Biblical Rape Law in Maryland

Azaliah wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:03:01 -0500, while bungee jumping,
> buckeye-elo DeleteThis @nospam.net shouted thusly:
>
>
>> Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>> The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right to
>> end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred. After
>> that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>> woman tells him to stop.
>
> The phrase, "to continue until he climaxes" is yours.
>
> While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
> because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
> she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
> intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
> her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
> her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
> consent.

If you ask me to punch you in the face and then you say stop, but I
continue, am I assaulting you?

On the stand:
PROSECUTOR: How many times did the defendant hit you in the face?
YOU: I lost count after my jaw broke.
PROSECUTOR: No more questions.
DEFENDANT: Didn't you ask my client to punch you in the face?
YOU: Yes.
DEFENDANT: Because you asked him to punch you in the face, why did you
ask the defendant to stop?
YOU: Because I didn't want to be punched anymore.
DEFENDANT: No more questions.

Jury comes back and acquits the defendant because you asked to
raped^H^H^H^H^H punched.


>
>
>> The decision is based upon the archaic concept that rape is a crime because
>> the 'deflowering' of a woman reduces her property value for the man who
>> owns her. According to the court, under this ancient view of rape…
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>
>> Quote:
>> …it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>> after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>> woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>> considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>> (end quote)
>
> And this is true. In other words, what damage is there,
> since she has already allowed him to enter her?
>
> Rape is the initial act of penetrating her without her
> consent. If she has consented, it cannot be rape.
>
> The feminazis are trying to take it too far. Next, it will be
> them saying that if they both climax and she changes her
> mind, then it's rape. Please!
>
> The truth is, that's what some women already do! They
> change their minds about having wanted to have sex
> and they falsely accuse a man of rape! (:
>
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:03:01 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
buckeye-elo DeleteThis @nospam.net in <ibd3m21n6gvahd7oh0r3s2f813r6kgudha DeleteThis @4ax.com>
wrote:

>From
> IIDB > IIDB Philosophical Forums > Church/State
>
>Yesterday, 07:50 PM #3939464 / #1
>Professor
>Veteran User
>http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3939464#post3939464
>
>Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right to
>end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred. After
>that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>woman tells him to stop.
>
>The decision is based upon the archaic concept that rape is a crime because
>the 'deflowering' of a woman reduces her property value for the man who
>owns her. According to the court, under this ancient view of rape…
>
>Quote:
>…it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>(end quote)
>
>The Bible was invoked as one of the justifications for using this
>interpretation of rape today.
>
>Quote:
>…the cultural mores undergirding the notion that the crime of rape was
>complete upon penetration may be traced to Biblical and Middle, Assyrian
>Laws.
>(end quote)
>
>This is MARYLAND! A blue state has adopted a definition of rape that could
>have come from Iran or Saudia Arabia. I can't begin to express how angry I
>am at this.

I will guess that you have no idea what the rape laws are in Iran. In
Iran it is not rape unless you have for reliable *male* witnesses to
testify that the sex was not consensual. Otherwise it is illegal
intercourse and the *woman* is the criminal.

>A legal analysis of the decision is available on FindLaw.
>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20061115.html
>
>The actual decision is available as a PDF file here.
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/marylandstatecases/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

"Dave" <supradave RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GbedndepmfmjuP_YnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
Azaliah wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:03:01 -0500, while bungee jumping,
> buckeye-elo RemoveThis @nospam.net shouted thusly:
>
>
>> Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>> The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right
>> to
>> end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred.
>> After
>> that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>> woman tells him to stop.
>
> The phrase, "to continue until he climaxes" is yours.
>
> While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
> because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
> she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
> intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
> her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
> her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
> consent.

If you ask me to punch you in the face and then you say stop, but I
continue, am I assaulting you?

According to the law, you are assaulting me on the first swing whether I
asked you to do it initially or not. Apples to oranges.

