by turtleturtle 146 Replies latest jw friends
Not only doesn't it hurt them, it helps them - as society is moving towards more acceptance of gay marriage etc... then they are now placed to be "conservative christian lite" - all the bible based views and belief that god will judge people but not quite so outspoken and openly trying to discriminate against people.
They are catering for their market segment by providing the product that segment wants to buy without being identical to their competitors.
Very, very doubtful this would ever happen. Whilst there is a very slim chance they could sell something to Western Witnesses at some point in the future, don't forget that there are large contingents of Witnesses in countries where homosexuality is still fighting be be legal let alone tolerated or accepted. They would never risk the schism.
I totally see why it seems unlikely. JWs have along track record of being totally opposed to gay rights. But consider the huge shift of public opinion that has occurred. Personally I was not particularly in favour of gay marriage a decade ago. I thought it was a weird idea more than anything. Then I found out a local brother was gay and what he went through. I thought a lot about the issue and concluded there was no rational or ethical reason to deny gay people the exact same rights as everyone else. Many other people are apparently coming to the same conclusion at the same time. The change is absolutely huge. In the United States it changed from something like 40% support to 60% support in around a decade. And the trend continues. Even among Jehovah's Witnesses the trend is toward acceptance of gay people. If that trend continues it will reach a point where most people think JWs should change, including JWs themselves! At that point what will the GB do? It's like an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, but something has to give.
The trend should be for more tolerance simply because younger people are presented that view by society in general. I read my daughter's answer to a questionnaire on this very subject that was presented in her citizenship class at school - it was 100% what you would expect any tolerant person to put down.
What is clever about the video and Awake article however, is that they present an argument for limiting that tolerance that resonates perfectly with Witnesses and allows them to feel safe and happy in demonstrating a relative tolerance. At the same time, the experiences of gay people, especially young ones born into the religion, are completely hidden from view so no one gets the other side of the story unless they look for it.
The WTS does not need gay people. Witnesses have a position that prevents no one from being gay or getting a marriage - they just can't be Witnesses - but how many people does that actually affect?
Witnesses have proven time and time again at how capable they are at instantly shunning family members and former friends. What makes gay rights any more likely to provoke change from the ground up?
The GB only act when they have no choice and there are several larger issues that will 99% never provoke the mass walk out that it would take to force change. Gay rights is several slots down IMHO on that list.
The real trick is this: They're not sending the JW kids out to directly convert (in this case) the homosexual parents.
No, they're having a child of a JW go to the gay couple's child and hold out the fake-ass hope of petting pandas and lions in a paradise. After the 'unbelieving' child gets baited into believing the more benign nonsense, then the fear-mongering will be implanted next.
What will that child do? Likely go home and ask/tell their 2 mommies that they're going to burn in hell get killed during armageddon. That poor child is gonna have anxiety they wouldn't otherwise have had, foisted upon them by the JW classmate.
I've never once said the video should be banned. I've just said its homophobic and it should be exposed as such.
Some people get quite hysterical and hand wavey over the use of the word homophobia.
Oxford Dictionaries definition
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
Sigh, you still really don't get it?
The video never even says "we don't like gay people" so it doesn't even meet your very relaxed definition of the term. I know you are desperate for the WTS to have produced a video that is actually homophobic but they haven't. I think they are smarter than to do something so dumb.
The only people getting remotely hysterical are the ones who have their claim that it's promoting discrimination questioned in any way.
It seems strange and contradictory to claim that it is both homophobic but not needing to be banned.
It's worthy of some social condemnation and warrants some hashtags ... but nothing more.
Sign from me too. Gentledawn continues the practise of extending the scenario way beyond what the video says. Sohpie will say this, Sophie will say that and on and on. "Then the fear-mongering will start".
It is not homophobic because no dislike of homosexuals as people is expressed. Indeed Sophie's mother stated, "People can change". Sure, that is freighted with a heap of ignorance about sexual orientation - but that is another topic. If JWs stated, "Homosexuals are abominable and are beyond help and we need to keep away from them" (as stated by some of the more extreme religious groups such as Westboro Baptist Church, THAT would homophobic. Excuse me for noting that you have to go beyond what the video states to even get a taint of homophobia.
You will have a devil of a job successfully charging the makers of this video with homophobia - although as I stated earlier, I can see how it could be construed as such.
That said, the video still sends out an unhealthy and distorted message about human sexuality as based on the JWs literal reading of Biblical texts. So I am no apologists for JWs' uninformed views on the topic.
Oh, and before posters come back with the view that the Bible does not condemn modern conceptions of homosexuality, please note:
Being a gay male myself, I am very familiar with liberal Christians' apologetics in this regard. As for Jonathan and David, for all the kilometres of print on this allegedly over-heated mateship, there is not a shred of evidence that these two hunky men ever bedded each other.
Is homophobia a crime?
If the "video still sends out an unhealthy and distorted message about human sexuality" I'd say it is designed to incite prejudice. It's not a crime.
I can see why some groups want to do the "reformation" thing with the bible and re-cast Jonathan and David as a gay couple (although it doesn't really fit with the David character IMO) and I'm all for that - if people can strike parts of the bible out and convince people it's justified then it makes it much more palatable. Really though, the whole book should just be thrown away, maybe one day ...
Personally, I just don't understand why anyone who is gay would ever want to belong to any religion who's holy book is so clearly anti-gay. I always wonder if there's ever been black people who wanted to join the KKK (I know that sounds silly, but there were jewish nazis).
I know the situation is different when you are brought up in the religion but at some point everyone has choices to make, I wonder if it's just familiarity and conditioning that makes people want to chose a group that doesn't want to chose them back.
Not forgetting that it's a religion that doesn't chose lots of people for various other reasons too.
