Cheesey
13 years ago
Well....here we go......if you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you should be against gay sex.
And yes, it is a choice. You can choose NOT to have sex with someone of the same sex as you.
Just as someone that has sexual feelings towards children, or barn animals. You can act on the impulses, or not.
If a woman has a "choice" whether or not to kill or not kill her unborn child, you think a person can't make a choice as far as acting on their sexual impulses?
Like most everything in our lives, we make choices.

By the way, i don't hate gay people. I hate their sin.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Does the Bible say anything about having sex with "children" and what does the Bible dictate as a child? What age?
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
What does being for or against gay sex have to do with being for or against legalized, licensed gay marriage?
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
13 years ago

Does the Bible say anything about having sex with "children" and what does the Bible dictate as a child? What age?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


Yes, it does. It says that if you do ANYTHING to hurt a child you are going to pay for it BIG time. I would say molesting a child fits into that quite well.
As far as "what age". It's another example of God knowing that the times and ages change, thus not putting an exact "number" to it. For example, back when humans were more close to perfection and living to age 800 or more, what was considered a "child" might have been alot older then what we consider a child today.
Just as God said that a man should dress as a man, and a woman as a woman. He didn't say "A woman HAS to wear a dress, and a man pants". Back in biblical days, men wore robes. Much which would appear today more like a dress then what a man wears. And women can wear pants and NOT be "dressed as a man".
Sometimes (maybe not so smartly) God leaves some things up to what we would call "common sense". (Which isn't very common today, it seems).
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I did not know that, however, what is hurting the child is suspect for debate. I knew some 16 year 'children' that were more ready for a physical relationship than some in their 'adult' 20's.

I don't think sexuality preference is anymore a choice than whom you fall in love with. There shouldn't be benefits for marriage (at least, in my ignorance I don't see why) and there shouldn't be anything prohibiting two of the same sex to be married. God has given us a lot and to disallow same sex marriage goes against his will. I doubt the good lord would say "John, its wrong of you to be madly in love with Adam, you must select a female, even if you have no emotional, mental or physical attraction to females".

And if God is that way, then he's not a God worth praying to because that's wrong and justifiable. I believe God is better than that.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago

back when humans were more close to perfection and living to age 800 or more, what was considered a "child" might have been alot older then what we consider a child today.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 


I seriously doubt it. That would have been pretty counterproductive to the primary goal, which would have been increasing the population. The idea that young people shouldn't have sex is a very recent phenomenon. Until a couple of centuries ago, there weren't many virgins past the age of puberty -- which is to say, the first period.

I would also like you to define "molestation" here. The research shows convincingly that it is rarely the sexual acts themselves that cause trauma, but rather the reactions of others surrounding the event that cause trauma. In other words, except in cases of true rape, it usually feels pretty good to get diddled or licked, even if it's by Mommy or Uncle Joe. It's the horror of relatives, the forced physical and psychological examinations, the constant interrogation of social workers and police, the terror of the trial, the media attention, and all the other ordeals surrounding the discovery of sexual abuse that causes the vast majority of the psychological and emotional trauma.

Studies also show that victims of sexual abuse show no overall higher rate of sexual dysfunction ten years later, and there is some evidence they may have slightly better relationships than the general population.

It's pretty sad, but somehow not surprising, that it's the people supposed to be helping the "victims" that end up fucking the poor guys up.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Somehow I doubt it. That would have been pretty counterproductive to the primary goal, which would have been increasing the population. The idea that young people shouldn't have sex is a very recent phenomenon. Until a couple of centuries ago, there weren't many virgins past the age of puberty.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 


Which is what confuses me. Even taking on your niece as a sexual partner before 18 was acceptable.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago

Which is what confuses me. Even taking on your niece as a sexual partner before 18 was acceptable.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


There aren't many cultures that would have allowed that. First-cousin marriage, however, was not only acceptable, it was the preferred form of marriage through much of the world throughout history. I would guess that the vast majority of humans alive today can trace their lineage back to a union of first cousins.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 years ago

Agreed.

