garyneal

Joined

• started 148 topics
• posted 3,729 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by garyneal

• 
  72

  Arctic Ice Increasing

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice the last three years.

  red shows the september 2012 minimum extent.

  green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. the arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.. article.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  According to the bible, after the thousand years, the earth will have four corners again,

  Just thousands? Doesn't that suggest that the Earth should have its corners now?
• 
  72

  Arctic Ice Increasing

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice the last three years.

  red shows the september 2012 minimum extent.

  green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. the arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.. article.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  Perry, you did not answer my question on another thread you started. Are you still an Independent Fundamental Baptist?
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  For that reason, marriage became a secular contract between two people and the government.

  It is that last part that makes me bristle. It is like two people are in essence, marrying each other and the government. I know couples don't see it this way but that wording does suggest it.

  People can still "get married" without the government. The rise of cohabiting couples who have children and pretty much carry on in every way as if they are married minus the marriage license is proof of that. Two people can commit to each other in "marriage" without any religious or secular ceremonies. Two people can decide to have a ceremony in either a religious or a secular context.

  The rest is just property and legal obligations that the partners agree to privately and that can easily be handled under a separate legally binding contract similar to a business partnership. In case of a later contract dispute, that can be handled in civil court just as other contract disputes are handled now. For those who think that drawing up contracts detract from romantic view of marriage, a simple template that simply says something like upon dissolving of the contract (ie divorce) joint assets are split 50-50 and both parents are awarded automatic joint custody of the kids unless one partner is a significant threat to the kids.

  In short, I just don't see how a marriage should be a contract between both partners and the state.
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  Removing government from marriage business in secular society is impossible and undesirable.

  Forgive me kaik but I am not sure how it is impossible and undesirable. If two (or more) people decide to enter into a contract akin to a "marriage" why does the state need to be involved? What associated benefits would incur? How about the ability to file a joint tax return, is that a benefit? If so, then why do we need that? Can't the parties file separately?

  Tax purposes? Census Data? Why?

  Alimony, inheritance? Can't these also be spelled out in the contract? Why do we need the state for that?

  Benefits? You mean like domestic partner(s) benefits? Doesn't some private insurers and employers already extend benefits for domestic partners? I know not all do but more and more do.
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  Since no one addressed the concerns of getting government out of marriage, I will give my two cents on the topic. Viviane, feel free to spew hate or vitriol at me if you disagree.

  I think it absolutely is the business of government to ensure that all people are given the rights they are entitled to.

  Yes, but if government IE the state is not involved in the institution of marriage and instead protects the freedoms of individuals to marry who they want then it is indeed doing the job of ensuring rights people are entitled to. Now, having said that I suppose it would only be fair to limit marriage to two (or more) consenting adults.

  By saying that government should stay out of it, the default position for that is...what? that religion should concern themselves with the legalities of marriage?

  Marriage would be little more than a contract between two (or more) consenting adults. The contract would spell out mostly the financial obligations as well as child custody in the event the marriage contract is dissolved. It would be enforced the same way any other contract is enforced.

  As far as the religious ceremony, that would be up to the adherents of said religion. If a Catholic wishes to be "married" in a Catholic church then of course he or she should adhere to the church's teachings. However, that is for the individual to decide and has no bearing on the marriage contract that the partners enter into voluntarily.

  If it isn't the business of government...then tell me, whose business is it? Who is going to stand up for the rights of the minority??

  How would the minority have their rights trampled on given this arrangement?

  Who would decide child custody cases and divorce disputes over property?

  This is spelled out in the contract and enforced like any other contract.
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  For instance, we can't make you less judgemental or ignorant.

  Exhibit A, Miss Viviane. Can you be any less hateful or vitriolic?
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  cappytan: My sentiments exactly.
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  OrphanCrow:

  Challenged, yes. I do agree that those should be challenged. I just see it devolve into mudslinging from some of the posters.

  My opinions are mixed and while I am happy gays are now able to marry I find the way it went about becoming 'law' troubling. I guess the messiness of our system I suppose. I do see some valid points from the dissenters concerning the way this right was extended to all, that's all.

  Carry on...
• 
  18

  Anyone miss "Scholar" who used to post here? Found him!

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ...in the jwtalk thread covering the september broadcast re: "generation".. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/22665-september-broadcast/page-5.

  poor neil, he comes on this forum, he gets hammered.. goes on the virulently pro-jw forum, gets hammered.. you'd almost think he was a troll.....no, couldn't be..... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  peper eliot said:

  So, if brother Sanderson was anointed in 2000, even if he was baptized in 1975, he couldn't be a part of " this generation "

  ---

  ...and the cracks are beginning to appear.
• 
  18

  Anyone miss "Scholar" who used to post here? Found him!

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ...in the jwtalk thread covering the september broadcast re: "generation".. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/22665-september-broadcast/page-5.

  poor neil, he comes on this forum, he gets hammered.. goes on the virulently pro-jw forum, gets hammered.. you'd almost think he was a troll.....no, couldn't be..... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  garyneal

  JP Cook said:

  No Neil, we're not going back to 1927! What Br. Splane explained about the Generation goes hand in hand with what is explained in the book "God's Kingdom Rules" on page 12. The graph is pretty clear. It is really a very simple concept. I think the reason folks have trouble with it is because they are reading too much in to it! If one is anointed before 1914 and saw the events at that time, as Br Franz did, they are part of the generation, then, those anointed after 1914 seeing these events occur, are still part of the generation. Using the example Br Splane used, any that were anointed and saw the events after 1914 while Br Franz was still alive are part of his (Br Franz) generation... those anointed before Br Franz died continue that generation even after Br Franz died. Any that were anointed after Br Franz death were not part of that generation.

  ----

  This poor guy is defending the indefensible. His last statement will later stumble him when the generation teaching gets changed again which is inevitable. I almost feel sorry for people who try so hard to rationalize bull shit.