Death for sexual sin

[Glenn P]

A recent thread asked a terrible poll question, a question that was then changed, so it now has results reflecting answers to two different questions. It was loaded and not well planned, so here's my attempt to set things right.

So let's hear it!

I know that some of you don't believe in the death penalty for ANYTHING, so, with all respect, I'm asking you to step outside of yourself a bit here. If you think the death penalty is wrong, everywhere, for any reason at all today, then I would ask you to drop that for a second. If the death penalty were ever justified at all, ask yourself - would it be justified
as a punishment for any sexual act?

I've tried to be very very clear in my poll options, so only choose an option if you accept it literally.

Bear in mind, "Some" = "at least one."

[Philosophickle]

Does rape count? Or are you trying to get our thoughts on adultery-type situations?

[Glenn P]

As I said, I'm being literal. ALL sexual sins are included, so it depends on what you think counts as a sexual sin.

[Philosophickle]

Alright then, I would have no objection towards the death penalty for some sexual offenders, but I would not include something like adultery.

[Crow]

I think child molestation should be a capital crime.

[rogue06]

Personally, I don't think of rape as a sex crime but as an assault. Same for molestation.

[Crow]

Personally, I don't think of rape as a sex crime but as an assault. Same for molestation.
Do you think they should be capital crimes?

[rogue06]

Do you think they should be capital crimes?

In certain aggrevated cases... Yes. But I don't think of them as sexual sins. I have no problem with a death penalty, but I do like to see it reserved for the worst of the worst.

[Glenn P]

Rape is a sexual sin. Rape can occur without force, but it cannot occur without sex of some sort.

[Conductor42]

I would not for a crime that was solely a sexual sin.
If it involved violence or force of some kind, then perhaps.

[Crow]

I would not for a crime that was solely a sexual sin.
If it involved violence or force of some kind, then perhaps.

Do you consider threat force? What about in the case of a child that's too young or intimidated to resist?

[Soyeong]

I think any act involving sex that causes emotional scaring should be a capital offense. Molestation is sexual, but does not actually involve sex, so I do not generally see it as being as serious. However, when it is done to a child or for a prolonged period of time, it becomes more serious and should be a capital crime as well.

[rogue06]

In the U.S. the definition for assault is the threat of violence (battery is the actual physical violence). So I guess I should have said that I consider rape to be sexual battery rather than assault. IMO, the only type of rape that warrants the death penalty is violent rape. Now as to what may warrant castration... :teeth:

[Glenn P]

A woman has sexual rights to her spouse that nobody else has - call it the right to sexual exclusivity.

Right?

If he commits adultery, she violates her sexual rights.

Right?

By force - that is, without his consent and against his will, his sexual rights have been violated, right?

Isn't this the very feature of rape that makes it wrong?

[rogue06]

I think any act involving sex that causes emotional scaring should be a capital offense. Molestation is sexual, but does not actually involve sex, so I do not generally see it as being as serious. However, when it is done to a child or for a prolonged period of time, it becomes more serious and should be a capital crime as well.


Getting several bones broken from a mugging is serious too. Should mugging be a capital offense (meaning punishable by death) as well? Please don't think I'm trying to minimze the trauma of being molested here, but punishable by execution?

[Soyeong]

Isn't this the very feature of rape that makes it wrong?
I think that is part of why adultery is wrong, but rape not only includes a violation of your sexual rights, but violation of your body as well.

[rogue06]

A woman has sexual rights to her spouse that nobody else has - call it the right to sexual exclusivity.

Right?

If he commits adultery, she violates her sexual rights.

Right?

By force - that is, without his consent and against his will, his sexual rights have been violated, right?

Isn't this the very feature of rape that makes it wrong?


Yuk! You make rape sound like it's some property crime like claim jumping!

[Glenn P]

I think that is part of why adultery is wrong, but rape not only includes a violation of your sexual rights, but violation of your body as well.
In most cases, yes, rape involves a physical assault PLUS this feature.

Adultery also violates something that the rape of a single person does not involve, namely the attack on an existing marital covenant. In addition to violating the immediate victim's rights, the rights of the spouse are also violated.

