Okay, let's take it apart.
The article opens with a piece of media sensationalism ("a publicity stunt"), illustrated visually with a photo. This focus on the sensational ("frenzy" ... "passionate" ... "media buzz") at the outset frames homosexuality as something shocking to onlookers ("onlookers gasp in shock"). The subtle message to gay youth is that they should be more concerned about the sensibilities of others than their own psychological and emotional needs.
Keeping the world of celebrity foregrounded, the article next discusses the important issue of coming out as gay:
....few events create more media buzz than when a celebrity comes out as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Some people praise such ones for their courage; others condemn them for their debauchery.
Famous celebrities get to come out as gay; most ordinary JWs don't have that option. Again the effect of coming out is sensational ("media buzz") and the subject emphasized in the next sentence is not the gay person who has taken the step of coming out, but those onlookers who again have the privilege of passing judgment on the person. Although the prospect of receiving praise for having courage is mentioned, gay JW youth realize that this is not the reaction that most people in the congregation would have. The expected reaction is more like the second one: condemnation "for their debauchery".
There is also an ambiguity in the way this sentence is phrased: is the attitude that gay people indulge in debauchery held only by the hypothetical "others", or by the author of article as well? One can easily conclude that this is the true attitude of the author of the article. Debauchery is strong language. Webster's dictionary defines it as "extreme indulgence in sensuality". This casts the gay person in strongly sexualizing terms as one who "indulges" in sensual pleasures. Yet the prior sentence only concerns people who "come out as being gay", i.e. as revealing their true orientation and/or identity. So the implicit presupposition is that people who come out as gay to family and friends may well be thought of as debauched persons who are already "indulging" themselves in sensual acts.
The next sentence takes a more positive step in diffusing a little bit of this negative attitude:
Between the two extremes, many view homosexuality as nothing more than an alternative lifestyle.
So the idea that gay people are debauched is "extreme". But the attitude that gay people who out themselves are courageous is equally extreme. The mediating view between these two extremes is the attitude that "homosexuality [is] nothing more than an alternative lifestyle." This is a somewhat positive and affirming view (as it implies that the issue of orientation isn't a big deal), but is it really the view of the author? The average JW reader knows very well that the Society does find homosexuality to be a big deal and unacceptable as a lifestyle. The term "alternative lifestyle", while common in contemporary parlance, also reduces the matter of orientation to a "style" of living which one could choose. Some people may well feel that their orientation is "more than" a lifestyle; it is an important facet of their identity.
“When I was in school,” says Daniel, 21, “even straight kids felt that if you had a problem with the idea of homosexuality, you were prejudiced and judgmental.
This exemplifies the non-extreme view described in the prior sentence. Up to now the article has been discussing gay people in terms of how they are viewed in the judgmental eyes of others (rather than focusing their own feelings, perspectives, and needs), but Daniel's statement puts these "onlookers" themselves under judgment. As this view is positioned as non-extreme by the author, one may think that it is also the view of the author. But the informed reader knows that the Society teaches indeed that there is a problem with homosexuality.
This sentence in fact is the most important of the whole article, as it reveals what the author's intentions are. The article may read as more accepting and less judgmental than older Watchtower articles on the subject. But the article is not really about homosexual people (who thus far have appeared only as celebrity cariactures), or even homosexuality. It is really about Jehovah's Witnesses and how people view them. It has an apologetic purpose of defending JWs from the charge of prejudice and being judgmental. Notice especially that Daniel is talking about the views among non-gay youth in high school. The definite idea here is that views among youth are changing and becoming more supportive and inclusive of gay and lesbian teens. The young people this "Young People Ask" article is directed to are heterosexual JW teens (not gay youth) who may feel uncomfortable sharing their Bible-based ® views (a.k.a. witnessing), lest they be perceived as bigots and prejudiced. Daniel's statement focuses the charge of prejudice to negative attitudes towards the "idea of homosexuality". This gives the author the opportunity to reframe JWs as non-judgmental and non-prejudiced. The rest of the article is concerned with distinguishing attitudes towards homosexuality per se from attitudes towards gay and lesbians as people.
Attitudes about homosexuality may differ from one generation to another or from one land to another. But Christians aren’t “carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.” (Ephesians 4:14) Instead, they adhere to the Bible’s view.