Have a nice day,
Ken



On the stand:
PROSECUTOR: How many times did the defendant hit you in the face?
YOU: I lost count after my jaw broke.
PROSECUTOR: No more questions.
DEFENDANT: Didn't you ask my client to punch you in the face?
YOU: Yes.
DEFENDANT: Because you asked him to punch you in the face, why did you
ask the defendant to stop?
YOU: Because I didn't want to be punched anymore.
DEFENDANT: No more questions.

Jury comes back and acquits the defendant because you asked to
raped^H^H^H^H^H punched.


>
>
>> The decision is based upon the archaic concept that rape is a crime
>> because
>> the 'deflowering' of a woman reduces her property value for the man who
>> owns her. According to the court, under this ancient view of rape…
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>
>> Quote:
>> …it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>> after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>> woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>> considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>> (end quote)
>
> And this is true. In other words, what damage is there,
> since she has already allowed him to enter her?
>
> Rape is the initial act of penetrating her without her
> consent. If she has consented, it cannot be rape.
>
> The feminazis are trying to take it too far. Next, it will be
> them saying that if they both climax and she changes her
> mind, then it's rape. Please!
>
> The truth is, that's what some women already do! They
> change their minds about having wanted to have sex
> and they falsely accuse a man of rape! (:
>
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:38:39 -0600, while bungee jumping,
"Ken" <Leftists DeleteThis @Useful_Idiot_Savants.com> shouted thusly:


>>> Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>>> The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right
>>> to
>>> end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred.
>>> After
>>> that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>>> woman tells him to stop.
>>
>> The phrase, "to continue until he climaxes" is yours.
>>
>> While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
>> because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
>> she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
>> intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
>> her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
>> her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
>> consent.
>
>If you ask me to punch you in the face and then you say stop, but I
>continue, am I assaulting you?

Oh, I get it... You're an idiot.


>According to the law, you are assaulting me on the first swing whether I
>asked you to do it initially or not. Apples to oranges.

According to the law, dumb ass, when a woman says yes
and has sex with a man, it is not rape, dumb ass. And
that is what we're discussing. A woman saying yes to
a man penetrating her and then having sex with him
and then at some point after that, changing her mind
and claiming it's rape.

Contrary to your stupidity, hitting me, which may be
assault (it isn't and they would never arrest you if I
asked you to do it), is physically harming someone
and does not compare to a woman saying yes and
"movin' to the groovin'" and then, later, after it
goes on for a while, saying no and acting as if he
raped her.

You truly are an idiot! (:

--

Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam RemoveThis @ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>:|On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:03:01 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net in <ibd3m21n6gvahd7oh0r3s2f813r6kgudha RemoveThis @4ax.com>
>:|wrote:
>
>>From
>> IIDB > IIDB Philosophical Forums > Church/State
>>
>>Yesterday, 07:50 PM #3939464 / #1
>>Professor
>>Veteran User
>>http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3939464#post3939464
>>
>>Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>>The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right to
>>end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred. After
>>that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>>woman tells him to stop.
>>
>>The decision is based upon the archaic concept that rape is a crime because
>>the 'deflowering' of a woman reduces her property value for the man who
>>owns her. According to the court, under this ancient view of rape…
>>
>>Quote:
>>…it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>>after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>>woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>>considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>>(end quote)
>>
>>The Bible was invoked as one of the justifications for using this
>>interpretation of rape today.
>>
>>Quote:
>>…the cultural mores undergirding the notion that the crime of rape was
>>complete upon penetration may be traced to Biblical and Middle, Assyrian
>>Laws.
>>(end quote)
>>
>>This is MARYLAND! A blue state has adopted a definition of rape that could
>>have come from Iran or Saudia Arabia. I can't begin to express how angry I
>>am at this.
>
>I will guess that you have no idea what the rape laws are in Iran. In
>:|Iran it is not rape unless you have for reliable *male* witnesses to
>:|testify that the sex was not consensual. Otherwise it is illegal
>:|intercourse and the *woman* is the criminal.


