JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  snare&racket

  Where are the adverts where a gay man drives a car and attracts another gay man? Where are the adverts where a woman is attracted to another woman drinking a can of diet coke?

  The only agenda has been a straight agenda! People need to grow up, the media is simply catching up with reality.

  For everyone that says the knife sharp words 'do what you want in your own home but I don't want my children to see it' are dumb as hell and damn cold hearted too! It is anotjer way of saying, I cant stop you I just dont want to look at you! Their children may well be gay and may well grow up feeling broken and abnormal IF WE DON'T represent reality in the media.

  When black people were first allowed in the media there was outrage, there was talk of a black agenda. Come on, it is time to grow up!

  Do you remember the age you decided to be straight and fancy the opposite sex? NO because nobody chooses the sex they are attracted to! It is not a choice! Some people choose to experiment, some on the spectrum of sexuality seek assurance for what attracts them, but nobody is doing wrong, nobody is being unnatural and nobody should judge....especially when they are ignorant of the most basic facts!

  Not everyone is like you ...and those people that are different deserve representation too....it is not an agenda, we are simply putting right as a society, what has been wrong for FAR too long! If you are a white, straight, middle class person... you have already won the jackpot, life is statistically easier for you, but appreciate that you are not everyone!

  15% of sheep are gay, is the intro to emmerdale farm part of the gay agenda.....? lol

  As for marriage.... marriage as a concept DOES NOT BELONG TO CHRISTIANITY, it is an ancient pagan ceremony and belief that has nothing to do with judeao christian belief. It has been adopted through tradition! Marriage does not belong to the god of the bible, get some history books! It is older than he is!
• 

  LisaRose

  This issue has nothing to do with Canon law. That only applies to a church.

  This is strictly to do with secular law. It's complicated, because Canon law has often been at odds with secular law. Some churches do not recognize a secular divorce and remarriage.

  I get why some people may have difficulty with this issue, but I think it is an over reaction. This woman has probably many times made invitations for couples that have been living together without the benefit of marriage. This is such a common occurrence that even very religious people hardly raise an eyebrow anymore. There was a time many ministers would not perform the ceremony in that case.

  So it is with gay marriage. Many people are not comfortable with it, think it's wrong, I get that. But the government recognizes we live in a secular society. The law states that gay people have just as much right to live in this society as a heterosexual. This is a fact, the government recognizes the right of homosexuals to protection from discrimination. You can't decide to not sell them wedding invitations anymore than you can decide not to rent to them or serve them in your restaurant. No matter what your reason, you simply can't do that.

  Gay marriage is still controversial, just as at anti segregation laws were in the sixties. Some people hated it, some people thought God intended for the races to be separated. It didn't matter though, because society recognized the greater good in stopping discrimination on the basis of race, today few people would argue otherwise. I think that eventually gay marriage will be the same. You can still attend a church that doesn't tolerate homosexuality, and I would fight for your right to do so. But I will also fight for the right of a gay couple to order wedding stationary .
• 

  snare&racket

  I agree Lisa, it is,hard to appease everyone especially when some have beliefs that would harm others.

  I can respect a persons right to a belief and defend their right to have that belief, but if that belief reduces the quality of life or freedoms of another, then I believe that belief system should be restrained and legally harnassed to the believer alone.

  The irony of the conservative christians to seek the freedom to shoot their gun and preach their homophobia, but also then to be demanding to deny other people their rights to choose..... is a contradiction in respect and of human perspective.

  It simply comes down to the idea that they believe they are simply RIGHT, they are of and for god and so care not about anyone else. The world is for them and nobody else and their god is about to come prove it. The deepest irony being that this behaviour is as far from Jesus's example on earth as possible!

  I am an atheist and straight, but I don't know how I would tackle Luke 17 anymore if I was a believer and homophobic. It is about being saved on jesus's return...

  31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods arein the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left.

  Make what you will of the next verse ;) x

  35 Two women will be grinding together the one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” [f]
• 

  rebel8

  I don't assume that two men sleeping in the same bed back in those days = homosexuality. Some cultures have communal sleeping. What say the Biblical scholars?
• 

  snare&racket

  When the bible says death for men lying with men, it is refrering to gay people, when the bible says two men will be in one bed and one will be saved, they are just having a sleepover surely......back then that was customary, like slavery...the nice kind...and gentle infanticide....

  (rebel8, no sarcasm pointed at you, the point I am making is not directed at your reply specifically)

  I don't want to start a debate on these veses, in honesty I don't hold any truth, value or interest in them. I am simply pointing out the folly of anyone attempting to intepret anything from 2000 year old scrolls from the Jewish desert tribes and applying them to modern day Britain.
• 

  talesin

  KateWild

  Have you got any scientific stats for that to make you so confident?

  I am a man. I know of what I speak.

  Sex also then becomes mechanical and selfish, not a giving activity as it is in a loving relationship.

  Spoken like a woman.

  ---

  And you are accusing DJS of elder-type behaviour? He is one of the many ex-elders we have on board who does NOT engage in that type of behaviour. He does not treat others, especially women, in a condescending "I know better than you little girl" fashion.

  YOU are the one who has spoken like an elder.

  Kate is a scientist. What are you? Oh, you're a MAN, so you have superior knowledge about science. *nods* Okay, now I get it. Sorry, Elder Homey, it took me a while to comprehend your speech because I am just a stoopid woman.

  tal
• 

  Earnest

  Lisa, my reference to canon law (specifically Church of England canon law) was simply to make the point that when the law changes the legal meaning of a word, such as the meaning of the word 'marriage', that does not mean that the common usage of the word changes. In support of my contention I pointed out that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 specifically allows that the law does not alter the definition of marriage in canon law.

  Canon law of the Church of England in the United Kingdom has a special status because the Church of England is the state church and has the Queen as its head. So section 11 of the above Act of Parliament says that the extension of the meaning of marriage in law has no effect in relation to:

  • Measures and Canons of the Church of England (whenever passed or made)
  • subordinate legislation (whenever made) made under a Measure or Canon of the Church of England, or
  • other ecclesiastical law (whether or not contained in England and Wales legislation, and, if contained in England and Wales legislation, whenever passed or made).

  So it would be no surprise if Ms Wilson had made wedding invitations for couples who had previously been living together without the benefit of marriage. It would doubtless bring her joy that such a couple were legitimising their relationship by marriage which she considers (rightly or wrongly) as instituted by God.

  But it is not unreasonable that she never had any intention, or anticipated a demand, that her services would be required for something other than what she (and the law) understood marriage to be.