If interviewed annonymously I'd say its 12-20%, yes. I know a lot of JWs in a private setting pretty much made no judgement of gay people (although they did believe god would "fix" them in the new system). Of course, this is because there is probably about 10% of JWs who remain so solely because of family and way to get out without getting shunned and ostracized. And then the rest is just liberal witnesses, which is I guess a bit more prevalent in California.
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron 48 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Diest
It should also be noted that 12% is lowest number of any of the churches. 24% of mormons think it is ok to be gay.
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
CLick on social views, then gays.
52% of witness think abortion shoul be illeagal in all cases.....That is the highest % of all groups.
-
Bubblegum Apotheosis
What percentage of JWs belive pedophiles can be brought into the loving arms of the faithful flock? Due to either ignorance, blatant stupidity or fear, it surpasses the stats on this homosexual percentage. Fellow elders coming to the rescue of confessed pedophiles, is heart warming, as the pedophile and elder bash homosexuals, and read the good book.
-
sir82
And that is exactly why the GB doesn't want individual JWs answering questions anonymously about their beliefs.
-
Disillusioned Lost-Lamb
I think the number is probably higher than even 20%, most would never admit it.
I don't think there are any "liberal" witnesses; the fact is if you spoke up to anyone in the congregation, especially elders and MS, you'd get your but kicked. I like to think of it more as closet liberals who are suffering oppression out of fear, just like closet homosexuals. How do I know? I am a closet liberal; I know if I speak up I would be booted out in a heartbeat so I suffer through all the crap just to be able to keep my family.
-
djeggnog
metatron:
I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK. Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that evidently is of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of mainstream Christianity, which is odd since Buchanan used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%. Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point, for of all of the Catholic women polled, some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control. Speaking of birth control, I might digress here a bit to point out that women with polycystic ovarian syndrome have an increased risk of endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and cysts, as well as an increased risk of strokes and heart attacks, which is why younger women that are not sexually active (unmarried Jehovah's Witnesses, for example) use birth control pills every month. They also use them as a way to regulate their periods, which is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose. Menstrual cramps, menstrual bleeding, mood swings (PMS), estrogen production, acne are relieved by those that are able to use birth control pills (although not all women can). Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family. At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls, but they would be the ones that are actively engaged in the work of Kingdom preaching; they are not the ones that claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, but who have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month. We mark these off as publishers, which, of course, decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones to become better ministers to all, regardless of someone's sexual orientation, regardless of what the law might be for same-sex couples living in Massachusetts, DC, Washington or California. If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters, or should have his or her own "gospel," where he or she bashes or treats anyone either disrespectfully or with contempt because someone is "gay," such persons would be disqualified from recognition as Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what the percentage, and no such person can be counted as a publisher as long as such a person demonstrates a bias against those for whom Christ died on the basis of someone's race, sexual preference, etc. Jehovah's Witnesses do need to stay abreast of what things are going on in the world if we want to be more effective as ministers, but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral. Really? And where are these self identified Jehovah's Witnesses who think that gay is OK? Is the Governing Body worried about this ? California congregations, I'll bet. That's a good question you just posed. Buchanan claims Jehovah's Witnesses are 12% "ok" with gay behavior, but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down the gay-marriage ban in California called "Proposition 8, " ruling that the Prop 8 ban against same-sex couples marrying to be unconstitutional, thus removing the ban, but electing not to touch the larger question of whether gay marriage is legal under the California Constitution. But this development is not our business; we have no opinion. Of course, it follows that there will be at least two weeks before same-sex marriages can resume in California, in order to give the losing side time to seek a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit, which is likely, or to file an appeal in the US Supreme Court, which the SCOTUS might refuse to hear, which is also likely. Since the California Supreme Court cannot make laws -- only the California Legislature can do that -- before Prop 8 was passed, the Court had ruled that you cannot treat gay couples as if they were second-class citizens, which is what gave rise to Prop 8 in the first place, so that a provision was added to the California Constitution making it unconstitutional for anyone but a man and a woman to marry in the state of California. The effect of this ruling by the Ninth Circuit this past Tuesday (February 7, 2012) now that this provision added to the California Constitution is now gone is that if nothing at all were to happen after two weeks, California would then be able to resume the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples desirous of solemnizing their coupleship/partnership through marriage, but why pick on the Witnesses in California? Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either. @djeggnog [posted from my iPad using Atomic Web with "Browser Identified As" setting of "Internet Explorer 8," and not "Default - Mobile Safari"]
-
Anony Mous
Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that evidently is of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of mainstream Christianity, which is odd since Buchanan used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%.
