Perry

Joined

• started 287 topics
• posted 5,495 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Perry

• 
  2

  UADNA - Is this a joke I missed?

  by Lari in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i havent been around lately so, what's the deal with this.

  the posts that "you will know when the time is right" are downright creepy.

  i'm hoping this is an inside joke i missed.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Perry

  Lari,

  Amazing is right. It really is on no concern at this point.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  42

  Homosexuality and Social Policy

  by Perry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

  unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

  i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Joel is absolutely correct in the need to present adolecents who might consider themselves to be gay the option of getting counseling and validation. Not, only do I not have a problem with this I think we do a disservice to society if we don't provide this. The suicide rate among adolesent gays is horrendous.

  This issue is unique because I know of no other where there is a definite overlapping of genetic/social precepts. Certainly there are militant gay groups who want to expand the gay world through various channels. Likewise, there are fundie groups who'd like to deny gays any rights. Both groups scare the hell out of me.

  Most people simply want to work things out fairly taking into consideration all ramifications. Ceretainly gay adoption is another issue to try and work out. All of the posts here have been excellent and have brought new things to my attention. I thank everyone immensely.

  But as yet, few of the comments have really addressed the individual rights/democratic issue, which is the main reason I posted this. So, just to sharpen the blade a bit, I'd like posters to answer this question specifically:

  What is your acceptable criteria for overturning the will of the majority in a democracy?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  28

  Firearms in USA

  by Haereticus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how common it is in usa that a jw has a legal firearms?

  i have no recollection of wtbs publications handling this matter specifically.

  of course general attitude towards firearms in usa is different from europe but so is also legislation.. it is just that once being a concsientious objector i cannot, even after almost 40 years, imagine myself having one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  I have been planning to give up my firearms for some time now.... when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  42

  Homosexuality and Social Policy

  by Perry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

  unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

  i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Again, everyone makes excellent observations. And if you read my posts carefully what I am really drawing attention too is how individual rights and democratic principles sometimes clash. It is definitely not about gay people per se.

  So far this discussion has gone far better than I expected. It would have been easy for each side to label the other with names like "homophobe" or "Are you sure you are not gay?" I've seen it turn out that way, and while much more sensational in the tradition of Jerry Springer, the real issues just get buried. Thanks for everyone staying focused.

  Just a short footnote before my rebuttal. I work in an industry where ther are lots of gays. The educational level is very high among those in the field regardless of sexual orientation. As, a result I have several gay friends. We share many commonalities and enjoy each others company a great deal. They have shared some of the struggles in the gay world we me and I'm glad they felt comfortable enough with me to share. I have shared similar struggles in the hetero world with them since I'm single. It's amusing because neither of us wishes to be in the other's shoes. Another gay friend I've had for many years drove several hundred miles to visit several months ago and we had a blast. That, with a background in sociology, has I believe, made me at least as aware of gay issues as the average American and possibly more. The comments indicating that for many, is not an easy lifestyle is an understatement.

  But, for those that wonder why this discussion is even brought up; it is because of its complexity, controversialness, genetic implications, social implications, and individual rights vs. rights of the majority. Personally, I have no agenda other than examining how something as complex as this as well as other tough questions plays out in a democracy.

  I wrote:
  

  When I pointed out that her criteria described to a tee a modern day crime gang or a cult

  tyydyy responded:
  

  Sorry I can't agree with you there Perry. I've never heard of a cult that was made up of 2 people.

  Tyydyy, agreed. My critique was on the professor's characterization of what constitutes a family, and that criteria was directly related to social policy formation. Social policies dictate what we support as a society in terms of education, welfare policy and other tax considerations. Her criteria fits a variety of circumstances including those of a crime gang family and some cults. I only make such outlandish connections because the criteria will definitely be exploited by others it was not intended for once it becomes the basis for such social sanction. You are welcome to revise the criteria and see if it might be a better fit. I presented this as an example of what is now presented as fact in many universities.

  I wrote:
  

  But, don't ask me to spend my tax dollars to support an agenda that the majority of citizens consider to be outside the area of social sanction.

  tyydyy responded:
  

  No one is asking you to spend your tax dollars on a social agenda. Only that you don't discriminate, with tax dollars, against people just because of your religious views.

  In a nut shell, this statement is the core issue here. Should the majority be forced to pay for the social policies of a minority. If so, why have a democracy? Why not just socialism?

  I do take issue with your characterzation of the traditional family structure as religious. That would be like someone saying that you were un-american if you were a draft dodger during vietnam. Acting on higher principles is neither religious nor un-american. Such characterizations are meaningless to the higher principles involved.
  Many people believe the traditional family to be the ideal for strong character building and happiness. It is simply a widely held opinion regardless of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

  My question to you is: what criteria would you use define a family?

  Abaddon wrote:
  

  This is where you lose me Perry. For a start, you quoted a survey and left out the most important bit - that the twins studied had been raised seperately. This means that 'fashion' and 'environment' alone are not the sole factors influencing a persons sexuality, as at least 42% (53%-11%) of it is physiological/in-built psychological factors.

