Atheists condone and condemn rape

[Sleepy]

I do agree there should be a punishment not the death penalty as it is for rape

[Esquilax]

A society that doesn't rape is better than a society that does though from an atheist perspective a society that does rape is in line with evolution as well as being 'good' because to relative. An atheist can consider Rape good. While a Muslim can never do so

Okay, look: Sleepy, you have been educated, by multiple sources in this thread, in the errors in evolution you've used here, and you've also been provided with correct information on evolution and survival of the fittest. There is simply no excuse for you to be using the same incorrect definitions now: how do you justify this lie, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? Why are you still using incorrect definitions of evolution, now?

[Sleepy]

Let me know where I mentioned rape is good.

If you can't let me get your number

[NoraBrimstone]

Come meet me for my birthday

---

Marital rape exemptions in this country were adopted from the English common law exemption, first articulated in 1736 by English Chief Justice Matthew Hale in History of the Pleas of Crown: :"[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.... [I]n marriage she hath given up her body to her husband ... "

---

Crimininalized in 1991

Thanks, but I don't fancy catching your HIV or whatever you've got.

And 1991 was over 20 years ago. 1736 was nearly 300 years ago. What the fuck does that have to do with the price of fish? Or are you showing us that Islam is backward and outdated? Because we already knew that.

[Bad Wolf]

Come meet me for my birthday

---

Marital rape exemptions in this country were adopted from the English common law exemption, first articulated in 1736 by English Chief Justice Matthew Hale in History of the Pleas of Crown: :"[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.... [I]n marriage she hath given up her body to her husband ... "

We have been over this, but yet again, you have ignored it.

---

Crimininalized in 1991

See, the thing is with that, is that over here, we were much more civilized than Islamic countries. That law, was a loophole. No one ever used it though and I can only speculate that the reason it was criminalized in 1991 was because it was the first time a husband tried to use it as justification for raping his wife.

[TaraJo]

Let's go back to the original point, shall we?

Sleepy claimed that atheists support rape. Pretty much every single atheist who has posted in this thread has said no, they don't support rape. In fact, Atheism+ may be kinda crazy in other ways, but they're so anti-rape they get kinda frothing-at-the-mouth when they talk about it. And that's kinda been the track record here: I have not seen a single atheist claim to support anything that anyone has been able to call rape.

So, no, atheists do NOT support rape.

Now, do we condemn rape? Again, every atheist I've seen post here has strongly condemned rape. We don't need to get our morals from an invsible friend in the sky to know rape is wrong. In fact, the more intelligent and educated of us can tell you why rape is wrong, from a scientific/evolutionarly perspective.

So, yes, atheists do tend to condemn rape.

Now, let's go a little more in depth, shall we? Because all of us define "rape" as "sex without consent." So, if a couple is married and one of them says "no," I still say it's rape for the other to force themselves. You say that's ok.... you just don't call it rape.

So, yeah, NoraBrimstone called it right: the only one in this thread who has tried to justify anything anyone would call rape is the Muslim, not the atheist.

[Bad Writer]

Isn't it against the rules on this forum for one party of a discussion to repeatedly and consistently misrepresent the views of the other party?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Isn't it against the rules on this forum for one party of a discussion to repeatedly and consistently misrepresent the views of the other party?

[Sleepy]

Isn't it against the rules on this forum for one party of a discussion to repeatedly and consistently misrepresent the views of the other party?

It should be. The majority of the members on this thread should be banned and I'm gonna report those posts as well

[Bad Writer]

Serious...? What...?!