[Glenn P]

Yuk! You make rape sound like it's some property crime like claim jumping!No I didn't. I made it sound like rights violation, which it is, surely. Do you disagree?

In the case of rape, the rights are the rights of the person raped. In the case of adultery, the rights are the rights of the wronged spouse.

It's possible you misread my post, and read my comments about adultery as though I was talking about rape.

[Soyeong]

Getting several bones broken from a mugging is serious too. Should mugging be a capital offense (meaning punishable by death) as well? Please don't think I'm trying to minimze the trauma of being molested here, but punishable by execution?
I say it should be punishable by execution only when it happens to a child or to the same person repeatedly. A mugging is a one-time occurrence. It can cause emotional and physical trauma, but usually people are able to recover from it in a relatively short amount of time. On the other hand some children are scarred for life and never fully recover from the trauma or have to go through long hours of therapy. Likewise, if the mugging was serious enough to cause permanent damage, then I think it should be a capital crime.

[Soyeong]

Adultery also violates something that the rape of a single person does not involve, namely the attack on an existing marital covenant. In addition to violating the immediate victim's rights, the rights of the spouse are also violated.
Isn't the victim of adultery the other spouse? So aren't the victims rights and rights given to the spouse from the existing marital covenant the same thing?

[Glenn P]

Isn't the victim of adultery the other spouse? So aren't the victims rights and rights given to the spouse from the existing marital covenant the same thing?
I'm not sure I follow you.

[furay]

A recent thread asked a terrible poll question, a question that was then changed, so it now has results reflecting answers to two different questions. It was loaded and not well planned, so here's my attempt to set things right.
Meanie.

[Soyeong]

Ok, I’ll use some designations to avoid confusion. There are persons P1, P2, and X. P1 and P2 are married and P2 has had adultery with X. When that happens, both P2 and X are guilty of violating P1’s rights from their existing marital covenant with P2. P1 is the victim here. You made it sound like more than one set of rights was violated, so assuming X and P2 consented, who else is the victim?

[Ryokan]

A woman has sexual rights to her spouse that nobody else has - call it the right to sexual exclusivity.

Right?

If he commits adultery, she violates her sexual rights.

Right?

By force - that is, without his consent and against his will, his sexual rights have been violated, right?

Isn't this the very feature of rape that makes it wrong?
I think rape victims would object strenuously to you comparing rape to adultery. In my opinion adultery is breach of contract, and therefore best handled by civil not criminal courts.
Oh, and I voted no since this is one of those silly private polls.

[Amazing Rando]

I think rape victims would object strenuously to you comparing rape to adultery. In my opinion adultery is breach of contract, and therefore best handled by civil not criminal courts.
Oh, and I voted no since this is one of those silly private polls.

It's not private. Just click on the number on the poll graph.

[Ryokan]

It's not private. Just click on the number on the poll graph.

I missed it. I need to quit smoking so much crack. Thanks!

[Conductor42]

I missed it. I need to quit smoking so much crack. Thanks!
Keep it natural dude.

[Rahab]

A woman has sexual rights to her spouse that nobody else has - call it the right to sexual exclusivity.

Right?

If he commits adultery, she violates her sexual rights. You must have meant "he violates her sexual rights". As an aside, noone has sexual rights on anyone else. The body is exclusive property. The sexual intimacy which results between two bodies relies on mutual sentient consent not on "rights" that one would have on the other and vice versa.


Right? Wrong.


By force - that is, without his consent and against his will, his sexual rights have been violated, right? There is no such a thing as "sexual rights". Neither spouse has any custodial role over each other's body. Neither is property belonging to the other spouse.


Isn't this the very feature of rape that makes it wrong? Rape is an act of CONTROL involving the will of one individual (the agressor) exercising physical force on the victim. Such control can also be exercised by mental manipulation or coercion. In both cases, the victim is forced into an act involving sexual intimacy. Her body is her exclusive property the access to which can only be warranted by her.

