Indian Judge says premarital sex is immoral in all religions.

halfoldman
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I don't think I am wrong

Then you will continue to be wrong. I posted the verses. I showed you in 2 Sam where it occurs exactly as I say. He rapes her, the father refuses marriage.

It's hard to see clearly while blinded by hatred, I understand.

So as to not go off topic I have nothing further to say that I have not already said. Clearly this woman was hurt, hopefully she learns from her mistakes, and hopefully the lying man gets his in some other form someway somehow.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

So had he not said "marriage" and he instead said I will spend my life with you .. and then went back on his word .. she suddenly wouldn't be hurt because there is no marriage?

Or are you suggesting men and woman should just have random sex with no commitment to each other and all commitment is man-made and stupid?

You are right .. we are going in circles .. because you keep wanting to go around facts and inject some weird belief system you have.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


She based her decision to have sex with him on a promise centered around a human tradition called marriage. Her grievance is based around the teaching that premarital sex is immoral when in actuality it is not immoral. If anyone hurt anyone it was herself because she ignored what she was taught and had sex anyways.

She claimed that he RAPED her and went to court riding that lie. That lie was made because of her belief in a human tradition. Who's in the wrong again? She rightly lost the case because of her own gullibility and stupidity. Moral of the story is don't do something you're supposedly against, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Just because you don't understand my views doesn't mean they're weird. I'd much rather stand out than to fall in line as you do. Believe the bible is infallible? Welcome to the biggest club on Earth, be prepared to wear the same color as everyone else though. Herd mentality is the worst mentality.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Hatred?

How am I blinded by hatred?

You're trying to contextualize verses that clearly say a rape victim must marry her rapist (or let her fate hang on the agreement between her rapist and her father), and suggesting I'm blinded by hate for not sympathizing with your point of view?
I think that your view betrays an implicit hatred of women, and also undermines the sexuality of straight men.

Now I understand that many cultures have customs different to our own.
That doesn't mean I hate them, but I sure as heck don't have to agree with everything they do.
I can also put those verses into a historic context, but I'm still going to say it is wrong.

Stuff like that is going on in rural South Africa today, and it's traumatizing girls, infecting them with HIV, preventing their education and psychologically it must be hell.
However the man (no matter what his age) paid the bride-price, and entire communities close ranks over the issue.

Yes, I hate that rape and abuse of women and girls (and boys and men too).

I think to hate violence and injustice is a good thing.

I'm clearly not the only one who doesn't like those laws or customs, because I don't think I've met a single Jew or Christian who would be happy with such a law nowadays (although they might exist somewhere).

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

She based her decision to have sex with him on a promise centered around a human tradition called marriage. Her grievance is based around the teaching that premarital sex is immoral when in actuality it is not immoral. If anyone hurt anyone it was herself because she ignored what she was taught and had sex anyways.

She claimed that he RAPED her and went to court riding that lie. That lie was made because of her belief in a human tradition. Who's in the wrong again? She rightly lost the case because of her own gullibility and stupidity. Moral of the story is don't do something you're supposedly against, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Just because you don't understand my views doesn't mean they're weird. I'd much rather stand out than to fall in line as you do. Believe the bible is infallible? Welcome to the biggest club on Earth, be prepared to wear the same color as everyone else though. Herd mentality is the worst mentality.

I never brought in the Bible. You completely ignored my post and used your running in circles tactic again to avoid answering. Feel free to respond again and actually answer.

are you suggesting men and woman should just have random sex with no commitment to each other and all commitment is man-made and stupid?

reply to post by halfoldman


Most religions are against it from what I know. Not too many religious people follow it though

Personally I think not having sex before marriage is a bad idea.

Oh as for rape and protecting women in the Bible. Don't forget Exodus 21:7-11, where sex slavery (of minors no doubt) is condoned. Or Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where the rape victim is stoned to death.

and she then accused the guy of a type of rape (which she apparently can according to the Indian legal system).

Have more info on that? Article didn't elaborate much that I saw.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You have been discussing the bible with the OP, it has become part of our discussion after you called MY belief system weird.

People should do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else in the process. Someone can have sex with a thousand different people and its their choice, as long as they are not hurting anyone then who cares? Who are you to judge someone else for their own choices?

A marriage vow is a form of an oath. What does your book say about oaths?

Matthew 5
34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.

James 5
12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

Legal marriage goes against your own books' teachings, so yes legal marriage is man-made and stupid. But by all means, keep the status quo strong.

