I don't like their views on gender and personal freedom. But I know of no basis on which to say my views are definitely correct and theirs are wrong. Do you?
If you're looking for absolutes in a World where they don't exist, keep on looking! That's likely to lead to "paralysis of analysis", waiting to act until a "perfect" answer is discovered, but wasting ones life searching for the "perfect" answer. Unfortunately, the Bible-based idea of God-given ABSOLUTE moral standards is a myth, and leads to a fruitless search for the moral equivalent of the Fountain of Youth.
Fortunately, mankind hasn't waited for ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE perfect answers before acting, but has moved on with relative improvements and community-based standards via continuous-process-improvement, etc. which exists in philosophical moral standards and theories ("greatest good", etc).
To me, morality isn't THAT complex, and doesn't require years of intense meditation, prayer, etc. The Golden Rule (which predates Jesus and Judaism) applies.
I am not sure about the merit of introducing modern legal terms to judge people long dead.
Why not? Society has seen fit to abandon and outlaw practices that have contributed to an improvement for humanity; are you denying that abolition was an improvement, a GOOD thing for humanity?
I am quite WILLING to point out the improvements that mankind has enjoyed as a result of abandoning ancient men's fictional ideas of God-given "perfect" morality, based on a control scheme. Why would anyone willfully choose to remain an ethical or technological Luddite, a slave clinging to 2,500 yr old long-disproven ideas and superstitions on ANY topic, out of fear of letting it go? Change is NOT to be feared.
Plus I just wanted to know exactly where the passage is you are all alluding too. Does it really imply rape?
Genesis 16 is what we're talking about.
I don't think you really understand what slavery is about, or understand what fundamental human rights are?
You DO realize that a minor child cannot give their consent to have sex with an adult, EVEN IF they are begging the older person? The reason is that the law recognizes that they lack the maturity to make that decision, due to being children. Now magnify that difference, except make it for ownership of another person who's deprived of any fundamental rights, where the owed person is the PROPERTY of another. If someone lacks fundamental human rights, the concept of 'giving consent' is utterly meaningless, since self-determination of their own body does not belong to them; they are property/chattel.
I suspect people often forget about the fundamental immorality of slavery, since it's SUCH a foreign concept to most people, so far-removed from their daily lives; their imagination fills in the details with modern pleasant imagery of a Disney Movie, showing happy slaves living on a Southern plantation: