I picked up this little gem earlier today, according to this Bahaman newspaper men and women in the Bahamas are divided over a new piece of legislation that attempts to outlaw rape within marriage (they don't already have such a law?!) Anyway, as you can read some of the objections have a rather familiar and common thread to them, here are some examples, see if you can work out what that might be.
"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don't think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?"
"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man's body is his wife's and her body is his. How could he rape her?"
"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can't be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said 'I do,' so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn't rape,"
It's good to see that these Christians are at least being honest about what their instruction manual actually says, i.e. slavery masquerading as property rights is what marriage is about.
I always thought all of that "partnership" stuff was a little far fetched.
6 comments:
I love that biblical quote about how the bodies of husbands and wives belong to each other. So the husband can have sex with his wife whenever he wants, against her will, and then maybe she can, oh, I dunno, stick a stiff-bristled hairbrush up his bottom, against his will, and christianity supports this, because it's really her bottom?
Anything goes as long as churchgoers are not in way reducing the possible amount of future churchgoers who might contribute their wealth to the church.
Hi Lisa, LOL, by this logic castration is perfectly fine too of course, Lorena Gallo (Bobbitt) wasn't ga ga after all!
Ah, now the economic angle is a good means of attack against orthodox established christianity.
Patronage has always created unequal relationships and undermined real values.
Nice thinking!
Mentioning castration - do you have any thoughts on 'chemical castration' as a way of socializing paedophiles into normal relationships. Catholic priests in NAmerica are apparently a significant proportion of the test group.
Hi OP, ta much!
re. Chemical castration; no different from drugs that control schizophrenia or other potentially violent mental conditions I suppose; the precedent exists. Sounds fraught with problems and loop holes though.
I'm surprised Catholic priests don't routinely take something anyway, I bet there's a market for a kind of a "reverse Viagra" and a life of abstinence must be mentally problematic for some.
Do people regularly make people take drugs that they do not consent to take into their bodies?
I'm sure this happens in psychiatric hospitals, and it happens in emergent health situations. Afterwards however, any one can decline even if the drug would be life-saving, if the person who refuses care is deemed to be sane (this is US law, I don't know UK law on such matters).
Lisa, I guess there is objecting and then there is being in a situation where it's practical to refuse, two different scenarios IMO.
Much like Muslim women objecting to Sharia courts, yeah, like that's going to happen in the kinds of situations that most normal people find themselves in.
Its up to the government to protect the minority from the wishes of the majority IMO.
Post a Comment