The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One thing that really astonishes me is the number of people who sleep around in the world today. For those of us among us who believe in the Bibile, sex outside marriage is forbidden, yet so many people, religeous and otherwise, see it their duty to have multiple sexual partners. Its only a symbol of social standing in some places in AFRICA. How can we call ourselves the civilised world when we see fit to stick our john thomas in every place we can think of. Its level with the animals, and even some of them have the decency to confine themselves to one partner. (i.e. swans)
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
>
> You know where to send the money.
The CSA.
>
> You know where to send the money.
The CSA.
Fozz wrote:
> I think she right about that FFF, pretty much everyone I know has had
> (or is planning to have) more than 1 sexual partner, so I think its
> pretty fair to stereotype the population like that. Id like to know
> the actualy percentage of us who arent heading down that road.
I was talking to you.
duh.
> I think she right about that FFF, pretty much everyone I know has had
> (or is planning to have) more than 1 sexual partner, so I think its
> pretty fair to stereotype the population like that. Id like to know
> the actualy percentage of us who arent heading down that road.
I was talking to you.
duh.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Fozz wrote:
> I think she right about that FFF, pretty much everyone I know has
> had
> (or is planning to have) more than 1 sexual partner, so I think its
> pretty fair to stereotype the population like that. Id like to know
> the actualy percentage of us who arent heading down that road.
>
> I was talking to you.
> duh.
riiight. If you say that out in the middle of nowhere how do you expect someone to know what youre talking about? Im guessing that the stereotype is about casual sex, which is a fair one to make considering the number of people who are doing that, especially young people. Which is pretty much whtat I said up there.
> Fozz wrote:
> I think she right about that FFF, pretty much everyone I know has
> had
> (or is planning to have) more than 1 sexual partner, so I think its
> pretty fair to stereotype the population like that. Id like to know
> the actualy percentage of us who arent heading down that road.
>
> I was talking to you.
> duh.
riiight. If you say that out in the middle of nowhere how do you expect someone to know what youre talking about? Im guessing that the stereotype is about casual sex, which is a fair one to make considering the number of people who are doing that, especially young people. Which is pretty much whtat I said up there.
i must say, you guys certainly don't make a very good first impression lol. i'm new to this site.. and i think the way some of you treat each other is revolting. Can't you accept the fact that people will have differing opinions? All of you who are persecuting people for their beliefs are being so hypocritical. Telling Fozz, for example, that he is trying to tell you what to believe, and then being completely close-minded towards any opinion he states. That's rubbish, and if any of you stepped back to see what you were doing, you would laugh at what complete fools you're making of yourselves.
i'm not even going to get involved in the topic, and i'm probably not even going to post again. but fozz and soul101, i've got your backs lol. don't let these guys tell you to keep your opinions to yourselves. You weren't forcing your thoughts on anyone.. they chose to read it. IF they don't like it.. they don't have to read it! ... lol. not that you could really know that you didn't like it before you read it. but that's beside the point lol. everyone has the right to their own opinion. remember that, and don't tell other people not to tell you what they think. you don't have to listen, but they have every right to speak.
i'm not even going to get involved in the topic, and i'm probably not even going to post again. but fozz and soul101, i've got your backs lol. don't let these guys tell you to keep your opinions to yourselves. You weren't forcing your thoughts on anyone.. they chose to read it. IF they don't like it.. they don't have to read it! ... lol. not that you could really know that you didn't like it before you read it. but that's beside the point lol. everyone has the right to their own opinion. remember that, and don't tell other people not to tell you what they think. you don't have to listen, but they have every right to speak.
I think the difference was that Fozzo and Soulby seemed to be saying "This is the way I do things and it's wrong that people do different." wheras everyone else tended to be saying, "fair play to you, but why should we have to do something just because it worked for you?".
Anysway, I still want to see what they make of what I said...
Anysway, I still want to see what they make of what I said...
What la(x5) said.
What I said again! :-P
lalalalala wrote:
> Bilge
What is it with you Christian types assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically saying "You mustn't state your opinion at all"? That says more about the workings of your mind than anyone elses.
For the record, I'm merely disagreeing with what they say, NOT trying to force them not to say it. There is a difference, and might I suggest you engage your brain and learn it?
"I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
> Bilge
What is it with you Christian types assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically saying "You mustn't state your opinion at all"? That says more about the workings of your mind than anyone elses.
For the record, I'm merely disagreeing with what they say, NOT trying to force them not to say it. There is a difference, and might I suggest you engage your brain and learn it?
"I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
Fozz wrote:
>
> lol. ok not blame, attribute. My harsh choice of words was unfounded.