If you want to jump someone for their alleged ignorance you need to address
such comments to the person who originally was "incorrect"

>
>>A legal analysis of the decision is available on FindLaw.
>>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20061115.html
>>
>>The actual decision is available as a PDF file here.
>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/marylandstatecases/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf



***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

Azaliah <_giantwaffle_.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>:|On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:03:01 -0500, while bungee jumping,
>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net shouted thusly:
>
>
>>Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>>The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right to
>>end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred. After
>>that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>>woman tells him to stop.
>
>:|The phrase, "to continue until he climaxes" is yours.
>

Actually, it was the person who wrote the original post


>:|While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
>:|because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
>:|she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
>:|intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
>:|her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
>:|her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
>:|consent.
>


In this country "NO" means no "Stop" means Stop.

If she says no or stop and he continues he is legally speaking "raping" her

That was the entire point the original poster was making.



>
>>The decision is based upon the archaic concept that rape is a crime because
>>the 'deflowering' of a woman reduces her property value for the man who
>>owns her. According to the court, under this ancient view of rape…
>
>:|No, it isn't.
>

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
>
>>Quote:
>>…it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>>after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>>woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>>considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>>(end quote)
>
>:|And this is true. In other words, what damage is there,
>:|since she has already allowed him to enter her?
>
>:|Rape is the initial act of penetrating her without her
>:|consent. If she has consented, it cannot be rape.
>
>:|The feminazis are trying to take it too far. Next, it will be
>:|them saying that if they both climax and she changes her
>:|mind, then it's rape. Please!
>
>:|The truth is, that's what some women already do! They
>:|change their minds about having wanted to have sex
>:|and they falsely accuse a man of rape! (:


All women huh?

Not even close.


***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:05:54 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
buckeye-elo.RemoveThis@nospam.net in <6bn5m25i2t4v93pgno8j8fgdc43s5qdbq8.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
wrote:

>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam.RemoveThis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>:|On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:03:01 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net in <ibd3m21n6gvahd7oh0r3s2f813r6kgudha.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
>>:|wrote:
>>
>>>From
>>> IIDB > IIDB Philosophical Forums > Church/State
>>>
>>>Yesterday, 07:50 PM #3939464 / #1
>>>Professor
>>>Veteran User
>>>http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3939464#post3939464
>>>
>>>Biblical Rape Law in Maryland
>>>The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has ruled that a woman's right to
>>>end consensual sexual intercourse ends once penetration has occurred. After
>>>that point the man has a right to continue until he climaxes even if the
>>>woman tells him to stop.
>>>
>>>The decision is based upon the archaic concept that rape is a crime because
>>>the 'deflowering' of a woman reduces her property value for the man who
>>>owns her. According to the court, under this ancient view of rape…
>>>
>>>Quote:
>>>…it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>>>after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>>>woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>>>considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>>>(end quote)
>>>
>>>The Bible was invoked as one of the justifications for using this
>>>interpretation of rape today.
>>>
>>>Quote:
>>>…the cultural mores undergirding the notion that the crime of rape was
>>>complete upon penetration may be traced to Biblical and Middle, Assyrian
>>>Laws.
>>>(end quote)
>>>
>>>This is MARYLAND! A blue state has adopted a definition of rape that could
>>>have come from Iran or Saudia Arabia. I can't begin to express how angry I
>>>am at this.
>>
>>I will guess that you have no idea what the rape laws are in Iran. In
>>:|Iran it is not rape unless you have for reliable *male* witnesses to
>>:|testify that the sex was not consensual. Otherwise it is illegal
>>:|intercourse and the *woman* is the criminal.
>
>
>If you want to jump someone for their alleged ignorance you need to address
>such comments to the person who originally was "incorrect"

I now see three levels of quotes, plus mine. When I responded there
were no such marks at all. If the words were not yours, they weren't.
But there was nothing in the post to indicate that.

