Indian Judge says premarital sex is immoral in all religions.

I think the judge, Virender Bhat, made the correct decision, but his further statements bordered on religious misogyny:

The woman must (also) "understand she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion," the judge added. "No religion in the world allows premarital sex," the judge added. Bhat was presiding over a fast-track court set up in Delhi to deal with cases of sexual crimes against women.

The case was about a woman who had met a male partner online.
They then met up and had a sexual relationship, which the woman claims was based on the mutual understanding that they would be married.
The relationship ended without marriage, and she then accused the guy of a type of rape (which she apparently can according to the Indian legal system).

The Judge dismissed her claims.

I figured this was fair enough.
One can't lock people up for false promises - just imagine, one would have prisons stuffed with politicians!

But it seems he also gave the woman quite a tongue-lashing about the evils of premarital sex.
I felt that was quite unnecessary, because I think she was already deeply hurt, and besides that it sounds more like a religious tirade.

Anyway, we've had many threads on homosexuality and religion on ATS, and premarital sex is also common in society.
How would Western religion respond to premarital sex, cohabitation or such a case?

Source for thread and quote: www.news.com.au...
Secondary source: www.hindustantimes.com...

Pre marital sex is not a sin to the Raelians. I'm sure there are more. I also wish judges would just stick to the law and keep their religious lectures off the bench.

reply to post by halfoldman


Good thing I'm not religious eh? These guys would have burned me at the stake.

Agreed that keeping these religious nuts off the bench might go a long way (for all of us, anywhere.)

I was actually thinking about this topic because I recently spot-read an old autobiography by a former priest of the Dutch Reformed Church, who later came out as gay.

One thing he later regretted was temporarily banning an unwed couple from the church, because the woman was pregnant before the marriage.

Those old school Calvinists were really hardcore.

Living together as a couple without marriage was a big scandal.

Nowadays it's a lifestyle choice.

Marriage is a man-made tradition, sex is a natural act. Why should something man-made come before something natural? Oh wait, we live in a world where men want to tell us what to do and who want us answer to them first.

Sex before marriage isn't immoral, no one is hurt in the process. Morals are based on "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", so if causing someone pleasure is wrong I don't want to be right. We should be free to do what we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in the process, that ideology doesn't fit the status quo though.

abe froman
Pre marital sex is not a sin to the Raelians. I'm sure there are more. I also wish judges would just stick to the law and keep their religious lectures off the bench.

That's because Raelians do not exist. Pre-marital sex is also not a sin for boogie monsters under my bed. As to what the judge said, as far as I know it's accurate. In western society religion and law are seeparate though, so whether religion forbids something is a moot point.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Sex before marriage isn't immoral, no one is hurt in the process.

This lady clearly was. I guess you know how she should and should not feel better than her though.

While I agree that this woman might have been hurt, on the other hand some man-made marriage customs allow the girl or young woman no choice whatsoever, and according to the Old Testament a man of any age can rape a virgin and she must marry him, if he can pay the fine (bride-price).

Women are still "currency" in many cultures, and arranged marriages are still a vast global norm.

You may not marry the one you love, but you will love the one you marry.

Now how many people in Western society (outside cults) want to go back to that?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


She lost a court case based on a broken promise, that's not exactly getting hurt. If she was so worried about marriage and sex she should have waited until they were married.

If anything she hurt herself and has no one to blame but herself. I'm sure she enjoyed the sex while it was happening though, hindsight is 20/20.

Besides, the only reason she was "hurt" in the first place was because of religious teachings on premarital sex, which you may have noticed is the root problem I was talking about in my post. Man-made traditions have no place before natural processes.

halfoldmanand according to the Old Testament a man of any age can rape a virgin and she must marry him, if he can pay the fine (bride-price).

Actually it's a man who rapes a woman can not REFUSE to marry her if it is requested, and he is unable to divorce her. The law was designed to protect women. The woman and her family can say no, the man can not. The victim has all the rights, the rapist has none. Even if the woman turns out to be a horrible wife and does things normally worthy of divorce, he can NEVER divorce her and must support her all her life.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I'm not sure which tradition you are talking about, but I'm referring to what it says in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

www.biblegateway.com...

There's nothing here on the girl or woman (or her family) being able to refuse the offer.
It's a done deal both ways.
And yeah sure, she'll have her rapist as a provider (hopefully) for the rest of her life, but I wonder how many parents actually think that law is so great in "protecting women".

I don't think it's protecting women at all, but it's the worst form of patriarchal collusion ever devised against women that means a financial exchange for men, and long-term sexual slavery for the girl.

Nowadays most people want to hang rapists, and not marry them to their daughters.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

She lost a court case based on a broken promise, that's not exactly getting hurt.

You're right. She was so unbothered by it that she filed a case against him. No .. you're right .. it was completely fine.

halfoldman
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I'm not sure which tradition you are talking about, but I'm referring to what it says in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Yes, I am too. And you are simply wrong.

Deu 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

Deu 22:29
he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exd 22:16
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

Exd 22:17
If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Sorry, simply wrong. The MAN may not refuse. The woman and her family can refuse. It is meant to be a punishment to the man, and a protection for the woman. It is far from ideal .. but the situation is far from ideal, it gives the woman and her family the power to make the best choice for them in a screwed up situation.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


She wasn't hurt by the sex before marriage, she was hurt by the lie that was told to her. Would it have even been an issue if the religious teachings weren't in the equation? Most likely not, the religious teaching of premarital sex being immoral is the root cause of the problem here, that's what the promise was based on.

Premarital sex is not immoral, that notion is based on man-made rules made to control us.

OccamsRazor04

abe froman
In western society religion and law are seeparate though, so whether religion forbids something is a moot point.

If that is true then why do you have to raise your right hand and swear on the BIBLE. Even as a witness.

reply to post by halfoldman


Read 2 Sam chapter 13-14.

The kings son rapes a woman. She wants to marry him to avoid further disgrace, her father doesn't allow it. Instead he devises a plan to kill the king's son, and does so. The king forgives him.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

She wasn't hurt by the sex before marriage, she was hurt by the lie that was told to her.

So had he said he wanted to marry her .. not had sex with her .. then broken it off .. you think she would be EQUALLY distraught? No. I can not tell you how many times girls have told me how hurt they were after having sex. This woman filed a court case. Stop deluding yourself.

ThoughtIsMadness

OccamsRazor04
In western society religion and law are seeparate though, so whether religion forbids something is a moot point.

If that is true then why do you have to raise your right hand and swear on the BIBLE. Even as a witness.

Simple answer .. you don't. It does not have to be a Bible.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The man-made tradition of marriage is the problem here! What aren't you getting about that? If the concept of marriage never existed the promise would have never been made only to be broken later and no one would have been hurt. The concept of marriage is the source of the problem here, it is the root of her supposed grievance and what the promise was based around. You're very dense you know, it's like I'm running around in circles.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I don't think I am wrong, because the one verse refers to rape and a woman being "humbled", while the other refers to seduction.

In both instances the restitution is unfairly settled between the men, and I think such a culture is vastly inferior to current egalitarian attempts to have relationships.

The very idea that a rape-victim should be made to marry her rapist is repugnant and immoral.

It cannot be made to sound "good" or "right" by any modern standards.

I mean it's fine if people disagree, but to me it's just wrong, and if that's what a society needs to do to be functional for its best options, then it's a dysfunctional society that should never be copied.