There is NO legal tenant to promote the notion that spouses have property rights on each other's bodies. In fact, no husband will evade criminal charges of rape on his wife based on "I have sexual rights on her". If she says "no" to her husband and he forces himself on her, it is rape.

[Glenn P]

You must have meant "he violates her sexual rights". As an aside, noone has sexual rights on anyone else. The body is exclusive property. The sexual intimacy which results between two bodies relies on mutual sentient consent not on "rights" that one would have on the other and vice versa.
Wrong.
There is no such a thing as "sexual rights". Neither spouse has any custodial role over each other's body. Neither is property belonging to the other spouse.
Rape is an act of CONTROL involving the will of one individual (the agressor) exercising physical force on the victim. Such control can also be exercised by mental manipulation or coercion. In both cases, the victim is forced into an act involving sexual intimacy. Her body is her exclusive property the access to which can only be warranted by her.

There is NO legal tenant to promote the notion that spouses have property rights on each other's bodies. In fact, no husband will evade criminal charges of rape on his wife based on "I have sexual rights on her". If she says "no" to her husband and he forces himself on her, it is rape.Rahab, as a Christian I cannot possibly agree with your stance here. As a husband, I have the right to exclusivity when it comes to sex with my wife. That's why adultery is a sin. That's the right I was explicitly referring to, so your reference to marital rape is just a red herring.

Additionally, you seem to reject the New Testament teaching about marriage. Have a read of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.Amen.

[Rahab]

Rahab, as a Christian I cannot possibly agree with your stance here. As a husband, I have the right to exclusivity when it comes to sex with my wife. That's why adultery is a sin. That's the right I was explicitly referring to, so your reference to marital rape is just a red herring. Your previous argument was to draw a parallel between adultery and rape. Which I profoundly disagree with.As a Christian woman and an an ex rape victim, I do not equate rape and adultery. Adultery is destructive not because of your legalistic view based on "sexual rights" but because it hurts profoundly the spouse who is being cheated on. Because it destroys trust within the initial marital relationship. There is NO relationship between a rapist and his victim.

My reference to marital rape is quite relevant as it demonstrates that no husband has any rights on his wife's body. Certainly not in the US where non consential sex is considered assault or battery.


Additionally, you seem to reject the New Testament teaching about marriage. Have a read of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.Amen. What I do reject is your misuse of that verse to attempt to justify your belief that there is such a thing as "sexual rights". What Paul addresses here is the importance of sexual intimacy within marriage and how MUTUAL consent is vital (that probably to prevent abusive husbands from invoquing " the wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband" to justify sexual assaults on her).

Let alone the reality, that some of us do not regard sexual intimacy with our spouse as a "duty" to accomplish. Rather, we make love. A notion Paul may have difficulties to grasp considering his long term and self imposed celibacy.

I still stand by my statement that there is NO legal tenant within marriage in the western world which declares spouses as being properties of one another. They remain distinct persons with exclusive ownership of their own bodies. No husband owns his wife's body and vice versa. The individuality of each is respected and honored in our society. Modern marriages not governed by legalistic views such as " a body belonging" to the spouse understand the dynamics of being united via their complementary distinct and individual qualities.

Also, where did you get the notion that the motivation for rape is sexual? If it translates as a violation of the physical body of the victim, rape is primarely motivated by the need to exercise control.

[Red Wine]

Meanie.


Brilliant Avatar, pearls for Teaser and the Firecat :bow:

[Glenn P]

Your previous argument was to draw a parallel between adultery and rape. Which I profoundly disagree with.As a Christian woman and an an ex rape victim, I do not equate rape and adultery.This is not honest. I never equated the two.

Adultery is destructive not because of your legalistic view based on "sexual rights" but because it hurts profoundly the spouse who is being cheated on. Because it destroys trust within the initial marital relationship. There is NO relationship between a rapist and his victim.You keep talking about "sexual rights" even though I reminded you that the right I am talking about is the right os exclusivity.

Don't you believe in the right of eclusivity between married couples? Or are you a swinger?

