Afghans imprison a rape victim, force marriage to her attacker

MachZer0 said:

There are still cultures that have similar practices. It has nothing to do with property

Click to expand...

And? I'm a Social Progressive, I regard those practices with scorn.

You see, the problem is that I believe that marriage is a social contract between two adults who love each other. Your opinion, my opinion, even their families' opinions on who somebody choices to be their partner is irrelevant seeing as they are separate entities.

Now, the problem with the dowry system or the alternative of the male paying is that it undermines that concept on two fronts. First off, it makes arranged marriages possible, this is a rather large violation of the consenting adults requirement that I have in relationships. The second front is that it prevents marriages if one of the members is incapable of paying for the dowry, which the libertarian in me dislikes seeing as I don't believe that any governing entity, even if it's my family, should have the right to enforce social restrictions.

Yoder777 said:

THE Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered the release of a woman who was jailed for adultery after being raped - but she now faces having to marry her attacker, officials said.
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

If Afghanistan is so culturally backward that they would imprison a woman for being the victim of rape, what's the point us trying to make their medieval country a democracy? bin Laden is dead so let's get out of there.

Click to expand...

um dont we need to try and do something about nations like that or ther just going to produce and harobur more murdering trouble makers

maybe nothng can be done but werr still screwed

MachZer0 said:

The verse didn't refer to her as property

Click to expand...

ya she should mealry submit to her rapist like any good wife should

MachZer0 said:

There are still cultures that have similar practices. It has nothing to do with property

Click to expand...

just inequlity and represhion

PHenry42 said:

Or perhaps they recognize that accommodating your crusade fantasies is not a constitutionally prescribed task of the US government.

Click to expand...

My crusade fantasies? We're talking here about the government that threw away thousands of its troops and billions of taxpayer dollars on years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and recently launched unprovoked air strikes against Libya) and I have crusade fantasies?

becase the mistretment of pepole far away that you dont like much is not prvocative

lemur said:

And? I'm a Social Progressive, I regard those practices with scorn.

Click to expand...

We appreciate your tolerance

You see, the problem is that I believe that marriage is a social contract between two adults who love each other. Your opinion, my opinion, even their families' opinions on who somebody choices to be their partner is irrelevant seeing as they are separate entities.

Click to expand...

That's what the Biblical story was about, two people entering into a social contract

Now, the problem with the dowry system or the alternative of the male paying is that it undermines that concept on two fronts. First off, it makes arranged marriages possible, this is a rather large violation of the consenting adults requirement that I have in relationships. The second front is that it prevents marriages if one of the members is incapable of paying for the dowry, which the libertarian in me dislikes seeing as I don't believe that any governing entity, even if it's my family, should have the right to enforce social restrictions.

Click to expand...

What the dowry system doesn't do is turn the woman into property. Remember, in the Jewish culture, when a man and woman engaged in sexual intercourse, they were no longer separate, but they became one.

We appreciate your tolerance

Click to expand...

Who says I need to tolerate other cultures? I don't buy the ivory tower nonsense that anthropology folks put out, I'm an engineer, I put everything up to scrutiny even based on a cost/benefits calculation, not that it's been somebody's culture for 500 generations.

That's what the Biblical story was about, two people entering into a social contract

Click to expand...

By force, unless you want me to believe that women often fall in love with their rapists so that this was actually a big problem.

What the dowry system doesn't do is turn the woman into property.

Click to expand...

How so? What if the man who the women wants to marry does not have the money to 'pay' for her? What if the women's family is in financial distress and they need money and a guy offers to take her off their hands? It isn't enforced by law anymore, but it's not like the family isn't going to be putting pressure in either event one way or the other.

lemur said:

Who says I need to tolerate other cultures? I don't buy the ivory tower nonsense that anthropology folks put out, I'm an engineer, I put everything up to scrutiny even based on a cost/benefits calculation, not that it's been somebody's culture for 500 generations.


By force, unless you want me to believe that women often fall in love with their rapists so that this was actually a big problem.

Click to expand...

