Posts by garyneal

7

not going to school

by Sabin in

i don't know if it is the same where you are but where i live it is a common practise of jdub`s to withdraw their kid`s from school at about year 8 even younger in some cases.

they say they are being home schooled & of cause they do cover a certain amount of school topics.

don't get me wrong i`m not saying that it is wrong to home school a youngster, especially if they are being bullied or suffering in some way, but the jdub`s don't do it for this purpose, oh no their kid`s are out on the field service during what would be school hours.

garyneal

I do not know too many witnesses who home school. Of course, I do not know too many witnesses outside my wife's family, a couple of cousins of my mom, some former Wal-mart coworkers, a friend, and some members of my wife's congregation. I just never hear her talk about homeschooling except in a negative way.

I do, however, know of some fundamentalist Christians who home school as well as an anti-vaxxer mom who I used to attend church (and is actually a somewhat liberal Christian) with recently who also home schools.

I find it odd that for so many witnesses who home school that the Watchtower does not provide some teaching materials for these home schoolers. I know fundamentalist Christians sure have their strictly Bible based educational sources.

72

Arctic Ice Increasing

by Perry in

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

garyneal

cappytan: My sentiments exactly.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

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.

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

jw
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..... .

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.