Yes, and the modern term for marrying and having sexual relations with a 'bride' you've taken by force is RAPE.<quoted text>
The term for taking women from a former defeated enemy is called “War Brides.”
Who says he wants to have a loving relationship? The impetus for the marriage in this scenario is physical attraction. The soldier wants to have sex with the woman. If she does not please him, she is ditched.If a man is attracted to her and wants to have a loving relationship. Then he must treat her exceptionally well.
BS. World War II "war brides" were not captives forced to marry. They were women who soldiers met during the war or afterwards.Nothing has changed since then.
I can't believe you'd compare these two things.
The 'rubble left behind' solely because of other atrocious laws demanding extermination of enemy males, including the elderly and children.Because “War Brides,” occurred in the scripture the Atheist opposition think it was just an awful atrocity. These women wanted a chance to survive and not die in the rubble left behind.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 IS atrocious. And so is your defense of it.