The verse said nothing about rape

How so? What if the man who the women wants to marry does not have the money to 'pay' for her? What if the women's family is in financial distress and they need money and a guy offers to take her off their hands? It isn't enforced by law anymore, but it's not like the family isn't going to be putting pressure in either event one way or the other.

Click to expand...

What if? What if? What if? What if the families make arrangements as they please?

The problem with democracy is that you have to let people do stuff you disagree with if it's been voted into law. Our laws are not their laws and it wouldn't be very democratic to force our laws upon them. Their laws are more in line with their religious laws, and it's going to take time for these laws to see any changes.

The Bible is not that different in its views on rape, which should make you glad that it isn't the source of our laws:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

oliverb said:

Let's make it easy for you. Modern day Judaism and Christianity do not believe women are possessions: modern day Islam does. Modern Western cultures do not believe women are possessions; modern Islamic cultures do.

Click to expand...

Actually you got it backwards. Islamic thought has always regarded marriage as a social contract between two judicially independent persons. Christian and Jewish thought has always regarded the wife as the husband's property, except for very recently when secularists, feminists and other godless scum have forced you to change.

That quote is from your holy book, yet all you have to reply with is to claim that you have reformed. Which would imply that to become less misogynistic, you have had to go against your own holy scripture. What does that imply about your religion?

MachZer0 said:

The verse said nothing about rape
What if? What if? What if? What if the families make arrangements as they please?

Click to expand...

if my family tried to make me marry some one id finde that to be opressive same wiht the government

PHenry42 said:

Actually you got it backwards. Islamic thought has always regarded marriage as a social contract between two judicially independent persons. Christian and Jewish thought has always regarded the wife as the husband's property, except for very recently when secularists, feminists and other godless scum have forced you to change.

That quote is from your holy book, yet all you have to reply with is to claim that you have reformed. Which would imply that to become less misogynistic, you have had to go against your own holy scripture. What does that imply about your religion?

Click to expand...

some of the god submiting scum have probalby not always cared about the choice of the pepole involved including muslims

PHenry42 said:

Actually you got it backwards. Islamic thought has always regarded marriage as a social contract between two judicially independent persons. Christian and Jewish thought has always regarded the wife as the husband's property, except for very recently when secularists, feminists and other godless scum have forced you to change.

That quote is from your holy book, yet all you have to reply with is to claim that you have reformed. Which would imply that to become less misogynistic, you have had to go against your own holy scripture. What does that imply about your religion?

Click to expand...

What does it imply for my religion? That God continues to interact in our world.

What does your "prophet" being a pedophile say about your religion? That rape of a 9 year old girl is a social contract?

oliverb said:

What does it imply for my religion? That God continues to interact in our world.

What does your "prophet" being a pedophile say about your religion? That rape of a 9 year old girl is a social contract?

Click to expand...

and if god turned out to be for rape and pedophilia would you then opose god?


please say yes

MachZer0 said:

What's your objection?

Click to expand...

" lay hold on her,"

thaumaturgy said:

" lay hold on her,"

Click to expand...

And?

oliverb said:

What does it imply for my religion? That God continues to interact in our world.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Did he reveal himself to you and told you that women no longer are the property of men like they used to, and like he told you previously? Funny, then, how his change of mind seemed to correlate with the change of mind Western society underwent in mid-20th century.

oliverb said:

What does your "prophet" being a pedophile say about your religion? That rape of a 9 year old girl is a social contract?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't answer loaded questions.

blarg the 2nd said:

some of the god submiting scum have probalby not always cared about the choice of the pepole involved including muslims

Click to expand...

True that, which is why I was talking about theological-legal thought, not practice.

PHenry42 said:

Oh really? Did he reveal himself to you and told you that women no longer are the property of men like they used to, and like he told you previously? Funny, then, how his change of mind seemed to correlate with the change of mind Western society underwent in mid-20th century.

Click to expand...

Even more funny, I think, is that a once and final "revelation" keeps a faith trapped in a time warp of 7th century misogynistic primitive desert dwelling death cult. Sorry, that's a fail.

My God is a lot bigger than that. He continues to interact with His creation and His children.