[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:11:06 -0500, while bungee jumping,
buckeye-elo.RemoveThis@nospam.net shouted thusly:


>>:|While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
>>:|because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
>>:|she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
>>:|intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
>>:|her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
>>:|her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
>>:|consent.
>>
>
>
>In this country "NO" means no "Stop" means Stop.
>
>If she says no or stop and he continues he is legally speaking "raping" her
>
>That was the entire point the original poster was making.

No, the point was that the law says it is not rape
and rightfully so. Rape is the act of penetrating
a woman without her consent. Once she consents
and intercourse is happening, the option of "rape"
is over. To have a law that says to continue is rape,
means that any woman could have intercourse and
then later claim it was rape, even though she
consented to intercourse.


>>>Quote:
>>>…it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>>>after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>>>woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>>>considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>>>(end quote)
>>
>>:|And this is true. In other words, what damage is there,
>>:|since she has already allowed him to enter her?
>>
>>:|Rape is the initial act of penetrating her without her
>>:|consent. If she has consented, it cannot be rape.
>>
>>:|The feminazis are trying to take it too far. Next, it will be
>>:|them saying that if they both climax and she changes her
>>:|mind, then it's rape. Please!
>>
>>:|The truth is, that's what some women already do! They
>>:|change their minds about having wanted to have sex
>>:|and they falsely accuse a man of rape! (:
>
>
>All women huh?
>
>Not even close.

I didn't say, "all women". And your inability to address
the actual issue is noted.

--

Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

Azaliah <_giantwaffle_ RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>:|On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:11:06 -0500, while bungee jumping,
>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net shouted thusly:
>
>
>>>:|While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
>>>:|because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
>>>:|she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
>>>:|intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
>>>:|her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
>>>:|her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
>>>:|consent.
>>>
>>
>>
>>In this country "NO" means no "Stop" means Stop.
>>
>>If she says no or stop and he continues he is legally speaking "raping" her
>>
>>That was the entire point the original poster was making.
>
>:|No, the point was that the law says it is not rape
>:|and rightfully so. Rape is the act of penetrating
>a woman without her consent. Once she consents
>:|and intercourse is happening, the option of "rape"
>:|is over. To have a law that says to continue is rape,
>:|means that any woman could have intercourse and
>:|then later claim it was rape, even though she
>:|consented to intercourse.


Follow up


Re: [HRSepCnS] Sad Statement
Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:13 am

"Paul D[delete] wrote at
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State

buckeyeelo wrote:
> An update on this topic
>
> Yesterday I posted a post under the title of Biblical Rape Law in
> Maryland.
>
> This was originally posted on the CSS section of the Secular Web where
> it has had 20 replies/comments thus far. I posted a copy of the
> original here and in UseNet Newsgroups.
>
> Thus far the score card reads 20 replies/comments on the Secular web
> to the original post by "professor" 12 replies/comments to my posting
> of the original in UseNet Newsgroups 0 replies/comments here.
>
> Just an observation and it is rather sad.

Since you need feedback, I don't read the Secular Web or any of the UseNet
newsgroups in question. The only place I've seen this mentioned so far is
here . As soon as I read it here I checked the FindLaw commentary, and
forwarded the posting together with a link to a Maryland site giving the
names, e-mails and phone numbers of the Court of Special Appeals judges to
several groups, including an influential international women's organization
and a national organization involved in teaching women how to defend
themselves against rape. The universal reaction has been shock and outrage,
and a determination to correct the situation, by correcting the court's
deeply flawed analysis and/or through legislation. You may have started the
avalanche.
**********************************

and

A little more feedback - we're currently working on the law student angle,
getting a couple of groups to research the law of rape and drafting
responses.
************************************

A second person wrote

RE: [HRSepCnS] Sad Statement

In regards to this particular group, "Toto" on iidb.org posted:
"I read the decision, and it is not based on Biblical principles. It is
based on the common law, which still has some meaning in Maryland, and
Biblical and Middle Assyrian laws are used as illustrations of the
origins of the common law principles."
So, it seems that the church-state connection is somewhat murky.

