by turtleturtle 146 Replies latest jw friends
Actually the video doesn't even mention that the two mommies are having sex. No evidence that they're doing anything "unscriptural". They could be sisters for all we know.
I think the video being called "One man, One woman: What is God’s standard for marriage, and why is it important?" makes it clear that the two mommies are married and therefore gay.
If they are not having sex then what's the problem? They have nexus - straight through with their baggage and onto the plane.
I thought the same thing krejames.
The video makes assumptions based on a child's drawing.
Let's face it, there's a generational problem. Just like some elderly people struggle to identify racist language or attitudes, some people find it hard to understand homophobia. They usually quote the dictionary.
If we can't rely on what words mean, it's pretty difficult to have a conversation about many things - they are the bricks to the building blocks of discussion. Correct meaning of words and their appropriate usage is essential for clear communication.
Some people of the next generation use the word "gay" to mean rubbish for instance. Is that better, or worse? Helpful or not?
I think when we're having a serious discussion it's assumed that people are using the correct and generally accepted meaning of words. That's why I'm so keen to make sure that people using "discrimination" know what they are actually claiming.
Saying that a video is discriminatory is kind of strange. Can watching a YouTube video cause you to be discriminated against? I don't think so (other than issues todo with accessibility / captioning if applicable)
My grandfather refused to accept that calling someone from Pakistan a "Paki" was unacceptable, he didn't think it was racist. By this one definition of racism, maybe it wasn't
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
: the belief that some races of people are better than others
My grandfather refused to accept that calling someone from Pakistan a "Paki" was unacceptable, he didn't think it was racist. By this one definition of racism, maybe it wasn't
I'm pretty sure that was racist language then just as it is now but I don't know what the comparison is meant to prove. Calling any group by a name they haven't chosen is normally done for a reason, rarely noble.
The video was not calling gay people "homos" or "fags" or any other such slurs.
The point is that he didn't think it was racist language just like some people want homophobia to be strictly defined as violence against or fear of. It's more subtle than that just like racism can be.
The JW cartoon provides the context that perpetuates stigma against same sex couples. Yes it's consistent with their past and their interpretation of the Bible but that doesn't make it any less depressing for anyone struggling to come to terms with their sexuality.
But Simon while I'm sure you will continue to see this as another overreaction, I wish you all the best.
I don't think your comparison to racism works or that anyone has suggested that homophobia is strictly defined as violence. If that were the case then the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be considered homophobic which would be ridiculous. It does include hatred / intense dislike though which of course does apply to them.
Words and labels matter do. You can try to label anything as homophobic but if it really isn't, people will question the label and the motive for it. Some people identify so strongly with an issue that they can't see things objectively and want to apply it to the things they blame for their past pains. Credibility is hard to gain but quick and easy to lose when labels are over-applied.
Overreactions don't help a cause, they weaken it. They wear away sympathies because deep down most people want things to be fair whether that is praise or criticism. I'm simply unwilling to take part in the politics of offence on this issue.
While the video isn't pro-gay (duh) that doesn't make it homophobic or promoting discrimination. Sure, people can wave their hands and protest and invent stories of what they think happens after the end of the story but none of that alters the facts of the video itself which is mild, contains no derogatory language and doesn't promote people making judgments or prevention of other people's right to make their own choices.
If that is homophobic, then why is being gay such an issue?
For me the argument about whether the video is homophobic or discriminatory is just semantics and is by the by.
This is the bottom line: Is the video poisonous and prejudiced? Yes it is, based on the psychological effect it will have. Just like the JW narrative about homosexuality in its talks and literature. This time it was in a cute video for kids.
Prejudice and discrimination usually go hand in hand. That's why, for example, many JW parents would be willing to meet and associate with their exJW son's girlfriend and would have them in their lives but wouldn't want to meet their exJW son's boyfriend. This is why a drifter who goes out and has a "worldly" heterosexual relationship is much less likely to get disfellowshipped whereas s drifter who goes out and has a homosexual relationship must usually keep it quiet forevermore if they don't want to get disfellowshipped or cut off from their family.
i could go on. The psychological effect of any prejudice and the discrimination that is the result of it is high. Somewhere along the line this point has got lost in the arguments over homophobia and discrimination etc.
Do I think it should be banned? Not any more than any other prejudicial media. But I think it's right to draw the world's attention to this video because it IS aimed at children and paints its prejudice with such a rosy disneyfied hue as to be all the more abhorrent.
