Homosexualtiy and morality

by milligal 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  milligal

  Did you ever wonder why 'men of God' were allowed to have concubines and use prostitutes in the old testament,and being told by your JW elder or study conductor something like: 'God's will was to fill the earth, so he allowed men to have more than one wife or concubine to fulfill his purpose...' ?

  Then by this same reasoning why would God have a problem with homosexuality at this point in time-the earth has been filled, in fact it's almost too full in some areas. So doesn't homosexuality now make sense....consistently speaking?

  And when men were first told they could no longer use prostitutes, or concubines doesn't it make sense there would have been a social evolution that had to take place and that some men (and maybe even women) must have had a huge problem with the idea of changing this age old tradition, which they also thought of as morally correct? Yet the change still happened and today, we place moral correctness on monogamy. Social evolution mirrored moral trends.

  My question is why should homosexuality be thought of any differently? Moral trends have changed throughout history to reflect social customs and evolutionary needs. Our species is in no danger of dying out (at least at the hand of procreation) why should we still hold homosexuals to an age old tradition that we see as morally correct?
• 

  John Doe

  Many religions say that the only reason for sex is for procreation. Since the earth is filled (a subjective assessment to be sure), then I can easily see them condemning sex.
• 

  aSphereisnotaCircle

  First, lets despell the myth that polygamy produces more offspring.

  Approx. 50% of the population is female. Dozens of women getting pregnant by one man does not increase the population any faster then each of those women getting pregnant by individual men.

  Now if you slaughter other cultures, and steal there women, you can make your tribe grow faster. But this does not populate the world any faster.
• 

  John Doe

  Sphere, I'm not convinced. To have more than one wife, the man had to be able to support them. I do not know the logistics of the time, but it's very likely that not all of the men were financially able to support a family. In this case, polygamy would most certainly result in, not merely faster population growth, but healthier population growth with fewer children born in poverty.
• 

  aSphereisnotaCircle

  John doe you are correct, but you are basically describing the same scenario that I described whereas more powerful men get wives and the less powerful do not.

  In a scenario that you described, you suggested that only rich men could afford wives so unless thet are allowed multiples, then population growth would slow down. However, if those wealthy men were allowed only one wife, do you really think there would be all these leftover women that remaned childless there whole lives? They may not get married but they would still be having children, with the poor men, that's just human nature. The idea that poor men and unmarried women would remain virgins there intire lives just isn't believable.

  Consider also cases where a very wealthy man has vast numbers of wives, I think the chances of any women getting pregnant decreases with each new wife. Think king david here, do you think those 1000 wives and concubines each had good chances of getting pregnant? Each of those women would have been very lucky to have just one child, but if they had there own husband they could be having a dozen.

  Polygamy does not increase the rate of population growth, it simply increases the population of the polygamist.
• 

  WTWizard

  I used to think of homosexuality as immoral. Of course, that was based on teachings when I was growing up and reinforced by the Washtowel. Now I see it as amoral--a personal decision issue between two consenting adults. As long as I am not dragged into it (and that is important, because forcing someone into homosexuality by any means is immoral), I do not have a problem with it.

  Of course, I do have a problem with the ways the Washtowel has of creating conditions that are favorable for people to become gay. I have noticed all the rules requiring people that are going to partner for a long time (studies, assistance (??) programs, etc.) to be of the same sex. They do all they can to prevent people of the opposite sex from being together. You meet someone of the opposite sex while out in field circus, and being a witless is a turnoff (I wonder why). They are programmed to view the waitress at Starbucks or the clerk at Seven-11 as a "filthy, evil temptress that will be like Jezebel given half a chance". That is also a turnoff, plus limits opportunities for people to form straight relationships. Every chance they get, they bash worldly people and choke off anything good from happening.

  And they have an endless maze for anyone that wants to marry. First, it has to be a baptized witless. And then it has to be "not too new", whatever that means (they are intentionally vague so they can use that to have the partner taken out from under your feet). Courtship rules are too many and are enforced, and they will do all they can to bust up such courtship so one or both can go to Beth Hell (and be put out 20 years later) or the Value Destroyer Training School (so they can be used up).

  And there is the issue of pedophiles. While they are proud to showcase zero tolerance of homosexuals among consenting adults, they methodically accept and defend pedophiles that act totally without consent. To me, since the victims are coerced into silence and into doing the act in the first place, that is immoral.