Hah. I love when they come at you with the "traditional marriage" bullshit. And then they get their panties all in a bunch when you explain to them that that basically means that a woman is sold by her father (who owns her) to a potential husband (who then owns her after that), that the woman has no say whatsoever in the matter (which means that it's essentially paying for the ability to rape her), and that the only two things that give a woman any worth at all are either virginity or the ability to bear children. Boy do they hate hearing that xD Even better, when you then proceed to tell them that women were considered fit to be married back then at an age that nowadays would still be considered much too young - which basically makes the whole lot of 'em pedophiles and child rapists in our modern sense (and hey, let's not forget that the virginity had to be checked by the involved parties before marriage, right?), they like that even less. And when you brought up this particular passage you show here, they always try to rationalize it, always talk about how it's a punishment for the rapist and ensures that the victim has someone who will take care of her (she's worthless to her father now after all). When you then tell them that this is not much different than stealing a loaf of bread and taking a hunk out of it before being caught, then being forced to pay the bread because a bread with a big chunk missing can't be sold any more, after all. That's what this passage is about. Damaged goods. You steal it, you buy it.
I find it highly amusing that they don't even consider what this implies ... let's say this "law" was still in effect today. Let's say there's that girl I want, but her father doesn't want me to have her and she doesn't want me as well. So, I just go ahead, rape her, pay her dad and marry her and I get to rape her as much as I want, all day every day. How fucked up is that??
One of the countless reasons not to be religious. Their holy book is a hunk of shit.