As far as the rape in general, it is shameful that it happened. And it
is also shameful that they consider that "the damage has been done" and
no more damage is being done once penetration has occurred.

to which I replied

Re: Sad Statement

--- In HRSepCnS RemoveThis @yahoogroups.com, "Gary K[delete] .> wrote:
>
> In regards to this particular group, "Toto" on iidb.org posted:
> "I read the decision, and it is not based on Biblical principles. It is
> based on the common law, which still has some meaning in Maryland, and
> Biblical and Middle Assyrian laws are used as illustrations of the
> origins of the common law principles."
> So, it seems that the church-state connection is somewhat murky.
>


Christianity is part and parcel of Common Law, so stated Blackstone in
England, and Kent and Story in America.

The Religious right very frequently has claimed the same connection.

Of course Jefferson disagreed with that but Joseph Story waited until
after Jefferson had died to write trying to tear his disagreement to
shreds.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

Azaliah <_giantwaffle_ DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>:|On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:11:06 -0500, while bungee jumping,
>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net shouted thusly:
>
>
>>>:|While people will hate me for saying it, this law makes sense,
>>>:|because the idea is that a woman has a right to say no, but
>>>:|she is saying no to intercourse. Once she has consented to
>>>:|intercourse and is partaking of it, the man cannot be raping
>>>:|her, even if she says stop after consenting to him entering
>>>:|her, because rape is the crime of entering her without her
>>>:|consent.
>>>
>>
>>
>>In this country "NO" means no "Stop" means Stop.
>>
>>If she says no or stop and he continues he is legally speaking "raping" her
>>
>>That was the entire point the original poster was making.
>
>:|No, the point was that the law says it is not rape
>:|and rightfully so. Rape is the act of penetrating
>a woman without her consent. Once she consents
>:|and intercourse is happening, the option of "rape"
>:|is over. To have a law that says to continue is rape,
>:|means that any woman could have intercourse and
>:|then later claim it was rape, even though she
>:|consented to intercourse.
>
>
>>>>Quote:
>>>>…it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape;
>>>>after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a
>>>>woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was
>>>>considered to be less consequential. The damage was done.
>>>>(end quote)
>>>
>>>:|And this is true. In other words, what damage is there,
>>>:|since she has already allowed him to enter her?
>>>
>>>:|Rape is the initial act of penetrating her without her
>>>:|consent. If she has consented, it cannot be rape.
>>>
>>>:|The feminazis are trying to take it too far. Next, it will be
>>>:|them saying that if they both climax and she changes her
>>>:|mind, then it's rape. Please!
>>>
>>>:|The truth is, that's what some women already do! They
>>>:|change their minds about having wanted to have sex
>>>:|and they falsely accuse a man of rape! (:
>>
>>
>>All women huh?
>>
>>Not even close.
>
>I didn't say, "all women". And your inability to address
>:|the actual issue is noted.

ADDRESSING VIOLENCE IN OKLAHOMA
Sexual Assault
In the Nation:
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/rape.html

Definitions of rape on the Web:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:rape&sa=X&oi=g...sary_de


Rape is, in most jurisdictions, a crime defined as sexual intercourse or
penetration without valid consent by both parties.
(there is much more there, you can read the entire article if you like)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape


October 31, 2006
MD Court: Women can't say no after sex has started
This is perhaps one of the scariest rulings I've ever seen:
http://feministing.com/archives/005965.html


jurisprudence: The law, lawyers, and the court
No"No means no" is still a pretty good rule.
http://www.slate.com/id/2089687/

New Rape Law in Illinois: No means No, even after sex has started.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2003/07/30/new-rape-law-in-illin...-no-mea

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Biblical Rape Law in Maryland 

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam Delet