And I'll take it one step further - the government shouldn't be rewarding behavior, period. For example, there are tax breaks for married people and tax breaks for each child. Both stupid. That's rewarding behavior. We pay you to get married & breed. Lame.

(Of course I'm for the complete abolition of the IRS and for having 0 income tax, just a National Sales Tax, but that's another can of worms).

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 




All your doing is thinking with your own interests. The goverenment gives child credits to help parents in the difficult years. Think of it as investing in future taxpayers if your brain can't comprehend the concept.

The National Sales Tax concepts puts more burden on poor people, again you are selfishly only thinking of yourself. Consumption taxes are all regressive taxes.

What else do you have there, Deep Thoughts Zombie?
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago

All your doing is thinking with your own interests. The goverenment gives child credits to help parents in the difficult years. Think of it as investing in future taxpayers if your brain can't comprehend the concept.

The National Sales Tax concepts puts more burden on poor people, again you are selfishly only thinking of yourself. Consumption taxes are all regressive taxes.

What else do you have there, Deep Thoughts Zombie?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Actually, no. You don't tax food.

The other thing, the IRS knows everything about you. I believe in this concept called Privacy. You don't have it with the IRS. You have it with the National Sales Tax.

It also gets rich folk and corporations to pay taxes. For example, GE not only didn't pay taxes, they got money back from us taxpayers. I'm assuming that pisses you off. It should. It pisses me off.

I used to be a shareholder of Berkshire-Hathaway. Old What's His Name was bitching in the yearly shareholders report that his company paid 16% of ALL corporate taxes in the United States of America. You cannot convince me that BH made anywhere even close to 16% of all American corporate taxes. Not even close. It's because other corporations are not paying their taxes.

With a National Sales Tax, everyone pays, including corporations with tricky accountants and drug dealers.

Poor folk won't notice much of a difference.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (31m) : Jets have named Chris Banjo as their special teams coordinator, Former Packers player
Zero2Cool (8h) : Jaguars have hired Anthony Campanile as their DC. We lose coach
Zero2Cool (30-Jan) : QB coach Sean Mannion
Zero2Cool (30-Jan) : DL Coach DeMarcus Covington
dfosterf (30-Jan) : from ft Belvoir, Quantico and points south. Somber reminder of this tragedy at Reagan Nat Airport
dfosterf (30-Jan) : So eerily quiet here in Alexandria. I live in the flight path of commercial craft coming from the south and west, plus the military craft
dfosterf (30-Jan) : So eeri
Mucky Tundra (30-Jan) : Now that's a thought, maybe they're looking at the college ranks? Maybe not head coaches but DC/assistant DCs with league experience?
beast (30-Jan) : College Coaches wouldn't want that publicly, as it would hurt recruiting and they might not get the job.
beast (30-Jan) : I thought they were supposed to publicly announce them, at least the NFL ones. Hafley was from college, so I believe different rules.
Mucky Tundra (30-Jan) : Who knows who they're interviewing? I mean, nobody knew about Hafley and then out of nowhere he was hired
beast (30-Jan) : I wonder what's taking so long with hiring a DL coach, 2 of the 3 known to interview have already been hired elsewhere.
Zero2Cool (27-Jan) : Packers coach Matt LaFleur hires Luke Getsy as senior assistant, extends Rich Bisaccia's deal
Zero2Cool (27-Jan) : Chiefs again huh? I guess another Super Bowl I'll be finding something else to do.
Mucky Tundra (27-Jan) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
dfosterf (27-Jan) : Happy Birthday Dave!
Mucky Tundra (27-Jan) : happy birthday dhazer
TheKanataThrilla (26-Jan) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
buckeyepackfan (26-Jan) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
buckeyepackfan (26-Jan) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
buckeyepackfan (26-Jan) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : well, he was
TheKanataThrilla (26-Jan) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
Mucky Tundra (26-Jan) : I think this games over
beast (26-Jan) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (26-Jan) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (26-Jan) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (26-Jan) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

30-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

30-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

29-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

27-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.