> I agree that equality was a good thing I just dont think it has
> anything to do woth sex.
>
Fair enough. However, bearing in mind how church influence in the western world declined at about the same time as female emancipation and women's lib arrived, I kinda do.
> Im afraid Im no expert on history, but as far as the amount of people
> having premarital sex and sleeping round, it hasnt changed much. As
> far as homosexuality, Ireland is sometimes seen as becoming a
> homosexual society, people have freedom to be gay in most countries
> now. The only thing that changed in that respect is the conduct of
> the church and state over the issue. (GO GAY BISHOP!) Isnt this
> somewhat off topic? Speaking of chuch approved relationships what
> about all these 'clerical abuse'rs. If thats not approved
> homosexuality I dont know what is. The church does NOTHING about it.
> Richard the Lionheart? thats news to me. Dont forget the good old
> Oscar Wilde.
That begs the obvious question; if you don't know much about history, how can you state so confidently that the numbers of people having premarital sex and sleeping around hasn't changed much through the ages? Where are you getting your info from?
>
> "Ri-ight...so are you saying that the Church, with it's power
> to excommunicate and thus condemn a person (or an entire nation) to
> hell, didn't really figure in the lives of everyday people?
> So...what, people used to believe in sex only after marriage and the
> church happened to codify that? And then, one day, people decided to
> start rutting before marriage?" Again all Im saying is
> refering to the amount of people having sex before marriage. Its not
> like all of a sudden, and the newly baptised Romans stopped having
> sex outside of marriage. It was part of their culture, whether they
> liked it or not.
Again, how do you know this if you don't know much about the history of both the church and of Europe as a whole?
>
> "Well, no not necessarily. You're assuming that sex was the
> only doctrinal reason for the many and varied splits in the church.
> The Orthodox church split because of an argument over the primacy of
> the pope. In fact, that's the main reason for most of the splits. The
> sex and prudishness tends to stay in any church because, like any
> good totalitarian group, they want to control their followers.
> " Actually no Im not assuming that, but as premarital sex is
> such a big issue, with pretty much everyone doing it, I think its
> about time the church split. Whats the point of going to mass every
> sunday (or whatever religeous rituals your religeon may perform if
> any) reaffirm your faith and state your beliefs as those of the
> church when in fact theyre not? Its lying to yourself and to God.
That's fair enough. But why do you think God cares what you do, so long as you've not violated your own code of ethics?
>
> "As to the dismissal of sex as being about just fun (if you
> believe in sex before marriage) or being somehow better if you wait
> until after marriage...wow; how incredibly insulting to everyone who
> has had sex prior to getting married. Are you suggesting that their
> relationships aren't as good as someone who waited until after
> marriage?" OH...very sneaky. Im proud of you. I wasnt at ALL
> saying that (cough) All Im was saying is that I personally get much
> more enjoyment out of life this way. Every relationship is unique.
> You cant measure them on any scale. Id like to see more people
> consider it as an option, and I want people to know that not
> everyobdy wants to have sex before marriage.
Fair enough. But nor does everyone who does have sex before marriage consider it a pleasure without meaning. You'd do well to remember that.
>
> "I'm not. I'm lecturing you about bragging that you've had no
> sexual partners, and how that seems to make you a better person.
> What, don't you like criticism? " I never accused you of
> anything, but it does happen. I never meant to point it at you, sorry
> if it seemed like I did. Sure, I like criticism, it gives me more to
> write about.
Okay, fair enough. My own apologies for putting you on the defensive.
> Again, you assumed I didnt like you replying. Youre a great debater,
> its fun.
Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee...
>
> "Bwahahahahaahahaaaaaa! Yeah, I definitely wish I'd avoided
> having deep, meaningful, dirty, enjoyable sex. God, it would have
> been dreadful..." So you find sex meaningful and deep?
> Interesting. So youre not arguing that sex is just 'fun' like a lot
> of people who post here?
Nope. I'm arguing that sex is whatever the 2 or more people invovled choose to make of it. It's not up to any external parties to tell them how it should or shouldn't be done. Unless, of course, that's what gets them off and they've paid for that to be done. In which case, fine.
>
> "think you're posting this topic for the exact reasons you
> mention; you want to identify yourself as someone who doesn't
> "follow the crowd". Most people your age just wear black T
> shirts to achieve that effect. But whatever makes you feel special,
> well you knock yourself out." lol. I used to wear pretty
> much nothing but black or dark blue. (sigh) those were the days.
Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting line I've read in a while.