WTF are you smoking DJ, you contradicted yourself here first but you should understand that Pat has a lot more knowledge about these things than a random person off the street and most people DO know JW's are not part of mainstream, an author, columnist and commentator on sociology in general knows a lot better. Voting is not a way of knowing anything because voiting does not include religion. The way these things work (sociology) is by research and polls by well-established organizations. One of the ways is to have a population of a couple of thousand random people polled about a bunch of things that include but are not limited to their self-identified religion, sexual orientation. The data is very well guarded so people can say what they want without anyone knowing what they said.
Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point
That is the whole point. It shows that the GB is losing control over their general population of JW's and there are a heck of a lot more doubters and fakers than we think in the org.
for of all of the Catholic women polled, some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control.
Catholics don't get shunned for taking birth control. The pope goes on about it but no Catholic cares (except a few idiots)
which is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose.
What rock have you been living under for the last 30 years? I learned that in high school and that was about 20 years ago. You could also ask doctors or look it up on the internet (or encyclopedia) before making your conclusions
Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family.
That only happens among high-control cults. Those are not well-meaning elders if they prompt for speculation and witch hunts based on what someone takes as medicine. Why does there need to be such control in the first place? This only goes to show something is not normal and morally wrong among JW's in general.
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls
Obviously they do. They just don't tell people like you.
they are not the ones that claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, but who have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month.
Why the high pressure and control to account for someone's actions? Can't you see there is something going wrong that you have to account for your hours to a religious organization, organizations that are supposed to better someone and make them feel good?
decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones
That's the new attitude towards those that are weak in the faith? Where do you follow Jesus' command to leave behind the 99 sheep to go look for 1? That is the most callous comment I've ever heard an elder make
If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters,
Again, why the control over someone's personal ideas and attitudes? The matter is also not political, it's biological. Being gay or accepting someone for who they are is normal behavior. Something's seriously wrong with you if you think otherwise.
but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral.
Everyone does take a position regardless of what they might think. To deny yourself this is called cognitive dissonance. JW's are not 100% neutral as has become very clear from these and other polls (such as those from the Pew forum). I was a JW for almost 30 years and was never 100% politically neutral and there was none that was ever neutral. But then again, this is not a political issue as much as it is an issue to accept someone who is different from you.
but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll?
You don't have to be politically active to be polled in a sociological study. The question about accepting others for who they are is not political in nature, it's a natural socialogical question and we should wonder why anyone does NOT accept someone who is gay into their midst. Where did Jesus say to shun the gays? Or shun anyone at all?
But this development is not our business; we have no opinion.
Again, bullshit, cognitive dissonance. Everybody has an opinion on everything. We cannot live or make decisions without it. Most JW's don't have their OWN opinions, they have the opinion of the 7 blind men that lead them in darkness, which you could be quite accurate by saying the JW's have no opinions, they are blinded slaves.
Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either.
If they have no opinion then they will allow gay marriages in their kingdom halls I suppose? You are full of it DJ, you have no idea what you just wrote. You are spewing the GB propaganda that JW's have no opinions and are strictly neutral which has been disproven over time (see the UN debacle, their repeated involvement with the courts etc.)
Obviously you have formed an opinion because you are compelled to answer on the subject. Your opinions may be formed by the GB which say "no gays" like they said "no blacks" in the past. They'll come around in a couple of decades. But to say they are neutral on the subject (which means they would accept gays or leave it up as a "consciense matter") is false.
-
djeggnog
@metatron wrote:
I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.
@djeggnog wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that ... used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%.
@Anony Mous wrote:
WTF are you smoking DJ, you contradicted yourself here first but you should understand that Pat has a lot more knowledge about these things than a random person off the street....
This was my point; he should know that Jehovah's Witnesses could not have participated in such a poll since we are politically neutral. @metatron had quoted something from Buchanan's book, so I was merely making an observation.
Voting is not a way of knowing anything because [voting] does not include religion.
Actually, I referred to both voting and polling, and the Catholic women I mentioned were polled by some organization and apparently "some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception,"
One of the ways is to have a population of a couple of thousand random people polled about a bunch of things that include but are not limited to their self-identified religion, sexual orientation.
The truth is I know how the world works, especially how the polls are done here in the US. You mention of computers made me smile, because I knew you weren't talking about mainframes, keypunch cards or dumb terminals that were used at one time to process such data. I don't know for sure, but from reading your response, it's possible that I may be much older than you are and perhaps more experienced in life than you are. This doesn't mean I am wiser than you, but it's possible I could be that, too.
@djeggnog wrote:
Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point....
