Learning from the Ancients

I had a conversation online the other day.  A radically bent moslem revolutionary aggressive narcissitic arrogant fool was spouting that Judaism requires a man that has raped a jewish woman to marry her.

He cited Deuteronomy 22:28 and claimed this was true.

Deuteronomy 22:28  If a man will find a virgin maiden who was not betrothed, and takes hold of her and lies with her, and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give the father of the girl fifty silver [shekels], and she shall become his wife, because he had afflicted her; he cannot diverce her all his life. 

This was an educational experience, this was a verse I had not given much attention.

I must remark that this is interesting.  It implies that a man who has In All Obvious Cases Consensual intercourse with an unmarried jewish virgin woman must indeed marry.  If he does not I am sure that things will not go well with him.  If he divorces her, he will have more indignities and maybe an affliction as G-d does requite pain and suffering to those who violate Jewish law.

So in turn, I am glad to have read this again.
In all pretenses, One must refrain from all premarital intercourse overall and unless its not a virgin, you are going to have issues.  I would consider that a situation of intercourse with a non-virginal woman is going to be bent with Torah issues too, but this is not the issue in this commandment.

I inqured from Din Online and this is the reply on this topic:
The halachah must be understood in its historical context.
The intention of the halachah is to ensure that the woman in question, who is ‘stained’ by having been raped, will be looked after in her future life by marriage to a man. It is for the benefit of the woman, and not for her detriment. In a society where women were traditionally very weak, this was a great “innovation” in women’s rights.
This is why the application of the halachah depends on the free will of the woman in question. If the woman does not want to be wed, we certainly don’t force her into it. Only if she wants the “protection” of marriage do we force the man to wed her.
Naturally, it is unheard of for this halachah to be practiced today.

I wrote back and have submitted the following inquiry:
Thank you for your reply. I had not known if that was the situation.  I had interrpreted this to indicate that a man who lays with a woman prior to marriage who is a virgin must marry her or else his providence will be an issue in his future.  This to me makes sense.  I did not think that a rape must marry the woman, but I can see your insight. 
And since it indicates the phrase "if it is discovered", I interrpreted this to mean that this law is in the way that if a man does have relations with the woman and they are out of wedlock and another person either sees it or is validly informed that this has happened, by being discovered, Israel is afflicted and thus there is a consideration that the only way to relieve the affliction is to marry the willing couple who willingly had relations prior to marriage.  This is interesting as to me this sets up a situation where the man must indeed not engage in any premarital relations with anyone at all. (Though as it does indicate a virgin, does this mean that a man can have relations with a woman who is not a virgin and thus not be required to marry).  Just a consideration and many thanks for your reply.