Posts by jstalin

4

Zeus v Jehovah

by jstalin in

why should i believe in jehovah, but not zeus?.

.

discuss..

jstalin

Why should I believe in Jehovah, but not Zeus?

Discuss.

13

Incorporated Churches

by golf2 in

jw
friends

has anyone done research on incorporated churches?

if jesus were alive today, would he be incorporated?

golf

As a practical matter, incorporation is a necessity in today's legal environment. Otherwise, the leaders of the congregation can be held personally liable for things as simple as someone slipping and falling in the parking lot. I don't think I'd be on the board of an organization which isn't incorporated.

But, just out of curiousity, I looked up corporations in the Michigan with the word "jehovah" in them. As you can see, there are a lot of JW corporations.

http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/rs_corp.asp?s_button=sword&v_search=jehovah&hiddenField=&search=Search

26

Been to London today!!!

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

i haven't been to london in about 15 years.

i decided to take my kids for their first outing to see the sights.

i remember as a kid going with my mom and nan, we actually went inside the houses of parliament, went in the house of lords, up downing st, but now with the terrorist threats obviously all thats changed.. there is a definate difference in the security aspect of it, but not enough to take the shine off the experience.. we saw the changing of the guard at buckingham palace, the band playing were the ghurka regiment, something i have never seen before.

jstalin

On Downing St it has been gated since 1987

Strange, I swear I remember being able to see 10 Downing last time I was there....

26

Been to London today!!!

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

i haven't been to london in about 15 years.

i decided to take my kids for their first outing to see the sights.

i remember as a kid going with my mom and nan, we actually went inside the houses of parliament, went in the house of lords, up downing st, but now with the terrorist threats obviously all thats changed.. there is a definate difference in the security aspect of it, but not enough to take the shine off the experience.. we saw the changing of the guard at buckingham palace, the band playing were the ghurka regiment, something i have never seen before.

jstalin

I was just in London last month. I was disappointed that I couldn't walk up Downing street any more. The last time I was in London - maybe 7 or 8 years ago, I could at least see the PM's house. Being an American, the Pound is so much more expensive than it has been. Everything was extremely expensive for us. I was happy to see that London has cleaned up... a lot less graffiti than the last time I was there.

Then I went on to Paris. Anyone ever ride the Paris underground? Now THAT is disgusting.

27

Met an exJW when I was out Friday Night. His pain broke my heart.

by str8?so is spaghetti..until you heat it up in

jw
friends

i was out friday night with a few of the friends i have made since leaving jws behind, when lo and behold, it turns out that one of their boyfriends was an exjw too!

i was excited at first, as i had not yet met someone who was exjw and gay in the flesh until now.

however, my excitement was shortlived.

jstalin

I think i hurt for him more because he seems so lost. I am in pretty much the same position as he is, except a bit earlier on in the journey. I am gay, exjw, no family contact. I want him to feel the freedom i have. We exchanged details so we can stay in contact, but i worry for him. He even sounded a bit suicidal. I recommended he see a professional. But he has the JW mindset about therapy - what Jehobidoobie won't fix can't be fixed.

Sounds like he looks to you as a bit of an authority, since you were so "close" to jehoobie. Use that to your advantage and tell him your story. Explain why you left. That might help him to think about the situation.

280

California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage

by BenV in

jw
friends

just got this email!.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

ben (celebratin' with friends).

jstalin

It's about ALL the things society determines to be acceptable, Dude. "Gay marriage" (talk about a misnomer) is simply coming at the tail end of a society already well in decay. "Gay marriage" is not the cause of it...it's just a byproduct. The population in general has already been inundated by it, worn-down and, finally, insensitive to it. Excellent strategy, actually. It's not "right and good"...people are just sick of hearing about it. Joy of joys...you get to "marry" a male in California. Stupid old founding fathers. I anticipate that the real downside is yet future.

So, what's in decay about society? We're richer, healthier, and longer living than ever in human history.

63

Tight jeans back in style for men (Why does it look gay?)

by MsMcDucket in

i have to get use to this!.

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/yelle/video/x2oflu_exclu-yelle-acdg-tepr-remix-alterna_music.

jstalin

On the right guy, tight jeans look hot. On the wrong guy, they look super gay.

108

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor in

i've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".

i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.

the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

jstalin

I answered. What about policemen who sit at the desk? Should we remove their rights to use force? Rights are grantet for one to have ABILITY to perform some duties. If the rights are not granted they can't perform the duties! But if they do not USE their rights, it is their problem and problem of society. But this is exceptional state. Also couples who are unable to procreate are good for adoptation, as they still have the right model of society!

You're skipping the issue. A straight couple that is biologically incapable of reproducing is incapable of performing the duties you demand are the only qualification for marriage. Therefore they shouldn't be married. But then you change the argument to modeling something - not actually doing something. So should your hypothetical police officer be allowed to be a police officer if he is blind? He cannot then drive and arrest people, but I suppose he could model an arrest in a controlled environment. You are using circular logic and you just gave a counter-example for your own argument. So can someone be a police officer if they can only model police office behavior?