  Not true Abaddon. Read it again. The fact that they were separated at birth was THE reason I brought it up. I plainly stated that fact immediately. You are only drawing attention to the genetic linkage and not the social one. To be fair, both must enter into the debate.

  We do have an example from the historical record that applies somewhat loosely to this discussion. The ancient city/state of Sparta in the Grecian world stamped homosexual unions as a societal norm. Most aspects of the "family" were taken over by the state. Boys were socialized into homosexuality primarily for military purposes. Leaders believed that homosexual warriors to be superior in battle while fighting side by side with their lover. After a few years in homosexual relationships with an older man and when the socialization process was complete, a young man would have naked girls paraded in front of them for the purpose of chooosing a "wife". The purpose was so that the society would't die out from lack of procreation. The "wife" took care of the "home" while the young man continued to live in the barracks. He "visited" her occasionally and would produce childrren. The state provided for the care of the "wife" and children".

  Now, let's not draw wild and crazy assumptions and illogical parralles here. The only point this piece of history illustrates is that society can and has in the past drastically impacted the sexual orientation of its citizens.

  So you saying that "as a result of society placing a stamp of authenticity on same sex marriages you will have no problem with your child who might otherwise be hetero, becomming homo", is, to be blunt, rubbish.

  People will not, except in a vanishingly small number of cases, become gay just because society sanctions gay relationships.

  How can it be "rubbish" when it is entirely possible and some would say likely that over time society transforms and molds its future generations?

  Now, if we were talking about a particular race, the handicapped, or mentally challenged being denied full social authenticness in marriage, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Those minorities are clearly 100% of the time free from their characterizations being due to socialization aren't they?

  Likewise, if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality is due 100% of the time to genetics, then I'd say the will of the majority needs to butt out and not indicate what is an ideal or not. In the absence of such compelling evidence, it is not only the right but the democratic responsibility for society to state what it believes to be its ideals. Will individual "rights" be slighted at times. You betcha. Such is the nature of democracy. Socialism may be a better model for your position, but then much of our individual say in government will be lost.

  SYN; you ask why talk about it? I agree. I think it's obvious. But does that mean I should shut-up when someone who thinks contrary to that states their opinion? They're entitled to their opinion, as I am to addressing it.

  Now, I'm laughing. The beautiful thing about democracy and a post JW life IS that your opinion DOES matter. I never knew how precious that gift was while a JW. I do now. Furthermore, If all we ever did was discuss things with people who agree with us.... how much fun would that be? How would we grow in our reasoning powers? How would we avoid "group think"? How would we keep our leaders honest if not for rigorous debate?

  Do we really want to live in a world where dissenting opinion is simply laughed at by the majority? My conservative views are certainly the vast minority on this board. To simply laugh them away without examining the basis is tantamount to how we were treated as a non persona in the WBTS. I can't believe anyone here would really want that.

  While some sensationalism has entered into the discussion, (Abaddon, I know you can't help it) I believe that the various issues have been fairly covered for the most part. My challenge still stands though. Proof that homosexuality is 100% genetic is the only way to totally take the issue away from the democtatic process. I will be the first to lead the discrimination charge in the issue of gay marriage if that can be proven.

  Again, the issue here is balancing individual rights with the will of the majority in a democracy. It is not about homosexuality per se. It is just an example. The clash betweeen political ideologies is fundamental to the lifestyles we create for ourselves and our children.

  This clash of "rights" between the individual and a democracy expresses itself in many other ways. I will bring up another issue shortly in another thread that will amplify these political ideological collisions even more.

  I thank everyone for a most enjoyable discussion and the scholarly comments.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  72

  Question for Atheists

  by RWC in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

  for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

  what is your moral foundation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  So are you suggesting that there is a scientific basic for indicating that our origins spontaneously generated? Or, perhaps you are suggesting that an infinite digression of cause and effect events explains our origins?

  If so, and you must for there are NO other options, then you are far outside the realm of science since those postulates cannot be duplicated or scientifically demonstrated. Indeed they contridict everything we know about physics and the known universe. So, those postulates are supernatural since they are foreign to our experience in the natural world.

  So, then how is it inferior if other thoughts suggest a "First Cause" that caused the cosmos to be? Are not both outside the realm of science? Why can one supernatural/religion be promoted to the exclusion of others?

  That is just plain NOT FAIR.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  42

  Homosexuality and Social Policy

  by Perry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

  unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

  i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  I think marriage is outdated. I think any pair (or larger group) of individuals should be able to enter into any sort of contract with each other, regarding their behaviour and finances if they so wish.

  I took a course on Family once that stated that the nature of family is changing. No one ever bothered to determine if it was for the good or not. Everything the professor stated was unchallenged and accepted as verified gospel by the students ( who were about 8 to 10 years younger than me.)

  I kept silent but was really steamed at her agenda. It reached a blowing point when she listed the new criteria for determining what constituted a family. keep in mind that these definitions determine where our tax dollars go. Here was the list:

  1. The pair or group share the same residence.
  2. They share resources (money)
  3. They rely upon each other emotionally
  4. They negoiate domestic responsibilities
  5. They share a long term commitment

  She stated that if they shared these commonalities then society (yours and my tax dollars) should support their plight. Meaning welfare, tax credits etc.

