Awake #4/2016: Homosexuality

by Designer Stubble 174 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Xanthippe

  But an unmarried heterosexual couple living together wouldn't be allowed to be part of the congregation either so they were not making any special rules.

  
  I didn't say they were making any special rules. I merely said it was not allowed and now it has drastically changed. A friend of ours in the '80s moved to another congregation and got disfellowshipped for homosexuality. He moved back home with his parents. Apparently repented and sat at the back of the KH trying to be reinstated for I can't remember how long being ignored. I know it was years rather than months. My husband was an elder so I knew the guy was d'fed for being gay.
• 

  cofty

  I knew the guy was d'fed for being gay.

  Simply having same sex attraction was never grounds for judicial action.
• 

  Xanthippe

  Simply having same sex attraction was never grounds for judicial action.

  Exactly. Nobody grew up in that religion and said I'm gay but I won't practice it. Not in the eighties. People didn't admit to same sex attraction. It wasn't done.
• 

  cofty

  If you label the Watchtower's position as hateful or homophobic how do you describe this...?
• 

  M*A*S*H

  Hang on a minute... the WBTS is a homophobic organisation. You simply cannot argue to the contrary. The WBTS' homophobia is expressed through their negative treatment of gay people and just because they treat others badly does not excuse their actions.

  The WBTS play the usual trick of attempting to absolve themselves of the label 'homophobic' (to the public at least - example) by attempting to separate 'homosexuals' from 'homosexual conduct' and suggesting people can choose their sexual orientation.

  Nobody in their right mind could argue that the stance presented by the WBTS is designed to welcome homosexuals into their organisation - in fact, it is designed to give the appearance of toleration whilst actively discouraging the gay community.

  As most here are exJW, fading or doubters I am sure we are all capable of considering the following scenarios which would test the limits of the so called tolerance of homosexuals.

  • 1. An openly gay (but not sexually active) brother asks to be considered to be a ministerial servant or join the service school.
  • 2. Could two openly gay brothers sit next to each other at the meetings?
  • 3. Could an openly gay brother go door to door or conduct a bible study?
  • 4. Would the WTBS encourage a gay brother or sister to be open and honest about their sexual orientation in the congregation... or alternatively would they encourage them to keep it quiet.
  • (4. Interestingly, if a gay brother went on the field service would they place them with a man or women!?)
  • 5. A CO or elder confesses to being gay (even if they are not in a sexual relationship) would he be allowed to continue in the post?

  Basically it is not just homosexual activity that is looked down upon by the WTBS, it is in fact people that are gay. Personally I think it is clear the WTBS is homophobic.

  @Cofty, your post is a clearly attempting to slip a fallacy of the alternative disjunct through the backdoor and IMHO I expected better from you. Basically you are attempting to suggest the label homophobic should only be applied to those that throw homosexuals from buildings.
• 

  cofty

  you are attempting to suggest the label homophobic should only be applied to those that throw homosexuals from buildings

  No not really. I posted an example of the extreme. We could also look at countries like Saudi where gays are jailed and there is pressure to apply the death penalty. We could consider evangelical churches who rant and rave about homosexuality.

  My point is that characterising the Watchtower as hateful and homophobic seems a bit heavy in comparison.

  The bible condemns homosexuality. So do 100,000,000 American Evangelicals. So do 1.6 billion Muslims. Religion has a hang-up about sex.
• 

  M*A*S*H

  You said:

  2 hours ago

  If you label the Watchtower's position as hateful or homophobic how do you describe this...?

  The clear implication of the post is you should not label the WBTS homophobic because of the example of throwing gay people from buildings (a clear alternative disjunct fallacy).

  Would it be wrong to label the WBTS as misogynistic because in some countries women are living in far far worse conditions?

  I am sure your reasoning really resounds with those that happen to be gay and in the organisation. Children growing up gay fearful of losing their families if outed and living with the psychological scars of hearing how terrible and sinful they are. Adults condemned to closeted loveless lives destroying their identity causing depression and other cognitive issues. No doubt they would all agree with you saying "Don't you dare label the WTBS as homophobic... it's not like they will blindfold me and throw me from a building or anything".

  I wont respond to this again as the posts above speak for themselves, but feel free to put in the last word.
• 

  cofty

  I am sure your reasoning really resounds with those that happen to be gay and in the organisation

  Actually 3 men who identify as gay ex-JWs have said in the last couple of days that it is a mistake to label the Watchtower's position on homosexuality as hateful.

  As I have said above the bible condemns homosexuality. What do you expect the Watchtower to say? The problem is with the bible.
• 

  M*A*S*H

  I am going back on my word out of pure frustration with your last comment.

  1. Have "3 men who identify as gay ex-JWs" said the WBTS should not be labelled homophobic? As 'homophobic' is clearly the topic I have been discussing (if you are unsure feel free to read through my posts again as I have been very clear).

  2.

  As I have said above the bible condemns homosexuality. What do you expect them to say? The problem is with the bible.

  The problem is with the bible AND the problem is with the WBTS. How can you excuse this? You are basically acting as an apologist for the WBTS.

  3. Although I would not discount the opinion of the "3 men" you have identified, they are not the only ones with opinions that count posting on this forum and many of us have very strong opinions on this matter for a variety of reasons.

  So, Cofty, when considering what homophobic means and looking at the policies both written and unwritten of the WBTS... is it your opinion the WBTS should not be labelled homophobic? A simple yes\no will do there.
• 

  rebelfighter

  I have attempted to stay out of this debate but I cannot! The WT is homophobic but the very SAD part is they are teaching this to CHILDREN and thus doing damage to children. You say they are not homophobic the cartoon, this article, tight pants rant and Herd's speech about the size of a women's brain and if she speaks like a man.

  Although I am not a lesbian, I have been involved in the gay community probably longer then most of you have been on this earth. I had far more wonderful gay dads then one little girl deserved but they saved me from my abusive mom. When I went in business for myself, my clients were from the gay community.

  When the JWS say oh you can change and become straight that is a bunch of hogwash.

  LERKING ELDERS: The cartoon at the end has the child saying to the mom I can tell my friend about paradise Yada yada. Let me tell you if that occurs to one of my grandchildren that little one will learn all about false predictions. Don't be preaching to my under age grandchildren without my consent. This one grandparent who will be front and center in the office at school, then KH and you ELDERS will not know what the hell just hit you! Don't be preaching your crap to my kids.