This tells JW youth who agree with the kids mentioned by Daniel (i.e. those who feel that one should not be criticized or judged for his or her orientation) that they do not have the luxury of following current opinion; their attitudes must adhere to whatever the Bible says.
What is the Bible’s view of homosexuality? If you live by the Bible’s moral code, how can you respond to those who label you prejudiced, judgmental, or even homophobic?
This again demonstrates the author's concern for heterosexual JW teens who fear being labeled as prejudiced and homophobic for expressing anti-gay views (the implied "you"). It is telling that gay/lesbian/bi teens are not of central focus in an article about attitudes about homosexuality; thus far they are invisible insofar as the author is concerned. They are not included in the collective "you" of this sentence.
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? The Bible makes it clear that God designed sex to be engaged in only between a male and a female and only within the arrangement of marriage. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19) When the Bible condemns fornication, it is referring to both homosexual and heterosexual conduct.
There is a rather conspicuous display of privilege here. The author tries to put heterosexual and homosexual conduct on a parity; the Bible's condemnation of fornication is not specifically directed towards gay people but applies to all. And yet this parity is false: sex is designed "only between a male and a female only" and only "within the arrangement of marriage," which is an option that the Society does not recognize gays and lesbians as having. This means that both are not on a equal playing field when it comes to fornication, but this is unacknowledged. Meanwhile it is also noteworthy that the answer to the question reduces the matter of orientation to sex, without any regard for emotional attachment, love, and everything else that happens when there is attraction between two people.
There is another interesting thing here. One of the typical bludgeon texts is cited (Leviticus 18:22), which is a legal prohibition of a particular act. It does not refer to such things as orientation or a social category of gay/lesbian/bi people. The two Pauline bludgeon texts (Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) however refer specifically to people, the latter even using terms that define people into social categories on the basis of sexual activity. In modern interpretation, these classes are equated with modern "homosexuals" (indeed the NIV renders one of the terms as "homosexual offenders"), as does the Society when it cites this text in reference to homosexuality. These two passages are cited later, but at this point the article is limiting its criticism to homosexuality and "homosexual conduct" and not to persons. This is emphasized in the next sentence:
If someone asks: “What’s your view of homosexuality?” You might reply: “I don’t hate homosexuals, but I can’t approve of their conduct.”
The answer focuses only on "conduct" which betrays a rather narrow perspective about gay/lesbian identity. A closeted gay youth reading this article may well have never done any conduct whatsoever and the qualification that "I don't hate homosexuals" does not sound very reassuring. "Okay, you don't hate me but do you like me?" Or "You say you don't hate me, but how strongly would you dislike me if you knew?" The qualification sounds rather throwaway, equivalent to "I'm not a racist but I don't like xyz about what blacks do." More importantly, the erasure of gay/lesbian JW youth is most salient here. The "you" again refers to (heterosexual) JWs who might be embarassed about expressing their views on the topic. JW teens struggling with their sexual identity in the strongly heteronormative context of JW society are again invisible.
Remember: If you’re guided by the Bible’s moral code, then that is your lifestyle choice, and you have a right to it. (Joshua 24: 15) Don’t feel ashamed of your view.—Psalm 119:46.
Again those given encouragement here are those who may be ashamed for expressing anti-homosexual views in a non-JW context. There is no concern for the shame that gay/lesbian/bi youth have to contend with. And also notice how conformity with JW views about homosexuality is described as "your lifestyle choice". This contrasts with the earlier reference to homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle," and the word "choice" emphasizes the idea that lifestyles are chosen. This positions gay/lesbian JW teens as transgressive of the Bible's moral code, who choose their lifestyle in much the same way that other JWs choose to follow the Bible's moral code.
Shouldn’t Christians treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation? Absolutely. The Bible says: “Honor men of all sorts” or, as Today’s English Version renders it, “Respect everyone.” (1 Peter 2:17) Therefore, Christians are not homophobic. They show kindness to all people, including those who are gay.—Matthew 7:12.
