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
dfosterf (21h) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (23h) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (23h) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

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