Not a sympathizer
Orphan crow. For ur analogy to be apt you have to accept the theory that Watchtower is a high control organization. And again that is your opinion, and you have the right to that. And many people here may agree with you. Personally I do not and again that is my right to my opinion.
But in your analogy there would be some objective evidence of the abuse. Physical evidence of physical or sexual abuse. What I described was an exclusively subjective scenario.
You are asking a bunch of people who had terrible experiences with the witnesses to validate your supposed " good experience". You can see the trouble with that, right?
I had told Elders, COs and other people that I would rather not say. I told some family members and chose not to tell others. I told some people in my halls and chose not to tell others. In the gay community this is not all that uncommon. I have plenty of gay friends who never were witnesses or don't have religious family members, who they have never come out too. Coming out is a very personal and private matter for every gay person and they have to tell the people who they want and not tell the people they don't want to.
I never felt a bit of prejudice by the people I told. I didn't tell everyone, but that was my choice. And beyond the people I told, at least as far as I know, no one else knew.
I understand you will choose who you may wish to come out to and who you may not - the extent of your decisions on this was not the point of question. It was more based on surprise that you did not feel any prejudice at all.
TBH, I can imagine them (elders/CO specifically) being outwardly understanding and not actually making a big thing of it but only really if they felt comfortable that you were not "practising" (for want of a better phrase), if they felt a sense of penitence or shame from you that you were simply battling emotions. I am 100% sure that if they felt you were in or actively seeking a homosexual relationship then you would be looking at the threat of judicial action.
Regardless of individual responses there is no doubt that any gay person wishing to be a Witness has to make a stark choice - suppress their emotional desires and opportunity to find happiness with a partner or become someone not welcome at the hall. There is zero option for anyone to be sexually active (or assumed to be so by the elders) gay person and be an active Witness. When push comes to shove, the people you came out to would have to choose the party line above whatever their supposed acceptance and non judgemental, lack of prejudiced attitude to you was to remain Witnesses themselves.
Thanks OrphanCrow for clarifying the matter .
I knew self acknowledged Gay men in my old Hall and they were kind of accepted, not for elders of course .
You can be self described as being gay in words but in action oh man you better look out.
What I described was an exclusively subjective scenario.
No it isn't. You inserted a third person into the scenario - the one asking the question. That person would have an objective view of the situation
I truly feel like I am trying to talk to a person in an abusive relationship when I am replying to you, Richard. You display exactly the same kind of twisted logic to rationalize your experience
For ur analogy to be apt you have to accept the theory that Watchtower is a high control organization. And again that is your opinion...
You have a comprehension problem.
You do not understand basic terms such as "theory", "facts", subjectivity, objectivity...etc, etc. and on and on....
You think you do, but you don't.
Now, like I am fond of saying, you can call it a tuna fish sandwich if you like. BUT, if it is black, has four legs, walks low to the ground and has a white stripe running down its back...it ain't no tuna fish sandwich. It's a skunk.
And I never denied that people here have had bad experiences. In fact I acknowledge that simple fact. But people should also not deny what other people have experienced good or bad, if it agrees with your views or not.
Again my point has been this: opinions no matter how much we want it to be true does not automatically make it a fact and it cannot be passed off as a fact. Look at the New York Times, the differentiate between a news article and a opinion editorial. Even though both pieces are very well researched and found proof for what is presented. But the news article should try to be neutral. But the OpEd will give the opinion of the writer and they will make it clearly abundant of how they feel. The actual proof in the article can be facts, but the opinion the writer express, that is not a piece of proof that is their own personal opinion and that opinion can be biased.
Recognizing the difference is where the key is.
But people should also not deny what other people have experienced good or bad, if it agrees with your views or not.
Ok fair enough maybe you didn't get ostracized while attending JWS meetings and your relative association with some JWS.
That doesn't negate the fact how the organization deems homosexuality as a whole.
If your an active homosexual, you aren't going to be a JWS in good accepted standing.
Orphan crow. I think that are definitions of objective is different, and that is partially my fault. You are using the common definition of someone who has no bias one way or the other. Like an objective observer who doesn't care which side is correct and which side is wrong. Here is one definition of it.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I don't want to put words in your mouth but that is what it seems like it. But the following the definition of objective that I am using
objective is something that can be quantitatively described.
And I am using this definition for subjective
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Also when I studied aspects of medicine they use the two terms to indicate things that one feels or sees by their own observation. But objective evidence or data is what can be measured and can be indicated by data. Such as pain is subjective and weight is objective.
So when I said that there would be objective data of an abusive wife, I mean there would be evidence that no matter who observed it, they would come to the same or similar conclusion.
If two people look at a scale one person cannot say that the scale says 200 lbs and the other person says no it says 150. One person would be correct and one person would be wrong. But if one person says that 300 is heavy and the other says it is lite both can be correct based on their prospective.
Finklestein. Again that is prospective. I know plenty of people who say you are not gay unless you practice an act of homosexuality and some say if u are attractive to people of the same sex than you are a homosexual. I came out as gay and everyone here is right, if I had sex with a man while going to meetings I would have not been in good standing. I left the second time when I started to fall in love with a man because I knew what the policy was. But while I was in people knew I was gay. I was in good standing, I had association with single brothers who knew I was gay, elders would invite me be around their family and hang out and never felt prejudiced against. I never claimed you could have sex with a man and be in good standing. All I have stated is I never felt that as a whole people thought that I had a mental condition or was homophobic.
Again other gay guys may have experienced the complete opposite that the moment they came out they were shunned. And I am not diminishing their experiences or hurt feelings. But it is not right to claim that as a whole people who are witnesses or Watchtower would do that.
Orphan crow. I also suspect that if you ask on here if Watchtower is a high control organization, you would get a resounding yes. But that is not an automatic when you ask the general public. I am sure you would get some but it would not be automatic thing to say yes. Even if you presented whatever you want to present the interviewee. That is where I find the difference between objective and subjective because some may agree with the statement and some would disagree.