriage until death. I don't believe the formula under which people are married has been change to say "until divorce do us part". Divorce is what it always was, a civil machination. People who remarry after divorce while their spouse is still alive are committing adultery. State sponsored adultery granted, but adultery none the less.
NuMarvel wrote: » Marriage too is a civil machination. That Christian religions have incorporated into their beliefs doesn't take away from that. Marriage was around long before the founding of the Christian faith, and the rights being sought for gay and lesbian couples are civil and legal rights. The Christian concept of marriage, that of man and woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others, won't be expected to change. Just as the Church isn't obliged to recognise marriages that include a divorced person, they won't be required to recognise marriages of gay and lesbian couples. But as with divorced people remarrying, Christian teachings can't be used as a reason for not letting same-sex couples marry either.
mbiking123 wrote: » Some parts of the world a man is allowed more than one wife and others a woman is allowed more than one husband. I wonder could that be allowed in Ireland 'Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "many married")[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group or conjoint marriage' Mmmmm I wonder could that happen here
MrPudding wrote: » Until late last century the definition of rape meant that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife. The definition of rape was changed and now a man can be found guilty of raping his wife. Does that change render the definition of rape meaningless? Or perhaps it is only definitions that you don't agree with that you have a problem with... MrP
Festus wrote: » Was the definition of rape changed? Forcing a woman to have sex against her will? I think not. The definition of rape was not changed. What was changed was the law. It changed the application of rape law to include spousal rape.
koth wrote: » From a legal point of view, it was. The legal system said that a husband couldn't rape something that was his property and/or that by getting married the wife had agreed to having sex with husband for the duration of the marriage).
Festus wrote: » Indeed marriage does predate Christianity. and Judaeism. and every other religion and none. Marriage was instituted by God when he created human beings.
Festus wrote: » If that is the case then you will have to use some other term other than rape as in this context rape is not rape but something else so your statement makes no sense. In order for your statement to make sense we have to agree on a definition of rape. So, are you saying that the law said that a husband could not have non-consensual sex with his wife?
NuMarvel wrote: » But that's not something I believe. Is it right that civil and legal rights are denied purely on the basis of someone else's' beliefs?
koth wrote: » I'm saying that a husband could not commit rape. It didn't meet the criteria of rape as it was defined back then.
Festus wrote: » Fact of the matter is that in a Christian marriage sex can only ever be by mutual consent
28064212 wrote: » Fact of the matter is that in Christianity, marriage can only be performed by a priest in a Christian ceremony. Ergo, nobody is married except for those in a Christian marriage. Right?
koth wrote: » Rape is currently defined broadly as forcing someone to have sex against their will. But it wasn't always defined as such.
Festus wrote: » Does the formula contain the words " what God has joined together..." ?
Festus wrote: » Can you provide the previous definitions, or links to such?
Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state. Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. Additionally, a husband could have sex with his wife against her will without being charged with rape. Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures and courts expanded and redefined the crime of rape to reflect modern notions of equality and legal propriety.Source
In the 19th century, state laws around the country defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a woman when achieved by force by a man other than her husband. According to a principle known as coverture, a husband had authority over his wife’s person and property. Therefore, women could not withhold sex from their husbands.Source
Festus wrote: » Was the definition of rape changed? Forcing a woman to have sex against her will? I think not.The definition of rape was not changed. What was changed was the law. It changed the application of rape law to include spousal rape.
koth wrote: » ..
MrPudding wrote: » This is the interesting thing, at the time rape was a common law offence so the definition did change. Prior to the relevant case the definition of rape precluded a man form raping his wife. This was based on contract principles, the wife agreed to have sex with the husband and was, therefore, not in a position to refuse. As the man had a contractual right to sex he could not commit rape. This common law definition was changed by judges.But you raise an interesting point. In the Californian constitution the definition of marriage was in gender neutral terms. This was the cases for decades. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage required no change of definition, marriage was defined as something that “two persons” agreed to. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage did not actually require a redefinition of marriage, the definition that was operant at the time was conducive to same sex marriage. So why all the whining?MrP
Festus wrote: » I don't see anything there that provides for an alternative definition of rape. I see you highlighted a part that says that a husband could not be charged with rape but that does not mean that he did not commit rape. All it means is that he could not be charged with rape.
In the 19th century, state laws around the country defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a woman when achieved by force by a man other than her husband. According to a principle known as coverture, a husband had authority over his wife’s person and property. Therefore, women could not withhold sex from their husbands.
koth wrote: » This principle meant that "rape is rape" wasn't always so. The law reduced the wife to property and meant that she essentially had no say regarding sex with her husband. If he wanted it, he could have it and the definnition of rape excluded this act as being referred to as rape. It wasn't that it was viewed as rape but marriage meant it was okay. It wasn't viewed as rape.
Festus wrote: » that depends on whether or not you believe in democracy. In a democracy the wants and beliefs of the majority can cause issues for some minorities. It all depends on the nature of the democracy you living in. Is it a Christian Democracy, a Socialist Democracy or a Communist Democracy? Power to the People ultimately depends on the nature and morals of the People.
Festus wrote: » But it was still rape. Try looking at it from the woman's perspective
koth wrote: » I am. They had no legal protection from a husband that raped ( as we now define rape) her. They were no better than property. I really don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.
