RE: Why would any woman want to be Christian?
March 9, 2013 at 2:56 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2013 at 2:59 am by jstrodel.)
(March 9, 2013 at 2:13 am)Darkstar Wrote: If neither party can remember what happened, I think it would be very difficult to ascertain consent or lack thereof. I think that it is more considered rape if only one party is intoxicated or otherwise incapable of understanding the situation. If both are, then it is much messier and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what would happen. It would probably vary from case to case, but I don't know whether or not anyone would be charged with rape.
An honest statement. I am not trying to argue that women lie about rape often, or argue some sort of crude misogynistic position. Of course, women need to protected by the law. I believe that the vast majority of women who report rapes are honest about it.
Despite this, rape, like other matters, deserve fair criminal procedure. Liberals tend to be strong on advocating for peoples civil liberties (with some exceptions). A good liberal would realize that these civil liberties belong to all people, not only members of groups that are popular to defend. An exceptionally good liberal would realize that even people who are guilty of culturally defined offenses as being more heinous and evil than other offenses are still deserving of civil liberties.
This is the way that the Bible teaches about rape. It does not matter how often women fake a rape testimony, what matters is that people receive a fair trial. This is what Deut 28 is about, it is not about an arbitrarily harsh penalty that is associated with some sex crimes and an arbitrarily low penalty attached to others.
I am not against all aspects of liberalism, but I wish that liberals would be consistent with their application of the value of civil liberties. People accused of rape have civil liberties also.
(March 9, 2013 at 2:36 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: At this point, Strodel, this is what your posts all equal up to in terms of worthwhile content:
That's it. It's you jerking off. You're not debating, you're arguing. Big difference.
All your posts are ad hominem attacks without any citation of the behaviors you accuse me of and are written in childish insults.
If I am such an idiot, why can't you refute my arguments?
