Not a sympathizer
Also Simon. You cannot say that enough people telling the same story automatically proves that it is a fact. There are are ton of people who give somewhat similar stories of seeing Big Foot. Does that mean that Big Foot is real? Most reputable biologist would say that Big Foot does not exist. So it is not just because enough people give a similar story that makes it true. There has to be other proof beyond the stories. The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that for a number of criminal cases the only evidence, cannot be eye witness testimony. Even judges recognize how faulty eye witness testimony can be in convicting someone of a notorious crime.
Richard Oliver - I also really don't like it when people bring up comments from Watchtower publications prior to about 1975, when it comes to gay people. It diminishes the reality that most of society viewed gay people in the same light. I even know that the DSM didn't take out Homosexuality from their diagnostic list of mental illnesses till about mid-1970s. I think when people use those old publications to claim that Watchtower is so homophobic, minimizes the fact that gay people struggled in society as a whole up to that point and even beyond that.
Yes, I also don't like when people bring up comments from Watchtower publications from the past—but only if the Watchtower has changed their opinion. If someone brought up a comment from Watchtower publication dated as far back as 1950s or 1960s to show they are something that they are not today—half a century later—I would dismiss it.
However, the Watchtower has not changed their opinion on homosexuality. They still view homosexuality as all the things that I mentioned in my previous comment. Therefore, what the Watchtower has said in their publications prior to 1975 is entirely relevant; they have not changed their opinion, and they still demonise homosexuality! So when you say, "It diminishes the reality that most of society viewed gay people in the same light," you need to understand that "most of society" has moved on. The Watchtower has not. Why? The Bible. The very same Bible that says in Deut. 22.28–29 that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, this man has to then pay her father 50 shekels as form of punishment—and then he gets to marry the woman! How nice! The woman gets no justice... but hey! she gets to marry the man who raped her!
So, yeah, I know the DSM had homosexuality listed as a mental illness, but they removed it from their diagnostic list 44 years ago. Almost half a century ago. They changed. The Watchtower still has not.
I think when people use those old publications to claim that Watchtower is so homophobic, minimizes the fact that gay people struggled in society as a whole up to that point and even beyond that.
No. It doesn't minimise that fact. It brings awareness to the fact that gay people are still demonised by some religious people.
Sorry, Richard Oliver, but I don't believe you're not a Watchtower sympathizer. The Watchtower has verbally assaulted homosexual people. And you are dismissing it. It doesn't matter that it's not happening in the society but in a religion. Religions are not, cannot, and should not be exempt from morality and ethics. If a religion condemns homosexuality or any other lifestyle they have no business condemning, we, as a society, have the responsibility to condemn that religion.
You are a Watchtower sympathizer. It's time you either acknowledge that or stop being a goddamn Watchtower sympathizer. There is evidence—let me highlight that point: there is evidence—that the Watchtower has been demonising homosexuality ever since it began to exist. You cannot dismiss that. Otherwise, you're just as biased as the Witness I was debating not so long ago (the thread I created is in my post history.)
Richard Oliver - Also Simon. You cannot say that enough people telling the same story automatically proves that it is a fact. There are are ton of people who give somewhat similar stories of seeing Big Foot. Does that mean that Big Foot is real? Most reputable biologist would say that Big Foot does not exist. So it is not just because enough people give a similar story that makes it true. There has to be other proof beyond the stories. The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that for a number of criminal cases the only evidence, cannot be eye witness testimony. Even judges recognize how faulty eye witness testimony can be in convicting someone of a notorious crime.
Are you f*cking kidding me? The claim that a Big Foot exists is an extraordinary claim (because we have never seen a Big Foot), and therefore, it requires extraordinary evidence. We have, however, seen homophobia in the media and (probably) with our own eyes. The accusation that there is homophobia among Witnesses does not require extraordinary evidence. All it requires is anecdotal evidence from several reliable sources (and we have that.) Moreover, it should be noted that we have it straight from the horse's mouth how the Watchtower treats homosexuality (remember my syllogism?)