My reference to marital rape is quite relevant as it demonstrates that no husband has any rights on his wife's body. Certainly not in the US where non consential sex is considered assault or battery. See previous comment.

What I do reject is your misuse of that verse to attempt to justify your belief that there is such a thing as "sexual rights". What Paul addresses here is the importance of sexual intimacy within marriage and how MUTUAL consent is vital (that probably to prevent abusive husbands from invoquing " the wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband" to justify sexual assaults on her).You said that a spurse's body was his/her exclusive domain and nobody else had any form of right over it. You can hand wave that verse away and make a vague reference to my "use" of it without telling us what you think it means, but don't expect to be persuasive doing that.

Also, where did you get the notion that the motivation for rape is sexual? If it translates as a violation of the physical body of the victim, rape is primarely motivated by the need to exercise control.Where did I make any reference at all to motives? What comment of mine are you talking about? Please identify it.

[Red Wine]

I don't know what type of sin rape is, but I had it in mind for my vote. Some I guess I'd exclude, say a man meets a lady clubbing, and finds out next day she is 15 or something like that.

[Rahab]

This is not honest. I never equated the two.
You keep talking about "sexual rights" even though I reminded you that the right I am talking about is the right os exclusivity. That "right" of exclusivity you keep mentionning relies on the notion you hold that it relies not on the loving relationship between two human beings but on some legalistic tenant of "sexual rights" which are to prevent unfaithfulness. I am telling you that the mutual love which animates those two parties is what motivates faithfulness not any legalistic notions of "rights".


Don't you believe in the right of eclusivity between married couples? Or are you a swinger? Try to restrain yourself from making any defaming assumptions as to my faithfulness to my husband. Secondly, it is not any notion of "sexual rights" which motivate my devotion and full sentimental attention to my husband, but the love I have for him.And vice versa. Not everyone has to experience their marital relationship as a "duty" if and when their relationship is motivated and animated by mutual love. No need to speak of rights when love is in control of the relationship.


See previous comment. Your use of the verse you quoted emphasizes the "belong to" notion. Reality check: there is no legal tenant in our society claiming that my husband's body belongs to me and mine to him. He cannot dispose of my body at his sole will and neither can I dispose of his. Our state of mind and heart in our relationship is what unifies us not any notion that he has "sexual rights" or I have "sexual rights". Further, sexuality is usualy not the cause of extra marital affairs.

You said that a spurse's body was his/her exclusive domain and nobody else had any form of right over it. I said "property". You can dismiss human laws all you need to justify your state of mind promoting adultery as a crime similar to rape for the same reasons, my body remains my exclusive property and my husband's remains his.




You can hand wave that verse away and make a vague reference to my "use" of it without telling us what you think it means, but don't expect to be persuasive doing that. What it means is certainly not that it supports your allegation that rape and adultery both rely on "sexual rights" being violated. Rape is a crime because it violates the exclusive property the human body represents. The primary charge for such crime is assault or battery with the specification of sexual. There is no, I repeat no legal tenant to compare adultery to rape as you did by invoquing violation of "sexual rights" since the crime of rape is defined as a crime because it violates the exclusive rights of ownership and use of the human body of the victim herself.




Where did I make any reference at all to motives? What comment of mine are you talking about? Please identify it. You included "rape" as a "sexual sin". Care to explain why? Do you also think that sex is what motivates extra marital affairs in general?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Rahab - this forum is BIBLICAL ETHICS, not the "legal tenants" of our society. If you wish to argue from the BIBLE, the whole Bible, and not your denial of the Old Testament, then feel free, but IMHO you are going completely out of the bounds of this forum.

[Ryokan]

From a biblical perspective, I think the death/adultery angle had mostly to do with the contractual agreement between the husband and the father, the continuation of family lines, and the handing over of wealth, title, and inheritance. Breaking such an agreeemnt via adultery screwed up that whole arrangement, and could lead to blood feuds, extra legal revenge killings, and basically undermine the entire social order of a clan based seminomadic society. So while in ancient Israel you had a "right to exclusitivity" based on that legal code I see no particular reason to continue that now.