Wednesday, September 26, 2018 • Afternoon Edition • "If you loved Hotel Rwanda, you'll love The Outhouse."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Sharron Angle: Muslim law taking hold in parts of US

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:08 am

Thunderstorm wrote:
It came up, and that's a problem. Like I said, if this happened in an area that was all-Muslim or close to it, I could see how it would be much more acceptable. I could see people like you and Mr. Black arguing for it and calling anyone who's against it intolerant.


It came up and was shot down. One isolated incident proves your point?
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:08 am

MoneyMelon wrote:You don't find it unsettling that this was the ruling in the first place?


I don't. I chalk it up to a moron judge.
User avatar

Regulator

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Regulator » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:10 am

MoneyMelon wrote:You don't find it unsettling that this was the ruling in the first place?


Read what I wrote. The judge is ruling on the restraining order and only the restraining order. In acknowledging that the man was using religious beliefs to fuck his wife whenever he wanted, even if she didn't want to, he's also acknowledging that those beliefs don't hold for a woman you're not married to. Thus, in his mind, there is no need for a restraining order.

Later on in the article, it says the man was indicted on criminal charges.
User avatar

MoneyMelon

Chief Yankee Wanker

Postby MoneyMelon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:10 am

Frag It wrote:
I don't. I chalk it up to a moron judge.


Moron judges terrify me.

I mean, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, when it comes to campaign contributions.

I don't have much confidence in them.
User avatar

MoneyMelon

Chief Yankee Wanker

Postby MoneyMelon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:14 am

Regulator wrote:
Read what I wrote. The judge is ruling on the restraining order and only the restraining order. In acknowledging that the man was using religious beliefs to fuck his wife whenever he wanted, even if she didn't want to, he's also acknowledging that those beliefs don't hold for a woman you're not married to. Thus, in his mind, there is no need for a restraining order.

Later on in the article, it says the man was indicted on criminal charges.

Religious beliefs should be irrelevant to the ruling as the appellate court stated

Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:15 am

MoneyMelon wrote:
Moron judges terrify me.

I mean, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, when it comes to campaign contributions.

I don't have much confidence in them.


They terrify me too, but not as such low levels.

When you get to the high levels and the SC, then it's scarier.
User avatar

Regulator

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Regulator » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:19 am

MoneyMelon wrote:Religious beliefs should be irrelevant to the ruling as the appellate court stated



You could come to the same conclusion without using that path though. I'm not defending the decision, I'm explaining why it was made. The same result could come from asking the lady if the man had raped her or tried to rape her after the divorce and she says no. This judge felt there was no threat to her because of post-divorce behavior, whether explicitly stated or in conjunction with the man's admission of his beliefs about the conduct of married people. Once they're not married, he doesn't get to fuck her.

He's not saying it was ok to rape her because they were married, he's saying she's no longer under a threat because they're not married. Those are two very different statements.
User avatar

MoneyMelon

Chief Yankee Wanker

Postby MoneyMelon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:20 am

Regulator wrote:
You could come to the same conclusion without using that path though. I'm not defending the decision, I'm explaining why it was made. The same result could come from asking the lady if the man had raped her or tried to rape her after the divorce and she says no. This judge felt there was no threat to her because of post-divorce behavior, whether explicitly stated or in conjunction with the man's admission of his beliefs about the conduct of married people. Once they're not married, he doesn't get to fuck her.

He's not saying it was ok to rape her because they were married, he's saying she's no longer under a threat because they're not married. Those are two very different statements. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

I think the path the judge uses to reach his conclusion is very important, personally.
User avatar

Eli Katz

OMCTO

Postby Eli Katz » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:22 am

If Republicans were more concerned about the use and misuse of all religious law in the United States, I would take their concerns over Shariah more seriously. But they never discuss misogynistic rulings against women that have occurred in Jewish courts (Beis Din) in New York. There were a few outrageous cases that made headlines and one case in particular that inspired a Law and Order episode.

I'm not a supporter of religious courts for any matter, whether it is for business arbitration or family law cases. I just wish the issue wouldn't be framed as a solely Muslim problem. In constitutional democracies, everyone should live by and under the same set of laws. Period.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:23 am

As a gay person, I'd rather not take the chance on some barbaric law being passed that will result in everyone I know being murdered in the name of Allah.

Alchemic_Spider

Postby Alchemic_Spider » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:24 am

Thunderstorm wrote:As a gay person, I'd rather not take the chance on some barbaric law being passed that will result in everyone I know being murdered in the name of Allah.



I would like to think you know at least one straight person.. :P
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:26 am

Alchemic_Spider wrote:

I would like to think you know at least one straight person.. :P


Every gay person I know...
User avatar

MoneyMelon

Chief Yankee Wanker

Postby MoneyMelon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:27 am

Eli Katz wrote:If Republicans were more concerned about the use and misuse of all religious law in the United States, I would take their concerns over Shariah more seriously. But they never discuss misogynistic rulings against women that have occurred in Jewish courts (Beis Din) in New York. There were a few outrageous cases that made headlines and one case in particular that inspired a Law and Order episode.

I'm not a supporter of religious courts for any matter, whether it is for business arbitration or family law cases. I just wish the issue wouldn't be framed as a solely Muslim problem. In constitutional democracies, everyone should live by and under the same set of laws. Period.

I thoroughly agree
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:27 am

Well ok then it's settled. England has Sharia arbitration courts because of some clause or something so that means America has been taken over by Muslim law.

Not that that's settled... :roll: :lol:
User avatar

Regulator

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Regulator » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:28 am

MoneyMelon wrote:I think the path the judge uses to reach his conclusion is very important, personally.


There's something that's still not connecting and you're still kind of ignoring the last statement. Here is the timeline:

- they get married
- man rapes wife
- they divorce
- no more sex/rape
- lady files restraining order

The man said he felt he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted because that's his religious belief. They get divorced. That means they're no longer married. That means he doesn't get to have sex with this lady any more. The man didn't go around saying he gets to fuck whoever he wants, he said he gets to fuck his wife. Personally, I think it's a legitimate ruling for a restraining order because motivations behind the potential assailant should play into it. If he's in court saying that he can't submit this lady to his will now that they're not married, it severely mitigates the threat which reduces the need for a restraining order. But we don't know the entire story behind that because we're only getting a paragraph summation in a Fox News story.

Again, this ruling is not a statement on whether or not it is acceptable to rape your wife.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot] and 33 guests

cron