  When I pointed out that her criteria described to a tee a modern day crime gang of a cult, she simply said that I had a good point and moved on to te next discussion.

  So in response to your statement, I have no problem with anyone entering into any contract with anyone else....get an attorney and draw it up. But, don't ask me to spend my tax dollars to support an agenda that the majority of citizens consider to be outside the area of social sanction.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  42

  Homosexuality and Social Policy

  by Perry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  post jw life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government.

  unlike jw life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children.

  i will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former jehovahs witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Ok, why must I continue to post on this thread? Guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. :-)

  And by the way, I curse all "three" of the conservative posters on this board who value tradional family values for not helping me out here!

  Just kidding! You guys make VERY good arguments for the rights of the individual. And, since you sincerely believe that to be the best course, no one will condemn you for not argueing the side of the opposition. But, I'd like to point out a couple things.

  So what you are saying is that you personally don't mind your children growing up in a world where there are same sex marriages as well as opposite sex marriages? Right? And as a result of society placing a stamp of authenticity on same sex marriages you will have no problem with your child who might otherwise be hetero, becomming homo just because it may be fashionable?

  So, your sixteen year old daughter tells you one day that guys are jerks and that one of her teachers says, well maybe you are really gay and don't know it. So, she tells you that she's going to start looking for girls to date to compare.

  Instead of encouraging her to look for certain qualities in guys that are generally not popular in the teen world like stability, delayed gratification, long term goals, and thereby sharpen her perception powers.... you'll just say, "sure honey, check it out...ya never know". What if you do say that and she accuses you of just being old fashioned, because homosexuality is common for enlightened people, hell every body is doing it Dad!

  So instead of understanding that her companionship choices make a huge impact on the quality of her relationships, she just chooses the societal norms instead as an easier path. You'll be comfortable with that?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  72

  Question for Atheists

  by RWC in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  christians who believe in the bible and the teachings of christ use that as a moral core and code of conduct.

  for those who don't believe in god, where do you get your sense of moral right and wrong?

  what is your moral foundation?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Ok, you got me....you made me laugh. You make some fair points especially about the finger waving born againers.

  Certainly, I have never met a more sincere surporter of Humanism than you. For that, I gained respect for your cause. Secretly, I have discusions about some of the things I like about Humanism. It is the one-sidedness I object to in our educational system that I'm steamed about. Most of the other stuff/goals, you wont here me complaining about. It's the unfairness in representation I object to.

  As far as my belief in Christianity, I have proved to myself that an external model is very useful to healthful living. I don't need to denegrate another belief system to prove the value of another.

  In the middle ages, Christianity did unspeakable things in the area of mind control and information control. It's dissenters got things changed a great deal. I see the same thing happening with Humanism.

  As I said, you seem very sincerre. So as you go to your meetings perhaps you can be a voice of reason for some of the quotes that you supplied me with. I do the same for my belief system. I'm ready to pounce on anyone who unfairly tries to market their ideas at the altar of censorship or deception.

  Let me just end with a question to determine your idea of fairness.

  Would you support a bill that would require schools to teach the various classifications of a First Cause and its implications just as schools now teach the Infinite digression of cause and effect events postulate and its implications?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  12

  self worship

  by gravedancer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i swear by my life and my love of it, that i will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.. i own one life -- mine -- in prison or out, in sickness or destitution or whatever else happens next.. human sacrifice is evil no matter who its beneficiary is, whether you sacrifice yourself to others or others to yourself.

  man every man is an end in himself.. this god, this one word: i.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  gd,

  Would you risk your life for your child?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 
  49

  Patriotic Baptists -- Crazy!

  by Yadirf in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the web site of a certain bethel baptist church: http://www.bethelmac.org/.

  notice the two waving american flags at the bottom of their home page.. .

  certainly a nationalistic bunch, aren't they!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Perry

  Let me ask you something, Perry. Are you so ill informed as to think that simply because a person has been schooled in the languages and attempts to translate the Scriptures that such person is bound to get it translated correctly purely by right of his profession, acquired by going to school?

  The reasoning here is so strange that it's hard to believe that you actually present it for scrutiny. It appears thats scholarship is not a tool you believe in determining truth. What would you have people use, gross incompetence or outright subjective opinion?

  You make a statement totally out of harmony with the scriptures, I present biblical passages that DIRECTLY contridict your assertion, and all you can do is say that educated scholars are idiots? Really Yardirf.... I feel for you man.

  I feel sorry for you, Perry. But I don’t think that you have an open mind to learn. Don’t you want to live forever in God’s universe? Then for crying out loud, get on the road to life! Why wait until after the resurrection to get started, when by that time you could be helping the newly resurrected instead?

  Awwww, let's help poor Perry get on the road to life. As if, God has taken the job of judging from Christ and given it to Yardirf. Let me ask you a question, what will Christ do to you when he asks you why you continually usurp his headship and judge Christians to death like you intimated in your above comment? You already know the answer but obviously haven't given it much thought. You should.

  Justice will require that he judge you by the same standard. That is why I fear for you and all JW's.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America