Let’s talk about the Bible where it says the exact same thing. Where it says the slaves, both women and men, are to be taken so long as they are foreigners. Let’s talk about where it says that where God’s people go ‘round the region slaughtering everything, that they are to help themselves to the women and the belongings.
But no one is pulling out the Bible to incriminate all Christians because that is stupid.
That’s because no Christians are pulling out the Bible and condoning it. There’s no consensus where Christians all agree that you should be able to go around raping. There aren’t groups of Christians bombing the unbeliever for Christ. You’re being disingenuous and you know it.
I’m sorry, did you say Christians aren’t bombing the unbeliever? To take that literally, there have been clinics bombed by Christian groups. To take it as an example, there are Christian groups like the WBC who protest at funerals of soldiers simply for following orders. There are Christians actively trying to take the rights of others away, or prevent them from ever getting the rights they didn’t have. The KKK? A Christian group. And all of these people cite the Bible for both their motivation and justification. And let’s just forget the ugly history of Christianity.
Get it together.
- Cory: This was beyond humiliating, this was.... agoobwa
- Alan: Agoobwa...?
- Cory: It was so horrible I had to make up a word for it.
liftlaughlust replied to your post “liftlaughlust replied to your post “I’m so fucking angry [[MOI was…”
So do you think a relationship between a 19 yr old and a 17 year old is appropriate based of those ages? Do you think that for teenagers, for example 13 & 17, that might be too much difference in age?
see that’s where the wavering line comes in.
I haven’t heard the word berk in years
so he’s british
liftlaughlust replied to your post “I’m so fucking angry [[MOR]I was not ready at age ten when someone…”
I understand where you’re coming from, but does that mean that you’re opposed to any discussion on the subject at all?
no, of course I’m open to discussing it. but when people suggest that anybody who hits puberty is clearly ready for sex, which is what this dude is doing, it pisses me off. your body goes through those changes according to your diet, your genes, your environment, your body type — like a million things. it’s so fucking primitive to rely on the body’s natural development for the signal to attack.
I believe that people younger than adult-age should be able to experiment with people of their own age group as much as they want, and also be able to talk about any iffy experiences they had openly — if there’s a 14-year-old guy and a girl for instance, and he says he doesn’t want to give her oral, and she climbs on his face and starts humping it, he should be able to go to someone and go like, “hey, she didn’t respect me when I told her no,” and then an adult can talk to her about how to respect boundaries. they should be some guidance with it, not just open ground, free-for-all, hey, you’re 9 and hit puberty, awesome, go have sex with this 40-year-old and get married and have kids! ((which incidentally happened with my grandmother))
your body doesn’t stop growing until you’re in your 20s, so you are an “adolescent” until then (which is what that dude is arguing, adolescents can have sex with adults because their bodies are ready and they have passed the “age of reason” — which he said was age 12, made that up, I looked it up to be between 6-8 years old, which is a terrible guideline to go off of)
I think the adult line at 18 makes sense mainly because that’s when most people graduate high school. I believe that line can waver up and down depending on someone’s maturity and progress within their age groups, but not by 5 years — more like two.