YOU ARE a goddamn Watchtower sympathizer. You are dismissing all evidence that the Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses are both demonising homosexuality.
I'm sorry that I have to ask... but are you sure you are not a Witness under cover? How's your preaching time?
Orphan Crow. Of course in this setting it is inconsistent with the majority of people on this site. But that is also a very narrow sample size and, I don't mean offense but biased, to say it is inconsistent with the experience of every witness has had. People on this site and other "ex-jw" sites may have had such a bad experience that they feel that they have to be active against Watchtower and Witnesses. I am sure that if you asked people who were both witnesses and non-witnesses, who are not extremely biased one way or the other, or who recognizes their biased feelings. I don't think that my views would be inconsistent. Honestly, I don't think many people opinions on this site would be inconsistent. I don't think that you would really see a bell curve really. I think you would see a pretty even display from one end of the spectrum to the other.
If you go out to a Tea Party Rally and ask everyone do you like Barack Obama I am sure you would see a huge percentage of people who would tell you no. Just like in the same manner, if you go to the DNC last year and asked the same question you would get a lot of people who said yes. But if you ask a cross section of the entire country you get an approval rating that is in the middle, with a decent percentage on the side of we hate him and on the side that we love him
Seamane: You said
"So, yeah, I know the DSM had homosexuality listed as a mental illness, but they removed it from their diagnostic list 44 years ago. Almost half a century ago. They changed. The Watchtower still has not."
You even acknowledge something. The DSM never came out and said that homosexuality is no longer a mental illness, they just never put it back in. In recent years, lets say the last 15, please tell me an article where it says that homosexuality is a mental condition or something like that. I have acknowledged that Watchtower views it as a sin. I don't agree with their interpretation of it, I believe that, only applies to the anointed.
Richard Oliver, you are so f*cking unbelievable.
"only applies to the anointed"? SO WHAT!?!?!? Nobody has the right to tell anyone, whether he or she is a "regular" or an "anointed," that he or she can't have a sexual life because the Bible condemns it.
I will neither read nor respond to this thread any longer.
Well apparently you won't read this. But that is your opinion. I never said that your opinion was wrong. All I said was you can't say because the DSM didn't put in homosexuality into their list of mental conditions that is the same as them backtracking and telling all of those people in the past that they in fact don't have a mental condition. My point was that if you want to say that Watchtower should say homosexuality is not a mental condition, that the mental health community official diagnostic instrument and manual should do so too.
I do believe that there is a difference between the other sheep and the anointed. Again do I feel that only JWs will be saved at Armageddon? I do not. Do I feel that Watchtower should not allow openly gay couples be witnesses? I do. But I won't hold my breath for that. But there is a difference between not liking gay people and being homophobic.
Outlaw. Like I said. My personal definition as a gay man of homophobia maybe different from yours or from others. Some people may find it too lax and some may find it to rigid.
It is the way that the person who is receiving the prejudice views it. There is even a debate on the term of homophobia. It is not a definable term, at least that is how
There is even a debate on the term of homophobia. It is not a definable term, at least that is how
I am not African American and would never dare question when an individual of that community feels that they are experiencing racism. And guess what you cannot tell anyone else when they are experiencing any kind of prejudice. There are legal definitions of prejudice, but there are the subjective definition of prejudice that each person has to decide what triggers it for them. For me it is verbal assault by someone. I have been called Faggot, and that hurts me. Do I mind when people who I know and love jokingly call me a faggot or queer, no, because I know what they mean and they had no malice behind that statement.
So please don't try and tell me how I am supposed to feel and what I define as homophobia. Unless your gay, honestly you have no authority even to talk about that.
There is even a debate on the term of homophobia. It is not a definable term, at least that is how i view it.
Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents. Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles state that "as [homophobia] is usually used, [it] makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve.
Even in 1973 there were gay activists who did not mind the DSM keeping homosexuality as a mental condition because they saw the possible consequences that could have followed. So there is no clear definition of homophobia.
So there is no clear definition of homophobia....RO