@Anony Mous wrote:
That is the whole point. It shows that the GB is losing control over their general population of JW's and there are a heck of a lot more doubters and fakers than we think in the org.
Jehovah's Witnesses are organized under a rubric just as are those associated with the Catholic faith, Buchanan's faith. Out of 7.3 million Witnesses in the world, there may, in fact, be only about one third that are really Jehovah's Witnesses. Bible Students. Kingdom Proclaimers that are sincerely interested in the salvation of themselves and other people. I'm not about to preach to you, @Anony Mous; I mean, what would be the point of trying to engage you on a spiritual level? But many people responded favorably to the things that Jesus said and taught, but since the days of the apostles until now, many more people have responded favorably to the things that they heard Jesus say and taught by sharing what they learned with others.
I know you know all of this already, but I'm just seeking to make one small point here. Days are coming when the remaining two-thirds may fall away, many of whom will be family members, will go back to the things that they had left behind and it will become rough for that one third. The organized preaching work will end and we are now preparing ourselves for a time when the governing body and the organization we knew will be no more as the great tribulation approaches.
You don't think about such things, but I imagine that things will become worse during the great tribulation for Jehovah's Witnesses than they had ever been just as they were in the days leading up to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in 70 AD. This one third will all recognize where we are in the stream of time and not one of these will doubt nor fake their dismay as we become gripped with anxiety as our trials begin, when the governments of the world seek to make us break faith with our God and in Christ our savior. Most of those within this same one-third will be numbered among the survivors of Armageddon.
As for the two-thirds, they never came to understand the seriousness of preparing for the tribulation that is coming, but the one third understood that as soon as the nations began to declare "Peace and security!" our deliverance would immediately follow along with our regrets that the two-thirds became naysayers or made a promise to return upon their achievement of a particular goal, only to discover that the proverbial door had been shut to them and no formal organized arrangement to which they can return. This is one of the things I think about most and so I give no thought at all to "the "doubters and fakers," but I say to them the only thing I can say: Ciao.
@djeggnog wrote:
[S]ome 58% of [Catholic women] support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Catholics don't get shunned for taking birth control.
No one likes to be ignored, so being shunned is going to be unpleasant, especially if a close family member is doing the shunning when they join unrelated Witnesses in shunning the disfellowshipped family member even though they are often in the best position to (maybe) help the errant one to see the need to repent. But I wasn't suggesting here that Catholics are ever excommunicated for taking birth control pills.
@djeggnog wrote:
[This] is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose.
@Anony Mous wrote:
What rock have you been living under for the last 30 years? I learned that in high school and that was about 20 years ago. You could also ask doctors or look it up on the internet (or encyclopedia) before making your conclusions
I am, first, a man, and second, a father, and with me being a man, I didn't become interested in birth control until my teenager daughter needed birth control pills and not because she was sexually active. You are a woman and perhaps a mother as well, and you learned about these things when you were attending high school "about 20 years ago." Again, it's obvious that you're younger than me; you had the internet, but there was no internet when I attended high school, but despite this handicap, I managed to crawl out from under my rock with the help of my wife and the courage of my daughter in telling me that she needed birth control pills.
@djeggnog wrote:
Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family.
@Anony Mous wrote:
That only happens among high-control cults. Those are not well-meaning elders if they prompt for speculation and witch hunts based on what someone takes as medicine.
Assuming you're right about my being a member of a cult, what's so tough for you to accept about my being in a cult? A cult is an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, which would indict every Christian denomination that exists in the world. Some of these cults employ many rituals in their religious practices as well. While you would use the word "cult" as a pejorative, the point I want to make here is that the word "cult" would aptly describe every Christian denomination on the planet since all Christian denominations are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, with each having their own religious beliefs and practices, and the "high-control cults" are particularly interesting, especially the ones that regularly dole out the kool-aid to its members. I'm fine with being referred to as being a member of a cult, which word is synonymically the same as the word "denomination."
As far as the elders are concerned, they are imperfect and many of them don't know a whole lot about birth control pills. We will likely publish an article on the many other uses of the birth control pill, since, in our literature, our articles have only discussed the use of birth control pills for contraception, but never for the myriads of reasons women, young and old, use them today. I wouldn't ever blame someone for not knowing things that they just didn't know.
Perhaps you had in the past expected the elders in your congregation to be more spiritual-minded than you, but I have very often found this to not be the case. Some of them have misused their authority over some in the congregation as well as over their wives and children, and were deleted as such after several years of such misuse. Waiting on Jehovah, which means to wait until one of the elders inside or outside the congregation should step in to correct the situation, has come to be viewed as a "Hail Mary" because the needed changes never seem to come, but it may take up to five years, even ten years, but change eventually does come.