>
> "If you were just inviting comments about sex before and
> after marriage, then I wouldn't be accusing you of being a preachy,
> self important teenager who wants the world to see just what an
> individual he is." I really dont care what the world thinks,
> you should see my hair.. All Im saying is consider it, not every
> single person in the world wants or does have casual sex.
Yeah, I know. And I'm saying that neither does everyone want to wait until marriage. Whatever people want to do, then that's what they should do.
>
> "Well, bully for you. I'm detecting a huge amount of
> resentment toward people who do brag about their sexual conquests.
> Did it ever occur to you that they might be...well, lying in order to
> look impressive?" Yes, of course, thats part of the problem.
> Why would I want to know what they did, or thought they did with some
> person I dont know? And its not even impressive. Ive had people brag
> to me about getting a handjob. You dont even need another person to
> do that. lol.
The point I'm driving at is why do you care what braggadocios say? They want to make themselves out to be a walking orgasmotron? Well...why shouldn't they? Why are you even giving them the steam from your urine?
>
> "Also, you do know it's possible to have sex before marriage
> WITHOUT turning into 'Hormono - Scourge of Virgins and Taker of
> Hymens', right? You seem to view this as either one extreme or the
> other" If you read my earlier posts you'll see I dont have
> as much a problem with pre marital sex as I do with casual sex. Most
> of the time Im talking about casual sex. Keep that in mind.
And the problem with casual sex is....? You don't want to indulge in it, well fine. Are you saying that anyone who does is not enjoying it really? Can't you appreciate that people have different opinions toward casual sex, and imposing any one opinion on others is control freakery of Catholic proportions?
>
> "And again, good for you. I don't care if you wait, or if you
> shove your meaty wand into every magic hole that takes your fancy.
> Really; whatever gets you through the night is A-ok (although trying
> to brag about and prove your masculinity via the internet is somewhat
> counter-productive). I'm fully aware that you don't WANT to get some
> random sexual partner. Are you fully aware that some people don't
> WANT to wait until after marriage because a 1,500 year old book told
> them to?" Whos bragging? I actually dont know if I COULD
> wait indefinitely for 'the one', but having found them makes it a lot
> easier.
Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about waiting until after marriage for sex?
I'll ask again though; You do know some people don't want to wait until after marriage, and that just because they don't it doesn't make them less of a person, right?
>
>
> "Hmm...I do find myself agreeing with that to an extent. I'd
> go further; religions have no right to tell anyone what to do. And
> yet here you are, telling me that because I don't follow your
> approach, I must be some kind soulless and empty man for whom sex has
> no meaning. ("ever active chomp bar"? Wha...?). Also, when
> does "guiding (and) pointing out wrong doing" turn into
> "Telling someone what to do"?" Where was I telling
> you that? All I said was that those of us who decide to wait
> generally find more meaning in sex. People have posted in here saying
> that sex is just fun. The chomp bar, well..I was running out of
> phrases for PENIS. AS for guidance, if people believe that,
> say, premarital sex is wrong, but find themselves tempted, then they
> can get guidance, or if they arent sure whether something is a sin,
> like goat slaughtering, I dunno.
How do you know that people who wait generally find more meaning in sex? You've drawn things in black and white here; those like yourself, and those who shag their way round the accomodating folk of their village. It might be your experience that those who wait generally find more meaning in sex, but couldn't that just as easily be said to be because you talk about it so much cos you're not having it? I'm being completely serious when I say that I find it incredibly insulting that you dismiss those who have pre-marital sex as less likely to find meaning in it.
>
> "But that said, do you follow the other religious tenets I
> outlined, or not? Cos if not, aren't you picking and choosing the
> points of your faith you choose to follow?" Not really, I
> havent joined any one faither yet, I know SOME things I
> agree/disagree with but not enough to focus on any one faith I think
> suits me best. Do you think there is one true faith, or its all just
> whatever suits you best?
I think faith is entirely a personal matter. If people stick to the dictates of their conscience, then that's fine by me. When an organisation tries to tell someone that their faith is wrong, then it stops being about religion and starts being about control.
Anyway, the point I was driving at is that using the Bible to justify a belief that one is somehow a better person for waiting until after marriage to have sex is not a good argument when one ignores other parts of the Bible. This isn't a dig at you, but I've noticed that fundamentalists who claim to follow the literal word of the Bible generally don't know it in as much detail as they think, and are happy to follow their own interpretations of the Bible whilst simoultaneously pretending that they're still only following the exact literal word. And, speaking personally, I'd like to boil those people in white hot faecal pustules.
>
> lol. ok not blame, attribute. My harsh choice of words was unfounded.
