does raping the person you are married to count as adultery?
i do not know all laws.

Adultery is only an offense in biblical law, where there is no such thing as spousal rape. Legally, I think you can be prosecuted for it, but it's a murky area and hard to prove.

"Adultery includes rape." Did you miss that part?

i read it as unmarried rape for some reason...
yeh i did miss it.

Man, I had this same exact argument the last time this popped up. According to the Bible, there is no such thing as rape within the marriage bed, so it isn't classified as adultery. But personally, I think that forced sex is possible within a marriage, but that it shouldn't be legally classified as rape. I think that in that case, spousal rape should be used as a point of merit for divorce. Prosecuting someone for rape in addition to the regular divorce proceedings seems superfluous, and if a person stays married to someone who rapes them, then they're just stupid. And I don't think we should make laws designed around the idiocies of the stupid.

Well I didn't care more!

I don't even LIKE jelly!

That wasn't the anon I was referring to. Either way everything you have said is simply restating what I said originally. But you are too thick to notice it.

Not at all. The only thing I originally contended with you was how the Big Bang Theory shouldn't be considered a theory. That's been the point of this exchange since the beginning. I said something correcting what you said, then you made a counter response, which I then addressed. Then you made another point of contention on the same vein as the previous one, which I addressed with the exact same response since it was applicable. Then we got started talking about the anon, and now you're being a defensive ass.

Did you even read what I wrote? Because you're simply restating what I said.

Also, did you just learn what empirical evidence is or something? The way you keep restating the same thing without really mentioning much else suggest such a thing.

I am not restating what YOU said. Reread the comment #33 made by Anonymous. He states that theory IS fact, where I make the exact opposite argument. That theory is NOT fact just because it's a theory.

That wasn't the anon I was referring to. Either way everything you have said is simply restating what I said originally. But you are too thick to notice it.

Not at all. The only thing I originally contended with you was how the Big Bang Theory shouldn't be considered a theory. That's been the point of this exchange since the beginning. I said something correcting what you said, then you made a counter response, which I then addressed. Then you made another point of contention on the same vein as the previous one, which I addressed with the exact same response since it was applicable. Then we got started talking about the anon, and now you're being a defensive ass.

Well fine then, I didn't even care.

Well I didn't care more!

I don't even LIKE jelly!