No one's perfect, no even you, and no one can live up anyone's ideal as to how a spiritually mature man -- an elder -- ought to conduct himself. How often have you been disappointed in yourself, or in other's imperfections? Why exempt the elders when they are more likely to reveal the many imperfections they have to so many in the congregation, due to the fact that they deal with so many more people in the congregation than you do? Put any elder under a microscope, and if they aren't the kind that do most things in stealth, but more openly, you will have much to gossip about for many years, and if you are admonished to put all such gossip away from you and you persist, discipline is warranted even if you should want a slap on the wrist for making a fuss and don't want to be shunned for awhile.
Why does there need to be such control in the first place? This only goes to show something is not normal and morally wrong among JW's in general.
Every school I've attended is controlled by a school board of some kind. A single school board might control 20 or more schools in a particular district or city for which it provides organization and oversight. Each school governed by this school board is staffed by teachers and administrative staff, as well as other employees (e.g., janitors, cafeteria workers, and so forth). Grades are recorded and sent from each of these schools to the school board itself, and matters involving the students and faculty are typically handled by the school board.
With over 105,000 congregations for which the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses provides oversight though 118 branch offices, each congregation needs to be organized for the preaching work we do since we must produce and distribute literature in 236 lands and islands of the sea to help each congregation serve the territories to which they have been assigned. Without such control, without such organization, we would be less efficient and there would be much chaos with everyone doing their own thing.
@djeggnog wrote:
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls
@Anony Mous wrote:
Obviously they do. They just don't tell people like you.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
they ... have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Why the high pressure and control to account for someone's actions? Can't you see there is something going wrong that you have to account for your hours to a religious organization, organizations that are supposed to better someone and make them feel good?
Jehovah's organization isn't set up to make anyone feel good. It is set up to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God that was preached by Jesus and his apostles during the first century AD, as well as to proclaim the good news of the established kingdom of God as well as to warn others as to the coming "day of vengeance on the part of our God" so that they will be prepared spiritually for what's coming. The field service reports help certain departments to know what literature needs to be printed and how best to use what resources we have to address the local needs of the people to whom we preach anywhere in the world.
@djeggnog wrote:
We mark these off as publishers, which, of course, decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones to become better ministers to all....
@Anony Mous wrote:
That's the new attitude towards those that are weak in the faith? Where do you follow Jesus' command to leave behind the 99 sheep to go look for 1? That is the most callous comment I've ever heard an elder make
You here refer to Jesus' words at Luke 15:4-7. We have always endeavored to make assessment of those with whom we are studying the Bible after about six months, because we do not wish to waste time with anyone that doesn't appreciate the seriousness of the message we preach. If any baptized brother or sister in the congregation should be weak in their faith, they know that they should reach out to a mature brother or sister in the congregation or reach out to one of the elders so that someone may be assigned to study with them as to those matters that may be adversely affecting their faith. We should not be intruding into anyone's personal life, since it is our endeavor to build others up spiritually.
While elders are there to give special attention to those in the congregation that need it, they are not mind-readers, and if we should learn that one of the sheep should stray by making questionable decisions that has impacted them spiritually or if one should become infirm so that they may not be able to attend meetings for several months, we would do what we can to help the person stay abreast of the spiritual things being discussed at the meetings. But if anyone should decide that they are no longer interested in serving Jehovah by their conduct, we cannot help someone that doesn't want to be helped, and so, in that case, we will use our time to concentrate on the spiritual needs of the "99."
@djeggnog wrote:
If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters, or should have his or her own "gospel," where he or she bashes or treats anyone either disrespectfully or with contempt because someone is "gay," such persons would be disqualified from recognition as Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what the percentage, and no such person can be counted as a publisher as long as such a person demonstrates a bias against those for whom Christ died on the basis of someone's race, sexual preference, etc.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Again, why the control over someone's personal ideas and attitudes? The matter is also not political, it's biological. Being gay or accepting someone for who they are is normal behavior. Something's seriously wrong with you if you think otherwise.
You cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and not be politically neutral. To engage in spiritual adultery would constitute unfaithfulness to God and dishonor to our king, the Lord Jesus Christ, and contrary to what you believe, gay marriage -- the issue to which I was referring -- is a political issue. What I was saying is that because Jehovah's Witnesses have no opinion on the issue of whether gay marriage should be approved or disapproved, we would not bash or treat anyone disrespectfully or with contempt because they were "gay." You cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or an unbaptized publisher of the kingdom of God and a bigot. I am neither qualified nor prepared to discuss with you what is normal behavior and what isn't normal behavior for anyone, and, in Christ, I don't need to know such things to fully accomplish my ministry.