Oops wrong button.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You have been discussing the bible with the OP, it has become part of our discussion after you called MY belief system weird.

Please show me what the topic has to do with the Bible. The OP started discussing it, I addressed their faulty beliefs then moved on as Biblical discussions are not on topic.

People should do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else in the process. Someone can have sex with a thousand different people and its their choice, as long as they are not hurting anyone then who cares? Who are you to judge someone else for their own choices?

So just running around getting woman pregnant and leaving them to raise the child on their own, no one gets hurt? You think commitment is man made and stupid and should be abandoned? Seriously? Yeah .. that's weird.

A marriage vow is a form of an oath. What does your book say about oaths?

Great more off topic Bible talk where you mangle verses and have zero clue what you are talking about. I'll pass. You are welcome to read the verse again and see why marriage has nothing at all to do with that verse. If you are unable to figure it out start a new post and I will correct you there.
Hint: So you don't look foolish and waste more time.

All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

When asked if you take the woman to be your wife the answer is I do .. a simple yes. If you ever hear someone say "I swear on my mother's grave I take her to be my wife" feel free to correct them. Perhaps you should read the Bible and study it if you are going to keep posting it's verses.

I really can't believe you seriously think comittment is man-made and bad, and people should just run around having random sex with people and then move on. Weird.

reply to post by MOSTwanted


Okay Eminem you posted that a couple times already

halfoldman
One can't lock people up for false promises - just imagine, one would have prisons stuffed with politicians!

The civil suit of "breach of promise", allowing the woman to claim damages if a man backed out of a marriage commitment, used to be part of English law.
The Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Trial by Jury" is based around that premise.
(The judge gets round the problem by marrying the jilted woman himself)

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Obviously you aren't getting what I'm saying. Did you miss the part where I said "as long as no one is hurt"? Because I'm pretty sure a child being left without a mom or dad is hurting them, in that case they should take care of their child. I don't know if you're misinterpreting what I'm saying on purpose or not but it isn't helping your case out.

When asked if you take the woman to be your wife the answer is I do .. a simple yes. If you ever hear someone say "I swear on my mother's grave I take her to be my wife" feel free to correct them. Perhaps you should read the Bible and study it if you are going to keep posting it's verses.

Ok, feel free to be corrected then.

"I _____, take you ______, to be my wedded husband/wife. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness."

Sound familiar? It should because these vows or "oaths" are made at almost every Christian wedding between a man and woman. Will you admit you're wrong? Doubtful.

I really can't believe you seriously think comittment is man-made and bad, and people should just run around having random sex with people and then move on. Weird.

Who said commitment is bad? Are all commitments somehow marriage in your worldview? Weird.

You can be committed to someone without being married to them and if someone wants to go around having sex with people and moving on who are you to tell them they can't or shouldn't, especially if no one is getting hurt while they do it?

Do you consider anyone who doesn't see things your way to be "weird"? Pretty close-minded if you ask me.

For those that decided to bring scripture into the discussion, marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve, man just messed up the arrangement by adding his ideas.

OT: The judge is correct in throwing out her case. Firstly, she decides to cohabit with this man and had sex with him because he said that he would marry her. After living this way for some time, the man decides that she is not his cup of tea and leaves her. She then decides to file a case for a type of 'rape' to clear herself of her bad decision in cohabiting with him. The judge saw clearly through the facade and instructed her accordingly.

She played the game and lost and is a sore loser. However, did she promise anything and fail to deliver? That we will never know nor do we know the type of person she was while cohabiting with this man. If she had practiced the 'no' sex before marriage, she would not find herself in this position. I personally do not feel sorry for her, it was her decision to have sex out of wedlock. She should have done well to remember the story about free milk and a cow. And just to make it very clear, my wife and I were married first before having sex. We took the moral high ground and waited.

reply to post by pstrron

We took the moral high ground and waited.

How is having sex before marriage immoral? Is it hurting anyone at all? If not I don't see how it can be considered to be immoral.

Other than that I agree with your post.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Obviously you aren't getting what I'm saying. Did you miss the part where I said "as long as no one is hurt"? Because I'm pretty sure a child being left without a mom or dad is hurting them, in that case they should take care of their child. I don't know if you're misinterpreting what I'm saying on purpose or not but it isn't helping your case out.