This is a positive message. But in the context of the article, it has an apologetic purpose of depicting JWs as a tolerant and accepting people. And so there is a slippage between saying "Christians should treat all people with respect" and "Christians are not homophobic". The first statement is an ideal that Christians should strive to meet; it does not claim that Christians (= JWs) as a group meet it. The second statement makes the claim that indeed JWs as a class do not have homophobic attitudes. I think the JW gay/lesbian teen is again invisible here. For one can certainly imagine that JWs are courteous and friendly and respectful in their interactions with non-JW gays and lesbians, such as at the workplace. This projects to others outside the group the desired image of JWs as a loving and unprejudiced people. But what is the circumstance of, say, born-in JW teens who come out as gay to their family, or who have been "caught" engaging in what the article nebulously refers to as "homosexual conduct"? Are they treated with the same respect and honor that they enjoyed prior to being identified as gay? Or what about the effeminate boy who has always been suspected by peers as being gay? My guess, from what I have read on this board from the stories of many ex-JWs who grew up as gay, is that your mileage may vary. If a JW youth is disfellowshipped or reproved or marked on account of their sexual orientation, one can expect that they may be treated differently, perhaps even shunned.
If someone asks: “Doesn’t your view of homosexuality encourage prejudice against gays?” You might reply: “Not at all. I reject homosexual conduct, not people.”
This expresses a rather naive view of prejudice. Negative attitudes breed prejudice and people in real situations do not make such a sharp distinction between people belonging to a category and the things that place these people within that category. If one is annoyed when people do xyz, one may well be annoyed by people who do xyz. Prejudice is a pre-judging of a person on account of stereotypes and negative attitudes pertaining to people belonging to a social category, and there is no shortage of negative attitudes about gays and lesbians. The simple fact is that "homosexual conduct" is not something out there in the ether unconnected with a category of people, but it has the power of defining people as gay in the eyes of others (indeed, whether the person identifies with this label or not).
You could add: “To illustrate it, I also choose not to smoke. In fact, I find the very idea of it repugnant. But suppose you’re a smoker and you feel differently. I wouldn’t be prejudiced against you for your view, just as I’m sure you wouldn’t be prejudiced against me for my view—am I right? The same principle applies to our differing views of homosexuality.
This example perfectly illustrates what I am talking about. A person who smokes does not just engage in an activity, he or she is a "smoker". The activity defines the person. That means that any negative attitudes about smokers may freely be associated with the person, regardless of who the individual is as a person. And the comparison with smoking is unflattering; the author describes the very idea of smoking as "repugnant". The comparison also facilitates the notion that, like smoking, homosexuality is a dirty habit that one could simply choose not to start (and which one could also quit). The comparison also trivializes the matter of orientation, for smoking is not constituitive of social identity the way orientation is. There is also a superficial concept of prejudice here. It isn't simply a matter of having prejudice against a point of view or opinion. If you find the very idea of smoking as truly repugnant (defined in the dictionary as "arousing disgust and aversion"), it isn't just the idea or concept you find repugnant but smoking itself. And if you feel that strongly about smoking, you may feel uncomfortable with smokers, especially when their identity as "smokers" is foregrounded.
Didn’t Jesus preach tolerance? If so, shouldn’t Christians take a permissive view of homosexuality? Jesus didn’t encourage his followers to accept any and all lifestyles. Rather, he taught that the way to salvation is open to “everyone exercising faith in him.” (John 3:16) Exercising faith in Jesus includes conforming to God’s moral code, which forbids certain types of conduct—including homosexuality.— Romans 1:26, 27
There's the citation from Romans 1:26-27! But Paul is not Jesus. The question pertains to Jesus' views, but nowhere does Jesus say anything about sexual orientation in the gospels. What the NWT translates as "exercising faith" is simply "believe" in the Greek. The phrase "exercising faith" is frequently used by the Society to refer to "works" one must to in order to gain salvation, including participating in the field ministry. Here, the relevant "work" is following the JW moral code. But in the Fourth Gospel, what is rendered in the NWT as "exercising faith" is a matter of believing in Jesus as the Christ and the Savior.
If someone says: “Homosexuals can’t change their orientation; they’re born that way.” You might reply: “The Bible doesn’t comment on the biology of homosexuals, although it acknowledges that some traits are deeply ingrained. (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) Even if some are oriented toward the same sex, the Bible tells Christians to shun homosexual acts.
It is rather interesting that after saying that the Bible doesn't have anything to say about the biology of sexual orientation, the author quotes a Bible verse that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The language about choice implies that orientation is necessarily mutable, whereas here the question is left open. The author here seems unaware of (or disinterested in) the dilemma that gay JWs face: on account of their orientation they cannot acceptably find personal fulfillment in the same way that everyone else can.
