The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

Are you really serious? I tend to associate a woman making noise during sex as a sign she's enjoying it. Also, I imagine that if a woman screemed out of fear while being raped the guy would not be too happy. Should a woman really risk having her head bashed in just to make it clear to others who may or may not be in hearing range that she isn't actually enjoying it? Wether or not the woman screams has absolutely no bearing on how terrified she is. It all comes down to the particular woman and the particular situation. If that is what the bible means then it is best avoided IMHO.

Theres nothing wrong with masochism, but if she's doing that with total strangers then she's running a big risk I guess.One point of semantics though, is it possible to want to be raped? If the woman (or guy since guys can be raped too) consents to it happening then it isn't rape, it's consentual sex. Rape is non-consentual forced, not simulated forced.

I totally understand your point, but I don't think Rrhain was saying it in either a serious or joking way. I think he was being ironic, and using RiverRats own description of a gay person against him to show that he didn't think it made sense. Obviously that won't necessarily make it less offensive, but it does at least give it some purpose.

It's ludicrous to suggest that not screaming equals consent and enjoyment. Anyone that claims that obviously has very little empathy. It's easy to say you would scream in a given situation, but you can't know for sure what would happen in a given situation. It is a crime for the women to be so scared they can't scream? So ashamed of being violated that they don't want others to know about it? This rules out the whole "not screaming equals consent" claim. Please tell me how you'd tell the difference between "not screaming because you love it" and "not screaming out of fear"?This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-13-2004 07:57 PM

[qs ]Bingo!, now you got it too.
If your wife doesn't scream when shes being raped, then she just might be consenting to it. Thats the moral. So you too agree with the bible, congrats!
There is even more hope now. Peace.[/qs]Not at all, my comment about the semantics of the word rape were directed at you mentioning a woman who likes and wants to be raped, not at the "screaming equals consent" issue.I also notice that you moved from "not screaming equals consent" to "not screaming just might equal consent. Well my being seen somewhere near the scene of a rape at about the time it occured just might mean that I commited it, but then again I might not have done. Who knows. Might have's do not equal guilt, or even probable guilt.

Can you elaborate? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a moral. It no more has a moral than heterosexuality does IMHO. An emotional and/or sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Or do you have a different definition?This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-13-2004 09:07 PMThis message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-13-2004 09:09 PM

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. Homosexuality isn't an act. Neither is heterosexuality. And morals aren't acts either. Can you elaborate?

You're digging yourself into a steadily bigger hole here, and your commments get steadily more disturbing. So your justification for saying that women should scream if they're being raped is that if they don't they will be stoned. Therefore if they don't scream they enjoyed it and need stoning. Obviously a woman who IS enjoying it has ALL THE MORE REASON to scream, because if SHE doesn't SHE will get stoned.You know what, I really doubt women who are being raped will be in the best frame of mind for logical and rational thinking. They won't be terrified at all, they'll be able to go through the finer points of game theory to work out the best solution for all.Obviously the most sensible thing to do would be NOT to consider a womens silence as enjoyment and consent. Anyone who does is being irrational, unjust, unfair and just a little silly...and that is irrelevant of the time or the context. Obviously I don't doubt that people back then may have been irrational, but that doesn't make them any less stupid and cruel for it, and it certainly means we should avoid their values on this issue at least.

I still don't understand what you're getting at.1) How is homosexuality a moral?
2)How is homosexuality an act?

The moral of this story seems to be "if a woman doesn't do exactly what a man expects her to do while being raped, she is obviously a slut and a whore and so deserves punishment". That is just plain stupid, there is absolutely no way to rationalise it as a good moral to teach someone. It insults women, and more than that it's insulting to expect men to believe that. As has been pointed out to you many times you can't dictate what a women should or shouldn't do while being raped. The woman will follow her own natural instinct, which may be to scream blue murder or it may be to retreat into her shell to escape the torment of it. I don't care who is in the next tent, the woman is not going to be thinking rationally.

What has stoning got to do with cheating? They are two seperate acts. I don't condone stoning no matter what the crime (or any other form of execution of physical torture). I also don't consider cheating a crime at all. The woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with her own body. Being married to a woman doesn't give you ownership of her. Obviously you don't have to like it, and you can leave her if she does it....and it is certainly a very cruel thing for her to have done. But then so is stoning, and an "eye for an eye" is a very very bad moral.

Oh my atheism has nothing to do with morality, although i'm not sure how anything I wrote above makes it obvious I am an atheist.Anyway, reasons for me being atheist are even more off topic than anything else we've been discussing, i'm not sure the admins would let us get away with going that far.