So you are saying when a child is involved the man should stay committed to that woman? So rather than choose a compatible mate to raise a family with, you just have sex till you get someone pregant and then stick with them? Seriously? That's what you think is better?

Ok, feel free to be corrected then.

"I _____, take you ______, to be my wedded husband/wife. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness."

Sound familiar? It should because these vows or "oaths" are made at almost every Christian wedding between a man and woman. Will you admit you're wrong? Doubtful.

Seriously, you are almost impossible to help. It's like you enjoy being wrong.

Mat 5:34
But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

In that marriage oath what are you swearing by?
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I might as well talk to a brick wall. Now ON TOPIC is the Oath witnesses must take on the Bible. That is actually wrong, and I would refuse to do so on religious grounds.

Who said commitment is bad? Are all commitments somehow marriage in your worldview? Weird.

No, but they must be to you. Since had this not been about marriage, but the man said he was going to be commited to get her to sleep with him, then he ran off, she would be just as hurt and upset. So either you don't believe in commitment or your previous postings make no sense whatsoever since you said she has only herself to blame and the only one who hurt her is herself. The ONLY way that is possible is if you think all commitments are man made and unnatural.

Perhaps the general idea of waiting to get married at 28 before having sex might sound rather silly.
However, I'm sure there are sound evolutionary and religious reasons for the deferred debut.

Of course premarital sex can hurt people.
It could still offend convention and the sensibilities of people who poke their noses in everything.
Then there really are venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

In poorer countries marriage often comes with a dowry, bride-price or feast.
Some people can't marry immediately simply because they cannot afford it.

However, I feel the focus nowadays is more on fairly normal couples who choose not to marry (although they could), and the women often don't want children either.
Why would these people choose that lifestyle?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Immorality comes in via ones beliefs or religious convictions. If you believe it is not immoral due to not having any conviction otherwise then to you it is neither moral or immoral. For those that hold the religious point of view, it is immoral to have sex out of wedlock. Thus I understand your point of view even though it is different from mine. For my wife and I, it was the moral high ground due to our beliefs. From your point of view it was neither high nor low, it simply was our choice.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

So you are saying when a child is involved the man should stay committed to that woman? So rather than choose a compatible mate to raise a family with, you just have sex till you get someone pregant and then stick with them? Seriously? That's what you think is better?

Where in the world did I say this is what I think is better? If you can't point out where I said this then you are putting words in my mouth. Who are you or I to judge how many people someone has sex with?

The only person the man should definitely, without a doubt, be committed to is the child. As long as they are taking care of their child why do you care who they're with? If they decide to be committed to the mother as well then more power to them. Being committed to someone is not wrong or bad, but you don't need to be committed to have sex with them, the idea is ridiculous.

You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. Again, very dense of you.

In that marriage oath what are you swearing by?
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I might as well talk to a brick wall. Now ON TOPIC is the Oath witnesses must take on the Bible. That is actually wrong, and I would refuse to do so on religious grounds.

You're swearing by those oaths, that much should be clear to anyone. Are you really this dense or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

No, but they must be to you. Since had this not been about marriage, but the man said he was going to be commited to get her to sleep with him, then he ran off, she would be just as hurt and upset. So either you don't believe in commitment or your previous postings make no sense whatsoever since you said she has only herself to blame and the only one who hurt her is herself. The ONLY way that is possible is if you think all commitments are man made and unnatural.

What? How does committment automatically mean marriage to me? Where are you getting this stuff from? You're not making sense anymore.

The whole court case was about him supposedly RAPING her which obviouslg isn't true. How do we know the man didn't mean to marry her but then actually got to know her and decided she wasn't the one for him? If this woman tried to charge the man for rape when it's obvious the sex was consensual, what makes you think she wouldn't say he "lied" about wanting to marry her? She couldn't have been much of a catch if she lied about the circumstances.

SHE decided to have sex against her religious beliefs, and SHE decided to charge the man for rape when that obviously wasn't the case, so SHE is the one to blame for being hurt. If she didn't want the chance of being hurt, she shouldn't have agreed to have sex before marriage, but she did. She can only blame herself for her grievance.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You're swearing by those oaths, that much should be clear to anyone. Are you really this dense or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

If you wish to make a thread about swearing Oaths make one and I will correct you there once, and then move on. You simply have zero grasp of verses in the Bible or words in English.

This is my last reply to you, I will not be a part of your attempt to hijack the thread and go off topic. Goodbye.