while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
Spectre: I don't even know how two women can make love.....unless they just sort of scissor.
Ah. And therein lies your answer. You don't know that making love is not something that requires one penis and one vagina for it to happen.
I see. You are love illerate. Love ignorant.
And, I might add, you have no imagination. Which I find odd, considering you base your understanding of the world on a fantasy book.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
Junction: I only use the King James Bible!
Ah. there ya go. We do have some common ground. I like the KJV too. Because it has unicorns in it. I really hate that the new bibbles took the unicorns out...
I really miss those unicorns.
:p
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
Junction: They came here so "we the people" could determine our own destiny as a nation instead of having power concentrated in the hands of a few.
Yeah, well...you can't escape history, can you?
Those "we the people" decided quite some time ago (okay...a while back but not that long), that the destiny of the nation was to respect and uphold the rights of a minority in the face of majority opposition.
...it stands against everything I hold dear--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc etc.
You just shot yourself in the foot with that statement. Those principles are exactly the principles that legalizing gay marriage is based upon - the right of the minority. Without that right, your freedom of speech and freedom of religion would be flushed down the toilet.
It does NOT stand against everything you hold dear - it is because of what you hold dear that this ruling came about.
while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.
but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.
five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
Rattigan: Five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.
That isn't what happened.
You speak of "amendments". Those "five unelected federal officials" made their decision based upon the First Amendment which protects the rights of minorities. Surely you must remember that one...we have the WTS to thank for that.
Look it up - a SOTUS ruling...I think it is the Barnette case. It is the case that the "policy" you speak of rests upon.
I don't think you understand the democratic structure.
newcastle heraldchild sex abuse inquiry hears 4000th testimonyby joanne mccarthy sept. 10, 2015, 10:30 p.mthe royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse held its 4000th private hearing in a jail in august as britain followed australias lead in tackling child sexual abuse.the royal commission heard evidence on august 19 from a prisoner who had been sexually abused as a child.in britain, the head of its newly established independent inquiry into child sexual abuse praised the remarkable response to the australian commission.in a speech to australian church leaders on thursday, royal commissioner justice peter mcclellan said he was pleased the british inquiry would closely follow successful australian arrangements.more than 1500 people were waiting for a private hearing and about 40 people a week requested a private hearing, justice mcclellan said.the royal commission has received 16,361 allegations involving 3566 institutions since it was established in november 2012 following the newcastle heralds shine the light campaign for a royal commission into historic child sexual abuse.more than 7000 allegations relate to religious institutions, with 4418 against the catholic church, and more than 3600 against government institutions.allegations against other churches are: anglican, 871; uniting church, 411; presbyterian, 123; methodist, 69; salvation army, 519; jehovahs witnesses, 137; jewish, 80; baptist, 59; seventh day adventist, 56; australian christian churches, 50; lutheran, 32; brethren, 30; mormon, 18; coptic orthodox, 4; and greek orthodox, 2.justice mcclellan said the royal commission had referred 727 matters to police to investigate with a view to prosecuting alleged offenders.in the past few weeks, the royal commission had reported to the federal government on a national redress scheme for victims of abuse.it was clear that time limits presented a considerable, and sometimes an insurmountable, burden for survivors wishing to commence civil proceedings against child sex offenders and institutions, he said.the royal commission should also mark the end of the societal norm that children should be seen but not heard, he said.when the required silence of the child was accompanied by an unquestioning belief by adults in the integrity of the carer ... the power imbalance was entrenched to the inevitable detriment of many children, justice mcclellan said.we must ensure that in the future the institution does not silence the child.
username: If the government are trying to suppress child abuse allegations made against their own MP's ,
Username, I don't think that Australian MPs had child abuse allegations made against them. There were government institutions investigated and allegations made against employees of those institutions, but nowhere have I read that allegations against MPs were covered up.
*full article and video at link.
gold coast mcdonalds shooting: victim had left abusive husband.
stephen lock was a controlling and abusive husband who turned to drugs to try to level his volatile moods.. his wife karina, 49, was a devout jehovahs witness who, for religious reasons, stayed with him until she could take it no more.. friends of the couple have revealed details of their tumultuous relationship, which ended tragically in gunfire at a mcdonalds restaurant yesterday morning..
SecretSlaveClass: ...I hope he meets a violent end.
He is dead. Shot himself and died in hospital. Maybe the hospital had a shortage of pain medication...maybe...I hope so. It would be a shame if he was unconscious through it all.
The man who allegedly shot his estranged wife dead inside a Gold Coast McDonald's before turning the gun on himself has died.
A day after the tragedy, Stephen Lock, 57, died at Gold Coast University Hospital on Friday morning, a Queensland Police statement confirmed.
question 1 comes and the speaker asks for their response..they all yell no!.
what would happen then?.
neat blue dog: ... All candidates are removed from being publishers within the week, and the story gets embellished and turned in to a JW urban legend.
There will be a story told at the conventions about the one and only faithful and true dear sister who stepped forth and said "Yes!!!" That one trembling poor child who had the courage to brave all those evil ones and stand out from the crowd and pledge allegiance to jw..org.
What an inspiring story it will be. :p
i may take my fiance to a meeting.
give them fake names and just see how my fiance reacts.
he's been curious about seeing what i hated so much about the whole thing (not that he'll really understand everything, i mean of course he never will to my extent but)... i'd like to see what an outsiders view on the whole thing would be as well.
I admire you One Step. I have never done what you describe. All two of my appearances at a KH in the past 40+ years have been as the "bad sister who rejected jehovah". No chance of any undercover fun there.
You will be like an anthropologist, studying a primitive culture. An undercover anthrolpogist. I look forward to your report.
:)
over time a number of different 'classes' of members have arisen on this forum.
1] apple watch watchers - this group takes a great interest in watches worn by members of the governing body.
2] cult escape consultants - one who freely offers advise on how to flee from a cult - mainly the wt society.
NewYork44:
SNICKERING DOG CLASS--This class is currently limited to one person who makes irreverent, hilarious posts.
Perhaps we should set up a special folder for this class. I hope I have not missed these threads. Being a part of the look-y-loo class, these are the kinds of posts we crave.
Oh, that wouldn't work. That dawg is off leash. He wanders all over the place. You just have to watch for him.
check his signature... it looks kind of childish/feminine (at least in my part of the world)... is this a grown man's signature for you?.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=9d0ca1dc-1bd6-41c4-9cfc-b1d616d1cc65&type=exhibit&filename=stat.0670.001.0001&fileextension=pdf.
Rebel8, I had almost exactly the same reaction and thoughts that you describe.
Yes. An odd signature. It looks like my daughter's signature when she was in grade three. Complete with the funny little "signature" oddity - the wierd way of connecting the intials and making an odd "J". Adding just a little bit of embellishment - trying to personalize the letters. Exactly like a developing child would do - at an early age.
Men of education don't have time to produce a signature like that - they have done a lot of real writing in their careers. They have learned to drop off shapes of letters or even sign with a scribble. They are less self absorbed and don't bother with meticulously forming the letters like Jackson did.