@djeggnog wrote:
but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Everyone does take a position regardless of what they might think. To deny yourself this is called cognitive dissonance. JW's are not 100% neutral as has become very clear from these and other polls (such as those from the Pew forum). I was a JW for almost 30 years and was never 100% politically neutral and there was none that was ever neutral. But then again, this is not a political issue as much as it is an issue to accept someone who is different from you.
Accepting someone that might behave differently from me is rather easy for me; I love talking to people, no matter what their background, ancestry or race or sexual orientation. As I told you, I do not take a position on any of the world's political affairs. This might be hard for some to do, but not hard at all for me to do. I take positions on many things on a variety of topics, but, like I said, when it comes to political issues, I'm 100% neutral.
@djeggnog wrote:
Buchanan claims Jehovah's Witnesses are 12% "ok" with gay behavior, but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down the gay-marriage ban in California called "Proposition 8, "ruling that the Prop 8 ban against same-sex couples marrying to be unconstitutional, thus removing the ban, but electing not to touch the larger question of whether gay marriage is legal under the California Constitution. But this development is not our business; we have no opinion.
@Anony Mous wrote:
You don't have to be politically active to be polled in a sociological study. The question about accepting others for who they are is not political in nature, it's a natural socialogical question and we should wonder why anyone does NOT accept someone who is gay into their midst. Where did Jesus say to shun the gays? Or shun anyone at all?
@metatron made reference to something in Buchanan's book about "growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions," but I wasn't addressing that issue at all. I merely point out that he could not have gotten that 12% number by polling Jehovah's Witnesses, since we don not participate in anything of a political nature, like polls. Also, I should point out that I don't care what you think to be true: I'm telling you that I don't shun gays and neither do Jehovah's Witnesses
Again, bullshit, cognitive dissonance. Everybody has an opinion on everything.
As far as the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't have an opinion since we don't have anything at all to do with voting or ballot propositions. It is what it is.
Most JW's don't have their OWN opinions, they have the opinion of the 7 blind men that lead them in darkness, which you could be quite accurate by saying the JW's have no opinions, they are blinded slaves.
Jehovah's Witnesses have opined that because they are like Christ in being no part of world that we would not lend our opinion to whatever any of the governments of the world might be doing, except where what these governments are doing might impact our brothers and sisters living under such governments and affect the work that we, as Christians, are obliged to do.
@djeggnog wrote:
[I]f nothing at all were to happen after two weeks, California would then be able to resume the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples desirous of solemnizing their coupleship/partnership through marriage.... Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either.
@Anony Mous wrote:
If they have no opinion then they will allow gay marriages in their kingdom halls I suppose? You are full of it DJ, you have no idea what you just wrote. You are spewing the GB propaganda that JW's have no opinions and are strictly neutral which has been disproven over time (see the UN [debacle, their repeated involvement with the courts etc.)
Jehovah's Witnesses do not perform gay marriages in any of our Kingdom Halls. The idea of presiding over such an event in God's spiritual temple is repugnant to me and would be repugnant to all Jehovah's Witnesses. I was merely saying that you would find that none of Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, including our Governing Body, would have an opinion as to whether the government should marry same-sex couples. Unbelievers can do what they wish outside of God's congregation.
As far as NGOs are concerned, Jehovah's Witnesses need to make certain compromises from time to time about which you might hear, but not really understand the reasons why these compromises are made, but our registering with the UN gives us the right to appeal to the UN when need be should the human rights of our brothers and sisters be denied in any UN member state over which the UN holds sway and does not violate our Christian neutrality or alter our neutral stance.
Just as we would not want to consign any of our brothers and sisters to many years of incarceration or even a premature death, draft age young men here in the US would register for selective service, but they were conscientious objectors and resolved to remain neutral. We do not wish to consign any of our brothers and sisters to criminal penalties for failing to register with the Selective Service, for their registration does not violate their Christian neutrality nor does such a compromise alter their neutral stance.
Obviously you have formed an opinion because you are compelled to answer on the subject. Your opinions may be formed by the GB which say "no gays" like they said "no blacks" in the past. They'll come around in a couple of decades. But to say they are neutral on the subject (which means they would accept gays or leave it up as a "[conscience] matter") is false.
Ok.
@djeggnog
-
No Room For George
LOL DJ. Seriously bruh? JWs are neutral and wouldn't participate in any polls expressing their political and social opinions? That's like saying JWs know better than to post on message boards full of apostates and JWs of questionable standing within their congregation. Not saying that applies to you or anything, just sayin.......
-
Crisis of Conscience
djeggnog - Puff away!
