EmptyForceOfChi:
No.
You have an archaic idea about marriage. You don't give away control over your own body when you sign a marriage certificate. There is nothing about "conjugal rights" in the marriage vows, or elsewhere. That idea might have had some currency in the 15th century, but we're in the 21st century now.
Also, why the double standard? Why is the woman expected to "give the male sex when he likes", but the male is not expected to "give the female sex when she likes"? And, if the latter holds, then why not the corollary: the male is expected to "not give the female sex when she doesn't like"?
Explain.
And that makes rape acceptable, does it? Is a woman who has a few drinks "fair game", according to you?
Explain how it is a woman's fault if a man chooses to rape.
This is an example of the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Even if rape, murder and fighting are "natural", that doesn't mean it is morally acceptable to rape, murder or fight. And in fact, it is illegal to do those things (except in certain specific circumstances in the case of fighting).
its not my view about marriage because i dont act like this towards my wife, but isnt bieng married an ancient traditional standard with those rules that apply? it is a religious bond/tie and i thought the old rules still applied to it if you choose to take those vows. i wasnt aware that the marriage honors were changed.
i didnt say the man shouldent give the women sex when she wants it. again its not my view its what i thought the rules and vows for bieng married were according to the religious standards in wich marriage comes from, (because lets face it bieng married is a religious ceramony and tradition)
rape to us humans in our modern society as a whole is not accepted ofcourse, but in the animal kingdom (wich we are a part of) it is accepted and common, we seem to be a bit confused here and have split ethics when it comes to science dont we james? we like to state in the science world that we as humans are the beast, that we are controlled by instinctive urges, that we are bound by chemical reaction, that we are a product of our enviroment and natural law/cause, also that such things as love are derived from selfish means. that it is all chemical and a survival mechanism and it does not exist in the loving term that people class it as,
why do we expect humans to act loving and caring as if good and bad actualy exist as real things, and are not just perspective and subjective to opinions. i see split ideals and beliefs when it comes to ethics Vs scientific basis, is it not true that we are just animals? so why when we are speaking in scientific terms, do we seem to act as if we are the beast, but in ethical and moral terms we speak as if we are kind loving spiritual biengs who listen to right and wrong and love each other, and as if we are actualy above animal instinct, as if we are not animals anymore but we are controlled loving biengs,
i do not stand on either side of the debate completely, there are always 2 sides to every coin, but how can we use ethics and morality seperately to how we say humans are in human science.
what is it to be? are we the beast or are we the compassionate bieng?
peace.