> I agree that equality was a good thing I just dont think it has
> anything to do woth sex.
>
Fair enough. However, bearing in mind how church influence in the western world declined at about the same time as female emancipation and women's lib arrived, I kinda do.
> Im afraid Im no expert on history, but as far as the amount of people
> having premarital sex and sleeping round, it hasnt changed much. As
> far as homosexuality, Ireland is sometimes seen as becoming a
> homosexual society, people have freedom to be gay in most countries
> now. The only thing that changed in that respect is the conduct of
> the church and state over the issue. (GO GAY BISHOP!) Isnt this
> somewhat off topic? Speaking of chuch approved relationships what
> about all these 'clerical abuse'rs. If thats not approved
> homosexuality I dont know what is. The church does NOTHING about it.
> Richard the Lionheart? thats news to me. Dont forget the good old
> Oscar Wilde.
That begs the obvious question; if you don't know much about history, how can you state so confidently that the numbers of people having premarital sex and sleeping around hasn't changed much through the ages? Where are you getting your info from?
>
> "Ri-ight...so are you saying that the Church, with it's power
> to excommunicate and thus condemn a person (or an entire nation) to
> hell, didn't really figure in the lives of everyday people?
> So...what, people used to believe in sex only after marriage and the
> church happened to codify that? And then, one day, people decided to
> start rutting before marriage?" Again all Im saying is
> refering to the amount of people having sex before marriage. Its not
> like all of a sudden, and the newly baptised Romans stopped having
> sex outside of marriage. It was part of their culture, whether they
> liked it or not.
Again, how do you know this if you don't know much about the history of both the church and of Europe as a whole?
>
> "Well, no not necessarily. You're assuming that sex was the
> only doctrinal reason for the many and varied splits in the church.
> The Orthodox church split because of an argument over the primacy of
> the pope. In fact, that's the main reason for most of the splits. The
> sex and prudishness tends to stay in any church because, like any
> good totalitarian group, they want to control their followers.
> " Actually no Im not assuming that, but as premarital sex is
> such a big issue, with pretty much everyone doing it, I think its
> about time the church split. Whats the point of going to mass every
> sunday (or whatever religeous rituals your religeon may perform if
> any) reaffirm your faith and state your beliefs as those of the
> church when in fact theyre not? Its lying to yourself and to God.
That's fair enough. But why do you think God cares what you do, so long as you've not violated your own code of ethics?
>
> "As to the dismissal of sex as being about just fun (if you
> believe in sex before marriage) or being somehow better if you wait
> until after marriage...wow; how incredibly insulting to everyone who
> has had sex prior to getting married. Are you suggesting that their
> relationships aren't as good as someone who waited until after
> marriage?" OH...very sneaky. Im proud of you. I wasnt at ALL
> saying that (cough) All Im was saying is that I personally get much
> more enjoyment out of life this way. Every relationship is unique.
> You cant measure them on any scale. Id like to see more people
> consider it as an option, and I want people to know that not
> everyobdy wants to have sex before marriage.
Fair enough. But nor does everyone who does have sex before marriage consider it a pleasure without meaning. You'd do well to remember that.
>
> "I'm not. I'm lecturing you about bragging that you've had no
> sexual partners, and how that seems to make you a better person.
> What, don't you like criticism? " I never accused you of
> anything, but it does happen. I never meant to point it at you, sorry
> if it seemed like I did. Sure, I like criticism, it gives me more to
> write about.
Okay, fair enough. My own apologies for putting you on the defensive.
> Again, you assumed I didnt like you replying. Youre a great debater,
> its fun.
Ah, sweet flattery how I live for thee...
>
> "Bwahahahahaahahaaaaaa! Yeah, I definitely wish I'd avoided
> having deep, meaningful, dirty, enjoyable sex. God, it would have
> been dreadful..." So you find sex meaningful and deep?
> Interesting. So youre not arguing that sex is just 'fun' like a lot
> of people who post here?
Nope. I'm arguing that sex is whatever the 2 or more people invovled choose to make of it. It's not up to any external parties to tell them how it should or shouldn't be done. Unless, of course, that's what gets them off and they've paid for that to be done. In which case, fine.
>
> "think you're posting this topic for the exact reasons you
> mention; you want to identify yourself as someone who doesn't
> "follow the crowd". Most people your age just wear black T
> shirts to achieve that effect. But whatever makes you feel special,
> well you knock yourself out." lol. I used to wear pretty
> much nothing but black or dark blue. (sigh) those were the days.
Heh. That's the most graceful reply to an obvious baiting line I've read in a while.