Suggestion: Rather than get ensnared in a debate about the cause of homosexual desires, emphasize that the Bible prohibits homosexual conduct. To make a comparison, you could say: “You know, many claim that violent behavior can have a genetic root and that as a result, some people are predisposed to it. (Proverbs 29:22) What if that was true? As you might know, the Bible condemns fits of anger. (Psalm 37:8; Ephesians 4:31) Is that standard unfair just because some may be inclined toward violence?
Another stigmatizing comparison. Here homosexuality is compared to "violent behavior", which puts orientation on par with a psychological disorder defined by antagonism (with potential to harm others). Although the author is trying to limit his condemnation to conduct as opposed to feelings, the effect here is that a closeted JW who hasn't even experimented with his/her identity is told that something is very wrong with him/her.
How could God tell someone who is attracted to the same sex to shun homosexuality? That sounds cruel. Such reasoning is based on the flawed notion that humans must act on their sexual impulses. The Bible dignifies humans by assuring them that they can choose not to act on their improper sexual urges if they truly want to.—Colossians 3:5.
Again, it all comes down to "sexual urges". What about falling in love and finding someone who feels the same way about you? This is something that heterosexuals get to have (i.e. within JW society), not those oriented to the same sex. That can mean loneliness in a society of compulsory heterosexuality.
If someone says: “Even if you’re not gay, you should change your view of homosexuality.” You might reply: “Suppose I didn’t approve of gambling but you did. Would it be reasonable for you to insist that I change my view, simply because millions of people choose to gamble?”
Another derogatory comparison, which is not unexpected. The focus again is on helping heteronormative JWs defend their views, as opposed to helping gay/lesbian teens.
Remember this: Most people (including homosexuals) have some ethical code that causes them to deplore certain things —perhaps fraud, injustice, or war. The Bible prohibits those behaviors; it also draws the line at certain types of sexual conduct, including homosexuality.—1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
Here is the citation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. At this point the article has repeatedly emphasized that JWs do not condemn or disparge gays and lesbians as people, yet this passage condemns not an abstract "homosexuality" but a group of people that the author here implicitly equates with homosexuals.
The Bible is not unreasonable nor does it promote prejudice. It simply directs those with same-sex urges to do the same thing that is required of those with an opposite-sex attraction — to “flee from fornication.”—1 Corinthians 6:18.
I have already pointed out a few examples of the author's unexamined privilege, but this is the most conspicuous one. Again we have a supposed parity between heterosexuals and homosexuals — they both are directed to "do the same thing" — so straights have the same challenges that gays/lesbians do, except they don't. They have recourse to both "flee from fornication" and find fulfillment with someone (whether sexual or emotional) via marriage. This is impossible for gay and lesbian JWs. Also it is conspicuous here how gay and lesbian teens reading the article are not part of the article's implicit audience. They are "those with same-sex urges," a "they", as opposed to the implicit "you" addressed in the article. As they are not part of this implicit "you", the implication is that gay/lesbian JWs are not expected to be reading an article about homosexuality. It is almost as if a gay/lesbian teen is overhearing a conversation rather than being included in it.
The fact is, millions of heterosexuals who wish to conform to the Bible’s standards employ self-control despite any temptations they might face. Their numbers include many who are single with little prospect of marriage and many who are married to a disabled partner who is unable to function sexually. They are able to live happily without fulfilling their sexual urges. Those with homosexual inclinations can do the same if they truly want to please God.—Deuteronomy 30:19.
In this last paragraph of the article, the author finally shows some awareness that gay/lesbian JWs are not on a parity with heterosexuals, so the author mentions exceptional cases of heterosexuals who similarly may have their "sexual urges" denied. Again, orientation is reduced to "sexual urges". The case of those "who are single with little prospect of marriage" could either refer to a person who chooses not to marry (such as to devote themselves fully to the ministry) or a person who cannot find a partner (but may wish to). In the first case, the person still has the option whether to find a partner or not. In the second, it is a matter of personal circumstances. The most interesting example is that of those "who are married to a disabled partner who is unable to function sexually." Here the inordinate focus on "sexual urges" eclipses all other aspects of orientation, for a person who is married to a disabled partner "unable to function sexually" still potentially has a partner in a loving mutual relationship. How is this analogous to gay/lesbian JWs unless they are also allowed to marry or at least have relationships with the partners whom they love?
Anyway, that's my reaction to the article....just my five cents.