Teaching WHAT? What Values? Well it would be pain to ask for them to teach values which are agaisnt their own values. So what they can teach is THEIR values... but to whom... to THEIR children or to other children? So in general, they can teach values they believe in without cognitive dissonanse only if the values reflect their own... but their values generate family whcih can't produce humans biologicallhy, so their values produce society which dies out.

So you argument went from reproduction to teaching some undefined and fuzzy values. Are gay people incapable of teaching values? Which values are you ascribing to? Being honest? Not stealing? Treating other with respect? Respecting differences? Abiding by the golden rule?

Where do gay parents get their children? And what VALUES they teach? Do they teach values to create families which are able to born and carry and teach other children - society members? All what they can is higjact other children and teach them their values which they would not be tought should they grow in theri original family.
Anyone who teaches procreative values is better suited for teaching then one who teaches values which bear no fruit!

They get their children the same way straight parents do when they are incapable of having children. Adoption or surrogacy. Are you saying that simply having a gay parent or having gay people present in society will suddenly make straight people gay? That straight people will suddently not want to reproduce and teach their children?

And now we're talking about procreative values? Just what the heck kind of values are those? Do we need to teach people how to reproduce? How could humanity have evolved without language??!?!

See... that means that GAY society is only possible in high-tech society. But this high-tech society is possible only from low-tech society evolution. But only way how low-tech society gets to high-tech society is - procreation trhough traditional value. So GAY society can exist only if it parasites on STRIGHTS traditional value oriented society... Is it your values? Do you grant equal rights to cancer and to healthy organism?

What's high tech about surrogacy or adoption? Are straight couples who adopt parasites too?

Your hatred is starting to shine though. Now gay people are parasites!!

How do you define "harming anyone else"? What IS harming? If Cult leader takes YOUR children indoctrinates them in the way they GLADLY obey to this Cult Leader and gladly makes himself into slave... is it OK... as nobody is harming anyone. Both sides are very HAPPY!

I would define "taking" of a child as harm to his or her freedom and to the parent's rights of custody. That is harm. Wouldn't you define that as harm?

See... this is very bad argumentation as you will paint yourself into corner, where "Leave me alone coz your care is harming me" will make drugs legal! :) I feel good, and leeave me alone. How do you define "harm to anyone". If I feel offended - does it qualify as harm to me? If your target is society where nobody is being harmed, then your target is utopia in this world... And sometimes harm is for greater good! And sometime FEAR of Harm gets you to loose of your sick limb, which just falls off because of cancer! To cut out cancer is HARMFUL... To leave cancer... yes... nobody is harmed.. . for some time, while whole organism dies out.
As I told... gay-oriented society and marriage can exist only as parasitic form of society. If you remove traditional family and hig-tech technologies, gay-society will die out as will become sterile. OR it will be forced to enforce sex between opposite genders but now without love... wich would qualify as rape!

So gay-oriented society is what we are advocating? Hardly. Who said that? We just want a just society. You can be straight or gay. Doesn't matter to me. Allowing some people the same, equal rights, as others would not create a "gay-oriented" society. Far from it. No more than banning slavery created a "black-oriented" society, or allowing women to vote created a "women-oriented" society. Those expansion of freedoms and rights created a society oriented toward equality under the law.

And from there your argument simply degenerates into babble.....

108

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor in

i've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".

i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.

the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

jstalin

Now back to original topic. Marriage rights and benefits are granted to stright ppl so they COULD perform their duties for benefits of society... originally... reproduction of the same society. And reproduction is not only birth, but also education, teaching, sustaining the memeber while he is able to live by himself and integrate fully into society!

NOW... WHY Gays should have the same rights, if they can't performe the same duties? In the police case, WHY should I grant rights to use force for somebody who does not or is unable to perform duties of law enforcement?

But you didn't answer my original example - what about straight couples who cannot reproduce?

Are you saying that gay couples are incapable of teaching?

What about single parents? Are they incapable of teaching and nuturing? Why are single parents any more qualified than two loving gay parents? In fact, I think the argument could be made that two gay parents are better than a single parent.

The only duty of straight marriage that a gay couple cannot perform is biological reproduction with each other. Haven't you heard of adoption? Surrogacy? Every single other function of marriage can be performed by a gay couple. Marriage is about companionship too. Are gay people incapable of companionship?

Or are you arguing against gay marriage simply because you don't like it? Isn't part of a civil society the idea of alllowing people to engage in activities we don't like, as long as they aren't harming anyone else?

108

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor in

i've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".

i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.

the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.

jstalin

Shazard - from what I understand of your argument is that since gay people cannot reproduce, they should be denied the right to marry. However, as I'm sure you are aware, there are plenty of straight couples, married and unmarried, who do not have children, either because they cannot or because they simply don't want children. Should we then deny THEM the right to marry? Marriage is far more than just children. It is about sharing legal rights and responsibilities, independent of reproduction.

I don't really understand your argument about paying straight couples to have more children. How does gay marriage do anything to change whether or not people want children? Will it suddently make straight people not reproduce?

There are plenty of gay couples who have adopted children and are raising them just as a straight couple, or as single straight parents. However, many states (in the USA) don't recognize gay couples, so the legal rights to those children are denied to those couples. If the legally-adopting parent dies, the partner in the relationship runs the risk of losing custody because his or her rights are explicitly denied.

So far the arguments against gay marriage fall flat.