>
> "If you were just inviting comments about sex before and
> after marriage, then I wouldn't be accusing you of being a preachy,
> self important teenager who wants the world to see just what an
> individual he is." I really dont care what the world thinks,
> you should see my hair.. All Im saying is consider it, not every
> single person in the world wants or does have casual sex.
Yeah, I know. And I'm saying that neither does everyone want to wait until marriage. Whatever people want to do, then that's what they should do.
>
> "Well, bully for you. I'm detecting a huge amount of
> resentment toward people who do brag about their sexual conquests.
> Did it ever occur to you that they might be...well, lying in order to
> look impressive?" Yes, of course, thats part of the problem.
> Why would I want to know what they did, or thought they did with some
> person I dont know? And its not even impressive. Ive had people brag
> to me about getting a handjob. You dont even need another person to
> do that. lol.
The point I'm driving at is why do you care what braggadocios say? They want to make themselves out to be a walking orgasmotron? Well...why shouldn't they? Why are you even giving them the steam from your urine?
>
> "Also, you do know it's possible to have sex before marriage
> WITHOUT turning into 'Hormono - Scourge of Virgins and Taker of
> Hymens', right? You seem to view this as either one extreme or the
> other" If you read my earlier posts you'll see I dont have
> as much a problem with pre marital sex as I do with casual sex. Most
> of the time Im talking about casual sex. Keep that in mind.
And the problem with casual sex is....? You don't want to indulge in it, well fine. Are you saying that anyone who does is not enjoying it really? Can't you appreciate that people have different opinions toward casual sex, and imposing any one opinion on others is control freakery of Catholic proportions?
>
> "And again, good for you. I don't care if you wait, or if you
> shove your meaty wand into every magic hole that takes your fancy.
> Really; whatever gets you through the night is A-ok (although trying
> to brag about and prove your masculinity via the internet is somewhat
> counter-productive). I'm fully aware that you don't WANT to get some
> random sexual partner. Are you fully aware that some people don't
> WANT to wait until after marriage because a 1,500 year old book told
> them to?" Whos bragging? I actually dont know if I COULD
> wait indefinitely for 'the one', but having found them makes it a lot
> easier.
Who's bragging? Heh; who posted a topic specifically about waiting until after marriage for sex?
I'll ask again though; You do know some people don't want to wait until after marriage, and that just because they don't it doesn't make them less of a person, right?
>
>
> "Hmm...I do find myself agreeing with that to an extent. I'd
> go further; religions have no right to tell anyone what to do. And
> yet here you are, telling me that because I don't follow your
> approach, I must be some kind soulless and empty man for whom sex has
> no meaning. ("ever active chomp bar"? Wha...?). Also, when
> does "guiding (and) pointing out wrong doing" turn into
> "Telling someone what to do"?" Where was I telling
> you that? All I said was that those of us who decide to wait
> generally find more meaning in sex. People have posted in here saying
> that sex is just fun. The chomp bar, well..I was running out of
> phrases for PENIS. AS for guidance, if people believe that,
> say, premarital sex is wrong, but find themselves tempted, then they
> can get guidance, or if they arent sure whether something is a sin,
> like goat slaughtering, I dunno.
How do you know that people who wait generally find more meaning in sex? You've drawn things in black and white here; those like yourself, and those who shag their way round the accomodating folk of their village. It might be your experience that those who wait generally find more meaning in sex, but couldn't that just as easily be said to be because you talk about it so much cos you're not having it? I'm being completely serious when I say that I find it incredibly insulting that you dismiss those who have pre-marital sex as less likely to find meaning in it.
>
> "But that said, do you follow the other religious tenets I
> outlined, or not? Cos if not, aren't you picking and choosing the
> points of your faith you choose to follow?" Not really, I
> havent joined any one faither yet, I know SOME things I
> agree/disagree with but not enough to focus on any one faith I think
> suits me best. Do you think there is one true faith, or its all just
> whatever suits you best?
I think faith is entirely a personal matter. If people stick to the dictates of their conscience, then that's fine by me. When an organisation tries to tell someone that their faith is wrong, then it stops being about religion and starts being about control.
Anyway, the point I was driving at is that using the Bible to justify a belief that one is somehow a better person for waiting until after marriage to have sex is not a good argument when one ignores other parts of the Bible. This isn't a dig at you, but I've noticed that fundamentalists who claim to follow the literal word of the Bible generally don't know it in as much detail as they think, and are happy to follow their own interpretations of the Bible whilst simoultaneously pretending that they're still only following the exact literal word. And, speaking personally, I'd like to boil those people in white hot faecal pustules.
.. are you tired after all that Light? :)
Page: