ninetailschris said:
By marrying her he must support the woman being forced to never marry someone else. Plus he pay the father would is provider of woman previously. This is punished not only with his money in current but forever. If he tried to date/whatever sexual anyone else while married he would have broke another law which would lead to a futher punishment which would have been death/prisionment most likely. Most rapist don't want JUST one girl as this is very black and white view in the moment. You competely ignore the long term effect of this. Basically losing his freedom of marriage and never able to diviorce. On the point of punishing her you ignored all my points and side-steped everything. You ignored that she would left without support and would die quicker without a husband at all. You ignore that she will know that she will have income until she dies. You act like this nothing better than going weeks with food and water see how fast you think that the alterinative is better. It's real nice in your house where you can go get a job if you need money or get help from the government. But back in time there isn't much food or water(sometimes and the only you get food is contributing to the society and if you don't you don't eat. So, right now your saying is better she not eat than have food and the man made sure to pay forever for you. The man will forced to work to pay both families so he has work harder to bring in more money then if he was single. Your view is so black and white and a little of light hearted joking about something that was very serious and life altering. I can't imagine if I was raped and told " well you will never have food/children. You can't work so you may as well kill yourself, good luck" It's just pure ego to make it seem like woman would want that. This reality not walfare state. |
What you're basically saying then is that if a woman gets raped she had the choice of being shuned and starving or have the emotional torture of having to live with her attacker for the rest of her life... and because of the time period, that's OK and is morally fine. So the woman is victimised no matter what, that sounds so moral...
I ignored your points because for a religion and book that's supposed to be a moral code that people live by it contains material that's questionable in nature. Could they really not think of any other alternatives? Like, I dunno, all the money the man earns goes to the woman but they don't have to marry? Or the woman is not shuned for having been attacked? If they were really receiving moral advice from god, surely they'd be able to see outside of the box.
You expect me to think of it in the context of the time period, but the bible is a book that's held as an example of a moral code advising how people should live today. Yet how is this relevant to the modern day?
